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

August 26th, 2014

8/26/2014

0 Comments

 
TO REBUILD OUR ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY WE NEED TO REINSTATE RULE OF LAW AND REBUILD OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.  DO NOT BELIEVE THE SMALL GOVERNMENT MANTRA. 

Trillions of dollars are still being lost every year from our Federal, state, and local government coffers from fraud and corruption.  It is simply being redirected from public programs and into the pockets of connected corporations.  Obama has been as committed to dismantling all government oversight and accountability and placed Wall Street people in our public agencies to do that redirecting of public funds.  It's like having an invading army looting your Treasury.

When a neo-liberal calls for Open Government they do not mean public transparency----they mean selling the public's data to whatever corporation can use it.

Neo-cons don't even try to disguise that they do not recognize our rights as citizens to privacy and equal protection from this fleecing of our government coffers and personal wealth.  Maryland has pretty much dismantled all of public justice.

Let's take a few days to see the scope of this looting.  It is not only one corporate industry....the financial industry drives it but there is literally a free for all.


Feds Transparency Website Can’t Account for $619 Billion


By: Rachel Blevins Aug 7, 2014

In the midst of the Obama administration’s attempt to implement the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, a recent government audit shows that $619 billion is missing from 302 federal programs.

The Transparency Act was passed by Congress last year to “expand the amount of federal spending data available to the public.”

USASpending.gov was originally created as a way to make government spending more transparent. However, a report from the Government Accountability Office revealed that only 2% to 7% of the recorded spending data in 2012 is “fully consistent with agencies’ records.”

The report stated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should implement more oversight of the spending data from federal agencies, and that until it does, “any effort to use the data will be hampered by uncertainties about accuracy.”

Jamal Brown, a spokesman for the OMB, made a statement insisting that the OMB is “committed to federal spending transparency and working with agencies to improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions.”


According to USA Today, The Department of Health and Human Services was one of the 302 federal agencies, which failed to report money it had spent. This agency “failed to report nearly $544 billion, mostly in direct assistance programs like Medicare.”

The Department of the Interior neglected to report $5.3 billion it had spent, due to the fact that it claimed its accounting systems “were not compatible with the data formats required by USASpending.gov.”

USA Today also reported that for more than 22% of federal awards, “the spending website literally doesn’t know where the money went.”

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senator Tom Carper, acknowledged the problem saying, “We live in a world in which information drives decisions, and given the budget constraints that our government faces, we need reliable information on how and where our money is being spent.“


____________________________________________________


The health data once protected under HIPPA is now an open market.  States are selling public health data they now consider a new revenue source.  Johns Hopkins has a huge computer network that does nothing but receive and process data from around the state and from NSA networks.  All the money made from this data is pocketed as profit.  We see all kinds of efforts at protecting data----at the same time we have credit cards using fingerprints for easy access....liking simply signing is too hard.  Hackers access this data and now identity theft will include people's fingerprints. 

DIDN'T COMMIT THAT CRIME------WE HAVE YOUR FINGERPRINTS THAT SAY YOU DID!  JUST THINK HOW THAT CAN BE USED BY AN AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.

I won't go into the national fingerprinting goal of Republicans for decades to say that is what this will do---I want to look at how people's money is being made more vulnerable and we are being forced at some point to use these technologies.
It was said this year that Wall Street and the NSA stated hackers like Snowden and Anonymous are making it impossible for NSA systems to keep data secure and our businesses systems are tens of thousands time more vulnerable to people around the world wanting to steal our money.  They do not secure these systems they build---they simply build and sell them. 

There is no thought given to societal implications.


Discover testing fingerprint payments

November 26, 2012|By Becky Yerak | Tribune staff reporter

Discover Financial Services Inc. employees will be able to pay by finger at their Riverwoods headquarters' cafeteria and convenience stores as they become the first to test a new payment system.

Discover, which is working with French biometrics firm Natural Security on the project and which plans to get the pilot underway in the next three months, has previously used hundreds of its employees to test new technologies including various "contactless" payments, in which credit cards are simply tap. It plans to test the fingerprint payment system with 300 to 350 employees.

Discover employees who want to participate will register at an on-site kiosk, which will read an index fingerprint and assign a number to it. Each employee will also receive a key fob with a chip that includes information about their individual credit-card account as well as their fingerprint.
 
To complete a purchase, the user will place his or her finger on a fingerprint reader near checkout, with the key fob kept nearby, such as in a pocket or purse, for the transaction to go through. One security benefit to the process is that it guarantees that the fob or credit card and its owner are at the same place at the same time. It could also be faster and more convenient as people won't have to fumble around with their credit cards.
 
The credit-card company's test comes a few years after U.S. grocer Jewel abandoned its program with Pay by Touch, which got about $300 million in debt and equity financing from investors. 

In 2006, Pay by Touch said about 10,000 Chicagoans had signed up for its fingerprint-payment program. A year later, some creditors tried forcing the owner of Pay by Touch into involuntary bankruptcy as its finances went into disarray. By 2008, the Pay by Touch machines were removed  from Jewel stores.
 
Troy Bernard, Discover's global head of emerging payments, said his company is working on several payment technologies that could come to fruition both in the short- and long-term.
 
"Biometrics falls into long-term solutions," Bernard said, acknowledging potential concerns about both biometrics as well as the barrier to entry of making someone register for something.


___________________________________________

You see below Wall Street is selling this as a means to cut down on identity theft but as this article states----it will be just as vulnerable with much more of your identity to steal.  So, you have a credit card stolen----you close the account.  You have a biometric credit card stolen and they have you for life.

Monkeetech announces iris-based credit card fraud prevention ...www.biometricupdate.com/201306/...based-credit-card-fraud...   Cached

Monkeetech has announced the development of a new (patent-pending) iris scan biometric credit card fraud prevention system, called EyeWatch.


Your Biometric Identity Proof Positive


By Jake Stroup Identity Theft Expert

One way that shows a lot of promise in trying to combat identity theft is implementing biometric identification. You can see this on television crime shows like CSI, NCIS, etc. Biometrics include fingerprints, facial recognition, voice patterns, retinal scans, DNA, the list goes on.

Although it has been a scapegoat for many identity thefts, in many ways technology has provided some of the most solid defenses against the rising tide of identity theft. RFID tags, data encryption and innovations along those lines have gone a long way to helping us secure our personal information. The Federal government is even considering using biometric ID cards to combat illegal immigration. In fact, it's easy to make the argument that the problem isn't in the technology but in our lack of interest in protecting personal information.


Victims of identity theft report that it can take three to five years, or even longer to fix an identity theft problem. Keep in mind, you can get a new credit card in two weeks, once you have all the information to the bank or credit issuing authority. But who's going to the issue you a new set of fingerprints if they get stolen?

The idea of somebody stealing your biometric information isn't as farfetched as you might hope. It has already been shown how simple it would be to plant false DNA evidence. This article even goes so far as to say, "Any biology undergraduate can perform this."

In the end we will probably see the same problems arise, and some think the problem may get even worse. This is because the way biometrics work isn't really any different from credit cards.

What's The Difference? It's easy to think of credit in terms of the plastic cards in our pocket, since we can touch them, and that makes it more real. But this isn't the case. Today, credit is really nothing more than a long string of numbers stored in a computer somewhere. When you swipe your card at the local Wal-Mart, the information stored on your card is converted into a number as well and sent to your bank. If the numbers match up you get to walk home with a bag full of goodies.

  Biometric identification works in a similar manner, but you're using your fingerprint instead of a card. It will still be turned into a string of numbers and run through a computer network. In the end does it really matter where the string of numbers comes from when an identity thief gets hold of it?


Despite the predictions of some experts, a database is still just a database. A hacker can still steal data from a computer or network, it doesn't matter if that data is a credit card number, or a digital voice print.

As far as security is concerned, many experts agree that maintaining "token" forms of identification are probably superior. Token identification is a card, password, PIN etc. – something that can be canceled, or changed if it is lost, misplaced or stolen. On the other hand biometric identification can't be lost, misplaced, or loaned to a friend, but it can't be replaced if it's compromised, either. This, combined with certain privacy issues (tracking, profiling, consumer-related privacy issues etc.) are making experts give serious consideration to whether or not biometrics are a viable option on a large scale.

It's easy to understand why this brings a sense of security, since no two fingerprints are the same. On the surface it seems like a secure form of identification. But security doesn't come from knowing that you are you, security only comes from knowing the information associated with your name is accurate, no matter what database that information might be in. In other words, if an identity thief managed to convince a fingerprint scanner that they were you, they will probably not come back to court if they manage to get released on bail/bond. In that situation, proving who you are won't help.

Biometrics have a few quirks of their own, though. For example, some states have started implementing a "no–smiles" policy for driver's licenses. This is because those states are now using facial recognition software to stem the flow of driver's license fraud. But the software might get confused if the subject smiles.

Furthermore, advocates like to say it's impossible to duplicate (for example) a fingerprint, but that's already been proven wrong. In fact, it's easy to do with a simple laser printer, and a little bit of spit.

But the biggest consideration is that a biometric identity system is only going to be as good as the information that's put into it in the first place. In other words, your fingerprint won't tell anyone who you are, all it can really do is keep you from using somebody else's identity once you are in that system. In fact, identity theft expert John Sileo said, "If we implement biometrics without doing our due diligence on protecting the identity,
we are doomed to repeat history — and our thumbprint will become just another Social Security Number."


And that would be a grim future indeed.

____________________________________________

The American people need to look at the Bush/Obama years as the USSR Perestroika where all the common public wealth was divided between a few connected families.  That is what is happening now.  We had our Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler who worked hard to see Maryland citizens got as little money from massive subprime mortgage fraud as possible making the small payments made into charitable contributions and tax write-offs just as the article below says.  That has happened to all settlement money.  Most of the money goes back to the government which then hands it to corporate subsidy.

I think Gansler was actually surprised when he received 5% of Democratic votes for Maryland governor as if people don't know.  He did almost beat Anthony Brown with 12% of the Democratic vote.  For some reason people just don't like this systemic fraud and corruption.


REMEMBER, WHEN A GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS---IT SUSPENDS STATUTE OF LIMITATION.



'We have seen this pattern - creating the appearance of punishing wrongdoing while actually leaving the bank basically unscathed and unchanged in its practices - over and over again from the Obama administration in the last few years'.


Friday, 22 August 2014 05:29


Bank of America's $16.6 Billion Mortgage Fraud Agreement Is Another Public Relations Stunt


MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT


BuzzFlash at Truthout has written many commentaries on how the Obama administration has been - and continues to be - quite lenient with Wall Street when it comes to financial malfeasance. In particular, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have assiduously avoided, for the most part, any serious institutional or personal criminal responsibility for massive fraud committed by banks too big to fail and other mega-financial institutions. 


The settlement this week between the DOJ and Bank of America for its role in the financial fraud that busted the economy in 2008 (including its acquisition of the scam company it acquired, Countrywide Financial) is yet another example of a large fine that looks like punishment, but amounts to much, much less than meets the eye. Indeed, that is the assessment of an August 21 article in the "Dealmaker" section of The New York Times (NYT): 

"The real financial cost to the bank could be considerably lower," said Laurie Goodman, a specialist in housing at the Urban Institute. "This is helping consumers, but it may not be costing the bank."

The actual pain to the bank could also be significantly reduced by tax deductions. Tax analysts, for instance, estimate that Bank of America could derive $1.6 billion of tax savings on the $4.63 billion of payments to the states and some federal agencies under the settlement. Shares of Bank of America jumped 4 percent on Thursday, suggesting investors believe that the bank could take the settlement in stride.

"The American public is expecting the Justice Department to hold the banks accountable for its misdeeds in the mortgage meltdown," said Phineas Baxandall, an analyst with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization. "But these tax write-offs shift the burden back onto taxpayers and send the wrong message by treating parts of the settlement as an ordinary business expense."

Given that we are talking about a dominant Wall Street bank and financial behemoth, the takeaway sentence from The New York Times is: "Shares of Bank of America jumped 4 percent on Thursday, suggesting investors believe that the bank could take the settlement in stride." When a bank's stock goes up after what initially appears to be a huge fine, you know that it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

We have seen this pattern - creating the appearance of punishing wrongdoing while actually leaving the bank basically unscathed and unchanged in its practices - over and over again from the Obama administration in the last few years.


It is true that at least one part of the Bank of America settlement could benefit mortgage holders desperately in need of readjusting the terms of their home loans. That is good:

The consumer relief is expected to help tens of thousands of homeowners across the country. Most notably, the deal could result in Bank of America forgiving billions of dollars in mortgage principal. Unlike the other settlements, a person briefed on the matter said, the Bank of America plan could involve cutting the principal on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, a move that will primarily help low- and moderate-income borrowers.

However, as The New York Times points out, this relief is coming much too late for the large number of people who lost their homes to foreclosure in the six years since 2008. It would have assisted tens of thousands more individuals and families if the DOJ had forced Bank of America years ago to be more flexible with underwater mortgage holders. 

The Times notes that the restructuring of loans will have little impact on the finances of Bank of America:

At issue is how much of the cost of the $7 billion in "soft dollars," or help for borrowers, the bank will bear under the settlement. Some of the relief the bank will provide involves cutting the principal of a loan to make it easier for the borrower to pay. The dollar amount of that reduction gets credited toward what it needs to fulfill the settlement. But Bank of America wrote down many of its troubled mortgages years ago. And investment firms, not Bank of America, may now own some of the loans that get written down, potentially shielding the bank from a financial hit. 

Taking a closer look at the Bank of America fine, The New York Times finds that at least half of the $16.8 billion dollars is in the form of soft money or tax breaks. There are also additional financial offsets.

In what has become a traditional part of any DOJ settlement with a bank too big to fail, unnamed DOJ sources are promising to pursue charges against individual executives. Of course, the indictments never appear, but the statements make for good politics with a citizenry that wants to see some personal accountability for fraudulent bank practices.

It is clear now, with a little over two years left in the Obama presidency, that one of his key legacies will be casting little more than a wink and a nod at Wall Street's violations of the law, including a failure to prosecute any high-ranking officials for the illegal and deceptive practices that led to the near-collapse of the United States economy.

_______________________________________
As we watch Wall Street go from billions to trillions of dollars in wealth much from fraud-----the American people are being soaked with fees, fines, and taxes to make up for the government revenue stolen.  Students are deliberately left unemployed//underemployed and mid-life adults are left with no retirement because of the crash and stagnation.  Obama has placed the Department of Education in the hands of Wall Street to treat citizens most in need as if a predator.  Old student loans for a few thousands of dollars grows with thousands of fees and fines in just a few years????


Retirees' Social Security checks garnished for student loans Many had forgotten of old loans

Author: By Patrick M. Sheridan Published On: Aug 24 2014 11:33:31 AM CDT   Updated On: Aug 24 2014 06:30:52 PM CDT



What's surprised Cohen lately is the increasing number of gray-haired people walking in his doors with a problem: A portion of their meager Social Security benefits are being taken by the government to pay for old student loans they had mostly forgotten about.

It's a growing national trend. Last year, 156,000 Americans had their Social Security checks garnished because of student loans they had defaulted on. It's tripled in number from 47,500 in 2006, before the Great Recession. That's according to analysis done by the U.S. Treasury for CNNMoney.


Like Cohen, other groups have noticed the increase too. A leading nonprofit group that works with students on repaying loans, American Student Assistance, has worked this past year with over 1,000 Americans who have had their social security payments garnished to repay outstanding student loans. That's a sharp increase from 200 people in the previous year.

For retirees, any cuts to their Social Security benefits really hurts.

"Social Security means survival. It means food, shelter, medication," said Cohen, a Connecticut attorney, who works with people on debt collection harassment and student loan repayments.

What's worse is that even if the unpaid student loan was small, the amount they owe now is usually a lot larger because of compounding interest rates.

Retired Americans can start collecting Social Security benefits at 62. However, the folks that Cohen has worked with are in their 70's and 80's.

The amount taken from these checks isn't small. The average Social Security monthly check is $1200, the typical amount taken is $180.


Very few student loans can be refinanced and many people have outstanding loans with interest rates locked at over 7%, even though rates have fallen in recent years to below 3%.

Repayment terms on student loans are extremely rigid. They are rarely forgiven even in bankruptcy and people can have their wages garnished if they default.

The issue caught the attention of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who introduced a bill earlier this year to allow millions of people like Anderson to refinance their student loans. However, the bill was blocked in June.

Social workers are also seeing an increase in the number of people with mental and health issues having their Social Security disability checks garnished.

"I had a Korean War veteran in his 80's who had taken out a student loan for his son and then began having health problems. The government took money from his Social Security disability checks - money that he needed to buy medications," said Deanne Loonin, a director at the National Consumer Law Center, which works to provide economic security to low income and disadvantaged people, including the elderly.

According to the government data, the total amount garnished from social security checks last year came to $150 million.

  • Copyright 2014 by CNN NewSource. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
    ___________________________________________



While seniors have their SS seized, the IRS has been allowed to be dismantled and defunded so it is now being fleeced just as Medicare and Medicaid Trusts are.  They make it sound like average people are the avoiders but most of this is corporate tax fraud.


Neo-liberals and neo-cons are simply allowing all public wealth to be gutted and stolen.  We see it to a large extent in Baltimore with Baltimore Development Corporation and Johns Hopkins leading the culture of corruption in the city.

This creates a culture of non-compliance.  Nations like Greece and Italy have never been able to develop structurally because of the massive tax evasion gutting government revenue.  That is what is happening here.....
strangling all sources of revenue to justify AUSTERITY
.  For people that want less IRS you need to know---the working and middle class will take more and more of the burden of revenue no matter the talk of reduced taxes.

ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS

IRS Funding Cut Days Before Report Shows $330 Billion In Uncollected Taxes Posted: 04/11/2011 6:03 pm EDT Updated: 06/11/2011 5:12 am EDT Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- As part of the budget deal hashed out on Friday evening, lawmakers agreed that no additional federal funds would be used to hire new IRS agents.

Then on Monday, the Government Accountability Office publicly released a study showing that, as of the end of fiscal year 2010, roughly $330 billion in federal taxes had never been paid -- an amount that, if collected, would represent nearly nine times the amount of savings as the budget itself.

The dual developments aren’t shocking. Despite evidence that a single dollar spent on enforcing the tax code could result in up to ten dollars in revenue, politicians, naturally, are reluctant to align themselves with tax collectors. And yet, the sacrificing of funds for IRS agents in the continuing resolution deal underscores a particular problem that seems bound to confront fiscally conscious lawmakers.

“Cutting back on IRS enforcement could easily cost the treasury much more in revenue than it saves,” said Chuck Marr, Director of Federal Tax Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The GAO report, which looks specifically at the issue of passport holders who have failed to pay their full share of taxes, underscores Marr’s point. Titled “Federal Tax Collection: Potential for Using Passport Issuance to Increase Collection of Unpaid Taxes,” the study labels poor enforcement of tax laws and the tax code as a “high-risk” hole in government policy. In fiscal year 2008, passports were issued to about 16 million individuals. Of those, more than 224,000 owed more than $5.8 billion in unpaid federal taxes.

A good chunk of the evasion, the GAO concluded, was committed by individuals with “substantial personal assets” including multi-million-dollar homes and “luxury cars.” One passport recipient bought a house for $2 million and another property for $1.5 million despite owing $1 million in federal taxes.

“If you look, you can find records of most capital gains income,” said Rob Shapiro, former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce. “People deposit it in their bank accounts or the institutions may issue reports if it is capital gains on stock transactions. So it is not hard to pick it up if you have the manpower to look for it. And again, given that the salary of an IRS agent is at least as high as the average salary in America, the fact that there is a ten-to-one ratio for the returns on auditing tells you that [tax evasion] is coming from the high-income brackets.”

Regardless of who the worst evaders are, the GAO concludes that “IRS enforcement of federal tax laws is vital,” not just to pinpoint the offenders but to promote “broader compliance.” And what do the study’s authors cite as a compelling reason to beef up IRS functions? A “federal deficit” that “continue[s] to mount.”

Indeed, several close observers of the budget debate have wondered exactly how lawmakers can shudder at going after tax evasion while simultaneously preaching fiscal responsibility on the stump. Marr, for one, noted that Congress has already disbanded a tax reporting provision in the president’s health care reform law that would have resulted in stronger compliance. That was scuttled for politically obvious reasons: the paperwork it placed on small businesses was deemed well beyond burdensome. But the decision to deny funding for more IRS agents doesn’t have such an easy-to-distill an explanation.

“Hiring more IRS agents would have allowed the Obama administration to enforce its agenda, insofar as its agenda is to make sure that people don't cheat on their taxes,” wrote Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic.

Obama has made buffing up the IRS a relative hush-hush plank of his tax reform agenda. Upon entering office he advocated for more funds for the agency, and as part of his 2012 budget, he proposed a 9.4 percent increase so that it could hire roughly 5100 new employees. The proposal, which pivoted off of previous studies that reached similar conclusions as the GAO's, was met with somewhat frenzied pushback from conservative circles -- the specter of black-suited tax collectors roaming the streets undoubtedly on the mind. And almost immediately, the suggested increase in IRS funds became a target of cut-happy legislators.


0 Comments

August 23rd, 2014

8/23/2014

0 Comments

 
Sorry I've been posting these blogs later in the afternoon.....my summertime schedule makes consistency hard.  Please keep coming back-----I am lucky to have thousands of visits.


FOLKS....NEO-LIBERAL MARYLAND HAS NOT ONLY SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD IN THE CASE OF THE ELECTION FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND BUT A NEW LAW THAT PLACES ONLY ANNE ARUNDEL COURTS AS JURISDICTION FOR ELECTION LAWSUITS SHOULD HAVE EVERYONE UP IN ARMS.....THIS IS A REAL POWER-GRAB THAT THREATENS CIVIL RIGHTS AND ELECTION FREEDOM.
  THESE CONDITIONS ARE WHAT HAS EXCLUDED LABOR AND JUSTICE AND SEEK TO MAKE THAT PERMANENT!  Subject Jurisdiction always allows courts in each county/city to handle that subject----for example----disability court/family court.  Law that limits a subject (election) to just one county looks to be unconstitutional.

CINDY WALSH IS STILL EXPECTING TO BE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND!

I want to use today to talk election issues by looking at my lawsuit claiming widespread election irregularities in the Democratic Primary race for Governor of Maryland should invalidate the election results.   As neo-liberals pretend to protect election rights they are consolidating the power of these incumbents with legislation threatening the public's ability to hold the elections process accountable.


Below you see the next step of my court case in Maryland.  I have filed the complaint, served the defendants, written an amended complaint, and the 30 day response period for defendants just passed.  We now need the court to set the trial date and verify it will accept jurisdiction.  In other words----if the court is going to dismiss this case it needs to do it now.  Routine cases can see a wait of 4 months just for jurisdiction and trial date....my case is expedited because Maryland law requires a speedy process for contests to elections for Governor.  I'm not a lawyer so all that I do is not correct or the best approach----but it should get to the end result.

I want to note some of the concerns I have while doing this.  First, the Maryland Assembly moved the cost of funding for Legal Aid---a Federal/Maryland Constitutional right from the state budget to people who file complaints in court nearly doubling the cost to the public to go to court.  The average person will feel the expense of $135 filing fee.  Then Maryland has the plaintiff bare the costs of serving the defendants.  In many cases courts include this serving with the filing fee.  Not too bad with one defendant---but it becomes pretty expensive if you have multiple defendants.  Maryland also has the laws that place the burden of trial costs on plaintiff if case is not won.  I know this cuts on frivolous lawsuits but in an atmosphere of fraud and corruption one doesn't have to have a bad case to not win.  Remember, my case should have been handled by the Maryland Attorney General protecting my rights as a candidate so I should not even be self-representing or taking this to court. All the costs of multiple copies of trial evidence and motions----all the costs of mailing to all defendants should be falling on Maryland Attorney General's office.  They do not have a public justice section or funding allotted to it.  So costs can easily grow to thousands of dollars by the trial's end.





August 26, 2014




                              
Cindy Walsh files motion to Baltimore City Circuit Court regarding date of trial and jurisdiction
                    Civil Action # 24-C-14-004156





Plaintiff notice to court and defendants of prospective trial dates

Plaintiff's Notice Requirement

It is the responsibility of the plaintiff's counsel to give notice of trial and settlement conference dates, times and departments. Only dates set by the court will be noticed by the court.



Your Full Name: Cindy Walsh - Plaintiff

Phone Number (with area code):

Email Address:

Case Number: 24-C-14-004156

Case Title: Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie Mack et al

Name of Party Representing: Self-representing----Cindy Walsh

Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie Mack is an expedited case due to the case being a contest of the election for Governor. The plaintiff requests the trial dates of September 8, 10, or 12, 2014 to meet the expedited requirement set by Maryland law and to give the defendant Linda Lamone added with an amended complaint a two week preparatory period. The original complaint filing and affidavit of process serving of summons was July 21, 2014 with August 21 meeting the original 30 day period for defendant response. The plaintiff has received no response from any defendant as of August 21 so the court should not have pending responses. Due to the expedited nature of this case the plaintiff calls for the court to shorten these scheduling proceedings to include the court's moving forward with setting the trial dates as listed above.


Cindy Walsh is self-representing

Cindy Walsh

2522 N Calvert St

Baltimore, Maryland 21218


_______________________________________

The plaintiff filed this complaint in the Circuit Court of Baltimore and not Anne Arundel County because this case is not protesting actions at the polls, actions regarding ballot presentation or presentation of election material by Maryland Board of Elections. This is not an official capacity lawsuit; it is an individual capacity lawsuit claiming willful and deliberate violation of Federal and State law and Civil Rights. The plaintiff also seeks to challenged the Maryland Assembly's right to legislate which court is given jurisdiction in contests to elections. It has been the right of a plaintiff to file suit in any court qualifying for jurisdiction and the election process effects all citizens of the state. This case and elections do not qualify for special jurisdiction.  Special jurisdiction such as family court has a presence in all counties/cities and is not particular to any one county.  It without a doubt creates an environment of conflict of interest, bias, and/or undue power to have one court system handling all cases especially of a subject having strong civil rights implications like elections.

Many of the election irregularities included in this case occurred in Baltimore City, the plaintiff lives in Baltimore City, and the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a defendant has his office in Baltimore City. This motion not only seeks to bring to the attention of the court that this case contesting the election for Governor of Maryland is by law directed to be handled in an expedited manner, but seeks to avoid dismissal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This is an ongoing election with the General Election for Governor of Maryland officially beginning after Labor Day so the Baltimore Circuit Court has the power to rule on jurisdiction without regard to the constitutional challenge and must set the trial date or dismiss sooner rather than later due to the expedited rules of the case.

The plaintiff concerns regarding delays in setting a court trial include:

  • The 30 day period after serving of summons with no response from defendants should provide the court with rights to set a trial date earlier than normal cases. The plaintiff includes in this motion the request for trial dates with the dates desired listed.

  • The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and does not receive summons for two weeks and only by making two calls. The rule of summons has a three-day turn-around from time complaint is filed to issuing summons. The plaintiff loses two weeks in setting trial date because of this delay. Second, the summons for the new defendant in this amended complaint is given 30days for response rather than falling into the time line of the original complaint. If the summons had been sent to the plaintiff in three days this window of two weeks remaining in the original time line would have given the new defendant time to respond to the court. As it is the court looks to add another month and a half to setting a trial date which fails to meet the expedited nature of this case and denies justice for the plaintiff. The new defendant, Linda Lamone needs to be made aware by the court she does not have 30 days to respond in this case and will instead have two weeks (14 days). The 30 day period for the original defendants to respond was over August 22, 2014 ----Lamone will be served by August 25 so we need the trial date set two weeks after this service date. Resolving this court case the first week in September falls into the ongoing election cycle. If the Baltimore Circuit Court decides to dismiss on grounds of jurisdiction the 5 day Appeal requirement of this Maryland election law will have the case resolved with expediency.

  • The plaintiff was told on August 22, 2014 by the court clerks handling filings that the court has not even reviewed defendant responses for this case and will take time to do that before setting a trial date. This sounds like more delay. Since the plaintiff has received no communication from any of the defendants, and the defendants are required by law to include the plaintiff in any communication with the court, it is safe to say the court had no response issues to consider. We need to set the trial date in two weeks to meet the expedited nature of this case.


  • The plaintiff provided proof of process to all defendants in this case by certified mail with restricted delivery.  Signatures were obtained at the addresses attached to each defendant.  On August 4, 2014, the envelope with all of the court documents and summons delivered to Heather Mizeur was returned to Cindy Walsh at her address unopened and stripped of all identifying delivery indicators such as the certified mail and restricted delivery paperwork attached the said envelope as if never delivered.  Plaintiff does not want this used as reason to delay trial date.




The plaintiff asks this court to set this trial date with the original filing date in mind and notify the new defendant Linda Lamone that the 30 day period to respond is actually 14 days. Plaintiff will not receive justice in this case if a decision on trial date does not occur soon after Labor Day.



Self-representing:

Cindy Walsh

2522 N Calvert St

Baltimore, Maryland 21218






MARYLAND ELECTION LAW:

Title 12 Subtitle 2.    Judicial Review of Elections

12-202.  Judicial challenges

a)  In general--- If no other timely and adequate remedy is provided by this article, a registered voter may seek judicial relief from any act or omission relating to an election, whether or not the election has been held, on the grounds that the act or omission:

1)  is inconsistent with this article or other law applicable to the elections process; and
2)  may change or has changed the outcome of the election.

b)  Place and time of filing.---- A registered voter may seek judicial relief under this section in the appropriate circuit court within the earlier of:

1)  10 days after the act or omission or the date the act or omission became known to the petitioner; or

2)  7 days after the election results are certified, unless the election was a gubernatorial primary or special primary election, in which case 3 days after the election results are certified.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-202; 2002, ch.291, 2, 4)


12-204.  Judgement.

a)  In general.  ------- The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) if this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and:

1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or

2) may change the outcome of a pending election.

b)  Act or omission that changed election outcome.  ----If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the
outcome of an election already held, the court shall:
1)  declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or

2)  order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy.

c)  Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election.  -----  If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may:


1)  order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and

2)  if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy,, direct that the elections for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court.

d)  Clear and convincing evidence.  -----  A determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-204; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4)




 

The motion below addresses what I feel is a real threat to the public's ability for impartial judicial action.  Maryland just passed a law that requires contests of elections be given to the courts in Anne Arundel.  Special jurisdiction for elections.  This mirrors having jurisdiction for Wall Street banks in the states having a strong banking presence.  It gives the defendant the immediate advantage with the plaintiff having no control of jurisdiction.  This is why if we sue banks we are taken to New York or North Carolina because that is where Wall Street and Wall Street South is located.  Having special jurisdiction for something as general as elections taken to one county takes the plaintiff out of his/her district and into what we all know is a very crony  Annapolis system.....which is what this lawsuit is about.  A plaintiff has always had the right to file where he/she wants if the jurisdiction rules are met.....I live/work in Baltimore/many of the crimes were committed here.....for example.  I ate lunch one day in Annapolis and asked where to go to share my views on issues and the restaurant owner told me----they don't want you there----they do as they like.  Is there bias against this kind of lawsuit in Anne Arundel courts?  Let's stay with the historical precedent of plaintiffs filing in any court they want and even special jurisdiction courts are available in every county/city. 

So, I am challenging the law setting Anne Arundel with special jurisdiction for elections.  Now, I filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court rather than Anne Arundel because I want this court to decide whether to take jurisdiction or dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.  The contest of constitutionality will still go to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler as he is a defendant in this lawsuit.  As a plaintiff I can take this to the Maryland AG and then the US AG if necessary to fight this special status.


The law states that the Baltimore City Court does not have to wait for the resolution of constitutionality to set a date of trial or dismiss so none of this should delay this court case.  If Baltimore moves to dismiss----I will head to the Appeals Court with this case.  What is most important is getting the court to keep the spirit of the Maryland law calling for expedited trial for contests of Maryland election for Governor.





