THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS BACKING THE ROOSEVELT INSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY ARE TOLD IT IS GOOD TO END SOCIAL DEMOCRACY ARE THE ONES LOOSING LIBERTY AND FREEDOM AS THEY VOTE AGAINST NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE CITIZENS. EVERYONE LOSES IN THIS GAME OF GLOBAL WALL STREET EXCEPT THE 1% AND THEIR GLOBAL 2%.
We will look at clips of Roosevelt Institute policies remembering Stiglitz et al are working under ONE WORLD SOCIETAL STRUCTURES AS IS THE NGO OPEN SOCIETY. They are not looking for justice for the American people. When we have only a small percentage of Americans making their way through these IVY LEAGUE universities and especially these few decades when their emphasis was recruiting the rich of the world as students because of business associations---then we do not want Ivy League involved in creating our US public policy. This is why things were taken through CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----and now we have that extreme wealth with a 5% controlling our government. See why they are closing our public universities and corporatizing them as fast as they can----that is from where citizen public policy and HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE originates. Baltimore's Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall pols have attacked public schools for decades so Baltimore is ranked #1 for corporatization of public education.
One of the first things Obama and Clinton neo-liberals did was invest in infrastructure just as Stiglitz has called to do as socially progressive. It's about the jobs you know. That first stimulus went to building the infrastructure for the global corporate campuses of universities being turned into global corporate research departments. Stiglitz has not shouted out how this kills an entire industry of middle-class corporate R and D jobs and uses students as free labor paying soaring tuition----he simply thinks the act of building infrastructure is good. The goal of Roosevelt Institution is flooding the US labor market with immigrants from the global labor pool and the national infrastructure building plan is geared to do just that. So, Stiglitz knows most of the infrastructure jobs will go to immigrant labor----and as a ONE WORLD 5%---he will make this sound SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE. Now, FDR and the New Deal had an national infrastructure build that did hire millions of Americans to build public assets they owned and that served their needs. Those jobs created the platform for the coming middle-class. Stiglitz and ONE WORLD immigrant build out brings third world wages building global corporate campuses and privatized infrastructure.
SEE HOW THIS IS RIGHT-WING? ADD TO THE FACT IT IS ONE WORLD FOR ACCUMULATING WEALTH FOR THE 1% AND YOU HAVE FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
It becomes Marxism because those global immigrants will be working for $3 a day---and any US citizen wanting a job will work under these same conditions--VOILA!
WAGE EQUITY AS AMERICANS ARE WORKING FOR THE SAME AS DEVELOPING NATION LABOR.
These policies won't occur overnight but they will be installed over the course of this coming decade-----MOVING FORWARD AS CATHERINE PUGH AND HILLARY LOVE TO SAY!
in another Roosevelt Institute paper, one by Joe Stiglitz. He advocates looking at the asset as well as the liability side of the government balance sheet, and in particular, investing in infrastructure, since it can generate very high returns.
Below you see what has been shouted for these several years of Obama as the 2008 economic crash was the platform for starting the building of US cities as International Economic Zones. All of what national media was calling our GDP was actually only the subpriming of our bond market---those sales were counted as GDP----and the buying and selling of real estate and global business mergers. Now, when we read an article like the one below----yes, these business are headquartered in foreign nations but it is likely they are partnered with global hedge funds. Trans Pacific Trade Pact will say they are global and can work as they do in that overseas nation and what this article doesn't say that many global construction corporations tied to infrastructure building will be doing all that US national infrastructure JOBS, JOBS, JOBS bringing their own work crews from overseas. STIGLITZ AND ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE KNOW THIS----THEY AREN'T TELLING BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR THE 1%.
'Our “free trade” agreements are sending the U.S. down a dangerous path that will result in even more foreign countries buying U.S. businesses and companies, and will lead to us having to rely on even more countries for our day to day needs. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended'.
Many American-Made Companies Are Now Under Foreign Control!March 30, 2014 John Olen
When foreign countries own companies and businesses that many American’s purchase goods from, all of that money that would be going back into the U.S. economy is now going overseas. This leads to devastating consequences as we’re seeing now, with job losses and unsettling unemployment. It is also placing the United States in a position where we’re coming to rely on foreign governments for our needs. We’re seeing this already with China, a country with which we have an alarming trade deficit and over $1 trillion in debt.
In an era of “free trade” agreements, it should come as no surprise to discover that many well known U.S. companies and businesses are being purchased by foreign countries and contributing to our economic decline.
Here are some of America’s most famous brands currently held in foreign hands:
China not only owns AMC theaters, but they hold massive control over us because of the amount of debt we owe them. China’s government and opportunistic corporations have also been systematically purchasing land, infrastructure, and natural resources for years. On top of that, the more our leaders continue trade agreements between us and China — and the more they allow the U.S. to borrow from China — the more our freedoms and sovereignty are signed away.
Our “free trade” agreements are sending the U.S. down a dangerous path that will result in even more foreign countries buying U.S. businesses and companies, and will lead to us having to rely on even more countries for our day to day needs. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended.
Wake up America! It’s time that we stop allowing foreign nations to purchase our valuable assets!
Contact your congressional representative and tell them that our harmful trade agreements must end if America is to have a prosperous economic future. We cannot afford to continue to sell our valuable companies and businesses!
_____________________________________
One thing American people shout while protesting is WHOSE STREETS----OUR STREETS. WHOSE SIDEWALKS----OUR SIDEWALKS because they are all paid for with taxpayer money. Well, in US cities deemed International Economic Zones using 'public private partnerships' as a cover for global corporate ownership and control----the most global neo-liberal and neo-con of states have been privatizing their roads, bridges, and tunnels. That is why CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA allowed our infrastructure to crumble---they knew they would hand all infrastructure to global corporations. Again, these PARTNERSHIPS with foreign corporations are simply global hedge funds and global corporations merging to own US infrastructure. Remember, if the US is not a sovereign nation all the infrastructure built outside a US International Economic Zone becomes international and a global corporate tribunal court rules on who controls these neutral zones----
THERE IS NO OUR STREETS OUR ROADS IN ONE WORLD INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE BALTIMORE.
Stiglitz knows this-----he knows the jobs will go to global immigrant labor pool---he knows this infrastructure will be privatized to global corporations---but he does not educate on this---
BECAUSE HE WORKS FOR THE 1%---AS DOES ROOSEVELT INSTITUTION AND ASPEN INSTITUTION----SOLD AS PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC POLICY.
As you see as well----all across America global pols are making the rebuilding of our interstate and road WITH TAXPAYER funds TOLL ROADS----the expense for these interstate toll road to citizens will be PROHIBITIVE FOR MOST. How much gasoline tax do you think WE THE PEOPLE have paid for decades since these interstates were built? We paid for this rebuilding five times over.
So, we already know all the national infrastructure building called for by supposed progressive organizations AS JOBS, JOBS, JOBS----will not be what the American people want and we really need to stop these policies.
Home » Industries » ConstructionE-Mail Page
Printer Safe
US: Foreign Companies Buy U.S. Roads, Bridges
Foreign Companies Are Buying Up American Highways and Bridges Built by U.S. Taxpayers
by Leslie Miller, Associated Press
July 15th, 2006
Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.
On a single day in June, an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.
Few people know that the tolls from the U.S. side of the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, go to a subsidiary of an Australian company which also owns a bridge in Alabama.
Some experts welcome the trend. Robert Poole, transportation director for the conservative think tank Reason Foundation, said private investors can raise more money than politicians to build new roads because these kind of owners are willing to raise tolls.
"They depoliticize the tolling decision," Poole said. Besides, he said, foreign companies have purchased infrastructure in Europe for years; only now are U.S. companies beginning to get into the business of buying roads and bridges.
Gas taxes and user fees have fueled the expansion of the nation's highway system. Thousands of miles of roads built since the 1950s changed the landscape, accelerating the growth of suburbia and creating a reliance on motor vehicles to move freight, get to work and take vacations.
In 1956, President Eisenhower pushed to create the interstate highway system for a different: to move troops and tanks and evacuate civilians.
The Bush administration's plan to let a foreign company manage U.S. ports met a storm of protest in February. But plans to sell or lease highways to companies outside the United States have not met such resistance.
John Foote, senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said the government can take over a highway in an emergency. But he objects to selling roads to raise cash.
But that is just what Chicago has done.
Last year, the city sold a 99-year lease on the eight-mile Chicago Skyway for $1.83 billion. The buyer was the same consortium that leased the Indiana Toll Road Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Sydney, Australia, and Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte of Madrid, Spain.
Chicago used the money to pay off debt and fund road projects. Skyway tolls rose 50 cents, to $2.50; By 2017, they will reach $5.
The Indiana Toll Road lease is a better deal, Foote thinks, because the proceeds will pay for urgent projects such as road and bridge improvements.
That need is precisely why cities and states have begun to look to foreign investors.
Between 1980 and 2004, people drove 94 percent more highway miles, according to Federal Highway Administration statistics. But the number of new highway lane miles rose by only 6 percent.
Washington is not likely to produce more money to build roads. The federal highway fund which will have a balance of about $16 billion by the end of 2006 will run out in 2009 or 2010, according to White House and congressional estimates.
About half the states now let companies build and operate roads. Many changed their laws recently to do so.
So Illinois lawmakers are examining privatizing the Illinois Tollway, New Jersey lawmakers are considering selling 49 percent of the state's two big toll roads and a gubernatorial candidate in Ohio wants to sell the turnpike.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who championed his state's toll road deal, now wants investors to build and operate a toll road from Indianapolis to Evansville.
Patrick Bauer, the Indiana House's Democratic leader, says such deals are taxpayer rip-offs.
