WHAT????? YOU MEAN THOSE 10,000 IMMIGRANTS BALTIMORE MAYOR RAWLINGS-BLAKE PROMISED TO BRING TO BALTIMORE ARE THOSE 10,000 JOBS TO BE CREATED AT THE GLOBAL FOXCONN FACTORIES TO BE BUILT AT SPARROW'S POINT----THEY THINK ALLOWED TO OPERATE AS INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES DO OVERSEAS BECAUSE TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT IS BEING FAST-TRACKED THROUGH CONGRESS?
Don't worry citizens of Baltimore and region----they have plans for plenty of FOXCONN sweat shop factories for Americans and Latino immigrants already here as well---working under the same conditions as the human capital in developing nations.
Below you see how corrupt an EPA under global pols are-----they act as if something environmental is happening when the goal is to create the same International Economic Zone massive global corporate complexes that devastated Ports and land overseas.
New owner to turn Sparrows Point into 'transportation, manufacturing and logistics' campus
Sep 18, 2014, 11:17am EDT Updated Sep 18, 2014, 3:04pm EDT
Kevin Litten Reporter Baltimore Business Journal
Baltimore County officials on Thursday said Redwood Capital Investments has reached an environmental agreement to clean up the land that was formerly home to Bethlehem Steel as the company moves to acquire a significant portion of Sparrows Point.
Redwood Capital plans to redevelop the facility into a "transportation, manufacturing and logistics industrial campus," federal officials said. The announcement is the first time local officials have identified Redwood Capital as the site's new owner, though media reports identified the company as the likely buyer in July.
The company is led by Jim Davis, who is the cousin and business partner of Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti. Davis and Bisciotti founded Allegis Group, based in Hanover, a staffing company that took in $8.75 billion last year, according to Baltimore Business Journal research.
Redwood plans to buy the full 3,100 acres available on the 5.3-mile peninsula. The property, entirely zoned for industrial use, is the largest vacant piece of land with deepwater port access in the country. It has sat idle since the last owner to operate a steel plant on the site, RG Steel LLC, closed the mill and laid off nearly 2,000 employees in 2012.
Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz said in a statement that the agreement with state and federal environmental regulators "clears the first hurdle to redevelopment of this important industrial property.
"Sparrows Point is now poised to once again be a vibrant economic engine for Baltimore County and the entire region," Kamenetz said. "We look forward to seeing a redevelopment plan that upholds rigorous environmental standards and is consistent with the county's vision of bringing new opportunities for job creation, investment, and business success."
The environmental challenges at Sparrows Point are huge. The 125-year history of steel manufacturing means the site could cost $75 million to clean up.
Environmental Protection Agency officials said in a release that the agreement includes a promise that the new owner will contribute $3 million toward offshore environmental investigation. It would also contribute $100,000 toward EPA oversight up front and up to $50,000 per year in the future.
In a separate release, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said the new owner has pledged to create a $43 million trust fund and a $5 million letter of credit to pay for cleanup.
"In return, the [prospective purchaser agreement] will resolve potential claims the United States government would have under environmental laws governing the cleanup of hazardous waste and contamination at properties," the EPA said. The federal government is accepting public comments on the agreement that must be submitted to the EPA by Oct. 18.
Sparrows Point also requires new infrastructure to be built at the site, and Kamenetz has already issued a press release urging the new property owner to comply with a plan developed by the Sparrows Point Partnership. The group was formed to present a new vision for the land and issued its first report in May 2013.
The report envisioned setting aside the south and southwest side of the peninsula for maritime and Port of Baltimore use, including a new terminal and dredge disposal facility at Coke Point; locating advanced manufacturing and assembly in the center; and using the northern portion for distribution and logistics. A small portion of the site on the east side for energy, where Kinder Morgan Energy Partners operates a terminal.
The sale of the land is expected to close today, the EPA said.
'The IMF's policies hurt women the most'
For citizens of Baltimore wanting to bring revenue back to each community---YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH----GLOBAL CORPORATIONS WILL NOT ALLOW PUBLIC SUBSIDY OF PROFITS BE TAKEN TO COMMUNITIES. I cannot stress the social costs to a global corporate economic zone in health, transportation logistics, all kinds of global security that costs billions of dollars to support. So, if citizens in Baltimore thought having a few billions of dollars misappropriated each year these few decades in corporate fraud and corruption was bad-----wait to see when the global rich become the pay-to-players.