Contesting the 2013 Maryland Statute assigning Anne Arundel County as the only court to hear election contests.


The Plaintiff asserts that the law setting Anne Arundel County as the only jurisdiction for a plaintiff to file election lawsuits is not valid, or do not constitutionally exist as they do not conform to certain constitutional prerequisites, and thus are no laws at all, which prevents subject matter jurisdiction to the above-named court. A state statute cannot undermine Federal law. This is not an official capacity lawsuit.

Special jurisdiction such as family court has a presence in all counties/cities and is not particular to any one county.  It without a doubt creates an environment of conflict of interest, bias, and/or undue power to have one court system handling all cases especially of a subject having strong civil rights implications like elections.


Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. In state court systems, statutes that create different courts generally set boundaries on their subject matter jurisdiction. One state court or another has subject matter jurisdiction of any controversy that can be heard in courts of that state.

The plaintiff filed this election lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baltimore because that is where the plaintiff lives, that is where much of the election irregularities occurred, and the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a defendant in this case has his office in Baltimore. The plaintiff has legal history as the one deciding jurisdiction. I am sending this contest to constitutionality to the Maryland Attorney General as part of this lawsuit. The Circuit Court of Baltimore must rule on jurisdiction in this particular case in an expedited manner as Maryland law places urgency on any contest of election for Maryland Governor. This is an ongoing election and a ruling of jurisdiction cannot wait. The case was filed and summons served to the original defendants over 30 days ago giving defendants time to petition the court. As yet no trial date has been set damaging the plaintiff's right to due process and expedited trial. This court can rule on jurisdiction before the Maryland Attorney General makes a ruling on constitutionality. If the Baltimore Court finds it does not have jurisdiction it will dismiss the case as such allowing the plaintiff to appeal.

Jurisdiction may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.


ARTICLE IV Part III - Circuit Courts.


SEC. 20. (a) There shall be a Circuit Court for each County and for Baltimore City. The Circuit Courts shall have and exercise, in the respective counties, and Baltimore City, all the power, authority and jurisdiction, original and appellate, which the Circuit Courts of the counties exercised on the effective date of these amendments, and the greater or lesser jurisdiction hereafter prescribed by law.




By rule, each of the Circuit Courts is required to have a differentiated case management plan “for the prompt and efficient scheduling and disposition of actions[.]”[20] Such plans vary by jurisdiction, but include the classification of cases by complexity and priority, to be assigned to particular scheduling “tracks” based on that classification.[20] Consistent with applicable court rule, the Circuit Courts have endeavored to make their differentiated case management plans as similar as possible;[21] in practice, however, the plans do vary somewhat among the Circuit Courts.



In a federal and state civil law suit, the plaintiff decides where a case is going to be heard by filing the complaint at whatever court she chooses. An individual or a company may file a claim in any jurisdiction for any reason.  The historical precedence is long-standing.



Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute



(a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:

(1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:

(A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or

(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and

(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.


(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.

(d) No Forfeiture. A party's failure to file and serve the notice, or the court's failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.

Notes (As added Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; amended Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)

Committee Notes on Rules—2006

Rule 5.1 implements 28 U.S.C. §2403, replacing the final three sentences of Rule 24(c). New Rule 5.1 requires a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing in question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute to file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The party must promptly file and serve the notice of constitutional question. This notice requirement supplements the court's duty to certify a constitutional challenge to the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The notice of constitutional question will ensure that the attorney general is notified of constitutional challenges and has an opportunity to exercise the statutory right to intervene at the earliest possible point in the litigation. The court's certification obligation remains, and is the only notice when the constitutionality of a federal or state statute is drawn in question by means other than a party's pleading, written motion, or other paper.

Moving the notice and certification provisions from Rule 24(c) to a new rule is designed to attract the parties’ attention to these provisions by locating them in the vicinity of the rules that require notice by service and pleading.


Rule 5.1 goes beyond the requirements of §2403 and the former Rule 24(c) provisions by requiring notice and certification of a constitutional challenge to any federal or state statute, not only those “affecting the public interest.” It is better to assure, through notice, that the attorney general is able to determine whether to seek intervention on the ground that the act or statute affects a public interest. Rule 5.1 refers to a “federal statute,” rather than the §2403 reference to an “Act of Congress,” to maintain consistency in the Civil Rules vocabulary. In Rule 5.1 “statute” means any congressional enactment that would qualify as an “Act of Congress.”

Unless the court sets a later time, the 60-day period for intervention runs from the time a party files a notice of constitutional question or from the time the court certifies a constitutional challenge, whichever is earlier. Rule 5.1(a) directs that a party promptly serve the notice of constitutional question. The court may extend the 60-[day] period on its own or on motion. One occasion for extension may arise if the court certifies a challenge under §2403 after a party files a notice of constitutional question. Pretrial activities may continue without interruption during the intervention period, and the court retains authority to grant interlocutory relief. The court may reject a constitutional challenge to a statute at any time. But the court may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the attorney general has responded or the intervention period has expired without response. This rule does not displace any of the statutory or rule procedures that permit dismissal of all or part of an action—including a constitutional challenge—at any time, even before service of process.

Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Rule 5.1 as proposed for adoption incorporates several changes from the published draft. The changes were made in response to public comments and Advisory Committee discussion.

The Advisory Committee debated at length the question whether the party who files a notice of constitutional question should be required to serve the notice on the appropriate attorney general. The service requirement was retained, but the time for intervention was set to run from the earlier of the notice filing or the court's certification. The definition of the time to intervene was changed in tandem with this change. The published rule directed the court to set an intervention time not less than 60 days from the court's certification. This was changed to set a 60-day period in the rule “[u]nless the court sets a later time.” The Committee Note points out that the court may extend the 60-day period on its own or on motion, and recognizes that an occasion for extension may arise if the 60-day period begins with the filing of the notice of constitutional question.


The method of serving the notice of constitutional question set by the published rule called for serving the United States Attorney General under Civil Rule 4, and for serving a state attorney general by certified or registered mail. This proposal has been changed to provide service in all cases either by certified or registered mail or by sending the Notice to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

The rule proposed for adoption brings into subdivision (c) matters that were stated in the published Committee Note but not in the rule text. The court may reject a constitutional challenge at any time, but may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the time set to intervene expires.

The published rule would have required notice and certification when an officer of the United States or a state brings suit in an official capacity. There is no need for notice in such circumstances. The words “is sued” were deleted to correct this oversight.

Several style changes were made at the Style Subcommittee's suggestion. One change that straddles the line between substance and style appears in Rule 5.1(d). The published version adopted the language of present Rule 24(c): failure to comply with the Notice or certification requirements does not forfeit a constitutional “right.” This expression is changed to “claim or defense” from concern that reference to a “right” may invite confusion of the no-forfeiture provision with the merits of the claim or defense that is not forfeited.

Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment

The language of Rule 5.1 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.



Determining the Constitutionality of Laws By John DiMotto




Today, I wa
nt to examine the Rules of Statutory Construction that are considered by the courts when a constitutional challenge to legislation is raised.

When a party claims that a law is unconstitutional, that party is claiming that the law is at odds with a provision in either the US or the Wisconsin Constitution or both and, as such, the law cannot stand or be enforced. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defines "Constitution" as:

"The organic and fundamental law of a nation or a state...establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people ... of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments (ie. branches) and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until is shall be changed by the authority which established it (ie. by amendment), and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void."

It is a fundamental bedrock of our government, by virtue of the "separation of powers," that:

1) The Legislature enacts the law.


2) The Executive enforces the law.

3) The Judiciary interprets the law.

Thus, when a law is challenged as being unconstitutional -- an affront to the constitution -- it is the judiciary which makes the final decision.

A party has standing to challenge a statute's constitutionality if that party has a sufficient interest in the outcome of a justiciable controversy to obtain a judicial resolution of that controversy. Standing involves a two step analysis. The court must determine whether the plaintiff has suffered threatened or actual injury and the interest asserted must be recognized by law. see State v. Oak Creek, 232 Wis.2d 612 (2000).

The Rules of Statutory Construction as they pertain to constitutionality provide that:

1) Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, and,

2) All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality.

3) Therefore, a party challenging a statute's constitutionality bears a heavy burden and must demonstrate the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.

see Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 284 Wis.2d 573 (2005).

The only exception to the challenger bearing the burden of proof is when a statute infringes on a First Amendment Right. In this instance, the State has the burden of proving constitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. see State v. Trochinski, 253 Wis.2d 38 (2002).

A constitutional challenge to a law can be:

1) A "facial" challenge; that is, on its face, the law is unconstitutional in every context, or

2) An "as applied" challenge; that is, the law is unconstitutional as to the challenger alone.

see State v. Smith, 323 Wis.2d 377 (2010).


A constitutional challenge to a law can be based on:

1) Overbreadth -- a statute is overbroad when its language is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the State is not permitted to regulate. see County of Kenosha v. C & S Management Inc., 223 Wis.2d 373 (1999). In order to assert a claim of overbreadth, it is not necessary that a person's own conduct be constitutionally protected. The overbreadth analysis reflects the conclusion that possible harm to society from allowing unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech will be muted. Thus, if a statute included in its prohibition conduct which is constitutionally protected, it is void even if the person's own conduct is unprotected and may be prohibited by a more narrowly drawn law. see State v. Johnson, 108 Wis.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1982). The danger in overbroad statutes is that they provide practically unbridled administrative and prosecutorial discretion that may result in selected prosecution based on certain views deem objectionable law enforcement. However, overbreadth must be real and substantial. Marginal infringement or fanciful hypotheticals of inhibition which are unlikely to occur will not render a statute unconstitutional on overbreadth grounds. see State v. Stevenson, 236 Wis.2d 86 (2000).

2) Vagueness -- a statute is vague if it fails to afford proper notice of the conduct it seeks to proscribe. The test for vagueness is whether a statute is so obscure that men of ordinary intelligence must guess as to its meaning and differ as to its applicability. To withstand a vagueness challenge it must be sufficiently definite so that potential offenders are able to discern boundaries of proscribed conduct. see Johnson, supra. Procedural due process is at issue. see County of Kenosha, supra.

3) Procedural Due Process -- requires that a person who has life, liberty or property at stake must be afforded the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Failure of a statute to so provide renders a statute unconstitutional. see
Estate of Makos v. Masons Health Care Fund, 211 Wis.2d 41 (1997).

4) Substantive Due Process -- the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause is a guarantee of "more than a fair process." It contains a substantive sphere as well barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. The threshold inquiry when analyzing an alleged violation of substantive due process is whether the challenger has established a deprivation of a liberty or property interest protected by the constitution. see Dowhower v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co., 236 Wis.2d 113 (2000).

5) Equal Protection -- a statute which treats members of similarly situated classes differently violates the Fourteenth Amendment. If the challenge implicates a fundamental right or suspect classification the statute is subject to a strict scrutiny test. It must be shown by the State that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. see State v. Baron, 318 Wis.2d 60 (2009). If the challenge does not implicate a fundamental right or suspect classification then the statute is subject to a rational basis test. It must be shown by the challenger that the regulation is not rational. All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality. see Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 245 Wis.2d 86 (2001).

Whenever there is a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, notice must be given to the Wisconsin Attorney General under 806.04(11) so he/she can decide whether the State wishes to be heard above and beyond the parties to the lawsuit.

0 Comments

August 12th, 2014

8/12/2014

0 Comments

 
I want to take a few days to look at why Johns Hopkins and Harvard think 'if you are born poor you stay poor' and look at how neo-liberalism and neo-cons are working hard to reshape Western society to reflect this ideal.  The corporate frauds of tens of trillions of dollars in the US alone is mirrored all over the world wherever The Clinton Foundation moved in to recruit and educate people who were placed as leaders to do in those nations what was being done in the US.  You can follow Harvard graduates from other nations to see where the fraud and corruption emanates in those nations.  All over the world the same wealth inequity from fraud and corruption exists and it is because of the philosophy of neo-liberal/neo-conservative free and global markets.  No matter how many times a Republican states free markets can work, if you take away the oversight and accountability from corporations and government----they will become systemically criminal and corrupt as exists now in the US.  Baltimore and Maryland is at the bottom.  You'll notice that not one mention of fraud and corruption will be found in social research from universities.

This is the consolidated wealth.  What the American people need to remember is most of this involves criminal activity and lots of unconstitutional actions and all of this can be reversed and recovered.  A government aiding and abetting crime and suspending Rule of Law is denying citizens DUE PROCESS and therefore Statutes of Limitations are not in play.  So, just engage in politics and take back your government!
Rebuilding Rule of Law and public justice should be the top issue for every American.

Make a good life for your children and grandchildren.


Must Read: The Corporate State of America – Widespread Crime, Corruption and Fraud


October 18, 2007, 10:28 am  PR WATCH


Corruption widespread in India, says US report |

Business Line
 www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/international/... 

There is widespread corruption in India in all ... the Bombay High Court ordered that a special team be formed to investigate an alleged fraud in which money ...




EY raises alarm over cybercrime, widespread corruption ... www.vanguardngr.com/2014/06/ey-raises-alarm-cybercrime...    West Africa Leader of EY’s Forensic/Fraud ... respondents who perceive bribery and corruption to be widespread in Nigeria. 72 per cent of the ...


Compliance and law combine to stem corruption in Brazilian ...

www.insidecounsel.com/2014/06/23/compliance-and-law...   CachedJun 23, 2014 ·

A study has determined that 70 percent of Brazilian executives interviewed believe that corruption is widespread in ... fraud and corruption is ...



One in five executives thinks corruption is widespread in Canada’s business world, EY report shows
Claire Brownell | June 11, 2014 | Last Updated: Jun 11 5:29 PM ET Financial Post






US commission finds widespread waste and corruption in ... www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0901/US...   CachedSep 01, 2011 · US commission finds widespread waste and corruption in wartime ... Afghanistan has resulted in as much as $60 billion in waste and fraud ... .


_________________________________________________

This article does a good job summing up the war on the middle-class.  He cleans up his commentary by not declaring fraud and corruption as the problem and you can see an allegiance to Clinton when he points fingers at all the Presidential culprits but cannot name Clinton.  Rather he speaks of breaking Glass Steagall/deregulation/  Nafta without mentioning Clinton's name......and the massive subprime housing fraud was a transfer of wealth.  I do like how he identifies THE SEQUESTRATION AND FORCED BUDGET AGREEMENTS TO PAY DOWN THE $17 TRILLION DEBT as simply the final attack on public wealth by neo-liberals and neo-cons working together.  These trillions of dollars in cuts......the deliberate manipulation of inflation to zero etc are all assaults on what is left of the American middle/working class wealth and what we won't get will be handed away as corporate subsidy or lost to continuing fraud.

Here in Maryland all pols are neo-liberals and Maryland has moved further than most states in dismantling Democracy and public justice......


SIMPLY REBUILDING A DOMESTIC ECONOMY WITH SMALL AND REGIONAL BUSINESSES AND KEEPING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AT BAY ALONG WITH REBUILDING RULE OF LAW AND OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO REVERSE THIS ATTACK!


It’s Official: Rich Declare War on the Middle Class

by 

Robert Freeman


For the past thirty years the rich have been waging war on the middle class.  It’s been astonishingly effective, partly because it has been undeclared.  But even that pretense is now being abandoned.  The President’s National Deficit Commission has effectively declared that the rich will now go after what is left of working and middle class wealth and will take whatever steps are necessary to seize it.  If allowed to succeed, their plan will reduce Americans to a state of serfdom.

Ronald Reagan began the war on the middle class with his “supply-side” economics.  Its very purpose, according to David Stockman, Reagan’s Budget Director, was to transfer wealth and income upwards.  It cut the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners from 75% to 35% while dramatically expanding spending for war.  The results were two-fold:  massive federal debt and an astonishing rise in the share of income and wealth going to those who were already the wealthiest people in the world.

The national debt quadrupled between 1980 and 1992.  George W. Bush would repeat Reagan’s policies and double it again between 2000 and 2008.  Meanwhile, the share of national income going to the top 1% more than doubled, from 9% to 24%.  The share going to the top one-tenth of 1% of income earners more than tripled.  We now have the most unequal distribution of income in the developing world and the inequality is growing rapidly.

Shifts of this magnitude over such short periods of time have never been seen in American history.  With the rich getting much, much richer, its means that everybody else is getting poorer.  And in fact, real wages for median workers are lower today than they were in 1973.  Indeed, while the inflation-adjusted income of the bottom fifth of workers fell by $6,900 between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% saw its annual income increase by $741,000!

To try to keep up with living standards Americans resorted to debt.  They increased their personal debt-to-income ratio from 62% in 1980 to 130% in 2008.  When housing prices fell 35% nationwide in the recent collapse it left Americans with a smaller share of equity in their homes, 48%, than at any time since the Great Depression.  The share they have lost has been taken by the banks.

In other words, all of the income and wealth gains for middle Americans from the “golden years” between 1945 and 1975 have now been wiped out.  Or more accurately, have now been transferred to the very rich.  The top 1% holds 34% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 50% holds just 2.5%.  The bottom 40% owns absolutely nothing.


These effects and numbers can be numbing, even dizzying.  But it’s important to understand that they have not been the result of random events or impersonal market forces.  Rather, they have followed as the intended consequences of the relentless application of a wide array of government and industry policies.

The massive run-up in debt is one such policy. The wealthy are net lenders. This means that massive public and private debt transfers interest income to them from the rest of the economy.  Another method for effecting massive wealth transfer:  Beginning in 1981 the Reagan administration effectively stopped enforcing anti-trust laws, allowing monopolies to gouge everyone who had to buy their products.

The government actually provided tax subsidies so that corporations could eliminate jobs in the industrial heartland and ship them to Mexico and later, China, India, and other low-wage countries, reducing wages and pitting American workers against each other for those jobs remaining.

The bank deregulation that began in the early 1980s reached its apex with the repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act in the late nineties.  This set up the “casino capitalism” of the next decade that would spawn massive criminality and mortgage fraud by the nation’s leading banks—none of which has been prosecuted.  The result was the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

But even as more than five million homeowners have lost their homes, the wealthy had their losses covered by the Bush and later Obama administrations.  Bloomberg news estimates that the transfer to the banks through the financial bailout comes to some $13 trillion dollars.

We could go on and on and on with the roster of ways the wealthy have used the government to transfer national wealth to themselves.  Environmental and health laws that are not enforced.  Deals with the pharmaceutical industry so they don’t have to compete with foreign manufacturers.  Health care “reform” that forces tens of millions of Americans to buy questionable insurance products, even as insurers continue to kick legitimate claimants off their rolls.  Give-aways of the telecommunication spectrum worth hundreds of billions of dollars to media monopolies that ladle out state propaganda as if were news and never, ever challenge official narratives.

In these and a thousand other ways, the rich have conspired with the government they largely control to shift more and still more of the nation’s wealth away from the working and middle classes, to themselves.  It amounts to the most insidious class warfare and the most rapacious looting of public and private resources in the history of the world.

The result is vast impoverishment, demoralization, and the destruction of the American middle class.  One out of eight Americans are on food stamps.  One out of five people are in official poverty.  One out of four children are raised in poverty.  Twenty five million people cannot find enough work, while their skills atrophy and their families and communities are destroyed.  These are not figures describing a banana republic, a disaster-stricken region, or a third world country. They describe the United States of America after three decades of plunder by the rich.  And now they want to go in for the kill.

Not satisfied with the staggering wealth they have already siphoned away, the ultra-rich are now using Barack Obama’s National Deficit Commission to propose even more brazen plunder.  And the looting is no longer taking place behind closed doors or under the cover of arcane public policies.

The commission proposes to cut the federal government’s budget deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade.  But 75% of the “savings” will come from gutting programs that help stabilize the middle class and their communities.  None of it comes from policies that would harm the rich.

For example, the commission proposes cutting the tax deduction for mortgage payments.  Not only will this render housing much less affordable for millions of prospective home buyers, it will reduce housing prices, perhaps substantially, for without the tax writeoff, buyers will be able to afford much less house.  This will decimate the sole source of wealth of tens of millions of Americans.

It is housing wealth that undergirds retirement security for the middle class.  Or, at least it did until one out of four homeowners went underwater on their mortgage in the recent bank-triggered collapse.  Then, even as the Commission plans to decimate home prices and owner equity, it proposes cutting back benefits to Social Security recipients.

It would lower Social Security cost-of living adjustments while raising the minimum retirement age.  And this is being proposed at the very moment that the bank-owned Federal Reserve Board is beginning to print hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks from what’s left of their toxic assets still held from the housing crash.

The ensuing inflation is going to destroy the value of retirement incomes at exactly the moment that 77 million baby boomers head off into retirement.  It was exactly this process of money printing and bankrupting of retirees that destroyed the German middle class in the early 1920s, giving rise to Adolph Hitler.

The Commission’s proposals would increase co-pays and deductibles for Medicare, making it unaffordable to millions.  It proposes taxing as income the health insurance benefits millions receive from their employers.  The Child Tax Credit would be eliminated as would 10% of all federal government jobs.  This, at a time when more than 20% of the workforce is already underemployed and there are five workers trying for every available job.

We should be crystal clear:  these policies amount to a mortal assault on what remains of middle class solvency and the democracy that a vibrant middle class makes possible.

But even as it girds up for this assault, the Commission barely touches the ultra-rich on whose boards they serve and who have gained so much over the past 30 years.  And it cannot go without being said that it was these same professional predators who actually wrecked the economy, pitching it into its greatest collapse since the Great Depression.

The Commission’s proposals would actually lower the maximum tax on the highest income earners, from 35% to 24%.  The nominal tax rate on corporate income would fall as well, from 35% to 26%.  There is nothing proposed to raise taxes after so many decades of steadily amassed wealth.  No financial transactions tax (as the IMF recommends) to stanch the kind of tsunami of speculative buying and selling that brought down the economy.  Such a tax would raise over $700 billion over the next decade.

Of course, there will be no claw-backs of the trillions of dollars transferred to the rich under the phony duress of “saving the system” during the height of the financial crisis.  No proposal that the cap on earnings subject to Social Security withholding should be removed.  That proviso alone would raise more than half a trillion dollars over the next decade.

In fact, it is in comparison with other give-aways to the rich that the take-aways from the middle class by the Commission can be seen as so one sided and venal.  Remember, they propose to save $4 trillion over 10 years.

But the war in Iraq, which we now know was entirely premised on lies, will cost more than $5 trillion, according to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz.  It has proven a huge boon to the rich weapons makers, bankers, logistics companies and oil companies that Bush used to coddle as his “base.”

As mentioned above, Bloomberg news estimates that the financial bailout cost some $13 trillion, all of it going to the very richest people on the planet.  There is not a syllable in the Commission’s report proposing getting any of that back to help reduce the deficit.

Or consider the notorious Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 where fully 40% went to the top 1% of income earners.  Obama once promised to overturn them but, as is his typically cowardly pattern, is now folding.  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that they will cost the government more than $18 trillion over their lifetime—four times what the Deficit Commission claims it will achieve in savings.  But God forbid we should ask for even a penny of that back to help battle the deficit.

In other words, there are many, many substantial and just ways that the savings the Commission proposes to create could be secured via small contributions from those who have gamed the system and gained the most over the past three decades.  But that is not the Commission’s plan.  And it is in that omission that its true intent is revealed.

There is no more time for stealth, no more need for subtlety.  Western capitalist economies are declining at a pace that is frightening their elite stewards and compelling such desperate, slovenly measures as the wholesale printing of money to postpone the inevitable.  While Obama sings lullabies of “hope” and “change” to tranquillize the suckers out front, the rich are backing the truck up to the vault in the back, no longer even deigning to disguise the heist.  And of course, why should they?  They have the additional diversion of the moronic Tea Party vigilantes (“Keep the government out of my Medicare”), ever ready to cut other people’s throats to cure their own nosebleeds.


The Commission’s proposal is the most naked, undisguised declaration of class warfare possible.  Its agenda is not to reduce the deficit but rather to reduce what is left of the American middle class and American workers, to a condition of servitude, of feudal peonage.  Their poverty will make them docile and subservient.  This will make possible the final looting of America by those whose sociopathic greed has brought it so low already.  The battle over this proposal is the last bulwark against the devastation and final destruction of America.  It must be fought and won or our freedom and security ceded forever.  There is no other choice.











_____________________________________________

Below you see one quality of life issue being tackled by US corporate media.  You look above and you see why the middle-class is fading and you look below and you would never see that all of this simply needs justice to reverse who has the money.

In Baltimore, Johns Hopkins is pushing Michelle Rhee education privatization and that includes removing playgrounds from schools and building parks for the children to be 'reflective'.  There is often no recess,
yet amazingly the hype for education and health care reform in Maryland is wellness and fitness. 


The other stat that is interesting is that 20% of Americans are doing OK----FOR NOW.  They are moving for only 10% so you better watch out!  I point this out because it shows exactly the percentage of voters coming to the polls in elections.  THOSE 'LIKELY' VOTERS.  Indeed, 80% of Americans are disaffected because they are the victims of the frauds and corruptions listed above and those 20% doing OK are profiting from the fraud and corruption.  See why salaries for people in government are rising above $200,000?  Taxpayers are not paying for quality employees.....the rich are buying loyalty.  So, in Baltimore we have Baltimore Development Corporation and Johns Hopkins skimming billions of dollars of city and state revenue that means they have to allow those minions in City Hall skim thousands just as is done in Afghanistan.  Baltimore City Hall actually preys on Baltimore citizens with corrupt fines, fees, and taxes.  IT IS BREATH-TAKING.  This is what is happening in those nations listed above and the #1 winner----Wall Street banks and their investment firms.

If you notice, the conversation in college athletics is not why are coaches and sports departments being allowed to become corporations----it has become making the college athlete a paid worker.  There goes amateur sports.  Look below again and you see the real picture----the vocationalizing of K-12 with children tracked into sports training at youth.  That is what sports in America will look like just as it does in China say the neo-liberals and neo-cons.  We only need children playing sports if they can create profit as professionals!


WAKE UP!!!!!!  LET'S SIMPLY TURN THIS AROUND.


Sports & Leisure 2/03/2014 @ 5:11PM

As The Middle Class Fades, The Casual Youth Athlete Dies Out With It


As businesses are ignoring political debates and determining that climate change is real, so, too, are they stepping out of the arguments over income inequality by operating as if it exists. In particular, that there are two markets: the few and the wealthy, and the many and the not-so-wealthy. The market that doesn’t exist — or at least not like it used to — the middle class.

From The New York Times:


“Those consumers who have capital like real estate and stocks and are in the top 20 percent are feeling pretty good,” said John G. Maxwell, head of the global retail and consumer practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers .

In response to the upward shift in spending, PricewaterhouseCoopers clients like big stores and restaurants are chasing richer customers with a wider offering of high-end goods and services, or focusing on rock-bottom prices to attract the expanding ranks of penny-pinching consumers.

“As a retailer or restaurant chain, if you’re not at the really high level or the low level, that’s a tough place to be,” Mr. Maxwell said. “You don’t want to be stuck in the middle. …

In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, [economic] researchers found.

I bring this up because I think the decline of the middle class, the greater presence (and acceptance) of an all-or-nothing economy, has something to do with why, according to one major report, fewer children are playing team sports.

The Sports & Fitness Industry Association, a trade group for what it calls “leading industry sports and fitness brands, suppliers, retailers and partners,” in January reported that since 2008, or around the start of the Great Recession, “team sports have lost 16.1 million participants or 11.1% of all team participants, measured by those who played at least once a year.” The sports taking the biggest hit in 2013 were the biggest sports: football, basketball and baseball — a trend that the National Sporting Goods Association, a retail trade group, noted in June (and that are increasingly being reflected in high school sports participation numbers).

The Sports & Fitness Industry Association is very sure of why that decline is happening. The issue is not so-called “core” athletes, who play frequently. In 15 out of 24 team sports measured, the number of core athletes increased (compared with only five out of 24 in 2011). But the occasional athlete, the weekend warrior, the kid just trying out a sport — those numbers are falling hard. From a news release quoting the association’s director of communications and research, VJ Mayor:

 “The degradation of the casual team sports participant cannot be ignored,” said Mayor. “Casual participation is the gateway to more core participants. We have already begun to see a decline in core participation among traditional team sports over the last five years which is alarming. The drop could be influenced by several factors including increased single sport specialization, overuse injury, athlete burnout, safety concerns, and the marginalization of the recreation player. …”

Actually, the several factors spelled out by Mayor are all related to one factor: the increasing professionalization of youth sports and younger and younger levels. Parents are savvy enough to know that their children, at very early ages, are being sorted by a well-organized system into the pile as future athlete, or the pile as future nonathlete. There is no third pile. And there are many businesses out there — not just sporting goods businesses — that know how to exploit the ambitions and/or fears of the parents who want their kids in the athlete pile.

Exacerbating this system is a top 20 percent (as Maxwell described it) willing to spend more on kids’ education — including sports careers — out of the willingness of any parents to do what they can for their kids, while also aware that their peers are doing the same thing and thus could squeeze their kids out.

As for the other 80 percent — well, while there are long-told tales of athletes using sports as their perceived only way out of poverty, the middle class is also looking at sports as their only perceived way for their kids not to slip into poverty. At the least, spending big for a college scholarship so they have a chance at graduating from school without mounds of loans to pay. But those 80 percent have to weigh, constantly, whether the cost of play is worth it, with that cost of play driven by the upper 20 percent’s ability and willingness to pay. So you end up with two populations — the one that’s all in, and the one that’s shut out.

Of course, in the whole of the population, there are kids who will opt out of the youth sports rat race because they’ve found other interests. But a nagging question is, if they had access to sports that weren’t hard-core, would they find joy and pleasure in them, and keep playing? Or would they have a chance to discover at a later age, like 10, that they might enjoy a certain sport?

We’ll never know, because like in the American economy as a whole, increasingly there is no middle ground in youth sports. So I would expect that participation surveys in future years will show more of the same — a few playing a lot, most playing not much at all.


_________________________________________
US Attorney General Eric Holder who along with Obama can see no corporate fraud really hates when his time is pulled back to the American people demanding justice as if they were still citizens with rights and the US Attorney General worked for public justice.  He is a corporate lawyer and his entire day is working for US global corporations and their legal issues around the world.  This is why corporate fraud and government corruption is rampant----our state and US Justice Departments do not do public justice.  A bone is thrown now and then to assuage the masses.

Below is for whom Obama and your neo-liberal Congress person works----it is for whom O'Malley in Maryland has dedicated all economic and development---the International Chamber of Commerce.  These are the corporations winning all Federal, State, and local contracts for work and they are the ones openly fleecing governments and individuals with no fear from neo-liberal or neo-con pols.


We must start at the state and local level to rebuild Rule of Law.  If Maryland becomes a Rule of Law state the Governor will demand the US Justice Department protect the citizens of Maryland.

DO YOU HEAR YOUR INCUMBENTS SHOUTING TO REINSTATE RULE OF LAW?  VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE IF NOT!


A word from our Secretary General Welcome to ICC, a unique global business organization.

ICC is – and has been throughout its long existence – a steadfast rallying point for those who believe, like our founders, that strengthening commercial ties among nations is not only good for business but good for global living standards and good for peace.

To that end, ICC provides a forum for businesses and other organizations to examine and better comprehend the nature and significance of the major shifts taking place in the world economy. We also offer an influential and respected channel for supplying business leadership to help governments manage those shifts in a collaborative manner for the benefit of the world economy as a whole.

While policy advocacy is a major part of ICC’s work, everything else we do is also devoted to promoting international trade and investment. Indeed, much of our work is of a very practical nature, focussed on making it easier for business to operate internationally. Our world-renowned commercial arbitration service is a form of impartial and dependable private justice that gives more security to commercial partners doing business across frontiers.