Bauer believes Macquarie-Cintra could make $133 billion over the 75-year life of the Indiana Toll Road lease for which Indiana got $3.8 billion.
"In five, maybe 10 years, all that money is gone, and the tolls keep rising and the money keeps flowing into the foreign coffers," Bauer said.
Orange County, Calif., got burned by a toll-road lease for a different reason.
The road, part of state Route 91, was built and run for $130 million by California Private Transportation Company, partly owned by France-based Compagnie Financiere et Industrielle des Autoroutes. The toll road opened in 1995.
Seven years later, Orange County was looking at gridlock. But it could not build more roads because of a provision in the lease. So it bought back the lease for $207.5 million.
To encourage more domestic investment in highways, former Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta made a pitch to Wall Street on May 23.
"The time is now for United States investors including our financial, construction and engineering institutions to get involved in transportation investments," said Mineta, who left office July 7.
U.S. companies are getting the message.
San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Co., along with Cintra, received approval on June 29 for a 50-year lease to build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for $1.3 billion.
That is part of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's vision to attract more than $80 billion in private funds for roads by 2030. He wants a new tollway from Oklahoma to Mexico and the Gulf Coast, and one from Shreveport, La., and Texarkana to Mexico. Cintra-Zachry reached a $7.2 billion deal last year to develop the project's first phase.
Not everyone in Texas buys the idea. Harris County officials recently voted against selling three toll roads. Also, independent gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn opposes Perry's toll road plan.
"Texas freeways belong to Texans, not foreign companies," she said.
________________________________________
We have new citizens like Ms Wong representing Roosevelt Institute on some of these 'socially progressive' policies just as we have Ms Rhee as the strong voice for global corporate neo-liberal education K-career working for Bill Gates. I will generalize when I say that most of these new immigrant citizens placed in national media as leaders are indeed from those families buying their citizenship and being wealthy. Wong at Stanford as with immigrant students at Johns Hopkins pay as much as $30,000 a semester so these families are those wealthy foreign 1% and 2%. They of course often don't know REAL FDR social progressivism and as those families enriched by operating corporations in China, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore-----they don't want our US social Democracy-----it is the 99% of immigrants impoverished that have no voice in the US that want FDR social Democracy. WE THE PEOPLE must remember that if today's media allows a person name recognition----as Wong and Rhee---they are working for the 1%.
Ms Rhee of corporate K-12 fame likely belongs to the family of Rhee ---the ruler in South Korea at the time the Korean War was ending and not long after Wall Street installed that corporate hyper-competitive, all-consuming neo-liberal education. It would have been Rhee as leader to approve this. So, a Rhee coming to the US to promote the same neo-liberal education here is ONE WORLD INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE 1% BRINGING THEIR 2%. Ms. Wong should be worried about the Asian global sweat shop factories operating around Stanford University and San Fran and might be tied to owning some of those. Asian sweat shop labor there are earning as little as $1 a day.
Ms. Wong is not educating against US cities as International Economic Zones and how Trans Pacific Trade Pact will not allow any of the wage and workplace policies she promotes to occur----but she KNOWS THIS. As we know the history of our US leadership and families we have to now look at our new immigrant citizens and their POSSIBLE family links. It seems unlikely that a Wong or Rhee would want FDR social Democracy and highly likely they would work for 1% Wall Street Libertarian Marxism.
Wong Luen Hei
Net worth in millions-------1,38049
China Liansu Group
***********************************************************
Syngman Rhee, (born March 26, 1875, P’yŏngsan, Hwanghae province, Korea [now in North Korea]—died July 19, 1965, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.) first president of the Republic of Korea (South Korea).
As president, Rhee assumed dictatorial powers, tolerating little domestic opposition to his program. Rhee purged the National Assembly of members who opposed him and outlawed the opposition Progressive Party, whose leader, Cho Bong Am, was executed for treason. He controlled the appointment of mayors, village headmen, and chiefs of police. He even defied the United Nations (UN) during the Korean War (1950–53).
In spite of his authoritarian policies, Rhee failed to prevent the election of an opposition vice president, Chang Myŏn, in 1956. Government claims that the March 1960 elections gave Rhee more than 90 percent of the popular vote (55 percent in 1956) provoked student-led demonstrations against election fraud, resulting in heavy casualties and demands for Rhee’s resignation. These demands were supported by the unanimous vote of the National Assembly and by the U.S. government. Rhee resigned on April 27, 1960, and went into exile in Hawaii.
********************************************************
Wong is seen as someone to watch. This is where the 5% to the 1% of immigrant citizens in the US comes to play. I talk often about Latino because they are the next majority but now we need to get to know our new Asian citizens and their 5% to the 1%.
WE WELCOME ALL NEW CITIZENS WANTING TO ASSURE OUR US CONSTITUTION, OUR US RULE OF LAW, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEEING WE THE PEOPLE AS LEGISLATORS.
'Felicia Wong is the President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, which seeks to re-imagine the social and economic policies of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century'.
A leader of global corporatized K-12 as an FDR social Democratic policy pusher? FDR was the one building our public K-12 school system and our public universities!
Here is Wong's ties to Bill Gates and the global corporate neo-liberal education policies-------DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE
Rob Stein's PowerPoint presentation on how the Right built a strong infrastructure of think tanks, non-profits, non-profit groups, scholarship recipients, academics, lobbyists, right wing activists and the media led to the founding of the Democracy Alliance, and also a separate organization, the New Progressive Coalition founded by entrepreneurs Andy and Deborah Rappaport.
The Democracy Alliance tries to keep a low profile and its wealthy donors prefer anonymity. According to published reports, organizations funded by Democracy Alliance are asked not to reveal the funding.
Felicia Wong, President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute
Felicia Wong is the President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, which seeks to re-imagine the social and economic policies of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century. Felicia has previously held a senior position at the Democracy Alliance and Teachscape (a venture-funded education services company). She served as a White House Fellow and holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
What is an important thing that we Americans can do together that we can’t do alone?
Together, we can work together to make our economy work better, to make our financial markets work for the real economy, to make sure we have a tight labor market and raise the floor for labor wages. Government must play a major role in all of this economic work. We have to do it as stewards of the common good.
What about your country, state, or community makes you proud? How do you think government interacts with that?
We’re wrestling with ethnic diversity. We do try hard to be a better truly diverse society. I don’t think we do a great job of it, obviously: witness Baltimore, witness Ferguson, witness the real difficulties we have in engaging immigrant communities. But I can’t imagine what life here would be like if we stopped trying.
What do you think it means to be a good citizen?
Paying attention. Giving your time – your brain space and best thinking about solutions to problems of the common good and also for individual advancement.
What one word describes our government as it is?
Sad. But let me clarify: I am sad that as a public we no longer expect our government to live up to its full potential.
What one word do you wish described our government?
Active.
If you could run a government program or agency what would it be? What would you want to accomplish there?
I would run a reimagined or reconstituted NLRB, National Labor Relations Board. I would go back to Franklin Roosevelt and what he was trying to do there, giving workers a real voice and real power. Empowering workers is an important countervailing power to the power of corporate interests.
What thing that government does do you think would surprise most Americans?
Student loans.
What is your first memory of an interaction with government?
My town library.
What was your most recent government interaction?
Metro North into work today.
What is your favorite thing that government does?
I love libraries and the National Archives. I like the fact that we spend time and energy celebrating, collecting and investigating our collective past and our collective knowledge. And even in a world connected by the internet, I think actual libraries – library buildings – matter. So I think libraries are great and Lord, without government we’d have a world with only private libraries. That would be terrible.
Who is your government hero who is not an elected official?
Eleanor Roosevelt. She was incredibly brave. She had no elected position, but she did her best to force those around her to pay attention to issues of racial and social justice, gave the President instructions as to what he should learn about or pay attention to, black civil rights movement, against Japanese internment. These were especially hard to do in the 1940s.
ImagineGov: If government could be anything, what would it be?
Provide opportunities for people for meaningful work – not just a good income – but the opportunity to engage in an endeavor that has social meaning. That could be private – building a strong privately held company – or public. There are many market failures because people are not connected to work that has meaning and structure in their lives. To the degree that government can find more ways for more of us to have that connection to work, broadly defined, that would be great.
Why is the work of Indivisible so important?
Indivisible is trying to surprise people about the things government already does and use creative tactics to change people’s minds about the potential for positive government action in service of the common good in the future. The organization is fighting an uphill battle – obviously. We have had 35 years of the opposite of that message.
Name someone whose answers to these questions you would like to see.
George Washington. What did he think our government was going to become?
_________________________________________
To understand Eleanor Roosevelt and her connections to creating the United Nations we need to go back to that time----not read what organizations like the Roosevelt Institution writes. Leaders connected today to Roosevelt Institution use Eleanor's ties to the UN as a HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION to justify today's UN and what many globally see as simply a PUPPET of global Wall Street and the 1%. Today's UN embraces International Economic Zones knowing they are infused with the worst of slave labor----that a human capital distribution system so abusive and exploitative that it would make ELEANOR ROOSEVELT'S HAIR STAND ON END. No one want to paint FDR as a populist hero---he was simply another one of America's rich. FDR lived at a time in history when the civil war ended slavery and there were strong feelings of needing to move away from Industrial exploitation and his NEW DEAL included workplace protections, public health protections to assure all of that. The UN that Eleanor created was in response to the aftermath of WW2 and its brutality. It was built to bring those warring nations together and assure human rights were part of that European reconstruction. It had nothing to do with bringing the US to a ONE WORLD International Economic Zone to push Americans into the same authoritarian, militaristic, abusive and exploitative societal structure as today's Asian nations and their International Economic Zones. The UN today is partnered with the same kinds of people that caused the brutality of WW2.