Let's take a look at social costs in future if we allow a Foreign Economic Zone policy to be installed:
The IMF is the global corporate tribunal and it is the institution for coming into developing nations---tying them to debt ----and then forcing these international economic zone structures on these nations. That is what Clinton/Bush/Obama have been doing overseas these few decades under Wall Street right wing neo-liberalism. Baltimore has been treated like an International Economic Zone by very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development and that is why passing debt to citizens and today---the move to implode our governments with debt is unfolding. The credit bond fraud is attached to our Federal, state, and Baltimore City government just to send the IMF into the US cities under the guise of 'economic rescue'.
Obama and Clinton neo-liberals dismantled our public health just so people could not expect relief from the coming environmental and human health devastation. Called Affordable Care Act---its goal was to move the US away from doctors doing no harm---hospitals not able to turn away citizens needing health care----to one of controlling communicable disease and preventative health care. Once your sick---you are no longer useful as a worker so go away!
Baltimore already knows the economic costs of poverty====Baltimore is ranked lowest in the nation in health outcomes because Johns Hopkins doesn't allow real public health. Think what will happen as our fresh water is polluted-----the air requires citizens to stay inside and wear masks outside----factories allowed to have no worker safety conditions with people expected to protect themselves or lose work.
Below you see how he IMF worked for decades from Thatcher/Reagan=====to Blair/Bush====and now Osbourne/Obama in all of the Asian and Latin American nations having neo-liberal economic zones forced on them.....IT IS THE SAME AS IS HAPPENING IN THE US TODAY----WITH BUSH/OBAMA SUPER-HEATING THIS MOVEMENT.
When I hear citizens say----WE CAN'T STOP THIS----I know they have someone telling them that. Of course we can stop this---easy peasy=====
EASY PEASY FOLKS---BECAUSE IT IS MOSTLY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CAN BE VOIDED!
The costs of pushing people to poverty comes from loss of physical and mental health -----this takes people out of the workforce and creates the levels of crime and violence we see in Baltimore and this is great public expense. Now, think what the costs will be if this is super-sized as Baltimore City Hall, Baltimore Maryland Assembly working for neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development moves these Foreign Economic Zone policies forward.
Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the IMF
What is the IMF?
Also available as a
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and are now based in Washington, DC. The IMF was originally designed to promote international economic cooperation and provide its member countries with short term loans so they could trade with other countries (achieve balance of payments). Since the debt crisis of the 1980's, the IMF has assumed the role of bailing out countries during financial crises (caused in large part by currency speculation in the global casino economy) with emergency loan packages tied to certain conditions, often referred to as structural adjustment policies (SAPs). The IMF now acts like a global loan shark, exerting enormous leverage over the economies of more than 60 countries. These countries have to follow the IMF's policies to get loans, international assistance, and even debt relief. Thus, the IMF decides how much debtor countries can spend on education, health care, and environmental protection. The IMF is one of the most powerful institutions on Earth -- yet few know how it works.
The IMF has created an immoral system of modern day colonialism that SAPs the poor
The IMF -- along with the WTO and the World Bank -- has put the global economy on a path of greater inequality and environmental destruction. The IMF's and World Bank's structural adjustment policies (SAPs) ensure debt repayment by requiring countries to cut spending on education and health; eliminate basic food and transportation subsidies; devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper; privatize national assets; and freeze wages. Such belt-tightening measures increase poverty, reduce countries' ability to develop strong domestic economies and allow multinational corporations to exploit workers and the environment A recent IMF loan package for Argentina, for example, is tied to cuts in doctors' and teachers' salaries and decreases in social security payments.. The IMF has made elites from the Global South more accountable to First World elites than their own people, thus undermining the democratic process.
The IMF serves wealthy countries and Wall Street
Unlike a democratic system in which each member country would have an equal vote, rich countries dominate decision-making in the IMF because voting power is determined by the amount of money that each country pays into the IMF's quota system. It's a system of one dollar, one vote. The U.S. is the largest shareholder with a quota of 18 percent. Germany, Japan, France, Great Britain, and the US combined control about 38 percent. The disproportionate amount of power held by wealthy countries means that the interests of bankers, investors and corporations from industrialized countries are put above the needs of the world's poor majority.