Drawing on the expertise and experience of its worldwide membership, ICC has also over time developed a large array of voluntary rules, guidelines, and codes – - sometimes referred to as ‘trade tools’ –- which facilitate cross-border transactions and help spread best practice among companies. A notable example is ICC’s famous Incoterms® rules –- first elaborated in 1936 –- which are accepted as the global standard for the interpretation of the most common terms used in contracts for the international sale of goods.


ICC strives to ensure that the emerging new world, with new poles of power and leadership, stays faithful to the precept that international trade and investment and the market economy system are key factors in raising and spreading wealth.

I remain convinced that the core values that led to the creation of ICC over 90 years ago are as relevant today as they were then. Those values will continue to provide a compass for our efforts on behalf of business to help shape the new world that is emerging.




John Danilovich

Secretary General
International Chamber of Commerce



0 Comments

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 16th, 2014

7/16/2014

0 Comments

 
THE NEXT FEW DAYS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE COMING ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IN 2015.  I WILL START BY REMINDING PEOPLE WANT CAUSED THE 2008 CRASH AND SHOW HOW THE TWO ARE TIED TO TRANSFERRING ALL WEALTH TO THE TOP AND USING THE EXCUSE OF GOVERNMENT DEBT TO DISMANTLE OUR DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURES.  NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS WILL TAKE IT ALL!


I want to encourage people to pay attention to a subject that bores everyone but is the source of the looting of US government coffers and individual's pockets.  The Federal Reserve and Wall Street frauds. We need to know all of this CAN be reversed.  The economy is closer to collapse yet again by the same people playing the same games and all of it illegal.  So, let's review what caused the crash of 2008 to see how it relates to what will bring the economy down in 2015.
Remember, these economic policies started when Reagan/Clinton took the Republican and Democratic Parties to neo-liberalism.  The goal back then was to dismantle all of the public structures built for strong 1st world country to create the wealth inequity that goes with empire-building. The same was happening in Europe and the UK.  This is why Maryland has no public justice or oversight and accountability today----all of this boom and bust is no accident----it is all about wealth redistribution to the top.

Clinton deregulated and broke the Glass Steagall to set the stage for this explosive growth of US corporations with no overight and Bush simply allowed for an 'anything goes' environment.  Reagan/Clinton/Bush working with Alan Greenspan and Wall Street.
  Greenspan/Geithner allowed open fraud and corruption in the financial markets and Bush made sure the US Justice Department and financial agencies aided and abetted these crime.  The goal was transferring real estate from citizens to the banks through foreclosure so to control development especially in urban centers like Baltimore as well as sending trillions of dollars in government funding for these subprime loans to the banks.  

 
'We didn't see that coming' said Greenspan. Meanwhile, neo-liberals at the state and local levels were allowing the subprime mortgage fraud go wild. This same thing happened in Europe as subprime mortgage loans filled their economy as well.  It was Obama's job to make sure the money stayed with those committing the fraud.


The constant portrayal of this Visigoth looting as creating homeownership for low-income people -----knowing a collapse would send people into foreclosure-----shows the social pathology driving Wall Street and neo-liberals and neo-cons.

IT IS NOT LEGAL FOR ANYONE TO ALLOW OPEN FRAUD AND CORRUPTION AND GREENSPAN WAS ALLOWED TO JUST FADE AWAY FOR ONE OF THE GREATEST CRIMES IN HISTORY.

This was no maestro---he simply used people's faith in government and Rule of Law and sold people in investing in a system he knew would blow up making most people losers.  Think what is happening today---media is telling you the market is strong, politicians are throwing pensions into it and we all know it is getting ready to crash....and in 2015 we will hear O'Malley and Rawlings Blake who are loading the state with debt just as they oversaw the subprime mortgage fraud----'I didn't see that coming'!
WELL, WE SEE IT COMING AND IT IS INFUSED WITH PUBLIC MALFEASANCE AND FRAUD.

Alan Greenspan: Public Enemy Number One


By Stephen Lendman Global Research, October 27, 2008

With so many good choices, it’s hard just picking one. But given the gravity of today’s financial crisis, one name stands out above others. The “maestro,” as Bob Woodward called him in his book by that title. The  “Temple of Boom” chairman, according to a New York Times book review. Standing “bestride the Fed like a colossus.” Now defrocked as the “maestro” of misery. Alan Greenspan. From August 11, 1987 to January 31, 2006, as head of the private banking cartel euphemistically called the Federal Reserve. That Ron Paul explains isn’t Federal and has no reserves.

It represents bankers who own it. Big and powerful ones. Not the state or public interest. It prints money. Controls its supply and price. Loans it out for profit and charges the government interest it wouldn’t have to pay if Treasury instead of Federal Reserve notes were issued. People, as a result, pay more in taxes for debt service. The nation is more crisis-prone. Over time they increase in severity. The current one the most serious since the Great Depression. Potentially the greatest ever. The result of Greenspan’s 18 year irresponsible legacy.

He championed deregulation and presided over an earlier version of today’s crisis. The Reagan-era savings and loan fraud. It bankrupted 2200 banks. Cost taxpayers around $200 billion and for many people their savings in S & Ls they thought safe.

In the 1990s, he engineered the largest ever stock market bubble and bust in history through incompetence, subservience to Wall Street, and dereliction of duty. In January 2000, weeks short of the market peak, he claimed that “the American economy was experiencing a once-in-a-century acceleration of innovation, which propelled forward productivity, output, corporate profits, and stock prices at a pace not seen in generations, if ever….Lofty stock prices have reduced the cost of capital. The result has been a veritable explosion of spending on high-tech equipment….And I see nothing to suggest that these opportunities will peter out anytime soon….Indeed many argue that the pace of innovation will continue to quicken….to exploit the still largely untapped potential for e-commerce, especially the business-to-business arena.”

A week later, the Nasdaq peaked at 5048. Lost 78% of its value by October 2002. The S&P 500 49% from its March 2000 high to its October 2002 bottom. Individual investors were left high and dry as a result. For Mr. Greenspan, it was back to engineering multiple bubbles with 1% interest rates and a tsunami of easy money.

He advocated less regulation, not more. Voluntary oversight. The idea that markets work best so let them. Government intervention as the problem, not the solution. In the mid-1990s, he told a congressional committee:

“Risks in financial markets, including derivative markets, are being regulated by private parties. There is nothing involved in federal regulation per se which makes it superior to market regulation.”

On October 23 before the House Government Oversight and Reform committee, he refused to accept blame for the current crisis, but softened his tone and admitted a “flaw” in his ideology. Confessed his faith in deregulation was shaken. Said he was in a “state of shocked disbelief.” Unclear on what went wrong. Not sure “how significant or permanent it is,” and added:

– “We are in the midst of a once-in-a century credit tsunami (requiring) unprecedented measures;”

– “This crisis has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined;”

– “fears of insolvency are now paramount;”

– significant layoffs and unemployment are ahead;

– a “marked retrenchment of consumer spending” as well;

– containing the crisis is conditional on stabilizing home prices;

– at best, it’s “still many months in the future;”

What went wrong with policies that “worked so effectively for nearly four decades,” he asked? Securitizing home mortgages. “Excess demand” for them, and failure to properly price them he answered. Unmentioned was unbridled greed. The greatest ever fraud. No oversight, and a predictable crisis only surprising in its magnitude and how it grew to unmanageable severity.

Greenspan is now softening on regulation but barely enough to matter. Too little, too late by any standard, and only to restore stability after which chastened investors “will be exceptionally cautious.” In the end, in his view, “This crisis will pass, and America will reemerge with a far sounder financial system.” Until another Fed chairman repeats his mistakes. Creates a crisis too big to contain. Destroys unfettered capitalism as we know it. Changes the world irrevocably as a consequence. Unless this time is the big one and does it sooner.

In March 1999, Greenspan was optimistic at the end of a robust decade (that James Petras calls “the golden age of pillage”) with no worries about new millennium meltdowns. He addressed the Futures Industry Association and said it would be “a major mistake” to increase rules on how banks assess risks when they use derivatives. He added: “By far the most significant event in finance during the past decade has been the extraordinary development and expansion of financial derivatives.” By a compounded 20% rate throughout the decade. Around 30% alone by banks in 1998. And, according to Greenspan, “The reason that (derivatives) growth has continued despite adversity, or perhaps because of it, is that these new financial instruments are an increasingly important vehicle for unbundling risk….the value added of derivatives themselves derives from their ability to enhance the process of wealth creation (and) one counterparty’s market loss is the (other’s) gain.”

Overall, they’ve increased the standard of living of people globally, he claimed. In fact, they contributed to global crises in the 1990s. Hot money in, and meltdowns when it exited. The problem is derivatives work well in bull markets, but are disastrous when they’re down. Going up they do nothing for ordinary people, but during downturns receding tides sink all boats and all in them and aren’t the zero sum game Greenspan suggested.

Worst of all are so-called credit default swaps (CDSs). The most widely traded credit derivative. In the tens of trillions of dollars. A $43 trillion market, according to PIMCO’s Bill Gross. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) estimates it at $54.6 trillion. Down from $62 trillion at yearend 2007. Others place it higher, but key is what they are and how they’re used. They resemble insurance (on risky mortgages), but, in fact, are for little more than casino-type gambling. Unregulated with no transparency in the shadow banking system that dwarfs the traditional one in size and risk.

Gross describes it this way. It “craftily dodges the reserve requirements of traditional institutions and promotes a chain letter, pyramid scheme of leverage, based in many cases on no reserve cushion whatsoever.” CDSs are at the center of shadow banking, and Gross and others warn about possible financial Armageddon if things begin collapsing.

A “Cheerleader for Imprudence”

That, according to James Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. Greenspan’s “biggest mistake was inciting people to do imprudent things.” He called him “marble-mouthed” for his “Greenspeak” and not simply admitting he “was as blind as those (he) pretended to lead. This sense of security that people invested in the idea of perfect control by an all-knowing brain at the top, that idea’s been shattered.”

In July, Grant was outspoken in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Why No Outrage?” He quoted Mary Elizabeth Lease from the Populist era haranguing farmers to “raise less corn and more hell.” He asked why today’s financial victims aren’t protesting Fed policy “of showering dollars on the (monied) people who would seem to (least) need them.” Where are the “uncounted improvident?” Have they “not suffered (enough) at the hands of what used to be called The Interests? Have the stewards of other people’s money not made a hash of high finance? Where is the people’s wrath?” In the wake of the “greatest (ever) failure of ratings and risk management.”

Greenspan’s Fed cut interest rates to 1%. “House prices levitated as mortgage underwriting standards collapsed.” He claimed earlier that property appreciation was a sign of prosperity and a strong economy and “while home prices do on occasion decline, large declines are rare.” Most homeowners experience “a modest but persistent rise in home values that is perceived to be largely permanent.”

Especially, according to Grant, at a time that “credit markets went into speculative orbit, and an idea took hold. Risk….was yesterday’s problem.” It led to “one of the wildest chapters in the history of lending and borrowing.” As a consequence, an $8 trillion home valuation wealth bubble and an unprecedented oversupply of unsold properties. Now in even more  oversupply as owners default. Are foreclosed on or simply walk away from unaffordable underwater assets. They sit empty with no one to buy them except for those able in distressed sales.

The whole episode criminal and avoidable had the Fed used its authority under the 1994 Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act. It authorized the central bank to monitor abuses and intervene, if necessary, to prevent abusive lender practices. It failed to do it.

The result was predictable. People and the economy in crisis. Greenspan orchestrated it. His successor Bernanke did nothing to curb it. Wall Street was on a roll until it crashed. Huey Long once compared JD Rockefeller to “the fat guy who ruins a good barbecue by taking too much.” Wall Street thrives on it. Fed largesse enables it. The problem is their indigestion affects everyone. A stomachache spreading round the world. How bad it’ll get and where it stops nobody knows. Blame it on Greenspan. Our “former clairvoyant,” according to Grant.
___________________________________________


Below you hear the same talk as we did in 2006-2007 as the subprime mortgage market began to implode and again it was the FED policy and the Obama Administration/Congress that fueled this crash just as it was Greenspan and Bush with the subprime mortgage loans.

Where last fraud centered on redistributing real estate to the few----this fraud centers on using credit bond and municipal debt to create the excuse to privatize all that is public and end public sector pensions and benefits.  The 2015 crash will be so deep with no help from the Federal government still holding $17 trillion in debt from the last massive corporate fraud that the US economy will look like Greece and Spain.  It will place the US in the same double-disaster as Europe---subprime loan fraud/sovereign debt fraud.

As the article below states-----hold on to your hats as the market sees a mass exodus from the bond market!!!


Where this article makes it sound that Yellen is being a 'dove'....she has no options....the FED under Bernanke did what the FED under Greenspan did......fed the bond market bubble until there was no return.  Remember, Wall Street wants people back in the stock market and blowing up the once safest place to invest, the bond market, will do that.  Soon, everyone will be fleeing the bond market as it collapses right back to the stock market.  They are making trapped rats of our pension system and giving us no opportunity for a stable economy.


THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL/NEO-CON FOR YOU!!!!!  GET RID OF THEM!!!


Fed Officials Trying to Warn Bond Markets
July 15th, 2014
in contributors

by EconMatters, EconMatters.com

The Purpose of Complacency Talk

The Fed officials have been coming out in speeches the last couple of weeks with rhetoric about 'complacency' and other such code words for chasing risk ahead of what the Federal Reserve knows is going to be an abrupt change in monetary policy over the next six months.


Follow up:

The Fed is concerned because they know they want an orderly transition in markets and not causing major dislocations in markets by massive selloffs. However, the getting is so good with interest free money that participants are going to push this edge they have in markets right up until the last possible exit minute.

So despite the fact that QE ends in October with no more bond buying by the Fed, the 10-Year is still sitting at 2.50% with participants making money hand over fist with the borrow at 15-25 basis points and investing in yield instruments with massive leverage trades that has been so popular and irresistible by investors looking for 'free money arbitrage' opportunities.



An Orderly Unwind

The problem that the Fed has rightly identified is that they are not going to get an orderly exit at this pace, the unwind is going to be massive, jarring, and definitely not 'orderly'! The Bond markets, take the 10-year yield could literally have a 25 or 35 basis point move over a 24 hour period that would wreak a lot of havoc on fund flows, asset classes and financial markets.

This turmoil in the bond market could really be disastrous because the Fed participants realize the bond market isn't being priced currently where the Fed is moving to in terms of monetary policy. The Fed should be alarmed because the unwind is setting up for a possible 100 basis point move in two months' time frame type of fund dislocation and reallocation of capital, and that is going to be problematic for markets!



But the Fed only has themselves to blame for this predicament as in this case you cannot have your cake and eat it too! Janet Yellen cannot be so dovish at Fed news conferences given her reputation as a dove among doves, and get any respect from market participants; the trade is going to be all-in and one-sided without the slightest regard for the risks associated with being so aggressive.

In short, Janet Yellen has encouraged the one thing that Fed governors should always avoid being so 'transparent' that market participants go full boar on a trade, one-sided, highly levered, unhedged, and nothing could possibly happen with this dovish a Fed Chairperson at the helm trade! In a nutshell they have become too 'complacent' or they have taken her dovishness for granted.

Pigs at the Bond Trough

The pattern has been quite clear in Bond Markets wait until after the 200k plus Employment Report blows the 10-Year up to 2.70%, and come in and buy bonds like there is not tomorrow with huge leverage, until they have to get out of the way of the next CPI, GDP or Employment Report - as this process has repeated itself over the last four months of financial markets. The Levered Yield Trade has been the trade of the year so far in 2014 - the strategy of investing in anything with yield from over-valued utilities, pricey bonds and even stodgy low growth Big Caps with some semblance of a dividend yield!

Janet Yellen cannot have her Dovish Cake, and eat it too in the form of an "Orderly Unwind"!

So the Fed has to realize that sending out the mignons of the Fed isn't going to counteract Janet Yellen's dovishness. If they want markets to start unwinding trades ahead of policy adjustments that are coming and not wait until the last possible minute, then Janet Yellen herself is going to have to send a shot across the monetary bow so to speak!

She is going to have to come out with a hawkish tone to garner some healthy respect for normalization of fed policy by markets. She is dovish we get that, but the Fed is about to change monetary policy, and much sooner than is currently priced into many asset classes, and it is going to take some considerable time if participants started repositioning today to unwind many of these massive positions in markets, any sense or orderliness necessitates a little at a time versus all at once!

Janet Yellen has got to start talking hawkish to get this process started otherwise her worst fear is going to materialize in spades as market participants are all going to wait until the last minute trying to make that last dollar on the yield trade, and cause huge market turbulence when they all try to get out at once!



The Data Indicate 1st QTR 2015 Rate Hike at the Latest!

The Employment numbers, the inflation numbers, and the risky valuations in financial markets all point to the Fed needing to start raising rates sometime in the first quarter of next year. This is much sooner than Janet Yellen's Dovish talk has markets pricing in with their forecast for late in 2015 for the first rate hike.

Market participants are far too levered up, all on the same side, and well behind the monetary normalization curve of when the first rate hike is actually going to occur. This is a recipe for disaster, and that seminal light bulb moment in financial markets when everybody realizes, that moment in Margin Call where the analyst drops the ear-buds out saying internally holy shit, that they need to liquidate everything right now. In other words, the entire market all hits the sell button at the same time!


_______________
Wall Street and the FED thinks the steps towards stabilizing the economy have been a success and they are ready for the coming crash.  What's not to like---the American people lose all their wealth as the richest wealth soars.

Below you see an article that shows the progression of the plan.  Goldman Sachs was key to the financial frauds in the US but were key in bringing down the European social society.  They targeted especially Greece and Spain with fraudulent financial instruments loading these nations with huge sovereign debt having the goal of imploding the economies forcing the dismantling of social society.  Why this is important to Americans today? It is these same tactics are now coming to the US.  We experienced the subprime mortgage fraud in the US as they did in Europe but Europe was brought down harder because a second fraud----sovereign/municipal debt fraud ----completely emptied their government coffers.  This is why Europe is in deeper distress than the US.  Well, the time is now for the sovereign debt fraud in the US and it looks like levered municipal bond debt, mortgaged tax debt, and state and local money tied to development that cannot be afforded. 

THIS MASSIVE DEBT BUILDUP ON THE BACKS OF OUR GOVERNMENT IS WHAT CREATED IN EUROPE THE DEEPEST OF RECESSIONS.

This happened in Europe between 2001 and 2007 and now it is being done here in the US between 2008 and 2015.  The subprime mortgage fraud was about taking the American people's wealth-----this coming municipal bond leverage fraud is about taking the government wealth as happened in Europe.

Goldman Sachs and DeutscheBank both created fraudulent financial instruments that allowed government officials to hide their national debt so more debt could be taken.  None of this is legal and Goldman Sachs knew it was breaking the law.  So Greece and Spain were made to look like the government budgets were balanced when they were ever deeper in debt.  Making these governments look like they were AAA mirrored making subprime mortgage loans look AAA.  These government officials in Greece and Spain took more and more credit and distributed money to friends and off-shored it until these economies imploded from debt.  Europe's TROIKA then came in to make the Greek and Spanish people pay for the fraud just as is happening in the US with the subprime mortgage and other financial frauds.
  You see Europe's Draghi and his connection to Goldman Sachs overseeing the crisis just as Tim Geithner did in the US.

THE KEY WORDS HERE ARE HIDING SOVEREIGN DEBT TO LOAD MORE DEBT TO MAKE THE IMPLOSION SO DEEP AS TO FORCE THE DISMANTLING OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

That is what happened in Europe.  Subprime mortgage fraud and sovereign debt fraud.  Today, the US economy is ready to implode from sovereign/municipal bond debt.
  Maryland is ground zero for this.  O'Malley and Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall has loaded the state and city with so much leverage in credit bonds and tax deals that when the crash comes in 2015 the public will be stuck with debt so large----just as Greece and Spain---that the recession will be deep and the debt too large, forcing the privatization of all that is public. 

THIS IS A PLAN---NOT SIMPLY GREED OR BAD POLICY.
  'MARYLAND HAS A 'AAA' RATING FROM MOODY'S YOU SAY'-----you mean the same Moody's that gave subprime mortgage loans the same AAA? 

Maryland's economy is one great big shell game.
  This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue because Republicans are doing the same in their states.  It is a complete breakdown of Rule of Law and a rush to take what you can.  The article below is long but please glance through to see how Goldman Sachs worked to implode Greece's economy and think about what is happening in Maryland!
Another long article but please glance through.

EU Ignores Falsification of Greek Public Finance Data
Posted on 18 December 2011 by
admin by Guest Author ECB Watch

This is a companion to another article to be published Draghi Nomination Based on Deception.  Here, we address the broader issue of the falsification of Greece’s public finance data.   We will look into Eurostat audits (Walter Radermacher), the ECB’s willful hindrance against the release of records (Jean Claude Trichet), Goldman Sachs’ communication (Gerald Corrigan), and the actions of the European parliament (Sharon Bowles), the Commission (Olli Rehn) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (Verena Ross). Click on cartoon for larger image.


Summary

Eurostat ran a series of audits of Greece’s public finances from 2009 to 2010, including for the swap transactions contracted with Goldman Sachs in 2001. These were used to misrepresent, by a few % relative to GDP, the extent of debt and deficits. Eurostat says it only became aware of it in early 2010: this calls for an explanation because news of the contentious transactions broke in 2003. According to the final audit, in 2010, the window dressing scheme initiated in 2001 was significantly restructured in August 2005. Soon after, Goldman Sachs sold its position for cash to the National Bank of Greece. This 2005 modification of the 2001 contract resulted in a 81% increase in the amount of concealed debt, in the accounts of 2006, relative to the initial amount. According to the same audit, Greece willfully misled Eurostat in 2008, when the contracts were still in effect (in fact, they will be until 2037). The national accounts of Greece were regularized by Eurostat in November 2010.

Spokesman for the bank Gerald Corrigan testified before the British parliament in February 2010. He personally vouched that the letter of the law was obeyed in the 2001 deal, suggesting that it was EU’s fault for allowing a loophole in its regulations. To minimize the perception of wrongdoing he reminded the audience that similar practices were age-old and common in the industry. Yet he stonewalled the questions of whether specific countries, Portugal and the UK, respectively, were clients that fell under this category. His leaving out the 2005 restructuring in his testimonial is an odd oversight.

He [Gerald Corrigan] personally vouched that the letter of the law was obeyed in the 2001 deal, suggesting that it was EU’s fault for allowing a loophole in its regulations. In April 2010, former prime minister of Belgium Guy Verhofstadt spearheaded a hearing, Greece : the moment of truth. It was held by the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament under Sharon Bowles’ chairmanship. There appears to be a disconnect between the objective and what Sharon Bowles delivered, as we argue further down in relation to ESMA, but another indication of it is that the deposition of the spokesman for Goldman Sachs, Gerald Corrigan, bears no relation to the stated topic (the word Greece is not to be found).  This is perhaps an indication of a disconnect between the objective and what Sharon Bowles delivered. We will argue it further below in relation to ESMA. In November 2010, Jean Claude Trichet obstructed the release, requested by Bloomberg, of ECB documents detailing the swap transactions. In May 2011, he went as far as vetoing a legal claim, made by Bloomberg, to reopen these archives. Was his justification, preventing acute market risks, satisfactory?

In August 2011, the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, Olli Rehn, to appease the concern of an MEP about the possible connection of Mario Draghi to the falsification of Greek public finance data, misrepresented the evidence contained in a November 2010 Eurostat audit report as to this connection. Recall that Mario Draghi’s hearing in June, just before a vote by the European parliament on his nomination, was, and remains to this day, controversial due to discrepancies between his defense on this issue and verified facts.

The legislative branch, in the U.S., has gone to great length to learn from the mistakes of the financial crisis.  In addition it came with evidence based recommendations to pursue criminal investigations that were or have been carried out by federal agencies and the department of justice.  In fairness, this process has been stymied by powerful interest groups.  Even so, Europe’s response, in comparison, for the case studied here, which is a significant chapter of the Greek debt crisis, looks unfavorable. The hearing Greece : the hour of truth may well have been a pretense, as hinted at. We now argue it further. The Commission and the European parliament would have had the authority to commission ESMA to investigate the matter.  Neither Olli Rehn nor Sharon Bowles, it seems, has taken this step.  Had it been the case, ESMA would have had the authority, if the conclusion of the investigation called for it, to bring a legal case against any alleged perpetrator of fraud, or delegate that task to national authorities.  Instead, ESMA’s stated priorities, under the leadership of its new Executive Director, Verena Ross, are the single rule book, production and analysis of data, and supervising credit rating agencies…

Note : we now use the EU institutions’ convention that ECON stands for Economic and Monetary Affairs.

Eurostat audits

Eurostat is the statistical office the EU Commission, whose current Director General is Walter Radermacher. In Eurostat parlance, a methodological visit is an audit that is undertaken in cases where the Eurostat identifies substantial risks or potential problems with the quality of the data.   There were a series of methodological visits to Greece. They began in 2009 and continued through 2010. Three major reports were produced, one on 29 October 2009, the second on 8 January 2010 and the third in November 2010.  According to the last one, a series of failings in the institutional arrangements and practical compilation of Greek public finance data. We skimmed through the January report and read the November 2010 report.  Only the latter addresses the contentious Greek swaps transaction.  It concluded as follows: Taking into account the work carried out [i.e. corrections to misreported data], as described in this report, the latest debt and deficit data for Greece now gives, in Eurostat’s view, an essentially reliable picture, [including for] fiscal data for the years 2006-2009. It is, therefore, an important report as it represents Eurostat’s final opinion on the issue of the Greek swaps contracted with Goldman Sachs.

Greece patently misled it in 2008, claiming that it neither engaged in FOREX swaps, nor in off market swaps. Eurostat’s summary of its dealings with Greece as pertaining to these swaps would be hard to reconcile, prima facie, with the blithely reported claim that the transactions were legal.  First, Eurostat says that At the beginning of the year 2010, it became known that Greece had entered in 2001 into currency off-market swap agreements with Goldman Sachs, using an exchange rate different from the spot prevailing one. This is strange, however, because the scheme was reported in 2003 by Risk.net.  Perhaps not coincidentally, notes the article, Greece’s credit rating by one of the three major credit rating agencies was raised, that year, from A to A+.  Second, Eurostat says that Greece patently misled it in 2008, claiming that it neither engaged in FOREX swaps, nor in off market swaps. These are exactly the type of transactions agreed between Greece and Goldman Sachs in 2001 and, as we see next, were actively managed thereafter. Eurostat’s audit says that in August 2005 a significant restructuring of the swap contract took place. The maturity of the swap was extended from 2019 to 2037.   This, together with other modifications, resulted in an increase in the amount of undisclosed Greek debt data, for the portion that is imputable to the deal, from 2.830 bn euros in 2001 [1] to 5.125 bn euros in 2006. It’s a 81% increase. Eurostat adds that [a]lmost at the same time, GS sold its rights and obligations to the National Bank of Greece (NBG, a bank completely privatised in November 2004). As a side note, Mario Draghi was appointed head of Bank Italy in 2006, ending his employment at Goldman Sachs. The latter had begun in 2002, when Goldman Sachs was reportedly the lead manager of Greece’s debt underwriting. His denial of any connection to the deal in a hearing before the ECON Committee in June 2001 remains controversial to this day.

There is no question that the 81% increase in the debt hiding scheme, in 2006, is imputable to the August 2005 modification: the restructuring operations implemented in 2005 and 2008 were in fact the explicit recognition of an increase of the liability (principal amount of the loan) to be recorded as debt of Greece. To complete our coverage of the swap transactions, let us quote Eurostat: [t]he swap was marginally restructured again in late 2008 [and was] securitised in February 2009 via a Special Purpose Vehicle (Titlos) that paid EUR 5.5 billion to the NBG. There is no question that the 81% increase in the debt hiding scheme, in 2006, is imputable to the August 2005 modification : the restructuring operations implemented in 2005 and 2008 were in fact the explicit recognition of an increase of the liability (principal amount of the loan) to be recorded as debt of Greece. The corresponding amount, 5.125 bn euros, persisted until 2007. The 2008 modification pushed it to 5.4 bn euros, and 2009 saw a decrease to 5.281 bn euros. We think the decrease is the result of an amortization scheme kicking in after a grace period of two years mentioned in the report. In 2010, Eurostat assigned these amounts as additions to government debt for the years 2006—2009. Goldman Sachs’ communication

Goldman Sachs Managing Director Gerald Corrigan testified before the House of Commons on February 22, 2010. This came to our attention in an article by Finfacts Ireland, and the transcript is contained in the document Too important too fail, too important to ignore (March 2010).  In question 295, for short Q295, he is asked [H]ave banks like Goldman’s not accentuated sovereign risk in countries like Greece by arranging loans for securitisation against future revenue streams that do not appear on the books or currency swaps that have not been calculated at normal exchange rates? To which, Corrigan personally vouches that the transactions were legal : [It] is very clear to me, based on the investigation that I have done over the past few days, that those transactions were very much consistent and comparable with the standards of behaviour and measurement used by the European Community.  There was nothing inappropriate. They were in conformity with existing rules and procedures when they were entered into. To back it up, he cites a consultation with Eurostat: When those transactions were entered into personnel from Goldman Sachs consulted with the appropriate authorities at Eurostat, as did, as I understand it, the Government of Greece and, again, there was no indication whatsoever that those transactions were not in line with existing practices, policies and guidelines.

Goldman Sachs identified a flaw in EU rules, in 2001, and exploited it—opportunity.  He [Corrigan] has not explicitly answered the question i.e. whether it increased sovereign risk —harm— but, absent his denial, it was implicitly conceded. Finally, he shifts blame on the EU not having stringent enough rules:  I should also say that those guidelines and standards were modified in 2007 which suggests that perhaps they were more liberal than they should have been back in 2001. In other words, Goldman Sachs identified a flaw in EU rules, in 2001, and exploited it—opportunity.  He has not explicitly answered the question i.e. whether it increased sovereign risk —harm— but, absent his denial, it was implicitly conceded.  The rest of his answer is laced with the mitigating factors that these practices have been around for decades, if not centuries and not limited to Goldman Sachs and Greece—rationalization.   However, when asked to confirm whether a similar deal was contracted with Portugal (Q296) and Great Britain (Q297), he dodged and could not confirm, respectively, reiterating the above rationalization in each case. The white elephant in the room, in this hearing, is the August 2005 significant restructuring of the swap contract.”  That’s keeping in mind that Greece is alleged by Eurostat to have misled it in 2008 about the existence of such transactions.  Although Goldman Sachs was no longer the counter party in 2008, it suggests that this modification has gone under the radar from August 2005 until Eurostat looked into the matter in 2010.

Let’s review some traits in Corrigan’s answers. He hinted at what we labeled an opportunity and had recourse to the same rationalization multiple times. These are two of the three factors that fall under the definition of the Fraud Triangle.   This is merely superficial but, unfortunately, there is a significant legal precedent attesting of unethical business practices at this company:   Goldman Sachs paid half a billion dollars to settle SEC charges that it misled investors in a subprime mortgage product (ABACUS) just as the U.S. housing market was starting to collapse.  The third factor is a motive.  The transaction generated hundreds of millions of dollars for the firm according to a press release by Bloomberg, EU seeks Greek swaps disclosure after ministry probe.  The ratio of the upper estimate of the fees (200 millions euros) to the amount of Greek debt masked under the 2001 deal (2.830 bn euros) is 7.1%. The key deal maker, Antigone Loudiadis, made a substantial fortune from the deal in just one year, reported the Wall Street Journal in 2010, and enjoyed a career boost thereafter.  Incidentally, she made controversial headlines again, reported Bloomberg in May 2011, as CEO of Rothesay Life, as regards to death derivatives.