As a woman who loves what Eleanor Roosevelt represented back then ---as her husband and his choice of New Deal to rebuild the US----I am deeply OFFENDED by a far-right ONE WORLD Roosevelt Institution for CO-OPTING decent people's good intentions for very,.very, very, very bad ones.
THE CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 1% WALL STREET crowd are the opposite of what Eleanor was trying to promote----they are the HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS she and the UN were created to HOLD ACCOUNTABLE
'Let this third regular session of the General Assembly approve by an overwhelming majority the Declaration of Human Rights as a standard of conduct for all; and let us, as Members of the United Nations, conscious of our own short-comings and imperfections, join our effort in good faith to live up to this high standard'.
Eleanor Roosevelt
On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
delivered 9 December 1948 in Paris, France
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]
Mr. President, fellow delegates:
The long and meticulous study and debate of which this Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the product means that it reflects the composite views of the many men and governments who have contributed to its formulation. Not every man nor every government can have what he wants in a document of this kind. There are of course particular provisions in the Declaration before us with which we are not fully satisfied. I have no doubt this is true of other delegations, and it would still be true if we continued our labors over many years. Taken as a whole the Delegation of the United States believes that this is a good document -- even a great document -- and we propose to give it our full support. The position of the United States on the various parts of the Declaration is a matter of record in the Third Committee. I shall not burden the Assembly, and particularly my colleagues of the Third Committee, with a restatement of that position here.
I should like to comment briefly on the amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation. The language of these amendments has been dressed up somewhat, but the substance is the same as the amendments which were offered by the Soviet delegation in committee and rejected after exhaustive discussion. Substantially the same amendments have been previously considered and rejected in the Human Rights Commission. We in the United States admire those who fight for their convictions, and the Soviet delegation has fought for their convictions. But in the older democracies we have learned that sometimes we bow to the will of the majority. In doing that, we do not give up our convictions. We continue sometimes to persuade, and eventually we may be successful. But we know that we have to work together and we have to progress. So, we believe that when we have made a good fight, and the majority is against us, it is perhaps better tactics to try to cooperate.
I feel bound to say that I think perhaps it is somewhat of an imposition on this Assembly to have these amendments offered again here, and I am confident that they will be rejected without debate.
The first two paragraphs of the amendment to article 3 deal with the question of minorities, which committee 3 decided required further study, and has recommended, in a separate resolution, their reference to the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Commission. As set out in the Soviet amendment, this provision clearly states "group," and not "individual," rights.
The Soviet amendment to article 20 is obviously a very restrictive statement of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It sets up standards which would enable any state practically to deny all freedom of opinion and expression without violating the article. It introduces the terms "democratic view," "democratic systems," "democratic state," and "fascism," which we know all too well from debates in this Assembly over the past two years on warmongering and related subjects are liable to the most flagrant abuse and diverse interpretations.
The statement of the Soviet delegate here tonight is a very good case in point on this. The Soviet amendment of article 22 introduces new elements into the article without improving the committed text and again introduces specific reference to "discrimination." As was repeatedly pointed out in committee 3, the question of discrimination is comprehensively covered in article 2 of the Declaration, so that its restatement elsewhere is completely unnecessary and also has the effect of weakening the comprehensive principles stated in article 2. The new article proposed by the Soviet delegation is but a restatement of State obligation, which the Soviet delegation attempted to introduce into practically every article in the Declaration. It would convert the Declaration into a document stating obligations on states, thereby changing completely its character as a statement of principles to serve as a common standard of achievement for the members of the United Nations.
The Soviet proposal for deferring consideration of the Declaration to the 4th session of the Assembly requires no comment. An identical text was rejected in committee 3 by a vote of 6 in favor and 26 against. We are all agreed, I am sure, that the Declaration, which has been worked on with such great effort and devotion, and over such a long period of time, must be approved by this Assembly at this session.
Certain provisions of the Declaration are stated in such broad terms as to be acceptable only because of the provisions in article 30 providing for limitation on the exercise of the rights for the purpose of meeting the requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare. An example of this is the provision that everyone has the right to equal access to the public service in his country. The basic principle of equality and of nondiscrimination as to public employment is sound, but it cannot be accepted without limitation. My government, for example, would consider that this is unquestionably subject to limitation in the interest of public order and the general welfare. It would not consider that the exclusion from public employment of persons holding subversive political beliefs and not loyal to the basic principles and practices of the constitution and laws of the country would in any way infringe upon this right.
Likewise, my government has made it clear in the course of the development of the Declaration that it does not consider that the economic and social and cultural rights stated in the Declaration imply an obligation on governments to assure the enjoyment of these rights by direct governmental action. This was made quite clear in the Human Rights Commission text of article 23 which served as a so-called "umbrella" article to the articles on economic and social rights. We consider that the principle has not been affected by the fact that this article no longer contains a reference to the articles which follow it. This in no way affects our whole-hearted support for the basic principles of economic, social, and cultural rights set forth in these articles.
In giving our approval to the Declaration today it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.
We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This Universal Declaration of Human Rights may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries.
At a time when there are so many issues on which we find it difficult to reach a common basis of agreement, it is a significant fact that 58 states have found such a large measure of agreement in the complex field of human rights. This must be taken as testimony of our common aspiration first voiced in the Charter of the United Nations to lift men everywhere to a higher standard of life and to a greater enjoyment of freedom. Man’s desire for peace lies behind this Declaration. The realization that the flagrant violation of human rights by Nazi and Fascist countries sowed the seeds of the last world war has supplied the impetus for the work which brings us to the moment of achievement here today.
In a recent speech in Canada, Gladstone Murray said:
The central fact is that man is fundamentally a moral being, that the light we have is imperfect does not matter so long as we are always trying to improve it … we are equal in sharing the moral freedom that distinguishes us as men. Man’s status makes each individual an end in himself. No man is by nature simply the servant of the state or of another man … the ideal and fact of freedom -- and not technology -- are the true distinguishing marks of our civilization.
This Declaration is based upon the spiritual fact that man must have freedom in which to develop his full stature and through common effort to raise the level of human dignity. We have much to do to fully achieve and to assure the rights set forth in this Declaration. But having them put before us with the moral backing of 58 nations will be a great step forward.
As we here bring to fruition our labors on this Declaration of Human Rights, we must at the same time rededicate ourselves to the unfinished task which lies before us. We can now move on with new courage and inspiration to the completion of an international covenant on human rights and of measures for the implementation of human rights.
In conclusion, I feel that I cannot do better than to repeat the call to action by Secretary Marshall in his opening statement to this Assembly:
Let this third regular session of the General Assembly approve by an overwhelming majority the Declaration of Human Rights as a standard of conduct for all; and let us, as Members of the United Nations, conscious of our own short-comings and imperfections, join our effort in good faith to live up to this high standard.
___________________________________________
Stiglitz and Roosevelt Institute call for a national infrastructure bank as helping labor and justice PRETENDING TO BE SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE----when the goal is creating a structure that will allow Wall Street and global corporations fleece taxpayer funds---accumulating wealth anyway they can-----FAR-RIGHT PRAGMATIC NILISM by the Roosevelt Institution.
Clinton calls for national infrastructure bank
By Keith Laing - 10/26/15 09:45 AM EDT
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is calling for the creation of a national infrastructure funding bank to help pay for transportation projects as Congress struggles to find ways to finance road construction.
Federal transportation funding is set to expire on Thursday, and lawmakers are considering passing a three-week extension as they try to come up with ways to pay for a multiyear highway bill.
Clinton said in a high-profile speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner over the weekend that an infrastructure bank could be the solution to the transportation funding problem.
"We should establish an infrastructure bank to put Americans to work building our roads, our bridges, our airports, our rails [and] our broadband networks," the former secretary of State said in her speech on Saturday night.
Transportation advocates have called for the establishment of a national infrastructure bank to prevent potential interruptions in the nation's road and transit funding, like the one that could occur on Thursday if Congress does not pass an extension. Most of the infrastructure bank proposals call for an initial round of government funding that supporters say could be used to lure private sector investments to finance badly needed transportation projects. Suggestions for the starter fund have typically ranged from $10 billion to $50 billion.
Many Republicans have said they would prefer to let states establish their own infrastructure banks, although transportation advocates have said Congress should establish a national road funding pot because many states have not chosen to do so on their own.
Clinton's recent proposal comes as lawmakers are struggling to come up with a way to pay for federal transportation projects. Congress has not passed a transportation funding bill that last longer than two years since 2005, and the latest proposal from the House would last only until Nov. 20.
GOP leaders in the House have said the temporary patch will provide time for them to finish work on a six-year, $325 billion transportation funding bill that was approved Thursday by the chamber’s Transportation Committee.
The Senate has already passed a bill in July that included three years of guaranteed highway funding, and lawmakers have pressured the House to follow suit since they rejected the upper chamber's measure in the summer.
Clinton has not weighed in on the legislative wrangling over the highway bill. The Department of Transportation, meanwhile, has warned that it will have to stop making payments to states and local governments for infrastructure projects in November if Congress does not reach an agreement.
_______________________________________
The Clinton Global Initiative IS THE DEVELOPMENT mechanism behind International Economic Zones overseas and this foundation is KNOWN TO BE CORRUPT AND FRAUDULENT. The idea that Congress is going to allow hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure spending that NEVER REACHES OUR STATES OR CITIES----but instead goes into a global BANK should make all Americans shout NO.
This article is right wing bringing in the claims of labor union involvement and no doubt this is what national labor union leaders sold their members as a reason to vote for Hillary. Know why she wants this as her Clinton Global Initiative bank?
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE AN APPROVED LIST OF GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS THAT WILL WIN ALL THESE AWARDS.