The IMF is imposing a fundamentally flawed development model
Unlike the path historically followed by the industrialized countries, the IMF forces countries from the Global South to prioritize export production over the development of diversified domestic economies.
I ASK US CITIZENS TO UNDERSTAND THAT PUSHING THE US TO AN EXPORT STRUCTURE IS WHAT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE AND TPP POLICIES DO----IT IS TAKING AMERICANS TO WHERE DEVELOPING NATIONS HAVE BEEN AND THE IMF DRIVES THIS.
Nearly 80 percent of all malnourished children in the developing world live in countries where farmers have been forced to shift from food production for local consumption to the production of export crops destined for wealthy countries. The IMF also requires countries to eliminate assistance to domestic industries while providing benefits for multinational corporations -- such as forcibly lowering labor costs. Small businesses and farmers can't compete.
Sweatshop workers in free trade zones set up by the IMF and World Bank earn starvation wages, live in deplorable conditions, and are unable to provide for their families. The cycle of poverty is perpetuated, not eliminated, as governments' debt to the IMF grows.
The IMF is a secretive institution with no accountability
The IMF is funded with taxpayer money, yet it operates behind a veil of secrecy. Members of affected communities do not participate in designing loan packages. The IMF works with a select group of central bankers and finance ministers to make polices without input from other government agencies such as health, education and environment departments. The institution has resisted calls for public scrutiny and independent evaluation.
IMF policies promote corporate welfare
To increase exports, countries are encouraged to give tax breaks and subsidies to export industries. Public assets such as forestland and government utilities (phone, water and electricity companies) are sold off to foreign investors at rock bottom prices. In Guyana, an Asian owned timber company called Barama received a logging concession that was 1.5 times the total amount of land all the indigenous communities were granted. Barama also received a five-year tax holiday. The IMF forced Haiti to open its market to imported, highly subsidized US rice at the same time it prohibited Haiti from subsidizing its own farmers. A US corporation called Early Rice now sells nearly 50 percent of the rice consumed in Haiti.
The IMF hurts workers
The IMF and World Bank frequently advise countries to attract foreign investors by weakening their labor laws -- eliminating collective bargaining laws and suppressing wages, for example. The IMF's mantra of "labor flexibility" permits corporations to fire at whim and move where wages are cheapest. According to the 1995 UN Trade and Development Report, employers are using this extra "flexibility" in labor laws to shed workers rather than create jobs. In Haiti, the government was told to eliminate a statute in their labor code that mandated increases in the minimum wage when inflation exceeded 10 percent. By the end of 1997, Haiti's minimum wage was only $2.40 a day. Workers in the U.S. are also hurt by IMF policies because they have to compete with cheap, exploited labor. The IMF's mismanagement of the Asian financial crisis plunged South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and other countries into deep depression that created 200 million "newly poor." The IMF advised countries to "export their way out of the crisis." Consequently, more than US 12,000 steelworkers were laid off when Asian steel was dumped in the US.
The IMF's policies hurt women the most
SAPs make it much more difficult for women to meet their families' basic needs. When education costs rise due to IMF-imposed fees for the use of public services (so-called "user fees") girls are the first to be withdrawn from schools. User fees at public clinics and hospitals make healthcare unaffordable to those who need it most. The shift to export agriculture also makes it harder for women to feed their families. Women have become more exploited as government workplace regulations are rolled back and sweatshops abuses increase.
IMF Policies hurt the environment
IMF loans and bailout packages are paving the way for natural resource exploitation on a staggering scale. The IMF does not consider the environmental impacts of lending policies, and environmental ministries and groups are not included in policy making. The focus on export growth to earn hard currency to pay back loans has led to an unsustainable liquidation of natural resources. For example, the Ivory Coast's increased reliance on cocoa exports has led to a loss of two-thirds of the country's forests.