He [Corrigan] hinted at what we labeled an opportunity and had recourse to the same rationalization multiple times.  These are two of the three factors that fall under the definition of the Fraud Triangle. Zero Hedge reported that, on the same day as Corrigan’s testimonial, the bank issued a communique. It essentially summarizes his arguments, with a few more figures but, again, makes no mention of the 2005 restructuring. Finally, Gerald Corrigan’s written statement does not address any of the above. Obstruction by Jean Claude Trichet

First, Bloomberg filed a request with the ECB in November 2010 to have access to ECB internal documents detailing the contentious transactions.  It was denied.   Second, Bloomberg contested the decision at the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg in December 2010.   Third, the ECB asked the General Court to dismiss the lawsuit, in May 2011, just one month before Mario Draghi’s nomination, apparently using a veto prerogative.  That’s one month before the nomination of the next ECB President whose possible role in the falsification of Greek debt as Goldman Sachs VP from 2002 to 2005 was raised by Simon Johnson as early as February 2010. Fourth, Bloomberg reacted in June 2011 with these words : The European Central Bank allowed itself to be deceived by a default in the making and now refuses to share with the taxpaying citizens it represents the details of the deception.  Secret and opaque financing got Europe into a mess that can only be resolved by the transparency of full disclosure.


The European parliament

As a member of the UK’s Liberal Democratic Party, Sharon Bowles is also affiliated with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats of Europe, in short ALDE.   In March 2010, the former prime minister of Belgium and group leader of ALDE, Guy Verhofstadt, made a proposal to to promptly convene a public hearing of all those implicated in the falsification of Greek public accounts. He followed up with a declaration on 14 April 2010, reported in a press release known as Greece: the moment of truth, for Sharon Bowles to ask Director General of Eurostat to explain how accounts could have been legally modified and what measures were taken in the aftermath to prevent such actions. This was supposed to be discussed in a hearing, the same day, titled The fiscal crisis in the European Union – lessons from Greece.  According to the ECON Committee’s final draft programme, its participants were Sharon Bowles (moderator), Olli Rehn, Walter Radermacher, Gerald Corrigan, and a representative from a financial derivatives organization (ISDA), Richard Metcalfe.  We did not find the transcript of the hearing at EU Parliament’s portal, which is unfortunate, but we did find the deposition of Gerald Corrigan.  It contains insights on two subjects and nothing more.  The first is perspective on government debt management, such as the benefits of issuing debt through primary dealers.  The second is facilitating derivatives market surveillance, which recounts the initiatives of the financial industry policy group chaired by Corrigan, the Counterparty Risk Managment Policy Group (CRMPG).  This hardly addresses Guy Verhofstadt’s injunction, quoted in the press release Greece: the moment of truth : The chairman of Goldman Sachs in the US in particular should justify his bank’s speculation against Greek sovereign debt and the motivation of the investment bank which did not seem to be entirely based on economic considerations.

“widespread misreporting of deficit and debt data by the Greek authorities during in November 2004, [...] and on five occasions between 2005 and 2009.“  Eurostat audit January 2010 The topic reemerged in a parliamentary debate about Quality of statistical data in the Union and enhanced auditing powers by the Commission, on 15 June 2010. To frame it, we suppose, Sharon Bowles posted on 4 June 2010 the question of “whether any [Member States] have submitted falsifications or false data or statistics either intentionally or by neglect?”  The January 2010 audit had already answered that question for Greece: widespread misreporting of deficit and debt data by the Greek authorities during in November 2004, [...] and on five occasions between 2005 and 2009.” “In short, there is circumstantial evidence that the chair of the ECON Committee, Sharon Bowles, around 2010, was lagging behind Eurostat’s methodological visits to Greece. To conclude this section, former PM of Belgium Guy Verhofstadt’s high hopes, Greece : the moment of truth, in April 2010, may have fallen flat; that is, the EU parliament failed to deliver an account of who did what?


The Commission

In ECON Commissioner Olli Rehn‘s words spoken during the aforementioned 15 June 2010 debate, the closest match to Sharon Bowles’ question was As is well known, the Commission has undertaken in-depth work on Greek statistics over several years. The amended regulation should, in future, better mitigate the risk of fraud or manipulation of statistics, or of any other kind of irregularity.  Yesterday, there was a new development concerning Greece.  You will know that Moody’s decided to downgrade Greek bonds yesterday. On 21 July 2011, a parliamentary question was addressed to him, on the subject of Appointment of Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank.  This question was : Does the Commission have information on Mario Draghi’s involvement, whilst he was Goldman Sachs’ European vice-chair, in the dealings between the bank and the Greek Government over the concealment of accountancy fiddles? Olli Rehn’s answer, on 22 August 2011, was that transactions in derivatives between the Greek debt agency and Goldman Sachs dated back to 2001, implying that the President of the ECB had no connection to them. This is one of the two arguments presented by Mario Draghi before the ECON Committee in June, just before the vote on his nomination, that were found to be unsatisfactory.  Olli Rehn backs up his claim by citing the November 2010 Eurostat audit.  This is perplexing because the audit reveals that the terms of the contract between Goldman Sachs and the Greek Ministry of Finance were modified in August 2005.   This modification resulted in an 81% increase in the amount of debt concealed through this type of scheme.  Presumably, Mario Draghi still worked at Goldman Sachs at the time, since his term of office at the Central Bank of Italy started in January 2006.

In short, in August 2011, the Commissioner for ECON either misled the MEP (Willy Meyer) having some concern about Mario Draghi’s past at Goldman Sachs, or had superficial knowledge of the Eurostat audit he cited as evidence in defense of Mario Draghi’s reputation.

Has justice run its normal course?

Let’s try to understand by looking at a comparable case, the United States, where the financial lobby is nonetheless powerful. The above mentioned settlement with the SEC in July 2011 marked the end of a civil lawsuit that had begun in April 2010.  On 30 April 2011, Reuters reported that federal prosecutors in New York had begun a criminal investigation into other transactions, upon referral by the SEC.  In parallel, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, for short PSI, was investigating the financial crisis. It’s outcome, a bipartisan report, known as the Levin-Coburn report, was released in April 2011.  According to the Wall Street Journal, it asked for bank regulators to examine mortgage-related securities to identify any possible legal violations and use Goldman Sachs as a case study in implementing conflict prohibitions. October 2011, the aforementioned federal investigation, in New York, reportedly materialized with $1bn lawsuit against the bank, using evidence of investment bank abuses from the Levin-Coburn Report: Timberwolf was cited in a scathing U.S. Senate panel report in April that faulted Goldman, Deutsche Bank AG and others for hawking debt they expected to perform poorly..

Is the system of government fundamentally different in Europe, in this respect?  Of course not.  The equivalent of the SEC, in the EU, is the European Securities Markets Authority, for short ESMA, formerly the CESR.   It has only recently been granted enforcement authority known as level 4 of its governing procedure. Yet, it can issue a recommendation to a national authority[to carry out legal action].  To do so, ESMA must first carry out an investigation.  According to the same provision (level 4), the European parliament (Sharon Bowles), or the Commission (Olli Rehn) can request ESMA to get it under way.

The falsification of Greek debt, based on what was said thus far, and the fact that Goldman Sachs did not disclose it (See February 2010 Bloomberg article),  presumably constitutes a fairly obvious breach of their fiduciary duty as a primary dealer—a privileged position in the market.  Is anyone aware of Sharon Bowles or Olli Rehn launching an investigation into this scheme?  Let’s try to find out.

But in view of what precedes, there is reason to suspect that authorities have turned a blind eye to the problem. [referring to the falsification of Greek debt] In October 2011, a new Executive Director of ESMA, Verena Ross, was nominated, with the ECON Committee’s approval.  She gave a keynote speech to that effect in October 2011, in which she laid out her vision of the future focus of the work [of ESMA]. A lot has to do with harmonizing rules and processes across member states [2].  None of it addresses the glaring priority of bringing to justice the suspected perpetrators of financial crime.  If Verena Ross’ speech is to be taken at its word, the future focus of ESMA has a negative connotation:  turn the page and pretend that financial crime never happened.  In fairness, there were reports of a possible probe into this bank’s activities by the UK’s FSA and Bafin in Germany in the first half of 2010, but nothing specific about the falsification of Greek debt that we are aware of.  There was, however, a specific reference to that effect, in the US, by Fed Chairman Bernanke in the same period.   We can’t be certain that these investigations have stalled, or were put to rest.  But in view of what precedes, there is reason to suspect that authorities have turned a blind eye to the problem. Some financial experts allege a broader cynical scheme undertaken by the bank, that is reminiscent of its practices in the subprime crisis.  Essentially, these are hedging and speculative bets using insider knowledge of Greek public finances.   Let’s briefly review the literature.  In February 2010, two authors, Marshal Auerback and L. Randall Wray alleged that From 2001 through November 2009 [...] not only did Goldman and other financial firms help and encourage Greece to take on more debt, they also brokered credit default swaps on Greece’s debt—making income on bets that Greece would default.  No doubt they also took positions as the financial conditions deteriorated—betting on default and driving up CDS spreads. Corroborating evidence and analysis can be found in the following articles, listed in in chronological order : What about Greece and Goldman Sachs (Diplomatic World, Spring 2010), Clearing the air: Goldman Sachs and Greece (Hellenesonline, January 2011) and Goldman bet against entire European nations —who were clients— the same way it bet against its subprime mortgage clients (Washington’s blog, July 2011).



Notes

[1] The masking scheme is the combination of two sets of swaps. In the first set, a currency swap neutralizes Greece’s currency risk resulting from preexisting foreign denominated debt:  In 2001 a series of off-market cross-currency swaps were effectively linked to underlying debt instruments issued on foreign markets. This would have been standard practice, except for this clause:  the contracts were not based on the prevailing spot market rates of exchange [such that] the Greek government debt was de facto [immediately] reduced by EUR 2.4 billion by the conversion process. The second contains off-market interest swaps that are equivalent to a promise by Greece to make a stream of payments to Goldman Sachs.  This second set was designed to offset the gain for Greece resulting from the first set, such that its impact on debt and deficit, we must assume, would be gradual and slow.

0 Comments

January 17th, 2014

1/17/2014

0 Comments

 
SO FAR IT HAS BEEN BERNIE SANDERS AND RUSS FEINGOLD THAT HAVE SHOUTED FOR STRONG BANK REFORM AND JUSTICE IN THESE MASSIVE FRAUDS....SO LET'S GET THEM TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT/VICE-PRESIDENT IN 2016!!!



Did you hear the corporate NPR introduction of Obama's next Wall Street appointment to an agency supposedly protecting the public from economic instability and work for high employment?  What a stellar appointment of a good all-round guy!!!  We all love him!  Now, if you look at the US Federal Reserve as the center of global corporate tribunal rule acting to place massive corporate fraud on steroids and installing policy that keeps the public caught in boom and bust crony and criminal markets losing all their wealth and causing ever-growing levels of unemployment.....ALL MAXIMIZING WEALTH FOR THE FEW---- you see from where this promotion comes. Indeed, Fischer is in fact THAT good ole' boy.  In the days of TPP there is no public sector or US citizens to consider for goodness sake!

For those who know better you'll see below how the Fischer/Bernake/Draghi fit goes with the TROIKA mess that has hold of the US and Europe.  You can follow the money to see his place in the pecking order of moving massive wealth.  Again, we want to thank Anonymous and those hackers that are doing civil disobedience and not stealing people's pin numbers.....hacking to download banking information that is allowing International Journalists to follow the money to off-shore accounts to the tune so far of $35 trillion dollars.  We are getting a great picture of who has the money and where it is so when Rule of Law is reinstated the people of Europe and US will be able to recover the loot and reverse wealth inequity.  THIS IS WHERE FISCHER COMES INTO THE PICTURE.

We all remember when Obama placed Greenspan's deputy and Geithner to head Financial agencies needed by the public to hold banks accountable.  These two where of course in the forefront of allowing the massive frauds to go forward while everyone was shouting MASSIVE AND SYSTEMIC MORTGAGE AND FINANCIAL FRAUD throughout the 2000s.  This is now round two of 'IT'S ABOUT THE GLOBAL TRIBUNAL AS WORLD RULER' politics.
  Yellen has stated she supports all of what Bernanke did so she will be status quo for the US economy and wealth inequity.


For those liking to follow the financial fraud this is the next connection of dots in the revolving door of cronyism.  It is important because as more people see how corrupt this system is, the more people will move to revolution.  Fischer is MIT material tied to Summers and Italy's Draghi.  Draghi is now head of the European ECB.  We all know Summers as Clinton's global market king and MIT is of course farm team for Wall Street.  Fischer's connection with the BAnk of Israel coincides with the exact time Wall Street was moving massive amounts of money off-shore and guess where the top off-shore location was according to International Investigative Journalists using WIKILEAKS hacking download of Wall Street banks showing the movement of $35 trillion dollars?????  ISRAEL WAS ONE TO THE TOP LOCATIONS.  Know why Pope Benedict retired suddenly...Draghi's Italy used the Vatican Bank to move money from NYC through the Vatican.  See the crony?  It is all illegal and it is all documented by International Justice groups!!!!



Obama to nominate Stanley Fischer, 2 others to Federal Reserve seats

By Jim Puzzanghera January 10, 2014, 8:35 a.m. Los Angeles Times



WASHINGTON -- President Obama will nominate Stanley Fischer, the former head of the Bank of Israel, to be vice chair of the Federal Reserve, and also tapped two other people for seats on the central bank's Board of Governors, the White House said Friday.

Lael Brainard, who recently stepped down as Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, was chosen to fill one of the vacant seats on the seven-member Fed board.

And Jerome H. Powell, a former Treasury official and investment banker who has served on the Fed board since 2012, will be renominated. Powell was confirmed to an unexpired term that expires on Jan. 31.

PHOTOS: Federal Reserve chairs through the years

"These three distinguished individuals have the proven experience, judgment and deep knowledge of the financial system to serve at the Federal Reserve during this important time for our economy," Obama said.

The nominations, which had been expected, add to the major changes coming at the Fed as it tries to pull back on its aggressive stimulus efforts without damaging the economic recovery.

Current Vice Chair Janet L. Yellen was confirmed this week to replace Ben S. Bernanke, whose second four-year term as central bank chair expires on Jan. 31. She will lead a different, and potentially more fractious Fed policy-making team.

This month, four new regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents will rotate into the 12 voting positions on the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, which sets monetary policy. All seven Fed governors are voting members.

Friday's disappointing government report showing the economy created just 74,000 net new jobs in December highlighted the difficulties for Fed policymakers. They must decide if the economy is strong enough to continue the reduction started last month in the Fed's bond-buying stimulus program, when most data pointed to an improving labor market.

Fischer, who was governor of the Bank of Israel from 2005-13, is a legendary economist who brings a wealth of experience to the Fed board.

He has worked at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and was vice chairman of Citigroup Inc. from 2002-05.

Fischer was the PhD advisor for outgoing Fed Chair Ben S. Bernanke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fischer also taught European Central Bank President Mario Draghi and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers.

If confirmed by the Senate, Fischer would replace Yellen as the Fed's No. 2 official.

"He is widely acknowledged as one of the world’s leading and most experienced economic policy minds and I’m grateful he has agreed to take on this new role and I am confident that he and Janet Yellen will make a great team," Obama said.

Brainard also brings international experience to the Fed. And she helps close a pending gender gap on the central bank's board. Elizabeth Duke stepped down last year and Sarah Bloom Raskin is awaiting confirmation as deputy Treasury secretary.

If Raskin departs as expected, Yellen would be the only woman remaining on the board.

Obama said Brainard's "knowledge of international monetary and economic issues will be an important addition to the Fed."

Powell served as an assistant secretary and under secretary at the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush.

Fed governors have 14-year terms but rarely serve all of it. Powell is nominated to a full 14-year term. Fischer would fill a term expiring in 2020 and Brainard one expiring in 2026.


_______________________________________________________________________
Below you see nothing has been done with the Financial Reform Bill.  Volcker demanded long ago that his name be taken off of what neo-liberals are pretending are rules that will safeguard the banking system.  NO ONE BELIEVES THAT.  I'v spoken as to the importance of bank capitalization and the fact that most financial experts wanted this to be at least 20%...below you see the TROIKA as will the FED move away from any accountability.  Remember, QE and 0% recapitalized the banks by taking all the most toxic subprime mortgages off the banks accounting and move them to the FED in the trillions of dollars.  THIS IS WHAT CORPORATE NPR CALLS 'THE BANKS/CORPORATIONS ARE HEALTHY NOW'.

Somehow we are getting bank warnings that requiring capital will hurt lending that has yet to happen as they roll in profit and will not happen as the goal is to consolidate all small and regional businesses into these global corporations.


The two issues in financial reform were banks having enough capital to cover leverage and the Glass Steagall separation of bank's money from its consumers....the Volcker Rule was advanced for this. So, capitalization many thought needed to be 20% as it had historically been 70%. When the financial reform debate was hot we were told we would get 8-10% which was a start, but now we see below they are back where it was before the crash....3%. NOT ONE CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE....NOT ONE BIT OF ACCOUNTABILITY.....AND THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEO-LIBERAL PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS.

KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE WRITING MANY  OF THESE LAWS AND CHOOSES TO ENFORCE REGULATIONS OR NOT.  SINCE NEO-LIBERALS CONSIDER TPP A DONE DEAL.....ALL THE POLICY IS ABOUT WHAT MAXIMIZES PROFIT....MORE NAKED CAPITALISM.

What the American people want is a President that appoints people that want the opposite.....more capitalization, more regulation, and more downsizing by recovering tens of trillions of dollars in fraud still owed. 


SO FAR IT HAS BEEN BERNIE SANDERS AND RUSS FEINGOLD THAT HAVE SHOUTED FOR STRONG BANK REFORM AND JUSTICE IN THESE MASSIVE FRAUDS....SO LET'S GET THEM TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT/VICE-PRESIDENT IN 2016!!!

Debt Rule Faces Dilution as Regulators Heed Bank Warnings

By Jim Brunsden Jan 10, 2014 8:05 AM ET

Lenders are poised to win concessions from central bank chiefs and global regulators over a debt limit they criticized as a blunt instrument that would penalize low-risk activities and curtail lending.

A revised leverage-ratio plan is set to be laxer than a draft published last year by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, said a person familiar with the scope of a Jan. 12 meeting of the group’s oversight body at which the measure will be discussed.

Leverage ratios are designed to curb banks’ reliance on debt by setting a minimum standard for how much capital they must hold as a percentage of all assets on their books. A quarter of large global lenders would have failed to meet the draft version of the leverage limit had it been in force at the end of 2012, according to data published by the committee in September.

“I expect considerable change in the rule to defer to applicable national accounting systems,” Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Washington-based research firm Federal Financial Analytics Inc., said in an e-mail. “If the rule in fact doesn’t do this, it will wreak tremendous havoc in securities financing, repo, and other capital-market activities and send them over to the shadows.”

Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said, “My personal view, is that a leverage ratio... Read More

Some supervisors have called for greater use of leverage ratios instead of standard Basel capital requirements, which are measured as a ratio of banks’ equity against risk-weighted assets, because banks are inconsistent in the way they calculate these standards.

Asset Size The draft leverage rule published last year would have required banks to hold capital equivalent to at least 3 percent of their assets, without any possibility to take into account the riskiness of their investments. Stefan Ingves, the Basel committee’s chairman, has said that discussions in the group have focused on calibrating how banks should calculate the size of their assets, as opposed to reopening talks on the 3 percent figure.

“In our view, the final leverage rule will be significantly moderated to avoid it becoming a binding constraint on bank lending activity,” research firm Capital Alpha Partners LLC wrote in a note to clients yesterday.

The “most likely adjustments will be to allow for greater netting for derivatives and securities financing transactions,” according to the note. There is also “a good chance” that regulators will scale back rules on how banks must calculate the size of some off balance sheet commitments, it said.

Stated Intentions The Basel committee declined to comment on the leverage ratio talks.

“Overall and in contrast to publicly stated intentions, a binding leverage ratio may actually encourage increased risk-taking by European banks while at the same time forcing them to cut back on low-risk exposures” such as derivatives used to hedge risk, Jan Schildbach, senior economist at Deutsche Bank Research, said in an e-mail. This would potentially hurt “their clients and the European economy as a whole.”

Global regulators have met for almost 40 years in Basel, Switzerland, to negotiate common standards for supervising the banking system.

The Jan. 12 meeting will be of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, or GHOS, which oversees the committee’s work and is comprised of central bank and regulatory chiefs. The GHOS is led by Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank.

Bank Strength Relying on leverage ratios to assess a bank’s strength wouldn’t be sensible as the measure can easily be influenced and is hard to compare between lenders under different reporting standards, Rabobank Groep Chief Financial Officer Bert Bruggink said in an interview this week.

“For banks reporting under European accounting rules, a leverage ratio of 3 percent or 4 percent is very well defendable,” Bruggink said. “Requiring higher numbers, especially if that’s done with reference to U.S. banks, would be wrong and harmful to the economy.”

Main Item The leverage measure is the main item on the agenda for the GHOS talks, according to two other people familiar with the talks. All three asked not to be identified because the discussions are private.

Under the published Basel timetable, banks will be expected to publicly disclose how well they measure up to the standard from 2015, with the rule to become a binding minimum standard in 2018.

Banks such as BNP Paribas SA (BNP), Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. (C) have called for a rewrite of the draft leverage rule published in June, saying it would adversely affect economic growth and job creation, make it more expensive for governments to sell their debt and give banks incentives to invest in riskier assets.

“The leverage ratio instrument sets the wrong incentives by discriminating against low-risk business, which also accounts for a larger share of European banks’ operations than for U.S. institutions,” Schildbach said. “In addition, in the U.S., a compulsory leverage ratio has been in place for many years already, whereas the Europeans are used to align their business models to a system of risk-weighted capital ratios.”

More Scope Banks have called on the committee to alter the rule by giving lenders more scope to carry out netting, which would allow them to reduce the size of the pool of assets used to calculate the leverage ratio.

Netting is an accounting term describing the process of banks offsetting the value of different assets and liabilities they have taken on with a single counterparty.

Lenders have argued that they should be allowed to net the collateral received on derivatives trades because otherwise the protection they gain wouldn’t be taken into account by the leverage ratio. They have also called for more scope to use netting on securities financing transactions such as repurchase agreements, or repos.

Other requests from banks have included that assets perceived to bear little risk of loss, such as high quality mortgage debt, should be exempted or partially exempted from the leverage ratio calculation.

Playing Field Knowing how the international leverage ratio is defined “is important domestically for a level playing field,” Bank of England Governor Mark Carney told U.K. lawmakers in November, according to a public record of the proceedings.

“My personal view, is that a leverage ratio is an integral part of the capital framework of banks, so it is absolutely necessary,” Carney said.

There is no chance that all high quality assets will be removed from the calculations, Simon Hills, executive director at the British Bankers’ Association, said in a telephone interview.

“The most we can probably hope for on scope is a little movement,” he said. “Our priority is that cash held with central banks should be excluded from the leverage ratio calculations, as well as gilt purchases made as part of central bank monetary policy operations. We think that merits another look.”



__________________________________________________
As corporate NPR and local WYPR pretend they do not know the economy is ready to implode with the same conditions as last time only instead of subprime mortgage fraud in the trillions it will be sovereign and muncipal bond debt that took Europe last crash.  We are over the $600 trillion leverage mark now!

This is why Fischer and Yellen are so important for the global tribunal because they both will use the same system of bailout and coverup that Bernanke and Geithner did in 2007-2008.



Derivatives: The $600 Trillion Time Bomb That's Set to Explode
  • By Keith Fitz-Gerald, Chief Investment Strategist, Money Map Report  ·   October 12, 2011  ·   Print  |   Email
56
    Text sizeA++A+A
Keith Fitz-Gerald Do you want to know the real reason banks aren't lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?

It's because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn't evening out. To the contrary, it's growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States.

In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.

The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).

Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world's top policymakers would have reined these things in by now - but they haven't.

Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market.

Think I'm exaggerating?

The notional value of the world's derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position's assets. This distinction is necessary because when you're talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much as 5, 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.

The world's gross domestic product (GDP) is only about $65 trillion, or roughly 10.83% of the worldwide value of the global derivatives market, according to The Economist. So there is literally not enough money on the planet to backstop the banks trading these things if they run into trouble.

Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody even knows if the $600 trillion figure is accurate, because specialized derivatives vehicles like the credit default swaps that are now roiling Europe remain largely unregulated and unaccounted for.

Tick...Tick...Tick To be fair, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimated the net notional value of uncollateralized derivatives risks is between $2 trillion and $8 trillion, which is still a staggering amount of money and well beyond the billions being talked about in Europe.

Imagine the fallout from a $600 trillion explosion if several banks went down at once. It would eclipse the collapse of Lehman Brothers in no uncertain terms.

A governmental default would panic already anxious investors, causing a run on several major European banks in an effort to recover their deposits. That would, in turn, cause several banks to literally run out of money and declare bankruptcy.

Short-term borrowing costs would skyrocket and liquidity would evaporate. That would cause a ricochet across the Atlantic as the institutions themselves then panic and try to recover their own capital by withdrawing liquidity by any means possible.

And that's why banks are hoarding cash instead of lending it.

The major banks know there is no way they can collateralize the potential daisy chain failure that Greece represents. So they're doing everything they can to stockpile cash and keep their trading under wraps and away from public scrutiny.

What really scares me, though, is that the banks

think this is an acceptable risk because the odds of a default are allegedly smaller than one in 10,000.

But haven't we heard that before?

Although American banks have limited their exposure to Greece, they have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to European banks and European governments that may not be capable of paying them back.

According to the Bank of International Settlements, U.S. banks have loaned only $60.5 billion to banks in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy - the countries most at risk of default. But they've lent $275.8 billion to French and German banks.

And undoubtedly bet trillions on the same debt.

There are three key takeaways here:

  • There is not enough capital on hand to cover the possible losses associated with the default of a single counterparty - JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), BNP Paribas SA (PINK: BNPQY) or the National Bank of Greece (NYSE ADR: NBG) for example - let alone multiple failures.
  • That means banks with large derivatives exposure have to risk even more money to generate the incremental returns needed to cover the bets they've already made.
  • And the fact that Wall Street believes it has the risks under control practically guarantees that it doesn't.
Seems to me that the world's central bankers and politicians should be less concerned about stimulating "demand" and more concerned about fixing derivatives before this $600 trillion time bomb goes off.


__________________________________________________
Corporate NPR/APM likes to tell us that the world's economy is getting better now that looted money has made it to offshore accounts and austerity in Europe and US has the public filling the $17 trillion whole in the national deficit caused by the massive frauds.  The free money and QE has moved most of the US real estate into the hands of these huge investment firms now controlling development and soaking people with rents and slum-landlording.  YES, THIS IS INDEED THE NEW ECONOMY!!!

So, as Americans pray the TPP nations that signed the treaty can bring down their governments to end the TPP......and as we pray that the Atlantic Trade deal will fall because of loss of trust created by the NSA exposure and Europe's farm/environment issues that will not bend to US naked capitalism.....this we know:

Europeans are not all rosy and cheerily agreeing to austerity and TROIKA rule and the dismantling of their social programs and labor unions contracts.  In fact the move for dismantling the Euro is far stronger and Wall Street knows that the shock from this default will be traumatic to the world and US economy.  What is happening in Spain, Wall Street's favorite nation following TROIKA orders as you see below is a return of Fascism to Spain.  Global corporate tribunals will be totalitarianism and while Americans have not known this personally and this is why we are slow to fight.....

EUROPEANS HAVE ALL OF THIS AUTOCRACY IN RECENT MEMORY AND THEY WILL NOT ALLOW IT TO CREEP!  That's why the NSA scandal was so important, it is why attempts to pass laws limiting protest and political speech happening in the US will not fly in Europe.  Remember, it was Germany/DeutscheBank and Wall Street/Goldman Sachs that started this full fledged attack on social governments over the decade and it started with fraudulent financial instruments hiding sovereign debt and then loading these countries with tremendous municipal debt.  Europeans know this dynamic and will not join a European union with Germany leading the TROIKA and the UK fat on massive financial fraud on top!  As we see the PIIGS nations have been made IMF developing world wards with this massive fraud and attack on their sovereignty!

What does that mean to you and me?  It means that all the US pensions and municipal bonds that are now propping up these European nations under attack by the TROIKA will default and just as with these same US pensions./municipal bonds sent into the stock market to prop up the Wall Street banks in 2007 losing 1/2 their value to fraud.....it is about to happen big time sometime soon and your politician, your pension fund manager knows this!  With the amount of debt Wall Street has....$600 trillion in leveraged debt, the FED has several trillion in leveraged debt, the US Federal debt of $17 trillion, and local credit bond and municipal debt soaking local budgets-----


THIS WILL BE A DEPRESSION-MAKER JUST AS WE HEAD INTO 2014 ELECTION YEAR.  REMEMBER OBAMA ELECTED JUST AS THE LAST CRASH HIT?  WE WILL HEAR ALL POLICY AGAIN SURROUNDING BAILING OUT THE ECONOMY.

This is where Obama's Federal Reserve appointments come into play as the same system of bailouts and protection from fraud happen all over!!

The EU is a new form of colonialism – it’s time to break free

Posted by revoltingeurope ⋅ January 14, 2014 ⋅ 


Spain has a future but it means breaking with the Eurozone and EU institutions, argue Hector Illueca and Adoración Guamán

The economic crisis affecting our country and the austerity policies imposed by the troika (European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund) are leading to an increasingly evident social fracture. Astonished citizens observe the degradation of everyday life and the tolerance of abuses of power by the most privileged in the country. The deterioration of the material conditions of an increasingly wide social majority comes accompanied by grave corruption scandals that have infected the political and economic elites, shining a light on a society in which injustice and inequality are ever more entrenched.

In this context, the dream of European integration has become a nightmare of a brutal present and a bleak future. Citizens have been quite deliberately served up a false, ideological and idyllic image of the European Union, with the media projecting a mythical vision quite removed from reality: the truth is that the European Union completely alien to the principles of cohesion and solidarity collaborative solidarity and has become a sort of German hunting ground where strong economies exploit their economic and commercial advantages to crush the weak economies. This is a European Union governed by the law of the jungle .


However, the severity of the economic situation and declining well-being has cast aside the veil and the inhabitants of the periphery are starting to understand that they are victims of a new settlement. It is increasingly difficult to hide that the introduction of the euro has led to a centre-periphery relationship within the European Union, where the North dominates the South. It is no longer possible to deny that the single currency has benefited Germany and the other rich countries of Europe, strengthening their position in the European scheme as net exporters of capital goods and consumption, and net importers of overall demand.

To put it plainly and simply: economic and monetary union has allowed the core countries, especially Germany, to accumulate growing trade surpluses in Europe, blocking any possibility of competitive devaluation and fuelling a radical redistribution of work to the detriment of the less powerful economies of the Mediterranean basin. Strong core countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, increase their competitiveness, retain their national sovereignty and finance their welfare states due to loss of competitiveness and the destruction of sovereignty and welfare in the European periphery.

The new European division of labour

Spanish workers, along with workers in other peripheral economies, have become a reservoir of low cost labour. As noted by others, the process of European integration has created a new international division of labour, fuelling colonialist dynamics characterized by German hegemony and the subordination of peripheral [1 ] economies. This is what explains why state control over the market and the protection of social rights are being dismantled according to the dictates of economic and monetary union.

When this process clashes with state provisions in social policy, peripheral states adapt their welfare systems, always, to be clear, reducing the protection of labour and social rights. Social dumping has not only not been challenged, but it has been fostered, placing labour regulation as a competitive factor and triggering a fierce regulatory Darwinism to reduce labour standards and social protection.

SOUND FAMILIAR?????  SAME THING HAPPENING IN THE US!!!

The new European division of labour explains and promotes the progressive destruction of state -sponsored social models desired by the Troika and which is immediately apparent in two key areas: the flexibility of labour markets (in particular, lowering the protection for stabile employment and cutting the cost of labour) and the reduction of welfare, in particular social security systems (reducing pensions, health care reforms, etc. . ) .

Its influence is also evident in the education reform in Spain pursued by Minister Wert, reforms which are also sponsored by European institutions, which guide the educational system towards the formation of cheap labour and providing the knowledge needed to deal appropriately with the garbage that characterizes the labour market in underdeveloped countries. The dependent and peripheral position of our economy in the European scheme is radically incompatible with the existence of public pensions, education and public health and a fair and decent job market.