The amount suggested MIGHT go to US labor unions is so small---and as in Maryland rarely actually makes it to union jobs---shows how international labor union leaders are bought and paid for. Speaking about the ROOSEVELT Institution------the AFL-CIO is partnered with this public policy group. Where is US labor in ONE WORLD US cities as International Economic Zones? The same place as in China----with labor unions unable to organize the global labor pool. Can anyone imagine giving the Clinton's a BANK OF ANYTHING?
Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and AMY CHOZICKAUG. 13, 2013
Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco on Monday. Credit Jason Henry for The New York Times
Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.
The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.
'Clinton cited as an example a $15 billion project she said the Clinton Global Initiative is running with labor union pension funds to train people for “clean energy work.”'
Leaked Audio: Hillary Clinton Calls at Private Fundraiser for Infrastructure Bank to Resemble Clinton Global Initiative
Exclusive: Union-backed project would be modeled on work of controversial nonprofit
BY: Alana Goodman and Lachlan Markay
September 30, 2015 11:59 am
Hillary Clinton told donors at a private fundraiser in New York last Thursday that she plans as president to create a “national infrastructure bank” modeled on the Clinton Global Initiative, according to a recording of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
This was the first time that Clinton, who has long supported the formation of a government-controlled bank to invest in national infrastructure projects, cited the Clinton Global Initiative—the flagship arm of her family’s controversial foundation—as an investment model for her proposed bank.
Clinton said CGI’s “public-private” partnership with labor unions has created tens of thousands of jobs, and argued that a federal infrastructure bank could take on this type of project.
“Think of what we can do on a national scale,” said Clinton.
Clinton’s plan for a national infrastructure bank dovetails with the financial interests of some of her most prominent supporters.
Her comments could also give ammunition to critics who say that the Clintons’ philanthropic operations, including CGI, have been plagued with conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement.
“I want to see if we can create what is called an infrastructure bank,” said Clinton. “It’s like a revolving loan fund so we can take it out of to a great extent the annual fight over appropriations. If we can get it funded with a combination of public and private funds, we can do this.”
Clinton cited as an example a $15 billion project she said the Clinton Global Initiative is running with labor union pension funds to train people for “clean energy work.”
“The Clinton Global Initiative that my husband started has a project with a lot of labor union pension funds. They have put $15 billion into a fund to train workers to be able to do energy efficiency and other clean energy work,” said Clinton. “Think of what we can do on a national scale. … There is no doubt in my mind this is a win-win.”
The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. Clinton did not take questions after her remarks, which is unusual for a prominent candidate at a closed-door fundraising event.
Clinton’s campaign website says the proposal would “leverage public and private capital to invest in critically important infrastructure projects, including energy infrastructure projects.”
Supporters of such a bank say it would help spur investment and job creation by letting the private sector invest in public projects. But the concept has also been criticized as a magnet for cronyism that could allow government officials to hand out loans to allies as political favors.
“The basic premise is if we throw enough public and private money into a bucket and then let private parties sort of draw on it to build better roads, the whole problem will sort itself out,” said Adam J. White, counsel at Boyden Gray & Associates, a law firm that focuses on federal regulation. “That strikes me at best a recipe for a failed transportation policy and at worst an opportunity for wasting billions of dollars.”
White said recent controversies over the green energy company Solyndra and the Export-Import bank also show the potential for “favoritism, waste, politicalization.”
Clinton’s plan could also be a windfall for some of her top financial supporters.
One likely beneficiary would be Robert Wolf, a Clinton donor and former bundler for the Obama campaign who previously chaired UBS Americas. Wolf runs the consulting firm 32 Advisors, which has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
The firm announced the formation of a new infrastructure practice in April to help clients obtain funding for infrastructure projects. It brought on Michael Likosky, an expert in infrastructure financing and government planning, to lead the practice. Likosky has also advised CGI on infrastructure projects, and billed himself in July as “an Expert to the Clinton Initiative.”
Another donor that could benefit from a national infrastructure bank is Mary Scott Nabers, head of the consulting firm Strategic Partnerships, Inc. The firm helps clients to procure government contracts for public-private infrastructure projects. Nabers has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Labor unions, which represent a major voting bloc and well of financial support for Clinton, would also benefit significantly from a national infrastructure bank.
OH, REALLY?????? YOU MEAN USING YOUR MEMBERS PENSION BENEFITS FOR WALL STREET GAINS?
Union officials said they hoped that their project with CGI—which was cited by Clinton at her recent fundraiser--would help “spur creation of a National Infrastructure Bank to spur subsidized bonds for public works projects,” the Chicago Tribune reported in 2011.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
_____________________________________________
How This Work Fits with Roosevelt’s Mission:
WILL THE 1% EVER COME OUT TO SAY-----THESE POLICIES ARE ABOUT ENDING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY MAKING THE US THE SAME COLONIAL ENTITIES THAT EXIST IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES AROUND THE WORLD?
As we see here-----Roosevelt Institute simply sees itself as rewriting American history into that of what the global corporate tribunal governance will look like. It has nothing to do with bringing control of government back to the people. The US is not in competition globally------WE THE PEOPLE have made clear----we want global market economy policy set on the back burner as we rebuild our American cities, rebuild our US Constitutional structures giving US Rule of Law, Equal Protection, and rebuilding our local US city and county economies to return to a national economic health. That means we do this not with a reformed Wall Street---but taking Wall Street out of our development. Everyone knows we cannot MOVE FORWARD as a sovereign nation simply expanding on this premise of global empire-building. IT IS EITHER-OR as Roosevelt Institute knows and they are squarely behind advancing ONE WORLD global corporate rule. So, a first world highly educated population is to believe they will have ANY VOICE in this global structure that Roosevelt PRETENDS to try to mold in favor of labor and justice.
It is because we know Roosevelt Institute is a global ONE WORLD organization that all policy coming from it only looks at the US as that ONE WORLD economic zone. They are using governance terms familiar to Americans while having no intent of having these structures. The goal of Trans Pacific Trade Pact was to do what the Roosevelt Institute is doing as well---that is, to eliminate all nations' current governance to rebuild one governing structure for all TPP-tied nations. So, they are not against TPP----they embrace global trade structures that move all nations into this one governance platform. Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that handing GLOBAL POWER to a 1% to govern as it sees fit will NEVER END IN HUMAN CAPITAL being able to negotiate ANY POLICY.
This is what Roosevelt's mission is about----how to MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE WORLD such that dozens of nations differing in every way are conformed under one governance and they PRETEND this can be done protecting labor and justice. REWRITING RULES OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY is made to sound like it using American constructs to reform our governance for a 21st century economy when in fact they are simply installing Trans Pacific Trade Pact TPP global corporate ONE WORLD governance structures.
THEY CONTINUALLY USE FDR AND HIS SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC POLICIES TO COVER WHAT WILL BE THE OPPOSITE.
'The Institute is all about furthering and updating the legacy of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century. This is an opportune time to be parsing how that legacy can help us navigate modern global governance challenges. As in FDR’s time, global finance wrecked the planet, developing countries are flexing their developmental muscle, and the U.S. has to figure out its place in all of this'.
Global Economic Governance 2.0
Economy and GrowthInternational
By Todd Tucker | 06.22.16I’m pleased to be the newest fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, where my focus will be the ins and outs of global economic governance. I’m especially interested in how international treaties affect domestic law, politics, and economics—and vice versa.
The moment demands big new ideas in this space. From investor-state dispute settlement, to the World Trade Organization, to even our own Supreme Court’s forays into foreign affairs, the manner in which countries integrate has become heavily judicial and less susceptible to normal democratic influence. At the same time, corporations have more choices than ever about where to locate, produce, and incorporate. If they’re willing to “lawyer up,” a U.S. company can become a Swiss company or a Hong Kong company, shopping for the best treaties and protections from governments. Meanwhile, domestic political actors are as suspicious as ever about foreign entanglements and actors. How these trends get reconciled (or not) will shape the course of the 21st century.
Some have called this domestic-global impasse global “gridlock,” a regime complex, or “G-Zero” (where no country dominates decision-making). We need more scholarly attention and systematic policy work drawing out the domestic implications of the global economic governance system, and in particular its judicialized parts. That’s what I hope to do here.
How This Work Fits in with Roosevelt’s MissionThe Institute is all about furthering and updating the legacy of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century. This is an opportune time to be parsing how that legacy can help us navigate modern global governance challenges. As in FDR’s time, global finance wrecked the planet, developing countries are flexing their developmental muscle, and the U.S. has to figure out its place in all of this.
My work will be motivated by several principles:
1. Evidence and intelligibility matter.
A lot of debate about global economic governance takes place under the shadow of votes pending in Congress right now. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is just the latest example. I’ll be complementing that by taking a broader view and thinking through the thorny empirical problems that sometimes get lost in the political scuffle. In particular, governments have established literally thousands of trade, investment, and tax treaties over the last several decades. We now have tons of data on the lived experience of these systems, and more being generated every day. I’ll aim to translate that data out of technocratic silos and into plain (or plainer!) English.
2. Questions matter.
Our global economic governance system gives rights to business and property owners that it doesn’t to communities, labor groups, and other interests. Is this asymmetry of power inherently objectionable on normative grounds? Does it matter on empirical grounds? What about those arguments that our legacy trade policy is necessary for foreign policy and business success? I won’t shy away from asking questions, including ones I don’t have immediate answers for.
3. Legitimacy matters.
Early in the 20th century, Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis recognized that judges are among the most consequential policymakers, but that they often ignore social science data and the political context in which they operate. Indeed, after years of blocking New Deal policy, Brandeis helped the Supreme Court usher in a new era of deference to elected officials and experts (with a small assist from FDR’s court-packing plan!). It is therefore unsurprising that liberal internationalists like Woodrow Wilson and FDR were cautious about putting lawyers and judges in charge of international institutions. Today, we have a plethora of international “courts” (with acronyms like ISDS and WTO) that operate at a remove from communities and non-legal experts. I will look at what if any consequences this gap has for these courts’ legitimacy, and what that experience can tell us about pushing a progressive international agenda on problems like climate change, tax avoidance, and corporate governance.