The IMF bails out rich bankers, creating a moral hazard and greater instability in the global economy
The IMF routinely pushes countries to deregulate financial systems. The removal of regulations that might limit speculation has greatly increased capital investment in developing country financial markets. More than $1.5 trillion crosses borders every day. Most of this capital is invested short-term, putting countries at the whim of financial speculators. The Mexican 1995 peso crisis was partly a result of these IMF policies. When the bubble popped, the IMF and US government stepped in to prop up interest and exchange rates, using taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street bankers. Such bailouts encourage investors to continue making risky, speculative bets, thereby increasing the instability of national economies. During the bailout of Asian countries, the IMF required governments to assume the bad debts of private banks, thus making the public pay the costs and draining yet more resources away from social programs.
IMF bailouts deepen, rather then solve, economic crisis
During financial crises -- such as with Mexico in 1995 and South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, and Russia in 1997 -- the IMF stepped in as the lender of last resort. Yet the IMF bailouts in the Asian financial crisis did not stop the financial panic -- rather, the crisis deepened and spread to more countries. The policies imposed as conditions of these loans were bad medicine, causing layoffs in the short run and undermining development in the long run. In South Korea, the IMF sparked a recession by raising interest rates, which led to more bankruptcies and unemployment. Under the IMF imposed economic reforms after the peso bailout in 1995, the number of Mexicans living in extreme poverty increased more than 50 percent and the national average minimum wage fell 20 percent.
Below you see what the 2016 Presidential election is about and why these Democratic primary elections at state and local level are so important. Wall Street global pols want to install and expand their vision of International Economic Zones in the US with this idea of $1 TRILLION IN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING. Of course Obama did this and every bit went to expand US corporations overseas----mergers and acquisitions that created even bigger global corporate monopolies. That is what this next round of $1 trillion in infrastructure funding will do under a Clinton neo-liberal like Hillary. They will send all that trillion to global corporations which will then privatize all that is public in US cities and states---Maryland is already well on the way.
The idea with Bernie and social Democrats is that same $ 1 trillion in spending will be used as FDR did-----sending it to cities and state governments to promote public work projects----so, instead of a privatized Baltimore Water and Sewage as Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development want------we would rebuild our Baltimore Public Works and services hiring from Baltimore communities and outsourcing to community small businesses to rebuild our economy. That is what Bernie calls building wages for Americans so they can consume-----buy products from community businesses and spur the local economy......SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
ONE KILLS LOCAL ECONOMIES AND TAKES ALL POWER AWAY FROM CITIZENS---THE OTHER GROWS LOCAL ECONOMIES AND KEEPS GLOBAL CORPORATIONS AT BAY.
This is what will turn Baltimore City from being one filled with corporate fraud and corruption and captured public policy by ever-growing global corporations----to one of Rule of Law, Equal Protection, and local, domestic economy that is stable and equitable.
'In Sanders’ view, infrastructure programs that inject spending into the economy give millions of people a decent salary to buy necessities, and cycle money through the economy. “Paying for” such investments by cutting elsewhere would only weaken their impact'.
The important issue comes with Trans Pacific Trade Pact entering in as supposedly requiring all these government subsidies go to global corporations especially in US International Economic Zone cities like Baltimore. Bernie has shouted against TPP from the start and hopefully will see it as illegal and unconstitutional as most Americans do.
If Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development gets control of all that $1 trillion in infrastructure funding these next few years----they will expand the global corporate plantation!
Why a $1 Trillion D.C. Spending Spree Is Just What America Needs
Sen. Sanders files $1T infrastructure bill
By David Dayen
January 30, 2015At the beginning of a new congressional session, virtually every elected official presents a legislative agenda. Usually these efforts fall victim to gridlock, but they almost always situate themselves within an acceptably narrow range of discourse in Washington. Sometimes, though, a politician offers more than a set of policy ideas, but a new way of thinking, a challenge to long-held orthodoxy. And that makes what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been doing this week critically important.
Sanders is the new ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and he has thrown out the rulebook for that leadership position. He hired a sharply progressive staff, including chief economist Stephanie Kelton, a leading advocate for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which warns of the dangers (yes, dangers) of balanced budgets that take money from the hands of ordinary people, and counsels that economies in control of their own currency can never “run out” of money.
According to this theory, federal deficits do matter, but only when the economy is at full capacity and full employment, and inflation starts to rise. We’re nowhere near there at the moment, so the goal of government should be to encourage full employment through broad investments.