By accepting the dictates of the Troika, the ruling classes of the peripheral countries show their inability to take an independent path for their respective countries and seal a relationship of subordination and dependence similar to that which occurs in the process of classic colonization, characterized by the systematic dispossession of peripheral economies and the exploitation of its workers. We must not forget that they are the ruling classes of the Member States which have built and paid for this European Union model, under whose untouchable legitimacy the most unpopular and tough reforms have sheltered. The undermining of the bargaining position of the unions is the price of the treacherous collusion of the elites of the deficit countries in forging a strong and stable alliance with the German bourgeoisie to impose a new political and social order throughout Europe.

More Europe?

In this context, it is surprising that certain sectors of the Spanish and European left insist on reforming the eurozone as a solution to the current social and economic emergency. With something of a Panglossian air, they invoke the need for “more Europe” , denounce the fragmentation of fiscal policy and the criticise the ECB for providing ample liquidity to banks while abandoning indebted member states to face speculative attacks.

They propose the abolition of the Stability Pact, the creation of a fiscal authority and amendments to the statutes of the ECB to enable loans to governments experiencing difficulties. In a burst of ingenuity, they even speak of a “good euro” in which one could establish a European minimum wage to reduce the competitiveness differentials between countries.

This is an illusion that for decades has paralyzed much of the left and the labour movement and blocked the construction of an alternative at the service of the masses of our country. The euro area lacks a single European state and there is no expectation that one will be created in the near future. The unification of fiscal policy would mean a complete restructuring of sovereignty throughout the European Union, constructed from a strict hierarchy of states and a careful calculation of national interests, and would require a consensus that will not occur.

Any possible reform would follow the existing hierarchy of power, characterized by the dominance of the countries of the centre and especially Germany. To be exact, the euro has been the means to build the hegemony of German capital, which has inexorably imposed itself on the European stage and prevents the possibility of implementing a programme that meets the needs of the social majority.

Time for a break

In our opinion, any political agenda that seeks to actually break with neoliberalism, even in a reformist direction, should seriously consider euro exit. As noted by Costas Lapavitsas [2 ] , the only progressive answer for our people is to leave the euro zone and regain control of sovereignty in the context of a radical shift in economic and social power to labour.


This strategy must start with the default on sovereign debt and extends to a euro exit to allow our country to escape the cataclysm of internal devaluation imposed by the European Union. Our country has a future, but a decent future will necessarily mean breaking with this Europe and the European institutions.
0 Comments

January 15th, 2014

1/15/2014

0 Comments

 
Regarding more leaks on TPP:

PROFIT OVER PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS ELIMINATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE!!!!!! THIS IS WHAT THE TPP WILL PLACE ON STEROIDS!!!!!


TPP is all about law written in a way that policy always leads to maximize corporate profits and as the US becomes a third world wasteland with raw energy resources killing the environment right here in the US,.....we know that neo-liberals working with corporations to write these treaties have no intention of allowing environmental justice into the picture. Yet, neo-liberals like O'Malley always claim they are an environmental candidate!!!! See that progressive bone being tossed?

RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES!

Administration Is Seen as Retreating on Environment in Talks on Pacific Trade Pact

By CORAL DAVENPORTJAN. 15, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is retreating from previous demands of strong international environmental protections in order to reach agreement on a sweeping Pacific trade deal that is a pillar of President Obama’s strategic shift to Asia, according to documents obtained by WikiLeaks, environmentalists and people close to the contentious trade talks.

The negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would be one of the world’s biggest trade agreements, have exposed deep rifts over environmental policy between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. As it stands now, the documents, viewed by The New York Times, show that the disputes could undo key global environmental protections.

The environmental chapter of the trade deal has been among the most highly disputed elements of negotiations in the pact. Participants in the talks, which have dragged on for three years, had hoped to complete the deal by the end of 2013.

Environmentalists said that the draft appears to signal that the United States will retreat on a variety of environmental protections — including legally binding pollution control requirements and logging regulations and a ban on harvesting sharks’ fins — to advance a trade deal that is a top priority for Mr. Obama.

Launch media viewer Michael Froman, the United States trade representative, said, “We’re pushing hard.” Stephen Crowley/The New York Times Ilana Solomon, the director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program, said the draft omits crucial language ensuring that increased trade will not lead to further environmental destruction.

“It rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts of free-trade agreements are,” Ms. Solomon said. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund have been following the negotiations closely and are expected to release a report on Wednesday criticizing the draft.

American officials countered that they had put forward strong environmental proposals in the pact.

“It is an uphill battle, but we’re pushing hard,” said Michael Froman, the United States trade representative. “We have worked closely with the environmental community from the start and have made our commitment clear.” Mr. Froman said he continued to pursue a robust, enforceable environmental standard that he said would be stronger than those in previous free-trade agreements.

The draft documents are dated Nov. 24 and there has been one meeting since then.

The documents consist of the environmental chapter as well as a “Report from the Chairs,” which offers an unusual behind-the-scenes look into the divisive trade negotiations, until now shrouded in secrecy. The report indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties.

But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.

The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights, and bluntly notes the rifts: “While the chair sought to accommodate all the concerns and red lines that were identified by parties regarding the issues in the text, many of the red lines for some parties were in direct opposition to the red lines expressed by other parties.”

As of now, the draft environmental chapter does not require the nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties. The text notes only, for example, that pollution controls could vary depending on a country’s “domestic circumstances and capabilities.”

In addition, the draft does not contain clear requirements for a ban on shark finning, which is the practice of capturing sharks and cutting off their fins — commonly used in shark-fin soup — and throwing back the sharks to die. The dish is a delicacy in many of the Asian negotiating countries. At this point the draft says that the countries “may include” bans “as appropriate” on such practices.

Earlier pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement included only appendices, which called for cooperation on environmental issues but not legally binding terms or requirements. Environmentalists derided them as “green window dressing.”

But in May 2007, President George W. Bush struck an environmental deal with Democrats in the Senate and the House as he sought to move a free-trade agreement with Peru through Congress. In what became known as the May 10 Agreement, Democrats got Mr. Bush to agree that all American free-trade deals would include a chapter with environmental provisions, phrased in the same legally binding language as chapters on labor, agriculture and intellectual property. The Democrats also insisted that the chapter require nations to recognize existing global environmental treaties.

Since then, every American free-trade deal has included that strong language, although all have been between the United States and only one other country. It appears to be much tougher to negotiate environmental provisions in a 12-nation agreement.

“Bilateral negotiations are a very different thing,” said Jennifer Haverkamp, the former head of the United States trade representative’s environmental office. “Here, if the U.S. is the only one pushing for this, it’s a real uphill battle to get others to agree if they don’t like it.”

But business groups say the deal may need to ease up. “There are some governments with developing economies that will need more time and leeway,” said Cal Cohen, president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, a group of about 100 executives and trade associations that lobbies the United States trade negotiator on the deal. “When you think about the evolution of labor provisions, you realize how many centuries the development of high standards took.”

Since the trade talks began, lawmakers and advocacy groups have assailed the negotiators for keeping the process secret, and WikiLeaks has been among the most critical voices. The environment chapter is the third in a series of Trans-Pacific Partnership documents released by WikiLeaks. In November, the group posted the draft chapter on intellectual property. In December, the site posted documents detailing disagreements between the negotiating parties on other issues. The site is expected to release more documents as the negotiations unfold.

_________________________________________

This shows how corrupt Maryland is .......it is unbelivable.  Here is a corporation wanting to build a natural gas terminal being given a tax credit and a green light.  Also, here we see again, labor is backing this deal because they are desperate for jobs probably not knowing how much it will impact their members as the price of natural gas soars and their communities are open as fair game for fracking sites that kill these communities.


So, we have a neo-liberal working to build fracking and natural gas as a global exporting market for the US because to save it for domestic use only depresses the price and profit for natural gas corporations.  As with gas at the pump that goes sky-high and is deliberately being pushed higher in price so fewer people drive.....as with BGE/Exelon merger that has a rate increase that will double the rates for electricity as Exelon has a billion dollar a year profit-margin....labor leaders are pushing to move natural gas into the same money-soaking category for the citizens of Maryland all because it will create some jobs for a few years.

Now, I am not blaming labor as much as the neo-liberals because neo-liberals are deliberately making the job market so tight that people are desperate and give up all their rights and benefits to work.  THAT IS THE REASON MARYLAND IS THE MOST CORPORATE OF STATES AND THE HIGHEST IN INCOME INEQUITY.


Board OKs tax credit pact with Dominion Prince Frederick, MD - 11/6/2013



By Marty Madden

  Janet Ashby opted to spend her remaining allotted time in meditation during a public hearing when the county commissioners declined to answer her question


While their presence at a previous public hearing affecting the Dominion Cove Point Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Plant’s expansion plan was mainly as observers, several members of local labor unions stepped up to the plate Tuesday, Nov. 5 to voice support for the project. The public hearing issue this time was a proposal from the Calvert County Commissioners to grant a tax credit and accept a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) from the utility.

In addition to labor’s backing, the plan to add a LNG export component to the Lusby plant received the endorsement of three state lawmakers—two verbally and another via letter.

“We have hundreds of carpenters living in Calvert County,” said labor representative Hank Sorenson, who added the workers “want and need” a major project in their home county.

Electrical workers union representative Steve Zimmerman of Owings said the monetary windfall is needed both by laborers and county government. “We can’t afford to keep losing this money, this revenue,” said Zimmerman.

“There are people hurting,” said Delegate Mark N. Fisher [R-District 27B]. “We have a golden opportunity.”

Both Fisher and Delegate Anthony J. “Tony” O’Donnell [R-District 29C] encouraged the commissioners to not earmark the additional revenue generated by the Cove Point expansion project for new initiatives but rather toward tax breaks for local businesses and property owners.

Earlier in the hearing, County Attorney John Norris read into the record a letter of support from Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. [D-District 27]. “This is a tremendous opportunity for the county,” stated Miller, who observed the Cove Point expansion project would be a larger construction effort than the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge or the Ravens Stadium in Baltimore.

“We have been given due diligence to this project for a long, long time,” said O’Donnell. “Left and right, Rs and Ds, there’s some merit here. This is going to be a big benefit to future generations.”

As they did a week earlier, project opponents also weighed in and again leveled criticism on the county commissioners for their support of Dominion’s plan. County resident Ken Pritchard said the board was about to approve “a sizable welfare check to corporate giant Dominion.

Cove Point Beach resident June Sevilla said the deal with Dominion came with “no re-numeration to citizens for toxic air and water pollution.” Sevilla accused Dominion of dumping chemicals into the Cove Point Marsh and added the liquefaction process “is a lot more toxic. The safety issue and the homeland security issue are real.”

“The Calvert County Commissioners have truly become Santa Claus for Dominion and Scrooges to the rest of us,” said Cove of Calvert resident Jean Marie Neal. She labeled the proceedings “a tax giveaway hearing. Dominion should pay its full tax responsibility just as we do.”

Another project opponent, Janet Ashby, asked the commissioners “what’s the rush?” When Commissioners President Pat Nutter [R] explained the public hearing was not a time for the board to answer questions, Ashby said she would use her remaining time to meditate. The room fell silent until Ashby’s time expired.

When the testimony was over, the county commissioners were ready to have their say.

“Dominion has proven itself to be a good neighbor,” said Commissioner Evan K. Slaughenhoupt Jr. [R]. “In the end it [project] is going to benefit all citizens of Calvert County.”

Noting the clamor among project skeptics to impel the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to conduct an environmental impact study instead of an environmental assessment, Commissioner Susan Shaw [R] recalled Dominion’s pipeline expansion project during the latter part of the last decade. “FERC took it extremely seriously,” said Shaw. “A complete environmental impact study was done. The environmental assessment is an update of the environmental impact study.”

Shaw said the PILOT and tax credit proposal “is a significant tax benefit because it takes the pressure off the homeowners. We got the best deal from Dominion we could get.”

“I support this project 100 percent,” said Commissioner Gerald W. “Jerry” Clark [R], who conceded the three-year construction project at the plant was likely to pose “an inconvenience” for some county residents. “We will minimize the traffic, environmental and health impacts.”

Commissioner Steven R. Weems [R] suggested the board consider establishing an “expansion advisory committee” to discuss the construction project’s challenges.

The commissioners subsequently voted unanimously to approve the ordinance amendment implementing the tax credit and PILOT authority. According to a county government memo, highlights of the pact are:

1. In fiscal year 2018 the county will receive $25 million before the new equipment is taxable. This represents consideration for entering into the agreement.

2. Dominion Cove Point LLC will begin making payments on the expansion equipment when placed in service pursuant to a PILOT agreement. The PILOT will be five years in duration.

3. The PILOT locks in existing equipment value at $15.1 million for the duration of the PILOT; the value of the existing equipment was projected to decline.

4. The tax credit would begin upon expiration of the PILOT, providing a 42-percent tax credit, versus the requested 50 percent requested by the Company, on new and repurposed equipment for the next nine years.

”We think it’s our fair share of taxes,” said Dominion spokesman Dan Donovan following the hearing. Donovan also indicated Dominion would be involved in improvements to Cove Point Road.

The proposed project is still in the permit obtainment stage. When the final permit is issued Dominion will then need to submit an implementation plan to FERC.

Contact Marty Madden at marty.madden@thebaynet.com


________________________________________________
I am pleading with labor unions and justice organizations working for jobs to not allow neo-liberals making it hard to find jobs press you into these policies that are very, very, very very bad for you and your families in the longer run.  Fracking is the worst for communities, for family health, for exploding the cost of natural gas.

NEO-LIBERALS ARE USING LABOR TO PUSH BAD LEGISLATION!!!!!





Battles Escalate Over Community Efforts to Ban Fracking Obama's trip to fracking territory underscores the controversy. Protesters converged on Dimock, Pennsylvania, in 2011 over the effects of fracking on residents' water. Now an increasing number of communities are seeking to ban fracking outright, sparking court battles.

Photograph by Nina Berman/NOOR/Redux

Joe Eaton

For National Geographic

Published August 22, 2013

As President Obama visits upstate New York and northeastern Pennsylvania this week to discuss his education agenda, a separate issue looms large in the background: fracking, a practice that has transformed Pennsylvania's economy and divided New York, where a moratorium is in place.



Protesters on both sides of the issue are expected to greet the President. And while his trip highlights many unresolved issues related to America's new wealth of natural gas and oil, a growing number of communities are taking matters into their own hands. (Vote: "How Has Fracking Changed Our Future?")

From New York to New Mexico, more than 100 municipalities have passed fracking bans or temporary moratoriums, according to FracTracker, a nonprofit organization that compiles data on the oil and gas industry. The bans often put communities in direct conflict with states over the right to regulate the oil and gas industry. (See related story: "Health Questions Key to New York Fracking Decision, but Answers Scarce.")

A Far-Reaching Debate

At first glance, New Mexico's Mora County seems an unlikely battleground in the fight over fracking, which involves injecting wells with millions of gallons of water and chemicals to release trapped oil and gas.

Located in a rural northern part of the state, the county has fewer than 5,000 citizens, vast tracts of open land, and an unemployment rate nearly twice the national average. Still, despite its need for jobs and economic development, Mora County in May became perhaps the first county in the United States to ban fracking on its land. (See related quiz: "What You Don't Know About Natural Gas.")

John Olivas, chairman of the Mora County Commission, said the ban stems from fear that fracking might harm water wells, which have flowed despite several recent summers of severe drought. "When you talk about an industry affecting our water, that is really all we have," Olivas said.

Many states across the country are in the midst of an energy boom propelled in large part by advanced drilling technologies, which allow companies to access oil and gas that could not be reached in the past. As drillers move into new frontiers, communities concerned over the health, safety, and environmental impact of fracking are passing strict regulations, moratoria, and outright bans, which often wind up in court. It's a trend experts expect will escalate. (See related story: "Natural Gas Nation: EIA Sees U.S. Future Shaped by Fracking.")

"I think we will see more municipalities and communities trying to ban fracking," said Sorrell Negro, a land use attorney in Connecticut who wrote an influential 2012 paper on the topic. In the past, drilling took place mainly on rural land, Negro said, but new technologies and recent shale discoveries have brought drilling into more densely populated areas.

"You are having places like the city of Dallas that have to decide if they are going to allow it in the city boundaries," Negro said. "These issues just have not come up before."

The trend of community bans has the oil and gas industry on edge. "This is an industry that operates on certainty," said Reid Porter, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute. "When you are looking at the planning necessary to make these investments in communities, it's necessary to know what the regulations are."

Industry representatives say drilling takes years of planning and millions of dollars of investment before the trucks arrive. If a local government has authority to ban drilling or enact regulations that make it too costly or cumbersome, drillers say it puts that investment at risk.

"The ability [of municipal governments] to change policy quickly would not elicit any sort of confidence," said Steve Forde, vice president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a trade association that represents energy companies targeting natural gas deposits in the 48,000-square-mile shale formation underneath New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, and West Virginia. The Marcellus shale contains by far the largest known deposits of natural gas in the United States, and has turned the states where it is located into test cases for local control over fracking. (See related blog post: "In Virginia, a Tug of War Persists Over a National Forest Atop Shale Gas Reserves.")

What's unclear is how far energy companies are willing to go to protect their interests. Industry giants ExxonMobil and BP declined to comment on the issue, referring calls to industry trade associations. Shaun Goho, a lecturer and environmental law expert at Harvard Law School, said he expects industry will continue to push states to limit municipal regulation of fracking. "They want the states to handle it as much as possible," Goho said, "not local governments, and not the federal government."

Legal Uncertainty

State laws vary on the authority of local governments to regulate oil and gas development. In 2012, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed statewide standards for oil and gas zoning, preempting the rights of municipalities to ban drilling or regulate where wells are sited. A handful of towns challenged the law and won in lower courts. The issue is currently before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. (See related series: "The Great Shale Gas Rush.")

Since 2008, New York has enforced a statewide fracking moratorium while it prepares state regulations. In the meantime, several municipalities have passed bans and moratoria. In May, a mid-level New York appeals court ruled in favor of Dryden and Middlefield, two small upstate New York towns that banned fracking, affirming lower court decisions. Norse Energy, which has since filed for bankruptcy, had sued Dryden over its fracking ban.

Tom West, an Albany attorney who represents Norse Energy in the case, asked the state's high court to review the ruling. West said communities that ban drilling after energy companies buy leases will likely face further legal challenges. "Municipalities will have to think long and hard about that," West said, adding that he would recommend both that landowners and companies sue to protect the value of their mineral rights.

Deborah Goldberg, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest environmental law firm that represents Dryden, said the case tests the rights of communities in the state to determine their future. "They are asking for the right to develop a well anywhere," Goldberg said of Norse Energy. "If they want to go in next to a school, they go in next to a school. If they want to go in next to a hospital, they go in next to a hospital, regardless of what the zoning says."

Battles over fracking are also brewing far from the Marcellus Shale, in western states including Colorado. In December, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association filed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn a fracking ban passed by voters in Longmont, a city of 85,000 northeast of Boulder. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper's administration joined the lawsuit on the side of the drillers. In May, the Fort Collins City Council overturned its fracking ban, reportedly over concern over possible industry legal action, according to the Boulder Journal.

Stan Dempsey, president of the Colorado Petroleum Association, said in most cases Colorado fracking bans are little more than symbolic gestures in communities that have little or no energy development. In Longmont, for example, Dempsey said there was only one drilling operator. Nonetheless, Dempsey said, the industry spent $500,000 to influence the vote in Longmont and will continue to take cases to court.

"All of these communities are going to be sued for taking someone's mineral interests from them," Dempsey said. "I think it's a bit hypocritical for communities saying 'not in my backyard,' but we want the energy in our tanks and we want natural gas to heat our homes. I think so much of the opposition  [to hydraulic fracturing] is really about opposing the development of fossil fuels. They don't want any more fossil fuel development, period."

As new technologies allow energy companies to target shale they were unable to drill in the past, experts say the legal challenges over fracking might be only beginning. The next battlefield may be in California, where drillers are eyeing the massive Monterey shale. The 1,750-square-mile formation in central and southern California is believe to contain double the oil of the Bakken shale, which made North Dakota into the second largest producer of oil behind Texas. (See related story: "Monterey Shale Shakes up California's Energy Future")

Because of the unique geology of the Monterey shale, it is unclear whether hydraulic fracturing would be an effective tool for oil production. After several recent legislative bills to halt fracking in California failed, activists started petition drives to block drilling in several cities and counties. If the activism leads to bans, industry watchers expect they will be tested in state courts.

This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge.





______________________________________________

As an American being forced to watch US media show images of water on fire from methane, ground water made brackish and undrinkable, earthquakes, and devastating pipeline oil spills all involving natural gas drilling......ARE WE STILL LIVING IN A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY? A SECOND WORLD COUNTRY? HOW ABOUT A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY? That's where we are with neo-liberals. You see, when a country resorts to being an energy exporter allowing all kinds of environmental damage all for profits.....your have reached third world Nigerian status.

THIS IS WHAT TPP INTENDS TO PLACE ON STEROIDS AND IS WHY ALL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DISAPPEARS AND SOME ACADEMIC RESEARCH HIDES THE FACTS.

Look at how a first world country approaches the raping of its environment for profit! Maryland Governor O'Malley and Maryland Assembly leaders are big backers of Maryland as an export terminal knowing exporting places fracking on steroids.



France upholds ban on fracking over fears of environmental damage, despite country's huge shale gas reserves
By Peter Allen

PUBLISHED: 06:47 EST, 11 October 2013 | UPDATED: 06:55 EST, 11 October 2013



France today upheld its nationwide ban on fracking due to fears the process may cause long-term environmental damage.

The move follows a number of high-profile protests against the practice in Britain, where energy firms have been allowed to undergo exploratory drilling.

Fracking involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the ground at high pressure to crack shale rock holding oil and gas reserves deep underground.


Anti-fracking campaigners stage a protest at Balcombe, West Sussex, due to fears over an exploratory oil drilling plant



But despite efforts by US company Scheupbach Energy (SE) to start drilling into France's plentiful reserves, the country's Constitutional Court today upheld a 2011 moratorium on the process.

Socialist president Francois Hollande is opposed to fracking, based on the legal concept of ‘precaution’.

He supports environmentalists who link the practice with a range of problems, including pollution and minor earthquakes.

 
Marc Fornacciari, SE’s barrister, told the Paris court that ‘there is not a single study showing that fracking presents the slightest risk.’


The Dallas-based company tried to convince the Constitutional Court that the 2011 ban was discriminatory. But Thierry-Xavier Girardot, for the French government, argued the environmental dangers of fracking were ‘sufficiently acknowledged’ to justify a ban.


SE's permit to explore shale reserves in Aveyron and Ardeche in the south of France have been revoked, and the new ruling confirms this.


Police officers escort a vehicle past anti fracking protestors at Balcombe in Sussex



Anti-fracking protesters set up a camp near Balcombe, West Sussex, over the summer as energy firm Cuadrilla drilled for oil.


Cuadrilla has now submitted new plans to carry out 'flow tests' to determine the rate of extraction at the well after test-drilling found oil in rock samples.

Fracking has revolutionised the energy industry in the USA, despite the huge amounts of water that have to be transported to a fracking site, at huge environmental cost.


There are also fears that potentially carcinogenic chemicals can escape and contaminate groundwater around the fracking site. Two small earthquakes of 1.5 and 2.2 magnitude hit the Blackpool area in 2011 following fracking.

A test drilling site for shale gas near Banks on the outskirts of Southport, Lancashire, UK



Environmental campaigners further argue that fracking is preventing energy firms and governments from investing in renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels.


Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth said: ‘We need a 21st century energy revolution based on efficiency and renewables, not more fossil fuels that will add to climate change.’

0 Comments

January 14th, 2014

1/14/2014

0 Comments

 
The ancient playwright Sophocles could not have written a political satire more robust than Maryland's current comedy/tragedy politics.  Maryland's 1% say-----this is no failure----we moved hundreds of millions of dollars to the connected people we chose!



THERE IS GOOD NEWS FROM THE FAILURE OF MARYLAND HEALTH SYSTEM DESIGNED TO END FEDERAL PROGRAMS MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND PUBLIC SECTOR HEALTH PLANS.....PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO SEE THE DAMAGE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT DOES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEY ALL NOW WANT EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL!

Do you hear your political pundit, labor and justice organization,or incumbent shouting out all of what I have been  saying about the Affordable CAre Act for 4 years?  Well, they knew what I knew and they were not working for you and me!

As I have said there are well-developed plans already developed for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.  Any politician could run for Governor of Maryland and simply use existing policy and planning to implement.  Do not allow neo-liberals to tell you it can't be done because simply building oversight into Medicare health system will end 1/2 of expenditures just by ending fraud and profiteering!  This neo-liberals have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars developing this private system simply to make health care a global profit-maximizing industry and WE WILL TAKE IT BACK!!!!


I would like to end this session on health care reform with a reminder of how the State of Maryland moves to Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.


Still think the plan was not to end Medicare and Medicaid as Federal programs by sending them all to state health systems that dismantle all Federal protections for public health?

Private health plans have no intention of coming into these exchanges because they are well on their way to going global with the deregulation of the Affordable Care Act they will be just as unaccountable as Wall Street and just as criminal and corrupt.  What you see are private companies being created under the guise of private non-profits like EVERGREEN owned and run by Johns Hopkins under Beilenson.  So, these private non-profits will end up with all of Medicare, Medicaid, and public sector health plans ending these Federal programs and with deregulations and not public health protections....health care for most will become charity work if these people have their way.


ALL ACROSS THE  COUNTRY THE MOST HEALTH ACCOUNTS BEING CREATED ARE FOR MEDICAID....AS IN MARYLAND.



Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 8:28 AM EST -

63 percent of RI insurance sign-ups for Medicaid 63 percent of insurance sign-ups during first 3 months of HealthSource RI were for Medicaid

By Erika Niedowski, Associated Press 16 hours ago

HealthSource RI said that 11,770 individuals enrolled in commercial plans between Oct. 1, when the marketplace opened, and Jan. 4. The state Health and Human Services office said 19,941 enrolled in Medicaid during the same period.

Of those who enrolled for private coverage, 9,902 have paid and had coverage begin this month, according to HealthSource RI.

The marketplace, sometimes known as an exchange, also released new demographic data that show who is using it and what type of coverage they are choosing.

One-third of individual private-plan enrollees are 55 and older; 23 percent are 18 to 34. The overwhelming majority of those who signed up chose a Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island plan. Fifty-six percent chose a "silver" plan over bronze, gold and platinum.

Eighty-seven percent are receiving some kind of subsidies for the coverage.

It's not clear how many of those who enrolled in private plans were previously uninsured.

Most Americans are now required to have health insurance under the federal Affordable Care Act, or pay a penalty. There are more than 120,000 uninsured in Rhode Island in a population of just over 1 million.

The state has not publicly released enrollment targets for the first sign-up period, but the U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services set a goal of 5,640 enrollments in Rhode Island by Dec. 31 and 12,000 by March 31.

HealthSource RI also reported Monday that 75 small businesses have enrolled, representing 530 employees. The state is putting a lot of emphasis on getting small businesses to sign up.

The marketplace is offering 12 individual plans and 16 small-group plans in 2014.

The deadline to pay for coverage beginning Jan. 1 already passed, but open enrollment is continuing through March 31. The next deadline to select and pay for a plan is Jan. 23.

________________________________________

Did you know that HUMANA is a private health plan that seeks to draw seniors out of the public Medicare by front-loading these plans with perks but in the longer term will undermine this strong Federal program and it is deliberate?

If people understand what Maryland's Medicare exemption from Federal oversight means you will see why Hopkins is tied with a private senior health care corporation.  Hopkins' goal in health policy is to maximize health profits and when they requests these exemptions from Medicare they are telling us they are making Medicare more cost effective.  What they are doing is creating the tiered system of payments to Medicare patients and procedures that has systematically made Maryland's hospitals the worst in the nation as far as quality care and performance.  Just finished surgery on you leg under anesthesia and still haven't fully woken from this procedure after a few hours?


TOO BAD BECAUSE YOUR TIME IS UP AND YOU ARE OUT THE DOOR.  WHAT???  NO ONE AT HOME TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE NO ILL EFFECTS FROM THE SURGERY?  HIRE A HOME HEALTH PERSON TO COME SIT WITH YOU ---YOUR TIME IS UP HERE IN MEDSTAR!!!!


We had surgery and implanted a steel plate for your broken bone that once simply had a cast placed on it because the bone had a fracture that needed support.  The patient asks to see the X-RAY and straining his eyes looking for a fracture because there is none is told by the doctor-----IT'S THERE!

Need a doctor that handles Medicare?????  There is a compound for senior care on the outskirts of the city with national health chains.....GO THERE! 


This is how Hopkins has made Maryland's health businesses the most profitable in the nation and these new approaches are what the Affordable Care Act is based upon.  It is diabolical!!!!

I DO NOT HAVE TO TELL BALTIMORE CITIZENS THAT PEOPLE ARE FEARFUL OF ENTERING JOHNS HOPKINS AND CALL MEDSTAR A DEATH TRAP BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE LONG-TERM HEALTH POLICIES HAVE DONE TO MARYLAND'S HEALTH SYSTEM....SO, AS HOPKINS TOUTS ITSELF OVER AND AGAIN AS THE BEST IN THE WORLD IN EVERYTHING....KNOW THAT THEY ARE NO DOUBT BUYING THEIR RANKING FROM THE LIKES OF US NEWS AND WOLD REPORT!




HUMANA AND JOHNS HOPKINS TEAM UP WITH MANAGED-CARE NETWORK



BALTIMORE, Dec. 1 /PRNewswire/ --


Humana Inc., one of the nation's largest health maintenance organizations, and Johns Hopkins, one of the premier medical centers in the country, are teaming up to form physician networks throughout the state of Maryland.

Humana members also will be able to use Johns Hopkins hospitals and facilities in the state.

"This strategic affiliation is the first of its kind for Johns Hopkins," Health System President and CEO James A. Block, M.D., said. "We are tremendously pleased to be able to work with Humana, not least because of its experience nationwide in serving a managed-care population covered by Medicare."

The affiliation is between Johns Hopkins HealthCare LLC, led by John D. Stobo, M.D., which represents The Johns Hopkins Health System and The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Human Group Health Plan, Inc. of Washington, D.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Humana Inc.

Humana will use primary and specialty physician networks being formed by Johns Hopkins, such as the Wilmer Eye Network and networks in cardiology and pediatrics, and work with Johns Hopkins to develop a full complement of other networks in the state.

"This relationship with a medical center that has an international reputation for quality and innovation is terrific news for Humana and its members," said Humana Senior Vice President Phil Garmon, who also noted that Johns Hopkins Hospital has been rated best in the country for five consecutive years by "U.S. News & World Report" and more faculty physicians from its school of medicine than any other have been listed in the book, "Best Doctors in America." "It should be a mutually beneficial relationship for both parties. Humana obtains access to networks of quality physicians and high caliber medical facilities in Maryland and Johns Hopkins can utilize our many years of experience in managed care to develop and expand its networks."

Michael E. Johns, M.D., dean of the School of Medicine, added that, "As Humana's enrollment grows in central Maryland, this agreement will serve to heighten access to the faculty practice at Hopkins. This is another vote of confidence from a leading managed-care organization for the way in which we are responding to the changing health-care marketplace."

Humana Inc., headquartered in Louisville, Ky., is one of the nation's largest publicly-owned HMO companies with more than 3.8 million members in 22 states and the District of Columbia. Humana offers quality and affordable coordinated care in the form of HMOs, preferred provider organizations, point-of-service organizations, along with administrative-only services. In addition, Humana is one of the nation's largest providers of "HMO-style" health care to seniors through its federally approved Medicare products. -0- 12/1/95

____________________________________________
As I have said there are well-developed plans already developed for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.  Any politician could run for Governor of Maryland and simply use existing policy and planning to implement.  Do not allow neo-liberals to tell you it can't be done because simply building oversight into Medicare health system will end 1/2 of expenditures just by ending fraud and profiteering!  This neo-liberals have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars developing this private system simply to make health care a global profit-maximizing industry and WE WILL TAKE IT BACK!!!!