4. Balance matters. Throughout U.S. history, our greatest political thinkers and doers have been concerned with how concentration of power affects the substance of policy. The musical Hamilton brilliantly captures how our founding fathers both worried about concentration of executive power and exploited it to develop the country. Would the king, or a king-like figure, always make the last call? In today’s global economy, court-like actors make the authoritative pronouncements on many questions that matter for environmental sustainability, global finance, and other important issues. Is this an unchecked form of judicial supremacy, or a needed check on nationalism? Is it a necessary device to coordinate foreign policy between countries, or a tangled and internally contradictory legal web? I will look at the role of national executives, legislatures, courts, and even market actors in checking the power of transnational institutions, and vice versa.
In the weeks to come, I’ll be looking at the takeaways from recent legal challenges against public health legislation, debt crises, and more. To find out more about my work, check out my Roosevelt Institute page and my personal blog, and follow me on Twitter @toddntucker.
Todd N. Tucker is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. His interests revolve around global economic governance, including dispute settlement and the domestic regulatory implications of international trade, investment, and tax treaties.
The REAL issues for the American people are: ENDING THE DESIGNATION OF OUR US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES; ENDING TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT AS A WHOLE; AND PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THIS COMING MASSIVE US TREASURY AND MUNICIPAL BOND MARKET FRAUD which the people at Roosevelt Institute NEVER MENTION. Who knows better than Stiglitz these several years of subpriming our bond market has occurred and needs to be stopped? What we will hear from Roosevelt Institute AFTER THE CRASH how bad Wall Street acted and ask for the same financial reforms.
We will look at clips of Roosevelt Institute policies remembering Stiglitz et al are working under ONE WORLD SOCIETAL STRUCTURES AS IS THE NGO OPEN SOCIETY. They are not looking for justice for the American people. When we have only a small percentage of Americans making their way through these IVY LEAGUE universities and especially these few decades when their emphasis was recruiting the rich of the world as students because of business associations---then we do not want Ivy League involved in creating our US public policy. This is why things were taken through CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----and now we have that extreme wealth with a 5% controlling our government. See why they are closing our public universities and corporatizing them as fast as they can----that is from where citizen public policy and HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE originates. Baltimore's Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall pols have attacked public schools for decades so Baltimore is ranked #1 for corporatization of public education.
One of the first things Obama and Clinton neo-liberals did was invest in infrastructure just as Stiglitz has called to do as socially progressive. It's about the jobs you know. That first stimulus went to building the infrastructure for the global corporate campuses of universities being turned into global corporate research departments. Stiglitz has not shouted out how this kills an entire industry of middle-class corporate R and D jobs and uses students as free labor paying soaring tuition----he simply thinks the act of building infrastructure is good. The goal of Roosevelt Institution is flooding the US labor market with immigrants from the global labor pool and the national infrastructure building plan is geared to do just that. So, Stiglitz knows most of the infrastructure jobs will go to immigrant labor----and as a ONE WORLD 5%---he will make this sound SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE. Now, FDR and the New Deal had an national infrastructure build that did hire millions of Americans to build public assets they owned and that served their needs. Those jobs created the platform for the coming middle-class. Stiglitz and ONE WORLD immigrant build out brings third world wages building global corporate campuses and privatized infrastructure.
SEE HOW THIS IS RIGHT-WING? ADD TO THE FACT IT IS ONE WORLD FOR ACCUMULATING WEALTH FOR THE 1% AND YOU HAVE FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
It becomes Marxism because those global immigrants will be working for $3 a day---and any US citizen wanting a job will work under these same conditions--VOILA!
WAGE EQUITY AS AMERICANS ARE WORKING FOR THE SAME AS DEVELOPING NATION LABOR.
These policies won't occur overnight but they will be installed over the course of this coming decade-----MOVING FORWARD AS CATHERINE PUGH AND HILLARY LOVE TO SAY!
in another Roosevelt Institute paper, one by Joe Stiglitz. He advocates looking at the asset as well as the liability side of the government balance sheet, and in particular, investing in infrastructure, since it can generate very high returns.
Below you see what has been shouted for these several years of Obama as the 2008 economic crash was the platform for starting the building of US cities as International Economic Zones. All of what national media was calling our GDP was actually only the subpriming of our bond market---those sales were counted as GDP----and the buying and selling of real estate and global business mergers. Now, when we read an article like the one below----yes, these business are headquartered in foreign nations but it is likely they are partnered with global hedge funds. Trans Pacific Trade Pact will say they are global and can work as they do in that overseas nation and what this article doesn't say that many global construction corporations tied to infrastructure building will be doing all that US national infrastructure JOBS, JOBS, JOBS bringing their own work crews from overseas. STIGLITZ AND ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE KNOW THIS----THEY AREN'T TELLING BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR THE 1%.
'Our “free trade” agreements are sending the U.S. down a dangerous path that will result in even more foreign countries buying U.S. businesses and companies, and will lead to us having to rely on even more countries for our day to day needs. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended'.
Many American-Made Companies Are Now Under Foreign Control!March 30, 2014 John Olen
When foreign countries own companies and businesses that many American’s purchase goods from, all of that money that would be going back into the U.S. economy is now going overseas. This leads to devastating consequences as we’re seeing now, with job losses and unsettling unemployment. It is also placing the United States in a position where we’re coming to rely on foreign governments for our needs. We’re seeing this already with China, a country with which we have an alarming trade deficit and over $1 trillion in debt.
In an era of “free trade” agreements, it should come as no surprise to discover that many well known U.S. companies and businesses are being purchased by foreign countries and contributing to our economic decline.
Here are some of America’s most famous brands currently held in foreign hands:
- Budweiser, now owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev N.V., which is based in Leuven, Belgium
- Alka-Seltzer, now owned by German company Bayer Schering Pharma AG
- Ben & Jerrys, now owned by British-Dutch Unilever
- AMC theaters, now owned by the Chinese
- 7-Eleven, now owned by the Japanese company, Seven & I Holdings
- Woman’s Day Magazine, now owned by the French company, Hachette Filipacchi Médias, S.A
- Purina, now owned by the Swiss company, Nestle
- Gerber, now owned by the Swiss pharmaceutical giant, Novartis
- Firestone, now owned by the Japanese Bridgestone Corporation
- Citgo, now owned by the government of Venezuela
- French’s Mustard, now owned by Reckitt Benckiser, a British conglomerate
- Frigidaire, now owned by Sweden’s AB Electrolux
- The Plaza Hotel in New York City, now owned by Israeli billionaire Yitzhak Tshuva’s El-Ad Group
- Trader Joes, now owned by German billionaires Karl and Theo Albrecht
- Dial soap, now owned by Henkel KGaA, based in Dusseldorf, Germany
- Sunglass Hut, now owned by Italian eyewear seller Luxottica Group
China not only owns AMC theaters, but they hold massive control over us because of the amount of debt we owe them. China’s government and opportunistic corporations have also been systematically purchasing land, infrastructure, and natural resources for years. On top of that, the more our leaders continue trade agreements between us and China — and the more they allow the U.S. to borrow from China — the more our freedoms and sovereignty are signed away.
Our “free trade” agreements are sending the U.S. down a dangerous path that will result in even more foreign countries buying U.S. businesses and companies, and will lead to us having to rely on even more countries for our day to day needs. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended.
Wake up America! It’s time that we stop allowing foreign nations to purchase our valuable assets!
Contact your congressional representative and tell them that our harmful trade agreements must end if America is to have a prosperous economic future. We cannot afford to continue to sell our valuable companies and businesses!
_____________________________________
One thing American people shout while protesting is WHOSE STREETS----OUR STREETS. WHOSE SIDEWALKS----OUR SIDEWALKS because they are all paid for with taxpayer money. Well, in US cities deemed International Economic Zones using 'public private partnerships' as a cover for global corporate ownership and control----the most global neo-liberal and neo-con of states have been privatizing their roads, bridges, and tunnels. That is why CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA allowed our infrastructure to crumble---they knew they would hand all infrastructure to global corporations. Again, these PARTNERSHIPS with foreign corporations are simply global hedge funds and global corporations merging to own US infrastructure. Remember, if the US is not a sovereign nation all the infrastructure built outside a US International Economic Zone becomes international and a global corporate tribunal court rules on who controls these neutral zones----
THERE IS NO OUR STREETS OUR ROADS IN ONE WORLD INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE BALTIMORE.
Stiglitz knows this-----he knows the jobs will go to global immigrant labor pool---he knows this infrastructure will be privatized to global corporations---but he does not educate on this---
BECAUSE HE WORKS FOR THE 1%---AS DOES ROOSEVELT INSTITUTION AND ASPEN INSTITUTION----SOLD AS PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC POLICY.
As you see as well----all across America global pols are making the rebuilding of our interstate and road WITH TAXPAYER funds TOLL ROADS----the expense for these interstate toll road to citizens will be PROHIBITIVE FOR MOST. How much gasoline tax do you think WE THE PEOPLE have paid for decades since these interstates were built? We paid for this rebuilding five times over.
So, we already know all the national infrastructure building called for by supposed progressive organizations AS JOBS, JOBS, JOBS----will not be what the American people want and we really need to stop these policies.
Home » Industries » ConstructionE-Mail Page
Printer Safe
US: Foreign Companies Buy U.S. Roads, Bridges
Foreign Companies Are Buying Up American Highways and Bridges Built by U.S. Taxpayers
by Leslie Miller, Associated Press
July 15th, 2006
Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.