The deficit has been the overwhelming concern in Washington for nearly the entire Obama presidency, of course, leading to sequestration, budget caps and a fiscal drag that objectively harmed economic growth. But MMT applies the words of economist John Maynard Keynes: “Look after the unemployment, and the budget will look after itself.”
Traditional economists and D.C. political operatives typically look at supporters of MMT as if they’ve sprouted horns. But Sanders hired one for a top policy job, and we’re starting to witness the effects of that.
You can see it in Sanders’ opening remarks to the Budget Committee, which described the budget as an expression of priorities, not a series of numbers that must balance out. “While we must continue to focus on the federal deficit, we must also be aware that there are other deficits in our society that are causing horrendous pain for the vast majority of the American people,” Sanders said. “There are deficits in decent-paying jobs. There are deficits in the infrastructure. There are deficits in income. Deficits in inequality. Deficits in retirement security. Deficits in education. And deficits in trade.”
This question of emphasis — on what deficits to fix — shows in Sanders’s first big bill, a $1 trillion infrastructure program called the Rebuild America Act. Over five years, Sanders’ bill would commit this money to upgrading roads, bridges, water systems, airports, shipping ports, mass transit, electrical grids and even broadband, a wider vision of infrastructure than the usual surface transportation bill, which expires this summer.
U.S. spending on infrastructure is just 2.4 percent of GDP, half of what it was 50 years ago. Ramping up this investment — much of it for deferred maintenance that could be costlier to fix later — would increase efficiency, productivity and public safety, while creating 13 million decent-paying jobs, according to Sanders. “If you want to create jobs, the fastest way to do it is through rebuilding infrastructure,” Sanders noted in remarks introducing the bill.
Both parties pay lip service to infrastructure spending, because the public overwhelmingly supports it. But Sanders’ bill is different, because he doesn’t include a way to pay for it. The official story is that everyone supports infrastructure until you get to the funding, and Sanders wants to get people to agree on this urgent need first.
There are many other reasons to put the funding aside, though. Democrats in recent years have been trapped by the burden of fiscal responsibility. Statutory language they supported called “paygo” forces them to find a funding source for every new program. Since that usually leads to endorsing increased revenues, it allows Republicans to easily demonize Democrats as the party of higher taxes.
But there’s ample reason to question this obsession with offsetting spending. The Congressional Budget Office’s recent forecast identifies the past few years as the largest period of deficit reduction since the end of World War II, with a massive $4 trillion slashed from budgets over a 10-year period, more than called for by deficit blueprints like Bowles-Simpson.
CBO also found a $600 billion drop in federal health care spending estimates, even with the coverage expansions in Obamacare. Since everyone agrees that health care represents the biggest driver of future deficits, this dramatic slowdown throws cold water on the often-hyped fears of runaway debt. In fact, the only reason CBO sees a return to higher deficits down the road comes from higher interest payments on the current debt, a dubious projection.
If austerity policies succeeded in bringing about broad prosperity, that would be one thing. But as Sanders pointed out in a remarkable speech on the Senate floor Thursday, the top 1 percent has taken all of the gains from the economy since the Great Recession, with real median household income dropping to 1996 levels. Despite massive supply-side support — deregulation and giant reductions in taxes for the wealthy and corporations — the only result has been widening inequality, sclerotic growth and slower recoveries from more persistent downturns.
There’s reason to wonder if Washington has it backwards. The only time we’ve seen balanced federal budgets recently was when full employment in the late 1990s brought in surplus tax revenue. This makes sense if you recognize that 2/3 of the economy comes from consumer spending: “Our economy runs on sales,” as Sanders put it. If all the benefits go to the top, the rich cannot possibly spend enough to sustain demand.
In Sanders’ view, infrastructure programs that inject spending into the economy give millions of people a decent salary to buy necessities, and cycle money through the economy. “Paying for” such investments by cutting elsewhere would only weaken their impact.
This idea of middle-class consumers as the real job creators turns the deficit argument completely on its head. It frames government as an aide to growth, not a scold that takes away jobs and opportunity. It sees an ambitious role for government as a way to achieve broadly shared prosperity through smart investments. It prioritizes full use of economic resources to solve society’s problems over constraining what government can do. And it rejects the argument of scarcity. “Spending isn’t just the right way to grow the economy,” Sanders concluded Thursday, “it’s the only way.”