National Physicians has a well-researched plan that will reverse this Wall Street takeover.  I want to acknowledge that while I believe these physicians are working for all of us....I do want to make sure that this is universal and equal and addresses massive health industry fraud and profiteering and is not only funded by more taxes on the public!  When I read that Vermont's will include Tort reform as a way to lower cost I know that the reasons Doctor's Malpractice insurance is so high is that the American Medical Association does not police or hold accountable the doctors repeatedly performing badly....it is just like these other white collar crimes that get hidden and moved around. 


TORT REFORM SHOULD NOT HAPPEN UNTIL THE AMA HAS PROVEN THAT IT IS POLICING THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND ARE TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC!!!!!

Please take time to read the entire article below!


A National Health Program for the United States: A Physicians' Proposal
Reprinted from the New England Journal of Medicine 320:102-108 (January 12), 1989

Abstract:

Our health care system is failing. Tens of millions of people are uninsured, costs are skyrocketing, and the bureaucracy is expanding. Patchwork reforms succeed only in exchanging old problems for new ones. It is time for basic change in American medicine. We propose a national health program that would (1) fully cover everyone under a single, comprehensive public insurance program; (2) pay hospitals and nursing homes a total (global) annual amount to cover all operating expenses; (3) fund capital costs through separate appropriations; (4) pay for physicians' services and ambulatory services in any of three ways: through fee-for-service payments with a simplified fee schedule and mandatory acceptance of the national health program payment as the total payment for a service or procedure (assignment), through global budgets for hospitals and clinics employing salaried physicians, or on a per capital basis (capitation); (5) be funded, at least initially, from the same sources as at present, but with payments disbursed from a single pool; and (6) contain costs through savings on billing and bureaucracy, improved health planning, and the ability of the national health program, as the single payer for services to establish overall spending limits. Through this proposal, we hope to provide a pragmatic framework for public debate of fundamental health-policy reform. (N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 102-8.)


_____________________________________________

The problems with MD's health exchange are not isolated,......all of MD public policy is a disaster because none of it is written by public advocates.....it is entirely written by the corporate 1% that make policy simply to move profit to the top....ergo, people are not placed in charge because of talent but because of having the 3 monkey syndrome.....SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NOT EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL....public policy in policing, education, development are all failures and hundreds of billions of the state's revenue have been lost just during O'Malley's tenure as Mayor of Baltimore and now Governor of Maryland.

Remember, the goal with these state health systems is to end Medicare and Medicaid as Federal programs and dismantle them through state policy!  We want to be shouting for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All!!

Also, please know it is not the democratic party bringing these republican policies forward.....it is neo-liberals that have control of the democratic party.  We simply need to rebuild the democratic party by running labor and justice to reverse all of this attack on public health!


Also note that it is Beilenson  leading with a so-called private non-profit EVERGREEN that is designed to catch all of what was public sector Medicare, Medicaid, and public sector health plans.....AND HE IS JOHNS HOPKINS.

Below is what is happening with all of Maryland policy----the connected are throwing together businesses to capture all the wealth from taxpayer money building something we do not even need as Medicare already has a system!


'Both had expanded rapidly to build the Maryland site, expecting it could give them a foothold in the potentially lucrative health-exchange market'.


Maryland officials were warned for a year of problems with online health-insurance site


By Aaron C. Davis and Mary Pat Flaherty, Published: January 11   Washington Post

More than a year before Maryland launched its health insurance exchange, senior state officials failed to heed warnings that no one was ultimately accountable for the $170 million project and that the state lacked a plausible plan for how it would be ready by Oct. 1.

Over the following months, as political leaders continued to proclaim that the state’s exchange would be a national model, the system went through three different project managers, the feuding between contractors hired to build the online exchange devolved into lawsuits, and key people quit, including a top information technology official because, as he would later say, the project “was a disaster waiting to happen.”

Timeline

A timeline of events and related documents tied to the Maryland health care exchange.


The Democratic gubernatorial hopeful is the only female candidate at the top of a ticket.


The repeated warnings culminated days before the launch, with one from contractors testing the Web site that said it was “extremely unstable” and another from an outside consultant that urged state officials not to let residents enroll in health plans because there was “no clear picture” of what would happen when the exchange would turn on.

Within moments of its launch at noon Oct. 1, the Web site crashed in a calamitous debut that was supposed to be a crowning moment for Maryland officials who had embraced President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and pledged to build a state-run exchange that would be unparalleled.

Instead, by the next morning only four people had signed up using the Web site — and amazed that anyone had gotten through the system successfully, state officials contacted each of them to make sure they were real. The site’s problems continue to prevent Marylanders from signing up for health insurance. As of Friday, 20,358 people had selected private plans, and state officials have said they do not expect to come close to their initial goal of 150,000 by the end of March.

This report is based on a Washington Post review of thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents, including e-mails, internal reports, audits and court records, along with interviews with dozens of current and former contractors, state officials and others. The review shows that the creation of the exchange was dysfunctional from the start and that there were repeated missteps at almost every level.

On the morning of Oct. 1, shortly after Obama had proclaimed that Maryland would lead the charge in signing up residents for new health-care plans, the director of the state’s health exchange was repeatedly rejected by the network before she became the first to log on, with the help of her IT staff.

Since then, an unknown number of Marylanders have experienced the same frustration with the Web site and have been prevented from signing up for health insurance.

As the state continues to try to fix the site, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and state lawmakers are working to enact emergency legislation to spend millions to help insure those who could not sign up and had to begin the year with no coverage.

With many Marylanders still facing frozen computer screens and error codes when they attempt to select insurance, O’Malley is expected this coming week to decline an offer by the Obama administration to temporarily take over parts of the troubled site, despite the urging of some state Democrats to embrace the move. This past week, O’Malley acknowledged that the rollout “did not meet our expectations” but said that many things have been fixed and the state’s site is improving.

It’s a situation far different than what O’Malley predicted on a sunny morning in March 2010, less than 24 hours after Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. O’Malley called reporters to the entrance of an Anne Arundel County emergency room to announce that Maryland would begin drafting plans to “immediately begin the work to ensure our state leads the nation.”

‘There is a risk . . .’

Of the 14 states that opted to build and run their own health-insurance marketplaces, Maryland was among the earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of what became known as “Obamacare.” And it became the second state, trailing California, to enact legislation creating an exchange.

Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown (D), the highest-ranking elected official charged with implementing the law, was invited to speak across the country about the state’s early success. The Obama administration began depositing tens of millions of dollars in state accounts to pay for development, thinking Maryland’s exchange might be built so early that other states could copy it.

But out of public view, reports of trouble started arriving.

The first came in the fall of 2012, just over a year before the exchange was to launch. Auditors from the Portland, Maine-based firm of BerryDunn found that exchange officials were missing early deadlines to begin building the IT backbone for the public Web site, known as the Maryland Health Connection. The exchange was supposed to have signed agreements with state agencies that would allow them to link data from sources such as Medicaid and the Department of Motor Vehicles to the nascent site. But most agencies had not heard from the exchange or were unaware that the work was even overdue. The findings were summarized in a Nov. 1, 2012, letter to the president of the Maryland Senate and the speaker of the House of Delegates.

Almost $9 million in federal money was set aside to pay BerryDunn to be the watchdog for the high-profile project, with the expectation that Maryland officials would use the assessments to correct course as needed. The Post obtained copies of the confidential documents.

At the exchange’s temporary offices in north Baltimore during the fall of 2012, no one could produce for BerryDunn standard project plans showing a timeline and checklist for how the main IT contractor, from Fargo, N.D., would get the job done. The exchange’s staff, then just seven full-time state employees and borrowed ones from other agencies, “may not be sufficient to complete the work,” BerryDunn said in a PowerPoint presentation delivered to senior state officials in December. Five of the presentation’s slides began with: “There is a risk . . .”

One proved particularly prescient: Maryland might build all of the components of its health-insurance exchange and then put them together and find out they do not work, the presenters said. It was a serious risk, because the state also did not appear to be leaving itself with enough time to “complete, verify and test all system components before go-live.”

The 10 months that remained before the launch would go by quickly, the consultant warned, but corrective action could get the project back on track.

Two of O’Malley’s Cabinet members, his senior IT advisers and leaders of the exchange received copies of the confidential monthly reports, according to distribution lists. The first was also summarized in the technically worded letter to lawmakers. Aides to the legislative leaders said that the significance of the warning was not clear at the time and that they never knew the outside audits continued.

Late in 2012, the consultant’s reports focused increasingly on warnings that no one seemed to be in charge. Maryland Health Secretary Joshua Sharfstein; Human Resources Secretary Ted Dallas, the Cabinet member in charge of Medicaid; and Rebecca Pearce, the exchange leader, tried to make decisions together. It was a “three-headed-monster. . . . The next meeting could overrule the last. It was classic, you know, nothing was moving,” said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Within the exchange, Pearce, who had been lured away from a top job at Kaiser Permanente to run the system, was jostling with her own project manager for day-to-day control. Sunny Raheja was a state contractor who preceded Pearce on the exchange and would go to Sharfstein for decisions, according to documents as well as exchange officials who witnessed the dysfunction.

Ultimately, Raheja, who declined to comment, was replaced, and Pearce brought in a Medicaid IT specialist to run the technical side.

As Pearce’s new project manager began, the outside auditor said there was still no dis­cern­ible plan for building the exchange, no oversight by the state and poor communication among the contractors hired to build the online site.

“There is also no overall Master Project Plan and schedule that is being utilized to manage the milestones and activities necessary for the entire program effort,” BerryDunn warned in a Feb. 25 report.

The consultant broke the project into 11 categories and began labeling them as red, yellow or green — seven were in red, four were in yellow.

“From our perspective, agreement on a consolidated work plan will need input from all . . . so that there is a common understanding of what needs to occur between now and Oct. 1, 2013.”

In e-mails, Pearce’s new project manager said the situation appeared untenable. He resigned after a month, and the third project manager in three months took over in April — with six months to go before the site would launch.

“I think the wheels came off very early on,” said Amir Segev, who was deputy IT director for the exchange from February to May.

Segev said he left after only a few months “because it was a disaster waiting to happen.”

Contractors at odds

By May, the Obama administration was deciding which states would be allowed to proceed with building their own exchanges and which ones it would force to use the federal exchange. The team gave Maryland a deadline of June 1 to prove a core task: Its rudimentary software would have to communicate with a data hub the federal government was building to let states check whether health-care enrollees were eligible for subsidies.

The month of May became a sprint to make the deadline.

On one of the last days before the deadline, a federal team arrived at the Maryland IT contractor’s office in Linthicum, south of Baltimore, and sat in the front row of the briefing room with computers at each desk and a projection screen on the wall.

One part of the screen showed a fake enrollee’s information being sent from Maryland; the other showed the response from the federal hub. The two connected, and Maryland passed. Despite the internal turmoil and negative audits, the state seemed to finally be on the right path.

Sharfstein, the state health secretary, and Pearce called together the production team. Pearce put her foot on a chair and thanked everyone with a deep sense of relief evident in her voice.

News of the success also passed quickly to Brown and O’Malley, who began touting it in public appearances.

But as they celebrated, feuding between the two contractors in charge of doing much of the technical work to get the Web site running was getting worse.

Shortly after it had won Maryland’s initial $50 million contract, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, a company that grew out of Medicare claims processing, hired a Florida company — run by a former executive of Noridian’s parent firm — that renamed itself EngagePoint.

Noridian and EngagePoint agreed to share profits for development of the exchange, according to court documents filed by the companies — a move that state officials said they were made aware of only much later.

But within months of joining forces, the two were fighting over costs.

By July, according to court documents, infighting had brought work to a near-standstill.

Meanwhile, the software used successfully to pass the June test had to be replaced with newer and untested versions needed to meet federal security requirements.

In an interview, Sharfstein said the dispute had become a major distraction by then.

“For a while, we tried to play marriage counselor, but it was clear these were two companies that couldn’t work together well,” he said.

And another federal test was looming.

On Aug. 26, five weeks before the launch date, Maryland faced its final major test with federal overseers, a more thorough demonstration of how each part of its system would work.

This one did not go as well.

When the test got to the part of having a fictitious person choose a health plan, the Web site crashed. It also could not fully send enrollment data to insurers or e-mail Marylanders when they successfully selected a plan — something it still cannot do.

BerryDunn, the consultant, said the state must “hold Noridian to scheduled” deadlines and make 65 other changes. The state, it warned, also needed to start focusing on contingencies, knowing some parts of the site were bound to fail.

On a weekend in early September, Sharfstein logged on to measure the problems for himself. “You don’t want to know what he thought,” Pearce relayed in a message to her team, according to a testing report.

Pearce would soon send an e-mail titled “12 days out,” pleading with contractors to finish the job after she visited their Linthicum office on the evening of Sept. 18 and found it nearly empty.

“There’s a management methodology that has 4 aspects: pamper/pull/push/pummel. I think I have tried all of them at some point during this process,” she wrote at 11:24 p.m. “Tonight I am begging . . . we have got to make this reality.”

The success of the exchange was also becoming freighted with political implications as Brown launched his campaign for governor. In an early-morning e-mail on Sept. 23, Sharfstein wrote to Pearce, under a subject line “from today’s [Baltimore] Sun.”

He pasted in a line from U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s endorsement of the lieutenant governor the day before: “While we’re fighting to save Obamacare, we know that in Maryland we have a health exchange that’s ready to go because of Anthony Brown,” the Maryland Democrat said.

Pearce forwarded the e-mail to the heads of Noridian and EngagePoint, adding one line: “It’s time to get this right. Now. Period.”

Noridian chief executive Tom McGraw responded with military sparseness: “Understood.”

Testers filed their final report on Sept. 13, calling the last version of the software they could review “extremely unstable.” Internal testing of one aspect of the site found 449 defects, almost half of which would probably trouble the final release.

‘What’s wrong?’

On a conference call at the start of the final week of September, senior aides gave O’Malley a high-level summary of expected troubles with the exchange.

The Web site would not allow some people to check for subsidies or to select plans, but everyone should at least be able to log on, he was told, according to several aides.

The governor ended the call, said John Griffin, his chief of staff, saying the state should “move forward.”

But two days later, Griffin requested that a roomful of aides to the governor and Brown vote on whether to proceed. Most gave the Oct. 1 launch a green light. The next day, O’Malley smiled as Obama visited Prince George’s County and praised state leaders for being ready to roll.

Just after midnight on Oct. 1, programmers in the Linthicum office listened through a speaker phone to the anxiety growing in Pearce’s voice as she tried to log on, according to several people on the call. The site was not yet viewable publicly, but it should have allowed her to sign on. If there was one part of the site everyone agreed would work, it was this.

They waited for a second try and then a third as she reentered her name and address. Everything was correct. “What’s wrong?” she demanded.

No one was sure. Someone noticed that Pearce had left blank a box for the four-digit extension of her Zip code. Maybe the computer code required every single data field to be filled in to proceed. Try adding that, one manager said.

Pearce did not know the extension to her Zip code. They listened as she Googled it and attempted a fourth sign-on.

Click. She was in.

At 8 a.m., the exchange was supposed to launch simultaneously with other states, but it froze. The exchange posted a message online asking residents to come back in four hours.

Finally, at noon, officials watched from a command center in Baltimore as about 10,000 people logged on to the site, pinging servers in Fargo.

Screens showed blank graphs that should fill with enrollees moving through each phase of the system: creating accounts, checking for subsidies, shopping for plans, purchasing.

The stroke of noon came and went. No one logged on. No one bought health care.

The next morning was scarcely better. In the subject line of an e-mail to fellow contractors at 6:53 a.m., Noridian’s McGraw typed “Maryland is Down,” and wrote,“We cannot get through.”

More than 24 hours after the launch, there were just four people who had selected plans and eight more who appeared to have logged on.

An IT contractor wrote to state officials on Oct. 2 wondering if the four were “legitimate,” since contractors could not even access the site. She questioned if they might be fictitious accounts from prior phases of testing.

But later that day, the exchange’s chief information officer responded with good news: “The team has researched the 4 records and have determined these are for real customers. 3 applicants and 1 dependent. Applications have been processed albeit very slowly and sporadically.”

Pearce, who resigned under pressure in December, declined to comment on many aspects of the exchange’s development but said the wholesale failure on Oct. 1 “was a complete surprise to all of us.”

“We didn’t know it would be broken when we turned it on,” she said.

The day after the failed launch, Pearce sent an e-mail to the heads of Noridian and EngagePoint demanding answers.

“Gentlemen,” she wrote. “As the executives in charge of this program I would like to understand from you exactly what is happening with the project, and what you are doing to address our issues.”

But by the end of the first week of October, relations between the two companies were so strained that Pearce and Sharfstein acted as go-betweens. After more weeks of fighting, EngagePoint, the subcontractor, made a bold proposal to state officials, urging them to allow it to take over the project entirely. Days later, Noridian instead fired EngagePoint, whose programmers packed up their laptops and left, leaving some of the software in Ukraine, where EngagePoint had hired programmers.

It was now up to Noridian to fix the site — with few employees certain of where to begin. It began making offers to hire back fired EngagePoint workers it said were key to fixing the site.

EngagePoint chief executive Pradeep Goel was aghast. “We are not going to respond to ridiculous emails from Noridian demanding our team members show up for work after being escorted out of the office,” Goel wrote to McGraw and Noridian’s attorneys on Oct. 26. “Are you people on crack cocaine?”

EngagePoint persuaded a judge to sign a restraining order that blocked Noridian from hiring back workers to fix the site. Noridian countersued, and the state entered the fray, siding with Noridian for the sake of Marylanders who needed a functioning site.

Through its attorney, Daniel Graham, Noridian declined to discuss its work with EngagePoint, citing the ongoing litigation. In a statement, the company said that “the complexity of this project has led to a number of major issues beyond what was anticipated.” But the company believes that recent improvements have made the system easier to use and said it “will continue to work with the State” to improve it further.

Karen See, a spokeswoman for EngagePoint, said the firm would not discuss its work, also citing the lawsuits.

The full effect of the failed project on the two companies remains unclear. Both had expanded rapidly to build the Maryland site, expecting it could give them a foothold in the potentially lucrative health-exchange market.

Before the launch, the state had allocated about $100 million in federal money for the construction of its exchange, and, according to one estimate, it has spent tens of millions more since Oct. 1. It is unclear how much of the added costs federal officials will agree to cover. But the bigger question is how many people the state can sign up. 
IT'S THE MARYLAND APPROACH TO PUBLIC WORKS.....

Maryland’s next deadline is March 31, the date by which it expected 150,000 people to have used the site to select health insurance, excluding Medicaid. Officials have said the state will not meet that goal.

“It’s a problem for the people of Maryland, a problem for the people that Obamacare was supposed to help,” said Peter Beilenson, chief executive of the Evergreen Health Co-Op, a new Maryland insurer that launched its business on a bet that it could compete with the state’s bigger insurers on a smooth-running Maryland exchange.

The company had a waiting list of more than 1,000 people who were expected to sign up with it when the exchange turned on.

For months, however, it could barely sign up one. On its best day in recent weeks, its staff helped 10 people navigate Maryland’s site. Evergreen still has more than 1,000 people waiting to buy insurance.





Jennifer Jenkins, Jenna Johnson and Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.


0 Comments

January 13th, 2014

1/13/2014

0 Comments

 
The hype with the Affordable Care Act is that it moves to preventative care and it moves people from group living in senior centers to staying in their homes.  Sounds OK if you do not see how it actually works.  As I showed last time, Obama and the ACA is privatizing Medicare and Medicaid into these state health systems, something republicans have been trying to do for years and it is the neo-liberals doing it!  The idea is that to save Medicare for the upper middle-class you have to cull off the middle and working class to do it because after all 1/2 of Medicare spending has been stolen in health institution fraud and/or spent building the NSA spy network.

I wanted to focus on just a few issues in detail to show how detrimental the ACA is not only to all citizens but especially seniors.

THE ORGANIZATIONS SHOUTING OUT FOR ACA KNEW THESE ISSUES EXISTED BUT DELIBERATELY HID THEM FROM THE PEOPLE THEY PRETENDED TO SUPPORT!

So, seniors will stay in their homes as public retirement communities and public senior buildings close.  Don't worry they say, we are training tons of home health care people to come to your home to care for you.  OH, REALLY????

What is actually happening is that the ACA funding for this is not there.....kind of like NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND being an unfunded mandate.  So, all the public health support for seniors are being closed and handed to hedge funds to operate with no money coming to make sure quality care will occur.  WE ARE BEING GHETTOIZED.  Now, seniors were hard hit with fraud from this decade of massive corporate fraud-----savings, pensions, COLA increases eliminated for Social Security-----

A DELIBERATE ATTACK BY WALL STREET ON THE WEALTH GAINED BY BABY BOOMERS WITH OBAMA AND NEO-LIBERALS MAKING SURE WE CAN NOT GET JUSTICE!  ONLY, WHEN A GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW IT SUSPENDS STATUTES OF LIMITATION...

Seniors have been deliberately left without the retirement money they worked for and as we see below, the Medicare program that had strong support services for seniors are being dismantled as public health is handed to corporations for profit.  A senior in a senior care facility run by hedge funds as is the case in Baltimore with ManorCare?  Think Charles Dickens level of care for the elderly.  One imagines they will be forced to work with the disabled on menial labor to pay their way....which by the way seniors prepaid through payroll taxes.


ALL OF MEDICARE HAS BEEN PAID BECAUSE REAGAN TRIPLED PAYROLL TAXES IN THE 1980s JUST SO THERE WOULD BE PLENTY FOR BABY BOOMERS.  BUT DID THESE CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR SHARE OF THE PAYROLL TAX?  WE KNOW THAT PAYROLL FRAUD HAS BEEN RAMPANT.

We are not against immigrants coming to America to work and we are not against vocational tracking of students into health care.  What we are against is the outrageously inadequate level of training and knowledge people being sent to homes actually have.  This is serious.  People with chronic illness, people with psychological malady......these are serious and complicated health matters that these people being trained as home health workers have not a clue.  The people doing the job are not bad.....they are often not able to do the job or not trained right.  THAT DOES NOT MATTER....THE GOAL IS GETTING THE CHEAPEST MODEL IN PLACE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT AND LOWER MEDICARE COSTS SINCE THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE TRUST.

Who is going to age into this mess?  Well, me no doubt as I am a regular middle-class professional with average means.  Remember, neo-liberals see the middle-class right now as give and take $200,000.  These are the wage earners that will be able to afford private senior care or the private insurance that allows it.  Right now that is less than 5% of US population.  It is the working/middle class that paid the most into these Trusts and it is these same people getting axed out of care with the ACA.

One thing you see throughout the Affordable Care Act is that there will be nurses and/or nurse practitioner involved in these health businesses taking over public health....including home health care.  As the commenter above pointed out in his review of one global corporation covering senior home health.....THERE WAS NOT A NURSE IN SIGHT.  HE HAD NO MEDICAL SUPERVISOR WITH WHOM TO TALK AND I HEAR THIS IN ALL CASES OF THESE HEALTH BUSINESSES.

You can see the same with education reform by privatization ------school boards filled with business people with no education background.  IT IS DELIBERATE AND IT WILL BREAK DOWN ALL PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS AND ALL STRUCTURES DESIGNED TO PROVIDE QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY.......which is the point of the ACA.....complete deregulation of the health care industry!





Social Security and Medicare taxes

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax Federal social insurance taxes are imposed on employers[15] and employees,[16] ordinarily consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($110,100 in 2012) for Social Security and a tax of 1.45% of all wages for Medicare.[17] For the years 2011 and 2012, the employee's contribution had been temporarily reduced to 4.2%, while the employer's portion remained at 6.2%,[18] but Congress allowed the rate to return to 6.2% for the individual in 2013. [19] To the extent an employee's portion of the 6.2% tax exceeded the maximum by reason of multiple employers, the employee is entitled to a refundable tax credit upon filing an income tax return for the year.[20]



You know what ACA does to Medicare access? It sends most care for seniors and Medicaid to home health care corporations....guess what? Cuts take even that access away!  Actually what Medicare is set to become for most will be the same as Medicaid......MEDICAID FOR ALL SAY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PEOPLE! 

Below you see an industry political piece that tries to scare people into voting against democrats because this ACA policy will gut health care.   This article is truthful as to the effect cuts in funding will have on these private health businesses for home health but as someone that does not want these businesses getting all this Medicare funding.....I do not have sympathy for money lost to this industry.  As reformers cutting cost always say to the health industry-------figure out how to do it cheaper without losing your profits.  AND SO, THE LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING BEGINS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW REQUIRED TO FAKE THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS AND WHAT PROCEDURES THEY RECEIVE IN ORDER TO PAD PROFITS. 

Home Health Leaders: Unprecedented Medicare Cut Endangers Millions of Seniors' Access to Home Healthcare
November 25, 2013 2:22 PM PR NewsWire



Final Rule disregards input from lawmakers, seniors' advocates, and home health community –

CMS concedes that "approximately 40 percent of providers will have negative margins in CY 2017"(1)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Home health leaders warned that the Home Health Prospective Payment System (HHPPS) Final Rule, released Friday by the Obama Administration's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), will directly impact the homebound seniors and disabled Americans who are the Medicare program's most vulnerable beneficiaries and will limit their access to the clinically advanced, cost effective home health care they need.

The HHPPS proposed rule initially included a 3.5 percent annual rebasing cut to Medicare home health funding – the maximum allowable under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – which was calculated using an incorrect base year.  While the Final Rule now uses the correct base year (2010), it maintains the maximum annual rebasing cut of 3.5 percent, thereby imposing an unprecedented total rebasing cut of 14 percent over 4 years.

"From start to finish, this is a patient care issue," said Chairman Billy Tauzin, Senior Counsel to the Partnership. "The stated purpose of the Obamacare legislation was to expand Americans' access to healthcare, but this Obamacare regulation will do the exact opposite.  Despite pleas by lawmakers, seniors and stakeholders, CMS has decided to impose unprecedented cuts to the home health services on which the nation's most vulnerable Medicare population depends.  These cuts directly impact homebound seniors in rural, minority, and underserved communities who are among the Medicare program's oldest, sickest, and poorest beneficiaries."

"Despite the concerns expressed by more than 200 bipartisan Members of Congress, leading senior advocacy organizations, and dozens of other stakeholders, CMS chose to cut Medicare home health payments to the fullest extent allowed by the ACA," added Eric Berger, CEO of the Partnership.  "On a technical basis, this rule is also deeply flawed in that required analyses were never conducted on its impact over the full 4 years in which its cuts will go into effect or on the thousands of small businesses and their employees who will be impacted by it." 

"Just as troubling, the actual nature of this Final Rule has not been accurately disclosed," continued Mr. Berger.  "Although CMS releases seem to suggest that the Final Rule provides rebasing relief, the reality is that the cut in the Final Rule is the maximum allowable under the law.  The ACA authorized the Secretary to impose an annual rebasing cut of not more than 3.5 percent of the 2010 Medicare home health standardized payment rate.  The proposed rule exceeded the law in that it incorrectly applied the 3.5 percent cut to 2013 payment rates.  By contrast, the Final Rule applies the maximum allowable 3.5 percent annual cut to 2010.  As a result, all that can be said of the Final Rule is that, by properly replacing 2013 with 2010 as the base year, it no longer exceeds the law."


                               Base Year: 2013         Base Year: 2010

Proposed Rule       3.5%              EQUALS          4.5%

Final Rule                 2.7%              EQUALS           3.5%

"While there are so many people across the country whose health care will be adversely affected by this Final Rule, we are deeply thankful to the many lawmakers who devoted so much of their time and energy in an effort to protect Medicare home health beneficiaries," Mr. Berger added.  "They and the vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries they valiantly serve deserve better than this regulation."

Since the proposed rule was released, tens of thousands of patients, family members, providers, advocates, and state associations have cautioned the Administration that these cuts go too far and will have severe implications on the delivery of skilled home healthcare.  Extensive action was undertaken, including data and policy analyses, grassroots engagement, and extensive direct dialogue.  In addition, letters were filed by leading advocates including AARP, the American Hospital Association (AHA), the National Association of Home Care and Hospice (NAHC), the Visiting Nurses Association of America (VNAA) and many other stakeholders, all of whom expressed concern that the proposed cuts would negatively impact homebound seniors who depend on home health.

"The extraordinary cuts announced on Friday are alarming, especially in light of the deep cuts that Medicare home health has already suffered in recent years," added Senator John Breaux, Senior Counsel to the Partnership.  "Even before these latest cuts, funding for Medicare home health services had been reduced by more than $72 billion since 2009.  When factoring in these additional cuts, two of the nation's leading health care consulting firms – Avalere Health and Dobson|DaVanzo Associates – project that the home health delivery systems in nearly every State will experience net losses by 2017, which greatly jeopardizes seniors' access to high-quality, low-cost home healthcare.  In fact, even CMS concedes – on page 117 of the HHPPS Final Rule – that 'approximately 40 percent of providers will have negative margins in CY 2017' and that more than 8-in-10 of these providers are already experiencing negative margins as a result of pre-existing cuts!  For these reasons, we strongly urge decision makers to protect homebound seniors from this regulation and any further cuts in the weeks and months ahead."

"The fact that this extreme regulation is a result of Obamacare means it cannot help but have political in addition to access implications," concluded Chairman Tauzin.  "The Medicare cuts in the 2010 Obamacare bill angered seniors so much that voters over age 65 helped give Republicans control of the U.S. House in the President's first midterm elections.  These newest Medicare cuts, coming right out of Obamacare, could now put the Democrats' Senate majority in jeopardy when senior voters cast their ballots next November.  Both Democratic and Republican leaders tried to stop the White House from issuing this unprecedented cut, and both were ignored.  Three and a half million seniors depend on home health, they vote, and they are not likely to take these cuts lying down." 


With an estimated 10,000 American seniors entering the Medicare program every day, the Medicare home health benefit is widely recognized as a clinically advanced, cost-effective and patient preferred means for meeting the post-acute and long-term care needs of this rapidly growing patient population. Medicare home health services are delivered to approximately 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries, who are documented as being more likely to be poor, old, sick, and minority than the Medicare beneficiary population as whole.  In light of its importance to millions of seniors and their families, the Medicare home health sector has been one of the nation's leading creators of new jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


_______________________________________________
As we see below a decade ago it was revealed that this growing industry was not functioning properly, had no oversight, and no public transparency.  Now, Baltimore and Maryland are 10 times worse than California in all these regards so one can imagine what this industry looks like in Maryland.  We have had our entire public sector health dismantled and handed to private non-profits run by health corporations.

As you see below this business system mirrors the lack of oversight, the fraud and corruption as all US business sectors only now it is public health.  I want to emphasize that because Maryland has no media reporting or investigation in all of this it is safe to conclude that what is happening here is happening in Maryland only more than likely worse.  Remember, Maryland has a waver from Medicare in oversight and that compounds the abuse.  See why Maryland has reduced Medicare spending?

------PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM NAKED CAPITALISM

I want to emphasize that these problems have not been addressed....they are worse!

Publicize Home Care Problems, Critics Say / Complaints about health providers hard to dig out

Janet Wells, Chronicle Staff Writer Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, May 24, 2000



In the wake of revelations about problems at Kaiser Oakland's home health program, consumer advocates are decrying the failure of state and federal agencies to inform the public about serious deficiencies among home health care providers.

The state Department of Health Services performs scores of investigations each year that reveal numerous problems. Yet the agency has no mechanism or requirement for public disclosure of its findings.