On a single day in June, an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.
Few people know that the tolls from the U.S. side of the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, go to a subsidiary of an Australian company which also owns a bridge in Alabama.
Some experts welcome the trend. Robert Poole, transportation director for the conservative think tank Reason Foundation, said private investors can raise more money than politicians to build new roads because these kind of owners are willing to raise tolls.
"They depoliticize the tolling decision," Poole said. Besides, he said, foreign companies have purchased infrastructure in Europe for years; only now are U.S. companies beginning to get into the business of buying roads and bridges.
Gas taxes and user fees have fueled the expansion of the nation's highway system. Thousands of miles of roads built since the 1950s changed the landscape, accelerating the growth of suburbia and creating a reliance on motor vehicles to move freight, get to work and take vacations.
In 1956, President Eisenhower pushed to create the interstate highway system for a different: to move troops and tanks and evacuate civilians.
The Bush administration's plan to let a foreign company manage U.S. ports met a storm of protest in February. But plans to sell or lease highways to companies outside the United States have not met such resistance.
John Foote, senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said the government can take over a highway in an emergency. But he objects to selling roads to raise cash.
But that is just what Chicago has done.
Last year, the city sold a 99-year lease on the eight-mile Chicago Skyway for $1.83 billion. The buyer was the same consortium that leased the Indiana Toll Road Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Sydney, Australia, and Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte of Madrid, Spain.
Chicago used the money to pay off debt and fund road projects. Skyway tolls rose 50 cents, to $2.50; By 2017, they will reach $5.
The Indiana Toll Road lease is a better deal, Foote thinks, because the proceeds will pay for urgent projects such as road and bridge improvements.
That need is precisely why cities and states have begun to look to foreign investors.
Between 1980 and 2004, people drove 94 percent more highway miles, according to Federal Highway Administration statistics. But the number of new highway lane miles rose by only 6 percent.
Washington is not likely to produce more money to build roads. The federal highway fund which will have a balance of about $16 billion by the end of 2006 will run out in 2009 or 2010, according to White House and congressional estimates.
About half the states now let companies build and operate roads. Many changed their laws recently to do so.
So Illinois lawmakers are examining privatizing the Illinois Tollway, New Jersey lawmakers are considering selling 49 percent of the state's two big toll roads and a gubernatorial candidate in Ohio wants to sell the turnpike.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who championed his state's toll road deal, now wants investors to build and operate a toll road from Indianapolis to Evansville.
Patrick Bauer, the Indiana House's Democratic leader, says such deals are taxpayer rip-offs.
Bauer believes Macquarie-Cintra could make $133 billion over the 75-year life of the Indiana Toll Road lease for which Indiana got $3.8 billion.
"In five, maybe 10 years, all that money is gone, and the tolls keep rising and the money keeps flowing into the foreign coffers," Bauer said.
Orange County, Calif., got burned by a toll-road lease for a different reason.
The road, part of state Route 91, was built and run for $130 million by California Private Transportation Company, partly owned by France-based Compagnie Financiere et Industrielle des Autoroutes. The toll road opened in 1995.
Seven years later, Orange County was looking at gridlock. But it could not build more roads because of a provision in the lease. So it bought back the lease for $207.5 million.
To encourage more domestic investment in highways, former Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta made a pitch to Wall Street on May 23.
"The time is now for United States investors including our financial, construction and engineering institutions to get involved in transportation investments," said Mineta, who left office July 7.
U.S. companies are getting the message.
San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Co., along with Cintra, received approval on June 29 for a 50-year lease to build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for $1.3 billion.
That is part of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's vision to attract more than $80 billion in private funds for roads by 2030. He wants a new tollway from Oklahoma to Mexico and the Gulf Coast, and one from Shreveport, La., and Texarkana to Mexico. Cintra-Zachry reached a $7.2 billion deal last year to develop the project's first phase.
Not everyone in Texas buys the idea. Harris County officials recently voted against selling three toll roads. Also, independent gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn opposes Perry's toll road plan.
"Texas freeways belong to Texans, not foreign companies," she said.
________________________________________
We have new citizens like Ms Wong representing Roosevelt Institute on some of these 'socially progressive' policies just as we have Ms Rhee as the strong voice for global corporate neo-liberal education K-career working for Bill Gates. I will generalize when I say that most of these new immigrant citizens placed in national media as leaders are indeed from those families buying their citizenship and being wealthy. Wong at Stanford as with immigrant students at Johns Hopkins pay as much as $30,000 a semester so these families are those wealthy foreign 1% and 2%. They of course often don't know REAL FDR social progressivism and as those families enriched by operating corporations in China, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore-----they don't want our US social Democracy-----it is the 99% of immigrants impoverished that have no voice in the US that want FDR social Democracy. WE THE PEOPLE must remember that if today's media allows a person name recognition----as Wong and Rhee---they are working for the 1%.
Ms Rhee of corporate K-12 fame likely belongs to the family of Rhee ---the ruler in South Korea at the time the Korean War was ending and not long after Wall Street installed that corporate hyper-competitive, all-consuming neo-liberal education. It would have been Rhee as leader to approve this. So, a Rhee coming to the US to promote the same neo-liberal education here is ONE WORLD INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE 1% BRINGING THEIR 2%. Ms. Wong should be worried about the Asian global sweat shop factories operating around Stanford University and San Fran and might be tied to owning some of those. Asian sweat shop labor there are earning as little as $1 a day.
Ms. Wong is not educating against US cities as International Economic Zones and how Trans Pacific Trade Pact will not allow any of the wage and workplace policies she promotes to occur----but she KNOWS THIS. As we know the history of our US leadership and families we have to now look at our new immigrant citizens and their POSSIBLE family links. It seems unlikely that a Wong or Rhee would want FDR social Democracy and highly likely they would work for 1% Wall Street Libertarian Marxism.
Wong Luen Hei
Net worth in millions-------1,38049
China Liansu Group
***********************************************************
Syngman Rhee, (born March 26, 1875, P’yŏngsan, Hwanghae province, Korea [now in North Korea]—died July 19, 1965, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.) first president of the Republic of Korea (South Korea).
As president, Rhee assumed dictatorial powers, tolerating little domestic opposition to his program. Rhee purged the National Assembly of members who opposed him and outlawed the opposition Progressive Party, whose leader, Cho Bong Am, was executed for treason. He controlled the appointment of mayors, village headmen, and chiefs of police. He even defied the United Nations (UN) during the Korean War (1950–53).
In spite of his authoritarian policies, Rhee failed to prevent the election of an opposition vice president, Chang Myŏn, in 1956. Government claims that the March 1960 elections gave Rhee more than 90 percent of the popular vote (55 percent in 1956) provoked student-led demonstrations against election fraud, resulting in heavy casualties and demands for Rhee’s resignation. These demands were supported by the unanimous vote of the National Assembly and by the U.S. government. Rhee resigned on April 27, 1960, and went into exile in Hawaii.
********************************************************
Wong is seen as someone to watch. This is where the 5% to the 1% of immigrant citizens in the US comes to play. I talk often about Latino because they are the next majority but now we need to get to know our new Asian citizens and their 5% to the 1%.
WE WELCOME ALL NEW CITIZENS WANTING TO ASSURE OUR US CONSTITUTION, OUR US RULE OF LAW, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEEING WE THE PEOPLE AS LEGISLATORS.
'Felicia Wong is the President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, which seeks to re-imagine the social and economic policies of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century'.
A leader of global corporatized K-12 as an FDR social Democratic policy pusher? FDR was the one building our public K-12 school system and our public universities!
Here is Wong's ties to Bill Gates and the global corporate neo-liberal education policies-------DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE
Rob Stein's PowerPoint presentation on how the Right built a strong infrastructure of think tanks, non-profits, non-profit groups, scholarship recipients, academics, lobbyists, right wing activists and the media led to the founding of the Democracy Alliance, and also a separate organization, the New Progressive Coalition founded by entrepreneurs Andy and Deborah Rappaport.
The Democracy Alliance tries to keep a low profile and its wealthy donors prefer anonymity. According to published reports, organizations funded by Democracy Alliance are asked not to reveal the funding.
Felicia Wong, President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute
Felicia Wong is the President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, which seeks to re-imagine the social and economic policies of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century. Felicia has previously held a senior position at the Democracy Alliance and Teachscape (a venture-funded education services company). She served as a White House Fellow and holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
What is an important thing that we Americans can do together that we can’t do alone?
Together, we can work together to make our economy work better, to make our financial markets work for the real economy, to make sure we have a tight labor market and raise the floor for labor wages. Government must play a major role in all of this economic work. We have to do it as stewards of the common good.
What about your country, state, or community makes you proud? How do you think government interacts with that?
We’re wrestling with ethnic diversity. We do try hard to be a better truly diverse society. I don’t think we do a great job of it, obviously: witness Baltimore, witness Ferguson, witness the real difficulties we have in engaging immigrant communities. But I can’t imagine what life here would be like if we stopped trying.
What do you think it means to be a good citizen?
Paying attention. Giving your time – your brain space and best thinking about solutions to problems of the common good and also for individual advancement.
What one word describes our government as it is?
Sad. But let me clarify: I am sad that as a public we no longer expect our government to live up to its full potential.
What one word do you wish described our government?
Active.
If you could run a government program or agency what would it be? What would you want to accomplish there?
I would run a reimagined or reconstituted NLRB, National Labor Relations Board. I would go back to Franklin Roosevelt and what he was trying to do there, giving workers a real voice and real power. Empowering workers is an important countervailing power to the power of corporate interests.
What thing that government does do you think would surprise most Americans?
Student loans.
What is your first memory of an interaction with government?
My town library.