Such is the case even when violations are serious enough to put patients in "immediate jeopardy," as the state recently found was occurring at Kaiser.

"The fact is we have these problems, and there's no venue for reporting them," said Celi Adams, founder of Home Care Companions, a San Francisco-based group that trains people to provide home care for seriously ill relatives and friends.

"Nobody has the responsibility to put it out there, and it absolutely would be helpful to publish once a year what the complaints were, or the 10 worst home health agencies in the state."

Daniel Zingale, the interim head of the state's new Department of Managed Care, which will oversee health maintenance organizations starting July 1, agrees. He plans to issue a report on managed care with "easily accessible" information about state violations.

"There's definitely a need for more and better information being made available to the public," said Zingale, whose department is scheduled to take over much of the health care oversight responsibility of the Department of Corporations.

"Shining a spotlight on the strength and failings of managed care plans may be the best tool we have to ensure the quality of care they deliver," he said.

In Kaiser's case, the state investigation revealed problems so serious that they contributed to the death of one elderly patient from malnutrition, septic shock and deeply infected bed sores. Kaiser was given 23 days to fix the worst problems; it is now in compliance.

Although state reports on home health care providers are public record, it takes determination to dig one out.


The state performed almost 100 full surveys of the 944 home care providers last year, in addition to documenting investigations into 400 complaints.

A consumer seeking information about a particular home health agency must first determine which of the 13 state licensing and certification districts investigated it and then go to the district office in person to request the documentation.

But before the survey or complaint investigation is public record, the home health agency has up to several months to file a plan of correction and implement improvements.

After a brief follow-up visit by state evaluators to verify that changes are in place, the home health agency is left to monitor its own progress.

"It's all handled internally," Adams noted. "The public is not informed, and then it's a done deal. As a consumer, I want to know what's going on."


The idea is not to punish home health agencies, said Department of Health Services spokeswoman Lea Brooks. "You try to do everything you can to get the operator to comply."

Home health agencies have been sorely squeezed in recent years, facing severe staffing shortages, increased regulatory requirements and, since 1997, a 45 percent cut in reimbursement from Medicare, which pays for almost 80 percent of home health visits in California, according to state records.

Almost 300 agencies in California have closed in the last three years, mostly due to the deep cuts in Medicare reimbursement, said Connie Little, senior vice president of the California Association for Health Services at Home, an industry group representing 500 agencies.

Little pointed out that consumers have access to information on home health agencies from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, whose Web site is www.jcaho.org. The Illinois-based group has accredited 6,000 home health agencies nationwide, but participation in the accreditation survey process is voluntary and does not have the same focus -- or impact -- as a regulatory agency survey.

Little questioned whether consumers would benefit from public disclosure requirements in the home heath care industry. "If you're going for a regulatory fix, you get more regulations," she said. "I don't know if it increases the quality of care."


_____________________________________________
Below you see a good description of what conditions have to be met before you can qualify for home health care.  Time and again I hear from people who need the service desperately they cannot qualify for Medicare help and the cost is prohibitive.  So, if the only option for seniors needing a support system to age into is home health and they have written the laws so that getting that help is not easily available what happens to seniors?

They fall prey to the worst of private companies that act as the 'safety net' that once were public run institutions.  Mind you, state run senior care has always been the pits......but being a public institutions there was the ability to hold the institution accountable for public interest.  In this reform, people will be tracked into these private care facilities given no oversight and transparency and making it hard for families to get justice for bad care.

THIS IS WHAT NAKED CAPITALISM AND HEALTH CARE LOOK LIKE AND IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY!



When the Medicare home health benefit pays for home health care

Section IV.g. Home Health Care Benefit (Part A and B)Question 1 of 10 (use "Last" or "Next" buttons to see more) Return to referring page

Medicare will help pay for your home care if all four of the following are true:

1. You are considered homebound. Medicare considers you homebound if you meet the following criteria:  

  • You need the help of another person or special equipment (walker, wheelchair, crutches, etc.) to leave your home or your doctor believes that leaving your home would be harmful to your health; and
  • It is difficult for you to leave your home and you typically cannot do so.
2. You need skilled care. This includes skilled nursing care on an intermittent basis. Intermittent means you need care little as once every 60 days to as much as once a day for three weeks (this period can be longer if you need more care but your need for more care must be predictable and finite). This can also mean you need skilled therapy services. Skilled therapy services can be physical, speech or occupational therapy;*

3. Your doctor signs a home health certification stating that you qualify for Medicare home care because you are homebound and need intermittent skilled care. The certification must also say that a plan of care has been made for you, and that a doctor regularly reviews it. Usually, the certification and plan of care are combined in one form that is signed by your doctor and submitted to Medicare. 

  • As part of the certification, doctors must also confirm that they (or certain other providers, such as nurse practitioners) have had a face-to-face meeting with you related to the main reason you need home care within 90 days of starting to receive home health care or within 30 days after you have already started receiving home health care. Your doctor must specifically state that the face-to-face meeting confirmed that you are homebound and qualify for intermittent skilled care.
  • The face-to-face encounter can also be done through telehealth. In certain areas, Medicare will cover examinations done for you in specific places (doctors offices, hospitals, health clinics, skilled nursing facilities) through the use of telecommunications (such as video conferencing). 
4. You receive your care from a Medicare-certified home health agency (HHA).

*If you only need occupational therapy, you will not qualify for the Medicare home health benefit. However, if you qualify for Medicare coverage of home health care on another basis, you can also get occupational therapy. Even when your other needs for Medicare home health end, you should still be able to get occupational therapy under the Medicare home health benefit if you continue to need it.

If you have questions about billing issues for home health care you should contact 800-MEDICARE.

____________________________________________
A GLOBAL FRANCHISE CARING FOR OUR SENIORS.....HOW SPECIAL!!!!  Carlyle hedge fund has Baltimore's ManorCare!

A global leader in non-medical in-home senior care, the Home Instead Senior Care Network® has more than 900 international franchise businesses in operation, with key Home Instead Master Franchise markets still available worldwide.

Instead of worry, there's Home Instead®

The 85-and-older population is expected to more than triple between 2008 and 2050 in the United States alone. This staggering statistic not only proves the growing need for elderly home care, but also the fact that thousands of families are facing the same critical decision as you. You are absolutely not alone.

Since 1994, the Home Instead Senior Care® franchise network has been devoted to providing the highest-quality senior home care. Compassionate Home Instead CAREGiversSM are an invaluable resource in helping families eliminate worry, reduce stress and reestablish personal freedom. From Alzheimer's and dementia support to respite care and companionship, our more than 900 locally owned and operated offices are ready to help you through this difficult time.


Below you see a review written by a former employee.  Not surprising he recommends using smaller, local care as there is no consumer interest in this global corporate home health chain.  Sound familiar?  If you think this is bad for a cell phone business wait until it becomes life and death!

THAT'S THE WAY NEO-LIBERALS ROLL!!!

Exploiting health care workers and giving no attention to consumer communications----

Consumer Affairs
Consumer Complaints & Reviews


sally of St Paul, MN on Dec. 31, 2013

Satisfaction Rating1/5I worked at H. I. and also at another agency (where I am very happy). Home Instead doesn't pay well, but I really enjoyed my clients and have a much larger appreciation for seniors after working for them...I have reservations about them:

First, Home Instead doesn't have any nurses on staff just a million managers and supervisors who I have NEVER met who are constantly calling and emailing me. It's run very business-like not AT ALL personal. They are very micro managerial which is why I've wanted to leave and why I already have another job. They are over, over, overstaffed by people to over yet under manage the caregivers. When there is a problem, there is NO ONE to help- the "on call supervisor" is a joke- has never ever met the clients and is paid to basically answer the phone (I'm sure she calls in her hours on time which is probably why she's still there) but if you make a mistake 5 people you've never met to pound on you and tell you what you should have done...very corporate, over managed and under effective. Never met the owner.

The other company however, I have met the owner, nurses and the few staff. They are effective and staff manage themselves and know who to contact and know things will be handled promptly and effectively. The nurses actually are familiar with the clients, their meds, home, etc and are a phone call away. The small staff actually work TOGETHER cooperatively as an actual CARE TEAM (medical model) instead of destructively at each other (corporate model). I'd recommend a small independently run non-chain agency over an indifferent corporate business. As a CNA, almost-nurse and caregiver I feel for better care for your family go with a small, independent medically minded agency. It's better for both the client and caregiver. I also think that clients' family want a caregiver that is treated well.

__________________________________________
One thing you see throughout the Affordable Care Act is that there will be nurses and/or nurse practitioner involved in these health businesses taking over public health....including home health care.  As the commenter above pointed out in his review of one global corporation covering senior home health.....THERE WAS NOT A NURSE IN SIGHT.  HE HAD NO MEDICAL SUPERVISOR WITH WHOM TO TALK AND I HEAR THIS IN ALL CASES OF THESE HEALTH BUSINESSES.

You can see the same with education reform by privatization ------school boards filled with business people with no education background.  IT IS DELIBERATE AND IT WILL BREAK DOWN ALL PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS AND ALL STRUCTURES DESIGNED TO PROVIDE QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY.......which is the point of the ACA.....complete deregulation of the health care industry!


BELOW IS A REALLY, REALLY LONG REAL ACADEMIC STUDY THAT ADDRESSES THE NEED FOR NURSES IN SENIOR CARE CENTERS.  IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT TAKING THESE NURSES OUT....ESPECIALLY COMPLETELY WILL BE HARMFUL.


Health Serv Res. 2004 April; 39(2): 225–250. doi:  10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00225.xPMCID: PMC1361005

Relationship of Nursing Home Staffing to Quality of Care

John F Schnelle, Sandra F Simmons, Charlene Harrington, Mary Cadogan, Emily Garcia, and Barbara M Bates-Jensen

To compare nursing homes (NHs) that report different staffing statistics on quality of care.

Data SourcesStaffing information generated by California NHs on state cost reports and during onsite interviews. Data independently collected by research staff describing quality of care related to 27 care processes.

Study DesignTwo groups of NHs (n=21) that reported significantly different and stable staffing data from all data sources were compared on quality of care measures.

Data CollectionDirect observation, resident and staff interview, and chart abstraction methods.

Principal FindingsStaff in the highest staffed homes (n=6), according to state cost reports, reported significantly lower resident care loads during onsite interviews across day and evening shifts (7.6 residents per nurse aide [NA]) compared to the remaining homes that reported between 9 to 10 residents per NA (n=15). The highest-staffed homes performed significantly better on 13 of 16 care processes implemented by NAs compared to lower-staffed homes.

ConclusionThe highest-staffed NHs reported significantly lower resident care loads on all staffing reports and provided better care than all other homes.

Keywords: Staffing, quality of careNursing home (NH) staffing resources necessary to provide care consistent with regulatory guidelines are the subject of national debate due to emerging evidence that existing staffing resources may not be adequate (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000b). One recent study for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that 4.1 mean total (nursing aides [NAs] plus licensed nurses) direct care hours per resident per day (hprd) and 1.3 licensed nurse hprd (.75 for registered nurses [RNs] and .55 for licensed vocational nurses [LVNs]) were the minimum staffing levels associated with a lower probability of poor resident outcomes, such as weight loss and pressure ulcers (Kramer and Fish 2001). This study is supported by other correlational data documenting a relationship between staffing (particularly RNs) and a variety of outcomes, including: lower death rates, higher rates of discharges to home, improved functional outcomes, fewer pressure ulcers, fewer urinary tract infections, lower urinary catheter use, and less antibiotic use (Linn, Gurel, and Linn 1977; Nyman 1988; Munroe 1990; Cherry 1991; Spector and Takada 1991; Aaronson, Zinn, and Rosko 1994; Bliesmer et al. 1998; Harrington et al. 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000b). Few studies have specifically examined the relationship between staffing and the implementation of daily care processes, but inadequate staffing has been associated with inadequate feeding assistance during meals, poor skin care, lower activity participation, and less toileting assistance (Spector and Takada 1991; Kayser-Jones 1996, 1997; Kayser-Jones and Schell 1997). The results of these correlational studies led two Institute of Medicine committees to recommend higher nurse staffing in nursing facilities, including 24-hour registered nursing care (Wunderlich, Sloan, and Davis 1996; Wunderlich and Kohler 2001;). An expert panel recommended even higher minimum staffing levels (4.55 hprd including 1.85 licensed nurse hprd) (Harrington et al. 2000). However, neither the correlational studies nor the CMS study directly measured specific care processes that may be better implemented in higher staffed homes and that could explain the effects on resident outcomes.

A second study conducted for CMS focused on this care process implementation issue (Schnelle, Simmons, and Cretin 2001). This study used staff time estimates in computerized simulations to predict the nursing assistant (NA) staffing ratios necessary to provide care recommended in regulatory guidelines. Care processes related to incontinence care, feeding assistance, exercise, and activities of daily living (ADL) independence enhancement (e.g., dressing), all of which are typically implemented by NAs, were included in the simulation. The results of this study showed that 2.8 to 3.2 NA hprd, depending on the acuity level of the NH population, were necessary to consistently provide all of these daily care processes. The NA staffing levels reported in this process-focused study are similar to those recommended by one expert consensus panel who also attempted to identify the labor requirements to implement key care processes, such as feeding assistance (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000). Unfortunately, 92 percent of the nation's NHs report staffing levels below the staffing minimums identified by the expert panel as well as the two recent CMS studies, and more than 50 percent of NHs would have to double current staffing levels to meet these minimums (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000a).

The fact that so many NHs report staffing levels below this minimum has led to recent efforts to develop staffing indicators so that long-term care consumers can make informed judgements about the adequacy of NH staffing within a facility. However, neither the simulated staffing predictions nor the expert consensus recommendations have been subjected to a field test evaluation. Based on the simulation predictions, one would hypothesize that higher staffed NHs would be better able to provide labor-intense daily care activities, such as feeding assistance, toileting assistance, repositioning, and exercise care. More specifically, it would be predicted that homes that report 2.8 to 3.2 NA hprd would perform significantly better than all other homes in the implementation of these daily care processes. The purpose of this study was to address this issue by describing the relationship between staffing levels in 21 NHs and directly measured processes of care that are both labor intense and recommended in NH regulatory guidelines. The primary question addressed in this study was: Is there a relationship between staffing, as separately reported by NH administrators and NAs, and the implementation of daily care processes that reflect quality of care?

Go to:MethodsSubjects and SettingRecruitment of homes was accomplished in two phases (Figure 1). In phase one, 175 homes were identified in the southern California region as being in the upper 75th percentile or lower 25th percentile according to staffing data reported by NH administrators in 1999 to the State of California (California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2002). Mean total direct hprd was used to determine each home's percentile rank. Thirty homes agreed to participate (15 in each of the extreme quartiles). However, only 17 of the 30 homes remained in the same quartile according to state staffing data reported in the year 2000 (9 lower quartile; 8 upper quartile). In addition, six of the eight homes in the upper quartile in both years (stable homes) reported a decrease in staffing in 2000 (4.0 hours to 3.4 hours) with all six homes clustered at 3.4 direct care hprd. The two remaining homes in the upper quartile were more stable and reported 3.7 and 5.1 direct care hprd in 2000. Furthermore, NAs in these two higher staffed homes also reported significantly lower resident care loads on interview in the year 2001 when compared to homes in the remaining upper quartile, as will be reported later. Thus, homes were initially divided into the following three categories for analytical comparisons: nine homes that reported an average of 2.7 hprd in both 1999 and 2000 (Group 1: lower quartile homes), six homes that reported 3.4 hprd in both 1999 and 2000 (Group 2: upper quartile homes), and two homes that reported an average of 4.9 hprd in both 1999 and 2000 (Group 3: upper-decile homes).

Figure 1Flow of Participants through TrialBecause of the potential importance of the upper-decile homes, Phase 2 was initiated to recruit additional homes in the 91st to 100th percentile (upper decile) following the completion of data analyses for Phase 1 homes. Research staff was blind to the staffing percentile ranking for each home during the data collection and analyses for Phase 1 but not in Phase 2 (see Figure 1). In Phase 2, 47 homes in the Southern California region were identified as being in the upper decile according to 2000 state staffing data. These homes also had small (<10 percent) Medicare populations because large Medicare populations can inflate staffing levels for the long-term care portion of the NH. Four homes were recruited that reported staffing levels above 3.8 total hprd in the year 2000 (upper decile) for a predominantly long-term care population.

Thus, a total of 21 homes were studied across the two phases. Residents who were long stay (not covered by Medicare) were eligible for participation, and resident recruitment occurred over two weeks within each home. The number of participants and consent rates are illustrated in Figure 1. Onsite data collection both to assess quality of care and to confirm state staffing reports with NH staff interviews occurred over three consecutive days and were conducted from June 2001 to September 2002. State cost report staffing data were not available for the year 2001.

Staff Interviews: Accuracy of State Staffing Reports To check the accuracy of year 2000 staffing statistics reported by NH administrators to the state and also to update these statistics, research staff conducted interviews with 118 NAs who worked on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shifts during onsite data collection in 2001–2002. The NAs were asked “How many residents are you responsible for today?” and “Are you working ‘short’?” Administrators were also asked to report the number of NAs, LVNs, and RNs that were usually scheduled during the time period that onsite data collection was being completed. These data were converted into staffing hours per resident day by assuming that a full-time staff member worked 7.5 hours and dividing staffing hours by the number of occupied beds in the facility. Even though these staffing data were not collected according to the same specific definitions used for the state reporting system, it does represent a more current staffing estimate. Independent checks of time cards to validate staffing statistics were not possible because it would have required consent from each NH staff member in the facility. The onsite staffing reports were not regarded as more or less accurate than the state staffing reports, only more timely. The agreement between the different staffing data sources was considered an important estimate of data accuracy.

Measurement DomainsSixteen care processes typically implemented by NAs were measured by research staff using standardized direct observation and resident interview protocols during three consecutive 12-hour weekdays in each NH. The care process measures relevant to NA job performance can be divided into four major domains: out of bed/social engagement; feeding assistance; incontinence care; exercise and repositioning. Each of these NA care process measures can be defended as representing “good practice” and should be sensitive to differential NA staffing between homes because most of these care processes are also labor intense to implement.

All participants were observed with at least one of three different observational protocols (described below), but subgroups of participants were selected for interview. Participants with an MDS recall score of two or greater were asked questions about the occurrence of specific care processes (e.g., How often do you receive walking or toileting assistance?) because a recent study showed that residents who meet this interview selection criterion are able to accurately describe the care they receive (Simmons and Schnelle 2001). However, all participants were asked more general questions about the quality of assistance (e.g., Do you have to wait too long?) because there is evidence that residents who are capable of completing an interview can provide stable responses to these types of questions. Eleven care process measures related primarily to licensed nurse staff performance (e.g., pressure ulcer risk assessment) were evaluated based primarily on medical record review, with the exception of two resident interview measures, using standardized protocols.

Out of Bed and Engagement: Observations To assess participants' time spent in bed and social engagement during the day research staff observed participants for one 12-hour day (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). The time-sampling protocol involved locating each participant every hour between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and observing the resident for up to one minute. Engagement was defined as interaction with either a staff member, a resident, or another person; an organized group activity; or with an object (e.g., television, reading, sewing). These two measures (out-of-bed time and engagement) are related to staffing levels, because assisting residents out of bed is labor intense since it occurs during the morning or evening periods when there are numerous competing activities (e.g., breakfast) and the resident must be dressed or groomed at the same time. There is evidence that NH residents spend excessive times in bed (Schnelle et al. 1998). It was also hypothesized that staff in high-staffed homes would have more time either to interact with or encourage residents to participate in activities during the day. Social interaction with and prompting residents to participate in activities are not necessarily labor intensive but are optional care activities that may not occur if staff are rushed to provide more mandatory physical care (e.g., providing feeding assistance to residents).

Feeding Assistance: Observation and Interview Measures Seven measures related to the quality of feeding assistance care were measured using direct, continuous (not time-sampled) observations during meals in which one staff member observed six to eight participants. All feeding assistance measures were assessed regardless of dining location (dining room versus room), with the exception of social interaction and verbal prompting during meals. The percent of social interaction or verbal prompts during meals was designed to assess the quality of feeding assistance, and interaction was counted if at least one minute of social interaction or verbal prompting occurred between the resident and the NH staff. Social interaction during meals has been related to increased food intake, and even the most cognitively impaired resident should receive some verbal prompts and social interaction during meals as opposed to physical assistance rendered in silence. The development, rationale, and scoring rules for all feeding assistance care process measures have been described elsewhere (Simmons et al. 2002). Brief descriptions of a few measures are provided here. Two measures were related to determining if a resident who is at risk for weight loss due to either low oral food and fluid intake or physical dependency on staff for eating, received at least a minimal amount of staff assistance during meals. Participants were considered to “pass” the first care process measure if they ate less than 50 percent of their meal but still received more than one minute of staff assistance. The logic of this indicator is that residents with intake below 50 percent are at risk for weight loss, and staff should try to provide assistance to these residents. If a resident ate less than 50 percent and received less than one minute of staff attention, it is not possible to separate poor assistance from other explanations for the poor eating. Participants were considered to pass the second care process measure if they were rated as physically dependent on the MDS and received more than five minutes of assistance. A measure relating to the accuracy of NH staff documentation of residents' oral food and fluid intake during meals and, thus, the ability of staff to identify residents with potentially problematic intake was also assessed. A participant passed this care process measure if he or she was observed by research staff to eat less than 50 percent of their meal and NH staff recorded less than 60 percent. Low intake is associated with weight loss and accurately identifying this problem is a logical prerequisite for prevention. Participants who had an MDS recall score of two or greater were also asked one interview question related to the NH food service, “If you don't like the food served at a particular meal, can you get something else?”

It was hypothesized that feeding assistance would be significantly associated with staffing levels because it is labor intense to provide this daily care process for all residents who need it. Both the simulation predictions conducted for the CMS study and one expert consensus panel predicted that a NA staffing ratio of two to five residents per NA is necessary to provide adequate feeding assistance care (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000; Schnelle, Simmons, and Cretin 2001).

Incontinence Care: Interview Measures Incontinent participants, according to the most recent MDS assessment, with MDS recall scores of two or greater were asked how often they received toileting assistance, and all incontinent residents who responded to the interview questions were asked the more general question, “Do you have to wait too long for assistance?”

Exercise and Repositioning: Observation and Interview Measures Observational data relevant to participants' physical movements were obtained from a wireless monitor worn on the thigh that measures horizontal and vertical orientation every four seconds. Preliminary research showed that repositioning movements in bed were characterized by the monitor recording a minimum 40° move in the horizontal position followed by maintenance of at least a 20° change in the horizontal position and at least two 40° vertical changes when repositioning occurred in a chair. The monitor also enabled the detection of physical activities that involved sustained participant movement for at least six minutes and, thus, could possibly reflect an episode of exercise care. Because exercise (e.g., walking assistance) could not be discriminated from care processes that involved movement for other reasons (e.g., incontinence care), all participant movements that were sustained for at least six minutes were characterized as “activity episodes” possibly related to exercise. The thigh monitor was used because preliminary data indicated that any observational schedule feasible for a human observer to implement with more than three residents would underestimate the frequency of care episodes, such as walking and repositioning, that occur less than every two hours and are relatively brief in duration.

Two movement measures were calculated from thigh monitor data. First, the number of repositioning episodes per hour was calculated for participants who were noted in the medical record as being on a two-hour repositioning program and who could not reposition themselves independently according to a performance test conducted by research staff. In this test, participants who were unable to move from side to side unless they received physical assistance were considered dependent on staff for repositioning. Next, the number of activity episodes per hour was calculated for each of the above participants to determine whether there were differences between high- and low-staffed homes in the provision of care processes that could be interpreted as exercise.

Finally, all participants with MDS recall scores of two or greater and who were in need of walking assistance were asked how many walking assists they received per day. The participants' need for walking assistance was determined during a performance test conducted by research staff in which participants were asked to stand and walk and provided graduated levels of assistance to do so. Participants who were unable to stand and bear weight, even if provided full physical assistance by research staff, were excluded from this analysis. It was hypothesized that higher-staffed homes would be more likely to consistently provide exercise, repositioning, and walking assistance to participants because all of these care processes are labor intensive.

Medical Record Review: Licensed Nurse Measures Descriptive information for all participants was collected from the medical record and the most recent MDS or the annual assessment for some items. A trained physician or geriatric nurse practitioner conducted medical record reviews to assess care processes related to licensed nurse activities. It was hypothesized that licensed nurses in homes with higher staffing would perform better at assessment of conditions typically managed by nurses, as opposed to primary care providers, than licensed nurses in homes with lower staffing.

Eight of the licensed nurse care process measures used in this study are derived from the RAND Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elderly (ACOVE) project. The quality indicators in the ACOVE project were operationalized with specific scoring rules and data sources identified for rating each indicator. The methodology used to develop the ACOVE indicators and the evidence that supports their validity has been reported elsewhere (Wenger and Shekelle 2001; Shekelle et al. 2001; Saliba and Schnelle 2002). Eight care processes from the set of ACOVE quality indicators most relevant to licensed nurse performance were identified by a geriatric nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist who covered three care areas: pressure ulcer, incontinence assessment, and pain. In addition, three care processes that were not specific ACOVE indicators were identified that evaluated how well nurses either assessed pain or provided medications to residents with chronic pain.

The ACOVE indicators are relatively self-explanatory even though it should be noted that liberal scoring rules were used to determine if a participant's medical record documentation met the pass criteria for each indicator. For example, in regard to incontinence Indicator 5, a medical record was considered to have fulfilled the intent of this indicator if documentation was provided for just two of the three conditions (e.g., skin health, genital system examination, fecal impaction assessment). The measures used to assess how well nurses were detecting and treating pain requires more explanation.

Three interview measures were used to evaluate licensed nurse performance relevant to pain. Research staff attempted to interview all participants with MDS recall scores of two or above with a set of six questions about pain. Two questions were related to communication between the licensed nurse and the resident regarding pain, “Do you tell the nurse about your pain?” and “Does the nurse ask you about pain?” We report data on the latter question and hypothesized that licensed nurses in higher-staffed homes would ask participants about pain more frequently than nurses in lower-staffed homes. Directly taking a proactive approach and asking residents about pain was considered better care than the more passive approach of simply reacting when a resident spontaneously complains of pain.

The four remaining pain questions were used to identify participants with chronic pain symptoms. Participants were asked: “Do you have pain every day?”; “Does pain ever keep you from doing things you enjoy (like social activities, walking)?”; “Does pain ever keep you from sleeping at night?”; and “Do you have pain right now?” Participants were judged as endorsing chronic pain if they responded “yes” to the question, “Do you have pain everyday?” or if they responded “yes” to all three remaining pain questions. To assess how well licensed nurses were detecting pain we determined the percent of participants who were judged as having chronic pain according to research staff interview who also had licensed nurse documentation of pain on the most recent MDS assessment. We also assessed licensed nurse performance relevant to management of chronic pain. First, we identified a subgroup of participants who had chronic pain according to research staff interviews. Then we determined the percent of this subgroup of participants who were offered pain medication by the licensed nurse at least 50 percent of the days in the previous month. We believed that licensed nurses in higher staffed homes would both detect chronic pain symptoms and offer as needed pain medication more frequently than licensed nurses in lower staffed homes.

Reliability and Stability Interrater reliability for time in bed and engagement observational measures was statistically significant for both measures but high only for the in-bed measures (measures 1 and 2, Table 3; kappa values .65 and .29; p<.001). A subset of 272 participants was observed for a second day on these measures to evaluate stability. The Pearson correlation was .79 for in-bed and .47 for engagement (p<.05). Interrater reliability for all observational-based feeding assistance care process measures shown in Table 3 (measures 3 to 10) ranged from .92 to 1.0; n=55 to 199; p<.001. Mealtime observations were repeated on a second day for all participants and correlations between the two days were significant on all variables (range .22 to .75; p<.05) with social interaction and verbal prompting measures showing the lowest but still significant correlations. The low correlation for this social interaction variable was due to the relatively low frequency that this behavior was observed. Correlations for all the other nutritional measures were above .60. Correlation between a resident's reported having received toileting assistance on two separate days (measure 11, Table 3) was .62; p<.01. The interrater agreement for the interpretation of thigh monitor data necessary to calculate exercise care process measures (measures 13, 14, 15) produced kappa statistics of .61 for repositioning movements, .82 for activity episodes while in a chair, and .75 for activity episodes while in bed. The correlation of a participant's report of walking assistance (measure 16) between two days was calculated for 38 residents (day 1 number of assists reported versus day 2 number of assists reported; r=.35, p<.05).

Table 3Observation and Interview Measurement DomainsGo to:ResultsCharacteristics of Participants in Key Comparison GroupsTable 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants in each group of homes. There were significant differences between participants in all three groups (Table 1). In particular, participants in the upper-decile homes were significantly more likely to be female, older, private pay, and Caucasian when compared to participants in all the other homes; while participants in the lower quartile homes were significantly more likely to be minority and MediCal. In terms of participant acuity, participants in the lower quartile homes (Group 1) tended to be more independent for transfer and feeding assistance and had better cognitive functioning (MDS recall scores) when compared to participants in both the 75th to 90th percentile (Group 2) and upper-decile homes (Group 3). There was no difference on five MDS based acuity measures (recall, transfer and eating dependency, incontinence, pressure ulcer RAP triggered) when comparisons were made between residents in the highest-staffed homes (upper decile) and those in the two lower-staffed homes (combined Groups 1 and 2 versus Group 3).

Table 1Facility and Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Sample Nursing HomesTo address generalizability issues, efforts were made to determine if differences existed between 9 highest-staffed and 45 lower-staffed homes that declined participation in this project and the 6 highest-staffed and 15 lower-staffed homes that participated. The homes that declined participation and the homes that participated were compared on MDS-derived measures of prevalence of weight loss, physical restraint use, and residents' need for assistance with transfer, eating, and toileting characteristics, all of which are available from a new public reporting system in California (http://www.calnhs.org). In addition, data were available describing homes' profit status, total nursing staff hours, nursing staff turnover, total federal deficiencies cited for 2001–2002, and expenditures for direct resident care per resident day. The only difference between participating lower-staffed homes and nonparticipating lower-staffed homes was on the expenditures per resident per day ($59 versus $68, respectively; t=2.115, p=.04). The only difference between participating and nonparticipating highest-staffed homes was on for-profit status of the home (33 percent versus 100 percent, χ2=8.182, p=.004). These results should be cautiously interpreted but in general suggest that the homes participating in this project comprise a relatively typical sample.

Sample Characteristics: Staffing DataTable 2 illustrates the staffing data for the three groups of NHs. The first eight rows alternatively illustrate state staffing statistics for the year 2000 and onsite staffing data reported by administrators. There were large differences between high-decile homes and all remaining homes on all staffing variables except RN hours according to 2000 state staffing data. These differences are most dramatic for total staffing hours and aide staffing hours. In regard to total hours, high decile homes reported an average of 4.88 hours compared to lower quartile and 75th to 90th percentile homes that reported 2.7 and 3.4 hrpd, respectively. There were also significant but less dramatic differences between homes in the lower quartile and the 75th to 90th percentile on most staffing variables. However, interview data collected in 2001–2002 while the research team was onsite suggested that there were no longer differences between lower quartile homes and those in the 75th to 90th percentile on any staffing variable. Lower-quartile home administrators reported an increase in total staffing from 2.7 in 2000 to 3.2 in 2001–2002 and the 75th to 90th percentile homes reported a staffing decrease from 3.4 to 3.0. Administrator reports of staffing and NA reports of workload continued to show a significant difference for Group 3 (upper decile) homes compared to the remaining homes. Administrators reported a total of 4.5 hrpd in 2001–2002 in the upper-decile homes. Both administrators and NAs in the upper-decile homes reported a ratio of residents to NAs on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shifts combined that were very close (7.1 to 7.6 residents to NAs, respectively). These reports were significantly different from the NA workload reports in other homes (e.g., nine to 10 residents per aide, see Table 2, rows 9, 10). These data suggest that there are two distinct groups of homes based on staffing statistics. The difference in staffing between Group 1 and Group 2 homes is not only small and unstable, but also well below those minimums thought to indicate better care according to both expert panels and recent CMS studies. Alternatively, the homes in the upper decile were not only dramatically higher on staffing measures when compared to all other homes but also staffed at those levels thought to be necessary to provide good care (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000; Schnelle, Simmons, Cretin 2001; Kramer and Fish 2001). For these reasons, the primary comparisons on all care process measures were conducted between homes in the upper decile (Group 3) and the remaining sample (Groups 1+2 combined).

Table 2Staffing Characteristics of Sample Nursing HomesNA Care Process Measures: Do Homes That Report the Highest NA Staffing (Group 3 Upper Decile) Provide Different Care Than the Remainder of the Homes (Groups 1 and 2 Combined)Table 3 illustrates that upper-decile homes (Group 3) were significantly different in the same direction on 13 of 16 different care process measures; and, in eight cases significance levels exceeded p<.001. The probability that 13 out of 16 comparisons would be significant at the .05 level by chance is less than .00001. The pattern of significant differences was consistent across all care areas listed in Table 1, but the care process differences were most compelling for feeding assistance and least compelling for exercise and repositioning. In general, participants in the upper-decile homes spent more time out of bed during the day; were engaged more frequently; received better feeding and toileting assistance; were repositioned more frequently; and showed more physical movement patterns during the day that could reflect exercise. However, even participants in these highest-staffed facilities did not receive repositioning at the rate of once every two hours during the day or night and only received potential exercise activities at the rate of approximately one episode every four hours. In addition, there were no differences between the groups of homes in repositioning frequency at night; walking assistance frequency during the day as reported by the participants; or the amount of social interaction observed between residents and staff during meals.

Social interaction during meals could only be measured in the dining room, and participants in the upper-decile homes were observed significantly more often in the dining room than those in the remaining homes. If one assumes that there are very low or zero levels of social interaction between residents and staff if residents eat in their rooms, which is a reasonable assumption, then there would be significant overall differences in the amount of social interaction that participants in upper-decile homes received during meals as compared to participants in all remaining homes.

There were no differences on five MDS-based acuity measures that could explain why more residents ate in their rooms more often in the lower-staffed homes (Groups 1 and 2 combined versus those in the highest-staffed NHs—see Table 1). The significant higher age of residents in the highest-staffed home would seem predictive of these residents spending more time in bed as opposed to less time as was observed. However, none of the demographic characteristics including age were correlated with in-bed or feeding assistance measures across all homes. A multiple regression analysis using staffing as a categorical variable (upper decile versus all others) and MDS acuity scores that were correlated with in-bed time (transfer and feeding assistance, recall scores, and prevalence of UI and pressure ulcer RAP triggered) revealed that staffing remained the only significant predictor of in-bed time (standardized beta=−.28, standard error=8.8, p<.003).

Licensed Nurse Performance MeasuresTable 4 presents the licensed nurse comparisons between the three groups of homes. Unlike the NA care process comparisons, there were no licensed nurse performance measures that favored the upper-decile homes. In fact, licensed nurses in the lower-staffed homes performed better on 2 of the 11 indicators when compared to the upper-decile homes (Group 3). This difference was primarily due to Group 1 homes' nurses scoring significantly better on two pressure ulcer indicators. In addition to the low pass rates for higher-staffed homes on licensed nurse measures, there was also relatively poor performance on some indicators across all homes. Specifically, no group of homes performed well on the indicators assessing licensed nurse management of chronic pain by offering “as needed” pain medication on at least 50 percent of the days in the prior month to those residents with chronic pain symptoms. Less than 10 percent of participants who had chronic pain symptoms and who also had a physician's order for pain medication “as needed” were offered the pain medication on at least 50 percent of the days in the prior month across all homes. Furthermore, licensed nurses failed to identify many residents with chronic pain because less than 50 percent of participants who had chronic pain also had documentation of pain on their most recent MDS assessment. The kappa statistic agreement for residents with chronic pain on two different interviews was .65 (p<.01), indicating high stability. Finally, licensed nurses in all homes also performed poorly on several of the incontinence indicators. Most notably, no incontinent participants had documentation of a three-to-five day toileting assistance trial, which is the most valid method of determining if a resident should receive a scheduled toileting program.

Table 4Measures of Licensed Nurse Care ProcessesGo to:DiscussionNursing home self-reported staffing statistics do reflect differences in quality between homes that report the highest staffing level (upper decile) and all remaining homes. There were few differences between homes that report staffing levels below the 90th percentile and the staffing levels in these homes were unstable across the different staffing measures. There appears to be a two-tiered staffing system with only the homes reporting the highest level of staffing showing both stability and significantly better care on most measures.

The most dramatic differences between the homes were reported for NA hours and the most dramatic quality improvement occurred for homes that reported a total staffing hrpd average from 4.8 (state data) to 4.5 (onsite interview data). There was also a significant improvement in these upper-decile homes for multiple care processes delivered by NAs even though residents in the upper-decile homes needed as much care according to multiple functional measures as residents in the lower-staffed homes.

There were smaller differences between homes in reported licensed nurse hours and particularly RN hours and there were also fewer differences between homes on licensed nurse performance measures. The differences that did exist favored the lower-staffed homes for two pressure ulcer assessment indicators derived from medical record data. In contrast, observation and resident interview measures related to pressure ulcer care actually received by residents (e.g., toileting assistance, repositioning care) favored the upper-decile homes. This finding highlights an important discrepancy between quality conclusions about NH care process implementation derived from different data sources (medical record versus observation and resident interview).

Despite this discrepancy, it is still surprising that the medical record documentation provided by licensed nurses in higher-staffed facilities was not better since other studies have reported a relationship between licensed nurses' hours and some quality measures (Kramer and Fish 2001). There are two potential explanations for this finding. First, it is possible that none of the homes in this study had adequate licensed nurses, particularly RNs, to improve care quality. Furthermore, RN hours failed to reach the minimum level recommended by a recent CMS study (.75 hours) in all homes, and RN hours were much less in all homes than that recommended by an expert panel (1.15 hours) (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000). Second, licensed nurses in all facilities simply may be unaware of some care processes that define good quality (e.g., no homes documented a trial of toileting assistance for incontinent residents and all homes did poorly on all pain-related measures). This possibility reinforces arguments that licensed nurses who practice in NHs should receive more specialized training focused on the NH population.

It is also important to note that some care processes were poorly implemented in even the highest-staffed facilities, despite the fact that these facilities had sufficient numbers of NAs to potentially provide 100 percent of care to all residents. One plausible explanation for this finding is that all homes lacked management mechanisms necessary to assure that care was provided on a daily basis, in particular, for care processes that are difficult to measure and manage. For example, the fewest differences occurred between homes on care processes related to repositioning and walking exercise, both of which are difficult to measure when compared to more visible types of care (e.g., resident out of bed). In addition, even though the highest-staffed facilities provided better feeding assistance than other homes, there were still problems that could be traced to measurement issues. For example, even staff in the highest-staffed facilities did not accurately record that 48 percent of the residents were eating less than 50 percent of the food offered and that 54 percent of these low-intake residents were provided less than one minute of feeding assistance during meals. Both of these problems in higher-staffed homes could reflect the absence of a quality assessment technology to accurately measure and monitor these care processes.

We should also note that the differences in the care for the highest-staffing homes (Group 3, upper decile) and all lower-staffed homes were significantly greater than the differences in quality measured for homes that differed on MDS clinical quality indicators. This finding, as reported in other studies, suggests that staffing data may be the best information to give consumers (Bates-Jensen et al. 2003; Simmons et al. 2003; Schnelle, Cadogan et al. 2003; Cadogan et al. 2003; Schnelle et al. 2004).

The conclusions are limited to the relatively small regional sample and our inability to check staffing accuracy with time card records even though time card accuracy checks can also be problematic (Hurd, White, and Feuerberg 2001). Fortunately, the reports by aides of their workloads appears to be a measure that is both associated with other workload reports and discriminative of care quality. This fact suggests that consumers might want to monitor the adequacy of staffing in NHs by asking aides how many people they are working with.

It is also possible that NH characteristics correlated with staffing may have mediated some of the effects reported in this study. For example, higher wages and benefits and lower staff turnover have been linked to better quality and we did not measure these variables. Future studies should expand the number of NH homes (particularly high-staffed homes) and variables studied in an effort to more comprehensively delineate the effects of staffing on quality. The low number of high-staffed homes in this study prevented statistical controls for potentially important facility variables that differentiated these homes, such as size and proportion of Medicaid residents. In addition, we did not measure all resident acuity variables that may have explained why residents in low-staffed homes spent so much time in bed. Direct measures of a resident's sickness severity are particularly important for this purpose.

The standardized measurement technology described in this paper represents a major strength of this study. The measurement protocols are clearly defined, can be replicated, and meet scientific measurement criteria related to reliability and stability. Even though one can argue about the importance of some of the measures for assessing quality, the specificity of the measures allows for this argument to be evidence-based.

Despite the limitations of this study, an excellent case can be made that the highest-staffed homes provided better care. Furthermore, NA staffing levels reported by only the highest-staffed homes exceeded those levels that were identified in two recent CMS reports as associated with higher care quality. This finding provides some verification that NA staffing above 2.8 hours per resident per day is associated with better quality.

Go to:FootnotesSupported by a grant from the California HealthCare Foundation. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and may not reflect those of the Foundation. The California HealthCare Foundation, based in Oakland, California, is a nonprofit philanthropic organization whose mission is to expand access to affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and communities, and to promote fundamental improvements in the health status of the people of California. This research was also supported by grant AG10415 from the National Institute on Aging, UCLA Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center.






0 Comments

January 10th, 2014

1/10/2014

0 Comments

 
AS NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMISTS LIKE REICH AND KRUGMAN SHOUT OUT AGAINST THE WEALTH INEQUITY OF TODAY WITHOUT EVER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT ISN'T INEQUITY-----IT WAS A VISIGOTH LOOTING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY BY MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUD------WE SAY, A GOVERNMENT THAT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW SUSPENDS STATUTES OF LIMITATION!

I see in Baltimore all these middle-class homeowners that were able to keep their homes in hard times and I am shouting----financial analysts are warning to get rid of houses as this coming economic crash will bring a depression so you may be next!  Gentrification will go up the income scale!



I spoke last time about how Obama and neo-liberals played this entire crisis like a playbook written by Wall Street.  We saw how these main street bailouts were deliberately written so that only the affluent homeowners would access help and the FHA, a vital agency with a long service to families was targeted to be shut out.  Neo-liberals are working just as hard as republicans to end all War on Poverty and New Deal programs and fair housing goes!!!!  So, the middle-class  holding on to jobs and their homes now had better buckle-up because financial analysts are calling for people owning homes to get rid of them as the next, more powerful economic collapse comes soon......

THIS IS OBAMA'S LEGACY AND ALL OF MARYLAND'S DEMOCRATS ARE NEO-LIBERALS AND ALL EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE. 


SHAME AND DISGRACE FOR MARYLAND NEO-LIBERALS WATCHING SILENTLY AS THIS UNFOLDED.

What could we do, they say?  When 50 states attorney general shout out in 2005 that the mortgage industry is systemically criminal--------

YOU SHOUT OUT TO MARYLAND CITIZENS NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN THESE LOANS.  THEN, YOU SHOUT OUT OVER AND OVER THAT JUSTICE HAS NOT OCCURRED!

That is what a democrat would do!


Below you see the housing program that Obama and neo-liberals pretended was the bailout of main street and help in curbing foreclosures.  It was a ruse of course as they fumbled the roll-out long enough for most people that could have gotten help went under trying to get it!  Mind you....some people were helped.  The percentage I see over and again is 10% of foreclosures were saved.

 I sit and watch the same banks and mortgage corporations that created the massive subprime mortgage fraud now connected with HARP, earning more money from fees attached to yet another mortgage refinance.  From Quickens Loans to  Wells Fargo and Bank of America.....they are earning billions on HARP.

HARP Program Requirements In order to participate in HARP you need to meet the following requirements:

  • Your mortgage must be owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
  • You must be current on your mortgage, and cannot have made a payment more than 30 days late in the past year.
  • You must have negative home equity (you owe more on your mortgage than your home is worth), but your mortgage cannot exceed 125% of the value of your home.
  • Refinancing must help the affordability or stability of your mortgage.
  • You must have the ability to continue making payments
  • Mortgage owned or guaranteed by the FHA, VA, or USDA are not eligible for HARP.
  • Your property must be 1-4 units.
  • Your property must also be your primary residence. 2nd homes are not eligible for refinancing under HARP.
________________________________________________
As you see, HARP deliberately excludes FHA and the other government mortgages from this 'stimulus' and these loans are for those needing the help the most.  See why tens of millions of people went into foreclosure?  They were the ones most affected by the massive frauds and simple Rule of Law would have kept those homes with those families.

The reason Obama and neo-liberals in Congress chose Freddie and Fannie for this stimulus is that these loans were private mortgages and they wanted bank mortgages to be stabilized with the higher end prices and they are trying to end FHA and low-income homeownership. Neo-liberals work with republicans to end all War on Poverty and New Deal programs!

Obama and neo-liberals called these homeowners 'responsible' because they were able to weather years of recession.


Remember, they wanted everyone out of property ownership and into rentals because Pottersville landlords can keep people poor with high rents and control where they live!  Neo-liberals are socially engineering this return to Medieval society with the serfs outside the castle gates....into what is suburbia.  What about equal housing and access?  THE BILL OF RIGHTS GOES WITH TPP YOU KNOW!  In Maryland, the ACLU is actually helping with this even as it is unconstitutional.


The FHA was a successful program for decades causing very little cost for taxpayers.  So, the only reason to get rid of it is that it took away profit for banks wanting the mortgage business. 





Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase mortgages from financial institutions, providing a way for those financial institutions to have more cash to continue to lend money for additional mortgages. Congress enacted a statutory mission for these GSEs to bring "liquidity, stability and affordability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets."


FHA mortgages were created by the United States government to give borrowers with low credit scores and down payments who could not qualify for a Freddie Mac mortgage the opportunity to buy a home.


_____________________________________________


When Obama chose to suspend Rule of Law and allow all this mortgage fraud go without justice it was the old, women, and children who were hit the hardest.  Seniors taking home equity loans thinking they would be able to address them over time did not know massive corporate fraud was being allowed to go unabated.  These were the 'irresponsible' homeowners Obama and neo-liberals allowed to be taken under.

Now, Wall Street wanted all real estate back into the hands of the banks so if you watch TV you are familiar with the REVERSE MORTGAGE DEALS THAT HAND HOMES TO THE BANKS AFTER SENIORS DIE.  This is handy for families with seniors struggling to survive, but it was yet another device to move homeownership away from average people as these families who would normally have inherited these homes now had no inheritance.  Meanwhile, the estate taxes are being eliminated slowly but surely for the wealthy.


THE FIRST THING A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY DOES IS PROTECT THE OLD AND YOUNG....NOT NEO-LIBERALS!

THIS WAS MASSIVE FRAUD AND THE ECONOMY WAS DAMAGED BY THIS FRAUD.  ALL OF THE AID BY CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE COME TO MAIN STREET.  RULE OF LAW DEMANDS IT SO------WHEN GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW THEY SUSPEND STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS!

Senior Citizens Worst Hit By Foreclosures in America
Filed Under Repo Homes

It is the senior citizens that have been worst hit by the foreclosure crisis in America. About 28% of those boiling in the foreclosure cauldron are aged above 50. A recent study by AARP has questioned the validity of the hitherto popular surmise that the seniors have escaped the crisis because of they had built up sufficient equity on their houses.

The research done by AARP show that 684,000 persons aged 50 are in foreclosure during the last six months of 2007. Those who were above 50 comprised of 28% of all those who were in the foreclosure soup. Of these 684,000 senior borrowers, 50,000 were in foreclosures and lost their houses.

At the close of 2007 the rate among senior citizens of America who were in foreclosure was 0.24%. This was half of those who were aged less than 50 and have less equity than their elders.

Susan Reinhard of Public Policy Institute said that the seniors of America are dependent on their houses both as a shelter and an asset when retirement knocks. She said, “Losing a home jeopardizes long-term financial security with limited time to recover.”

The report also highlights the effects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis on those who were aged 50 and above. This group was 17 times more likely to be caught by foreclosure than those with prime mortgages. The states with high repo home rates among the seniors are California, Nevada, Colorado and Michigan.

Older Americans had made use of the equity on their houses for making repairs to their property and financing the higher education of their children. But seniors with fixed income are facing problems making mortgage payments. The sluggish economy with inflation is making the going even tougher for those with advancing age. Fall in the real estate market has affected all age groups.

Daniel Alpert of Westwood Capital that both young and old who had siphoned off the equity on their houses are now rocking on the same boat of foreclosure Many seniors like the juniors contracted teaser loans thanks to the aggressive peddling of the same by agents. The mortgage forms were also difficult to comprehend. The call of the hour is simplified mortgages. So it was a question of sales talk and trust that were misused for disastrous consequences for all – the lender, the borrower and the community together with the hapless individual whether young or old.




______________________________________________



Below you see an article from Fall 2011 talking about how very few on main street were able to access HARP from the time it rolled out with the bank bailout.  This was supposedly main street's bailout but between the long-term unemployment creating the environment of missed payments and the banks constantly 'losing paperwork' that basically caused most people applying to fail to be considered. 

ALL OF THIS WAS DELIBERATE AS THIS ENTIRE MORTGAGE FRAUD WAS ABOUT GETTING MAIN STREET OUT OF THEIR HOMES SO THE GOAL WAS TO GET AS MANY HOMEOWNERS AS POSSIBLE INTO FORECLOSURE. 

Here in Maryland advocates for people heading to foreclosure shouted even into 2012 that  the money intended to augment people heading to foreclosure from the $25 billion mortgage fraud settlement was not getting to people.  So, just think, people who we all know were struggling from the economic downturn were left from 2009-2012 mostly unable to get the help they needed with this HARP policy. 

Flash forward to 2013 and we see Obama shouting that those funds set aside for HARP be used.  By now, most people of average means have lost their homes to foreclosure.


The Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP): What you need to know

By Hayley Tsukayama, Published: October 24, 2011

On Monday, the federal government announced that it would revise the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), implementing changes that The Washington Post’s Zachary A. Goldfarb reported would “allow many more struggling borrowers to refinance their mortgages at today’s ultra-low rates, reducing monthly payments for some homeowners and potentially providing a modest boost to the economy.”

The HARP program, which was rolled out in 2009, is designed to help. Those who are “underwater” on their homes and owe more than the homes are worth. So far, The Post reported, it has reached less than one-tenth of the 5 million borrowers it was designed to help. Here’s a quick breakdown of what you need to know about the changes.

Video

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Edward J. DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, talks about the regulator's mortgage relief program that will expand to allow homeowners to refinance regardless of how much their houses have dropped in value.

Gallery

  Flashback: Last year, some mortgage lenders and government officials took action after discovering that many mortgage documents were mishandled.


What was announced? The enhancements will allow some homeowners who are not currently eligible to refinance to do so under HARP. The changes cut fees for borrowers who want to refinance into short-term mortgages and some other borrowers. They also eliminate a cap that prevented “underwater” borrowers who owe more than 125 percent of what their property is worth from accessing the program.

Am I eligible? To be eligible, you must have a mortgage owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, sold to those agencies on or before May 31, 2009. The current loan-to-value ratio on the mortgage must be greater than 80 percent. Having a mortgage that was previously refinanced under the program disqualifies you from the program. Borrowers cannot not have missed any mortgage payments in the past six months and cannot have had more than one missed payment in the past 12 months.

How do I take advantage of HARP? According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the first step borrowers should take is to see whether their mortgages are owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. If so, borrowers should contact lenders that offer HARP refinances.

When do the changes go into effect? The FHFA is expected to publish final changes in November. According to a fact sheet on the program, the timing will vary by lender.



____________________________________________

I speak quite often about the targeted families in urban centers because of what is happening in Baltimore.  The black middle-class was hit hardest as their wealth was often tied to these urban areas hit with mortgage fraud and as we know the US Justice Department has failed to give any justice to people of color in these urban centers.  City Hall is not only allowing the subprime loan fraud go without justice......I have spoken about how City Hall is actually preying on these citizens with home seizures from faulty utility bills or small amounts of back taxes.

THIS IS NOT A DONE DEAL AS ALL OF THIS HAS YET TO SEE JUSTICE AND RULE OF LAW WILL HAVE LOW-INCOME HOUSING FOR VICTIMS OF FRAUD IN THE CITY CENTER!


The Great Eviction: Black America and the Toll of the Foreclosure Crisis From predatory loans to evictions at gunpoint, neighborhoods are hosting bitter conflicts between activists and market forces—By Laura Gottesdiener

| Thu Aug. 1, 2013 1:04 PM


We cautiously ascend the staircase, the pitch black of the boarded-up house pierced only by my companion's tiny circle of light. At the top of the landing, the flashlight beam dances in a corner as Quafin, who offered only her first name, points out the furnace. She is giddy; this house—unlike most of the other bank-owned buildings on the block—isn't completely uninhabitable.

It had been vacated, sealed, and winterized in June 2010, according to a notice on the wall posted by BAC Field Services Corporation, a division of Bank of America. It warned: "entry by unauthorized persons is strictly prohibited." But Bank of America has clearly forgotten about the house and its requirement to provide the "maintenance and security" that would ensure the property could soon be reoccupied. The basement door is ajar, the plumbing has been torn out of the walls, and the carpet is stained with water. The last family to live here bought the home for $175,000 in 2002; eight years later, the bank claimed an improbable $286,100 in past-due balances and repossessed it.

It's May 2012 and we're in Woodlawn, a largely African American neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. The crew Quafin is a part of dubbed themselves the HIT Squad, short for Housing Identification and Target. Their goal is to map blighted, bank-owned homes with overdue property taxes and neighbors angry enough about the destruction of their neighborhood to consider supporting a plan to repossess on the repossessors.

"Anything I can do," one woman tells the group after being briefed on its plan to rehab bank-owned homes and move in families without houses. She points across the street to a sagging, boarded-up place adorned with a worn banner—"Grandma's House Child Care: Register Now!"—and a disconnected number. There are 20 banked-owned homes like it in a five-block radius. Records showed that at least five of them were years past due on their property taxes.

Where exterior walls once were, some houses sport charred holes from fires lit by people trying to stay warm. In 2011, two Chicago firefighters died trying to extinguish such a fire at a vacant foreclosed building. Now, houses across the South Side are pockmarked with red Xs, indicating places the fire department believes to be structurally unsound. In other states--Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New York, to name recent examples—foreclosed houses have taken to exploding after bank contractors forgot to turn off the gas.

Most of the occupied homes in the neighborhood we're visiting display small signs: "Don't shoot," they read in lettering superimposed on a child's face, "I want to grow up." On the bank-owned houses, such signs have been replaced by heavy-duty steel window guards. ("We work with all types of servicers, receivers, property management, and bank asset managers, enabling you to quickly and easily secure your building so you can move on," boasts Door and Window Guard Systems, a leading company in the burgeoning "building security industry.")

The dangerous houses are the ones left unsecured, littered with trash and empty Cobra vodka bottles. We approach one that reeks of rancid tuna fish and attempt to push open the basement door, held closed only by a flimsy wire. The next-door neighbor, returning home, asks: "Did you know they killed someone in that backyard just this morning?"

The Equivalent of the Population of Michigan Foreclosed
Since 2007, the foreclosure crisis has displaced at least 10 million people from more than four million homes across the country. Families have been evicted from colonials and bungalows, A-frames and two-family brownstones, trailers and ranches, apartment buildings and the prefabricated cookie-cutters that sprang up after World War II. The displaced are young and old, rich and poor, and of every race, ethnicity, and religion. They add up to approximately the entire population of Michigan.

However, African American neighborhoods were targeted more aggressively than others for the sort of predatory loans that led to mass evictions after the economic meltdown of 2007-2008. At the height of the rapacious lending boom, nearly 50% of all loans given to African American families were deemed "subprime." The New York Times described these contracts as "a financial time-bomb."

Over the last year and a half, I traveled through many of these neighborhoods, reporting on the grassroots movements of resistance to foreclosure and displacement that have been springing up in the wake of the explosion. These community efforts have proven creative, inspiring, and often effective—but in too many cities and towns, the landscape that forms the backdrop to such a movement of hope is one of almost overwhelming destruction. Lots filled with "Cheap Bank-Owned!" trailers line highways. Cities hire contractors dubbed "Blackwater Bailiffs" to keep pace with the dizzying eviction rate.

In recent years, the foreclosure crisis has been turning many African American communities into conflict zones, torn between a market hell-bent on commodifying life itself and communities organizing to protect their neighborhoods. The more I ventured into such areas, the more I came to realize that the clash of values going on isn't just theoretical or metaphorical.

"Internal displacement causes conflict," explained J.R. Fleming, the chairman of the Chicago Anti-Eviction Campaign. "And there's no other country in the world that would force so much internal displacement and pretend that it's something else."

Evictions at Gunpoint
It was three in the morning when at least a dozen police cruisers pulled up to the single-story, green-shuttered house in the African American Atlanta suburb where Christine Frazer and her family lived. The precise number of sheriffs and deputies who arrived is disputed; the local radio station reported 25, while Frazer recalled seeing between 40 and 50.

A locksmith drilled off the home's locks and dozens of officers burst into the house with flashlights and handguns.

"Who's in the house?" they shouted. Aside from Frazer, a widow with a vocal devotion to the Man Above, there were three other residents: her 85-year-old mother, her adult daughter, and her four-year-old grandson. Things began to happen fast. Animal control rounded up the pets. Officers told the women to get dressed. Could she take a shower? Frazer asked. Imagine there's a fire in your house, the officer replied.

"They came to my home like I was a drug dealer," she told reporters later. Over the next seven hours, the officers hauled out the entire contents of her home and cordoned off the street to prevent friends from helping her retrieve her things.

"I have no idea where some of my jewelry is, stuff I bought when I was 30 years old," said Frazer. "I am sixty-three. They just threw everything everywhere, helter-skelter on the front lawn in the dark."

The eviction-turned-raid sparked controversy across Atlanta when it occurred in the spring of 2012, in part because Frazer had a motion pending in federal court that should have stayed the eviction, and in part because she was an active participant of Occupy Homes Atlanta. But this type of militarized reaction is often the outcome when communities—especially those of color—organize to resist eviction.

When Nicole Shelton attempted to move back into her repossessed home in a picket-fence subdivision in North Carolina, the Raleigh police department sent in more than a dozen police officers and an eight-person SWAT team. Officers were equipped with M5 submachine guns. A helicopter roared overhead. In Boston, one organizer with the community group City Life/Vida Urbana remembers the police acting so aggressively at an eviction blockade in a Haitian neighborhood that the grandmother of the family had a heart attack right in the driveway.

And sometimes it doesn't require resistance at all. On the South Side of Chicago, explained Toussaint Losier, a community organizer completing his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, "They bust in the door, and it's at the point of a gun that you get evicted."

Exiles in America
There have been widespread foreclosures—and some organized resistance—in predominately white communities, too. Kevin Kirkman, captain of the civil division of the Lee County sheriff's office, explained, "I get so many [eviction] papers in here, it's unbelievable."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

More than 75% of the residents in North Carolina's Lee County are whites. But Kirkman still sees the ripple effects of mass foreclosure here. "You're talking about a mudslide where a lot of things are affected. You're talking about taxes, about retail sales if people move, about food services, about gasoline. You see what I'm talking about? When you lose a family in the community? Some people leave the community. I have seen people leave the state of North Carolina."

He added, "I'm going be honest with you, my feeling is that I would not do these evictions."


______________________________________________
I wanted to end with this main stream shout out that the subprime mortgage loan fraud is recognized by all and the amount of these frauds are in the trillions of dollars and as of now we have gotten maybe a trillion in subprime loan settlement and most of that has been sent right back to banks as developers......WE ALL KNOW THIS!

Op-Ed Columnist The Mortgage Fraud Fraud

By JOE NOCERA Published: June 1, 2012 

I got an e-mail the other day from Richard Engle telling me that his son Charlie would be getting out of prison this month. I was happy to hear it.

Charlie’s ordeal isn’t over yet, of course. When he leaves prison on June 20, Charlie, 49, will move temporarily to a halfway house, after which he will be on probation for another five years. And unless he can get the verdict overturned, he will have to spend the rest of his life with a felony on his record.

Perhaps you remember Charlie Engle. I wrote about him not long after he entered a minimum-security facility in Beaver, W.Va., 16 months ago. He’s the poor guy who went to jail for lying on a liar loan during the housing bubble.

There were two things about Charlie’s prosecution that really bothered me. First, he’d clearly been targeted by an agent of the Internal Revenue Service who seemed offended that Charlie was an ultramarathoner without a steady day job. The I.R.S. conducted “Dumpster dives” into his garbage and put a wire on a female undercover agent hoping to find some dirt on him. Unable to unearth any wrongdoing on his tax returns, the I.R.S. discovered he had taken out several subprime mortgages that didn’t require income verification. His income on one of them was wildly inflated. They don’t call them liar loans for nothing.

Charlie has always insisted that he never filled out the loan document — his mortgage broker did it, and he was actually a victim of mortgage fraud. (The broker later pleaded guilty to another mortgage fraud.) Indeed, according to a recent court filing by Charlie’s lawyer, the government failed to turn over exculpatory evidence that could have helped Charlie prove his innocence. For whatever inexplicable reason, prosecutors really wanted to nail Charlie Engle. And they did.

Second, though, it seemed incredible to me that with all the fraud that took place during the housing bubble, the Justice Department was focusing not on the banks that had issued the fraudulent loans, but rather on those who had taken out the loans, which invariably went sour when housing prices fell.

As I would later learn, Charlie Engle was no aberration. The current meme — argued most recently by Charles Ferguson, in his new book “Predator Nation” — is that not a single top executive at any of the firms that nearly brought down the financial system has spent so much as a day in jail. And that is true enough.

But what is also true, and which is every bit as corrosive to our belief in the rule of law, is that the Justice Department has instead taken after the smallest of small fry — and then trumpeted those prosecutions as proof of how tough it is on mortgage fraud. It is a shameful way for the government to act.

“These people thought they were pursuing the American dream,” says Mark Pennington, a lawyer in Des Moines who regularly defends home buyers being prosecuted by the local United States attorney. “Right here in Des Moines,” he said, “there was a big subprime outfit, Wells Fargo Financial. No one there has been prosecuted. They are only going after people who lost their homes after the bubble burst. It’s a scandal.”

The Justice Department has had a tough run recently. Last week, Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general — who was recently given a role by President Obama to investigate the mortgage-backed securities issued during the bubble — complained publicly that he wasn’t getting the resources he needed from the Justice Department. And, of course, on Thursday, a federal judge declared a mistrial on five charges of campaign finance fraud and conspiracy in the trial of the former presidential candidate John Edwards.

In the Edwards case, the Justice Department spent tens of millions of dollars, and trotted out novel legal theories, to prosecute a man who was essentially trying to keep people from discovering that he had had a mistress and an out-of-wedlock child. Salacious though it was, the case has zero public import. Yet this same Justice Department isn’t willing to use similar resources — and perhaps even trot out some novel legal theories — to go after the pervasive corporate wrongdoing that gave us the financial crisis and the Great Recession. (I should note that the Justice Department claims that it “will not hesitate” to prosecute any “institution where there is evidence of a crime.”)

Think back to the last time the federal government went after corporate crooks. It was after the Internet bubble. Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay of Enron were prosecuted and found guilty. Bernard Ebbers, the former chief executive of WorldCom, went to jail. Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco was prosecuted and given a lengthy prison sentence. Now recall which Justice Department prosecuted those men.

Amazing, isn’t it? George W. Bush has turned out to be tougher on corporate crooks than Barack Obama.






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.