What was your most recent government interaction?
Metro North into work today.
What is your favorite thing that government does?
I love libraries and the National Archives. I like the fact that we spend time and energy celebrating, collecting and investigating our collective past and our collective knowledge. And even in a world connected by the internet, I think actual libraries – library buildings – matter. So I think libraries are great and Lord, without government we’d have a world with only private libraries. That would be terrible.
Who is your government hero who is not an elected official?
Eleanor Roosevelt. She was incredibly brave. She had no elected position, but she did her best to force those around her to pay attention to issues of racial and social justice, gave the President instructions as to what he should learn about or pay attention to, black civil rights movement, against Japanese internment. These were especially hard to do in the 1940s.
ImagineGov: If government could be anything, what would it be?
Provide opportunities for people for meaningful work – not just a good income – but the opportunity to engage in an endeavor that has social meaning. That could be private – building a strong privately held company – or public. There are many market failures because people are not connected to work that has meaning and structure in their lives. To the degree that government can find more ways for more of us to have that connection to work, broadly defined, that would be great.
Why is the work of Indivisible so important?
Indivisible is trying to surprise people about the things government already does and use creative tactics to change people’s minds about the potential for positive government action in service of the common good in the future. The organization is fighting an uphill battle – obviously. We have had 35 years of the opposite of that message.
Name someone whose answers to these questions you would like to see.
George Washington. What did he think our government was going to become?
_________________________________________
To understand Eleanor Roosevelt and her connections to creating the United Nations we need to go back to that time----not read what organizations like the Roosevelt Institution writes. Leaders connected today to Roosevelt Institution use Eleanor's ties to the UN as a HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION to justify today's UN and what many globally see as simply a PUPPET of global Wall Street and the 1%. Today's UN embraces International Economic Zones knowing they are infused with the worst of slave labor----that a human capital distribution system so abusive and exploitative that it would make ELEANOR ROOSEVELT'S HAIR STAND ON END. No one want to paint FDR as a populist hero---he was simply another one of America's rich. FDR lived at a time in history when the civil war ended slavery and there were strong feelings of needing to move away from Industrial exploitation and his NEW DEAL included workplace protections, public health protections to assure all of that. The UN that Eleanor created was in response to the aftermath of WW2 and its brutality. It was built to bring those warring nations together and assure human rights were part of that European reconstruction. It had nothing to do with bringing the US to a ONE WORLD International Economic Zone to push Americans into the same authoritarian, militaristic, abusive and exploitative societal structure as today's Asian nations and their International Economic Zones. The UN today is partnered with the same kinds of people that caused the brutality of WW2.
As a woman who loves what Eleanor Roosevelt represented back then ---as her husband and his choice of New Deal to rebuild the US----I am deeply OFFENDED by a far-right ONE WORLD Roosevelt Institution for CO-OPTING decent people's good intentions for very,.very, very, very bad ones.
THE CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 1% WALL STREET crowd are the opposite of what Eleanor was trying to promote----they are the HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS she and the UN were created to HOLD ACCOUNTABLE
'Let this third regular session of the General Assembly approve by an overwhelming majority the Declaration of Human Rights as a standard of conduct for all; and let us, as Members of the United Nations, conscious of our own short-comings and imperfections, join our effort in good faith to live up to this high standard'.
Eleanor Roosevelt
On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
delivered 9 December 1948 in Paris, France
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]
Mr. President, fellow delegates:
The long and meticulous study and debate of which this Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the product means that it reflects the composite views of the many men and governments who have contributed to its formulation. Not every man nor every government can have what he wants in a document of this kind. There are of course particular provisions in the Declaration before us with which we are not fully satisfied. I have no doubt this is true of other delegations, and it would still be true if we continued our labors over many years. Taken as a whole the Delegation of the United States believes that this is a good document -- even a great document -- and we propose to give it our full support. The position of the United States on the various parts of the Declaration is a matter of record in the Third Committee. I shall not burden the Assembly, and particularly my colleagues of the Third Committee, with a restatement of that position here.
I should like to comment briefly on the amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation. The language of these amendments has been dressed up somewhat, but the substance is the same as the amendments which were offered by the Soviet delegation in committee and rejected after exhaustive discussion. Substantially the same amendments have been previously considered and rejected in the Human Rights Commission. We in the United States admire those who fight for their convictions, and the Soviet delegation has fought for their convictions. But in the older democracies we have learned that sometimes we bow to the will of the majority. In doing that, we do not give up our convictions. We continue sometimes to persuade, and eventually we may be successful. But we know that we have to work together and we have to progress. So, we believe that when we have made a good fight, and the majority is against us, it is perhaps better tactics to try to cooperate.
I feel bound to say that I think perhaps it is somewhat of an imposition on this Assembly to have these amendments offered again here, and I am confident that they will be rejected without debate.
The first two paragraphs of the amendment to article 3 deal with the question of minorities, which committee 3 decided required further study, and has recommended, in a separate resolution, their reference to the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Commission. As set out in the Soviet amendment, this provision clearly states "group," and not "individual," rights.
The Soviet amendment to article 20 is obviously a very restrictive statement of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It sets up standards which would enable any state practically to deny all freedom of opinion and expression without violating the article. It introduces the terms "democratic view," "democratic systems," "democratic state," and "fascism," which we know all too well from debates in this Assembly over the past two years on warmongering and related subjects are liable to the most flagrant abuse and diverse interpretations.
The statement of the Soviet delegate here tonight is a very good case in point on this. The Soviet amendment of article 22 introduces new elements into the article without improving the committed text and again introduces specific reference to "discrimination." As was repeatedly pointed out in committee 3, the question of discrimination is comprehensively covered in article 2 of the Declaration, so that its restatement elsewhere is completely unnecessary and also has the effect of weakening the comprehensive principles stated in article 2. The new article proposed by the Soviet delegation is but a restatement of State obligation, which the Soviet delegation attempted to introduce into practically every article in the Declaration. It would convert the Declaration into a document stating obligations on states, thereby changing completely its character as a statement of principles to serve as a common standard of achievement for the members of the United Nations.
The Soviet proposal for deferring consideration of the Declaration to the 4th session of the Assembly requires no comment. An identical text was rejected in committee 3 by a vote of 6 in favor and 26 against. We are all agreed, I am sure, that the Declaration, which has been worked on with such great effort and devotion, and over such a long period of time, must be approved by this Assembly at this session.
Certain provisions of the Declaration are stated in such broad terms as to be acceptable only because of the provisions in article 30 providing for limitation on the exercise of the rights for the purpose of meeting the requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare. An example of this is the provision that everyone has the right to equal access to the public service in his country. The basic principle of equality and of nondiscrimination as to public employment is sound, but it cannot be accepted without limitation. My government, for example, would consider that this is unquestionably subject to limitation in the interest of public order and the general welfare. It would not consider that the exclusion from public employment of persons holding subversive political beliefs and not loyal to the basic principles and practices of the constitution and laws of the country would in any way infringe upon this right.
Likewise, my government has made it clear in the course of the development of the Declaration that it does not consider that the economic and social and cultural rights stated in the Declaration imply an obligation on governments to assure the enjoyment of these rights by direct governmental action. This was made quite clear in the Human Rights Commission text of article 23 which served as a so-called "umbrella" article to the articles on economic and social rights. We consider that the principle has not been affected by the fact that this article no longer contains a reference to the articles which follow it. This in no way affects our whole-hearted support for the basic principles of economic, social, and cultural rights set forth in these articles.
In giving our approval to the Declaration today it is of primary importance that we keep clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.
We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This Universal Declaration of Human Rights may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries.
At a time when there are so many issues on which we find it difficult to reach a common basis of agreement, it is a significant fact that 58 states have found such a large measure of agreement in the complex field of human rights. This must be taken as testimony of our common aspiration first voiced in the Charter of the United Nations to lift men everywhere to a higher standard of life and to a greater enjoyment of freedom. Man’s desire for peace lies behind this Declaration. The realization that the flagrant violation of human rights by Nazi and Fascist countries sowed the seeds of the last world war has supplied the impetus for the work which brings us to the moment of achievement here today.
In a recent speech in Canada, Gladstone Murray said:
The central fact is that man is fundamentally a moral being, that the light we have is imperfect does not matter so long as we are always trying to improve it … we are equal in sharing the moral freedom that distinguishes us as men. Man’s status makes each individual an end in himself. No man is by nature simply the servant of the state or of another man … the ideal and fact of freedom -- and not technology -- are the true distinguishing marks of our civilization.
This Declaration is based upon the spiritual fact that man must have freedom in which to develop his full stature and through common effort to raise the level of human dignity. We have much to do to fully achieve and to assure the rights set forth in this Declaration. But having them put before us with the moral backing of 58 nations will be a great step forward.
As we here bring to fruition our labors on this Declaration of Human Rights, we must at the same time rededicate ourselves to the unfinished task which lies before us. We can now move on with new courage and inspiration to the completion of an international covenant on human rights and of measures for the implementation of human rights.
In conclusion, I feel that I cannot do better than to repeat the call to action by Secretary Marshall in his opening statement to this Assembly:
Let this third regular session of the General Assembly approve by an overwhelming majority the Declaration of Human Rights as a standard of conduct for all; and let us, as Members of the United Nations, conscious of our own short-comings and imperfections, join our effort in good faith to live up to this high standard.
___________________________________________
Stiglitz and Roosevelt Institute call for a national infrastructure bank as helping labor and justice PRETENDING TO BE SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE----when the goal is creating a structure that will allow Wall Street and global corporations fleece taxpayer funds---accumulating wealth anyway they can-----FAR-RIGHT PRAGMATIC NILISM by the Roosevelt Institution.
Clinton calls for national infrastructure bank
By Keith Laing - 10/26/15 09:45 AM EDT
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is calling for the creation of a national infrastructure funding bank to help pay for transportation projects as Congress struggles to find ways to finance road construction.
Federal transportation funding is set to expire on Thursday, and lawmakers are considering passing a three-week extension as they try to come up with ways to pay for a multiyear highway bill.
Clinton said in a high-profile speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner over the weekend that an infrastructure bank could be the solution to the transportation funding problem.
"We should establish an infrastructure bank to put Americans to work building our roads, our bridges, our airports, our rails [and] our broadband networks," the former secretary of State said in her speech on Saturday night.
Transportation advocates have called for the establishment of a national infrastructure bank to prevent potential interruptions in the nation's road and transit funding, like the one that could occur on Thursday if Congress does not pass an extension. Most of the infrastructure bank proposals call for an initial round of government funding that supporters say could be used to lure private sector investments to finance badly needed transportation projects. Suggestions for the starter fund have typically ranged from $10 billion to $50 billion.
Many Republicans have said they would prefer to let states establish their own infrastructure banks, although transportation advocates have said Congress should establish a national road funding pot because many states have not chosen to do so on their own.
Clinton's recent proposal comes as lawmakers are struggling to come up with a way to pay for federal transportation projects. Congress has not passed a transportation funding bill that last longer than two years since 2005, and the latest proposal from the House would last only until Nov. 20.
GOP leaders in the House have said the temporary patch will provide time for them to finish work on a six-year, $325 billion transportation funding bill that was approved Thursday by the chamber’s Transportation Committee.
The Senate has already passed a bill in July that included three years of guaranteed highway funding, and lawmakers have pressured the House to follow suit since they rejected the upper chamber's measure in the summer.
Clinton has not weighed in on the legislative wrangling over the highway bill. The Department of Transportation, meanwhile, has warned that it will have to stop making payments to states and local governments for infrastructure projects in November if Congress does not reach an agreement.
_______________________________________
The Clinton Global Initiative IS THE DEVELOPMENT mechanism behind International Economic Zones overseas and this foundation is KNOWN TO BE CORRUPT AND FRAUDULENT. The idea that Congress is going to allow hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure spending that NEVER REACHES OUR STATES OR CITIES----but instead goes into a global BANK should make all Americans shout NO.
This article is right wing bringing in the claims of labor union involvement and no doubt this is what national labor union leaders sold their members as a reason to vote for Hillary. Know why she wants this as her Clinton Global Initiative bank?
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE AN APPROVED LIST OF GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS THAT WILL WIN ALL THESE AWARDS.
The amount suggested MIGHT go to US labor unions is so small---and as in Maryland rarely actually makes it to union jobs---shows how international labor union leaders are bought and paid for. Speaking about the ROOSEVELT Institution------the AFL-CIO is partnered with this public policy group. Where is US labor in ONE WORLD US cities as International Economic Zones? The same place as in China----with labor unions unable to organize the global labor pool. Can anyone imagine giving the Clinton's a BANK OF ANYTHING?
Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and AMY CHOZICKAUG. 13, 2013
Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco on Monday. Credit Jason Henry for The New York Times
Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.
The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.
'Clinton cited as an example a $15 billion project she said the Clinton Global Initiative is running with labor union pension funds to train people for “clean energy work.”'
Leaked Audio: Hillary Clinton Calls at Private Fundraiser for Infrastructure Bank to Resemble Clinton Global Initiative
Exclusive: Union-backed project would be modeled on work of controversial nonprofit
BY: Alana Goodman and Lachlan Markay
September 30, 2015 11:59 am
Hillary Clinton told donors at a private fundraiser in New York last Thursday that she plans as president to create a “national infrastructure bank” modeled on the Clinton Global Initiative, according to a recording of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
This was the first time that Clinton, who has long supported the formation of a government-controlled bank to invest in national infrastructure projects, cited the Clinton Global Initiative—the flagship arm of her family’s controversial foundation—as an investment model for her proposed bank.
Clinton said CGI’s “public-private” partnership with labor unions has created tens of thousands of jobs, and argued that a federal infrastructure bank could take on this type of project.
“Think of what we can do on a national scale,” said Clinton.
Clinton’s plan for a national infrastructure bank dovetails with the financial interests of some of her most prominent supporters.
Her comments could also give ammunition to critics who say that the Clintons’ philanthropic operations, including CGI, have been plagued with conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement.
“I want to see if we can create what is called an infrastructure bank,” said Clinton. “It’s like a revolving loan fund so we can take it out of to a great extent the annual fight over appropriations. If we can get it funded with a combination of public and private funds, we can do this.”
Clinton cited as an example a $15 billion project she said the Clinton Global Initiative is running with labor union pension funds to train people for “clean energy work.”
“The Clinton Global Initiative that my husband started has a project with a lot of labor union pension funds. They have put $15 billion into a fund to train workers to be able to do energy efficiency and other clean energy work,” said Clinton. “Think of what we can do on a national scale. … There is no doubt in my mind this is a win-win.”
The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. Clinton did not take questions after her remarks, which is unusual for a prominent candidate at a closed-door fundraising event.
Clinton’s campaign website says the proposal would “leverage public and private capital to invest in critically important infrastructure projects, including energy infrastructure projects.”
Supporters of such a bank say it would help spur investment and job creation by letting the private sector invest in public projects. But the concept has also been criticized as a magnet for cronyism that could allow government officials to hand out loans to allies as political favors.
“The basic premise is if we throw enough public and private money into a bucket and then let private parties sort of draw on it to build better roads, the whole problem will sort itself out,” said Adam J. White, counsel at Boyden Gray & Associates, a law firm that focuses on federal regulation. “That strikes me at best a recipe for a failed transportation policy and at worst an opportunity for wasting billions of dollars.”
White said recent controversies over the green energy company Solyndra and the Export-Import bank also show the potential for “favoritism, waste, politicalization.”
Clinton’s plan could also be a windfall for some of her top financial supporters.
One likely beneficiary would be Robert Wolf, a Clinton donor and former bundler for the Obama campaign who previously chaired UBS Americas. Wolf runs the consulting firm 32 Advisors, which has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
The firm announced the formation of a new infrastructure practice in April to help clients obtain funding for infrastructure projects. It brought on Michael Likosky, an expert in infrastructure financing and government planning, to lead the practice. Likosky has also advised CGI on infrastructure projects, and billed himself in July as “an Expert to the Clinton Initiative.”
Another donor that could benefit from a national infrastructure bank is Mary Scott Nabers, head of the consulting firm Strategic Partnerships, Inc. The firm helps clients to procure government contracts for public-private infrastructure projects. Nabers has contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Labor unions, which represent a major voting bloc and well of financial support for Clinton, would also benefit significantly from a national infrastructure bank.
OH, REALLY?????? YOU MEAN USING YOUR MEMBERS PENSION BENEFITS FOR WALL STREET GAINS?
Union officials said they hoped that their project with CGI—which was cited by Clinton at her recent fundraiser--would help “spur creation of a National Infrastructure Bank to spur subsidized bonds for public works projects,” the Chicago Tribune reported in 2011.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
_____________________________________________
How This Work Fits with Roosevelt’s Mission:
WILL THE 1% EVER COME OUT TO SAY-----THESE POLICIES ARE ABOUT ENDING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY MAKING THE US THE SAME COLONIAL ENTITIES THAT EXIST IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES AROUND THE WORLD?
As we see here-----Roosevelt Institute simply sees itself as rewriting American history into that of what the global corporate tribunal governance will look like. It has nothing to do with bringing control of government back to the people. The US is not in competition globally------WE THE PEOPLE have made clear----we want global market economy policy set on the back burner as we rebuild our American cities, rebuild our US Constitutional structures giving US Rule of Law, Equal Protection, and rebuilding our local US city and county economies to return to a national economic health. That means we do this not with a reformed Wall Street---but taking Wall Street out of our development. Everyone knows we cannot MOVE FORWARD as a sovereign nation simply expanding on this premise of global empire-building. IT IS EITHER-OR as Roosevelt Institute knows and they are squarely behind advancing ONE WORLD global corporate rule. So, a first world highly educated population is to believe they will have ANY VOICE in this global structure that Roosevelt PRETENDS to try to mold in favor of labor and justice.
It is because we know Roosevelt Institute is a global ONE WORLD organization that all policy coming from it only looks at the US as that ONE WORLD economic zone. They are using governance terms familiar to Americans while having no intent of having these structures. The goal of Trans Pacific Trade Pact was to do what the Roosevelt Institute is doing as well---that is, to eliminate all nations' current governance to rebuild one governing structure for all TPP-tied nations. So, they are not against TPP----they embrace global trade structures that move all nations into this one governance platform. Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that handing GLOBAL POWER to a 1% to govern as it sees fit will NEVER END IN HUMAN CAPITAL being able to negotiate ANY POLICY.
This is what Roosevelt's mission is about----how to MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE WORLD such that dozens of nations differing in every way are conformed under one governance and they PRETEND this can be done protecting labor and justice. REWRITING RULES OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY is made to sound like it using American constructs to reform our governance for a 21st century economy when in fact they are simply installing Trans Pacific Trade Pact TPP global corporate ONE WORLD governance structures.
THEY CONTINUALLY USE FDR AND HIS SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC POLICIES TO COVER WHAT WILL BE THE OPPOSITE.
'The Institute is all about furthering and updating the legacy of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century. This is an opportune time to be parsing how that legacy can help us navigate modern global governance challenges. As in FDR’s time, global finance wrecked the planet, developing countries are flexing their developmental muscle, and the U.S. has to figure out its place in all of this'.
Global Economic Governance 2.0
Economy and GrowthInternational
By Todd Tucker | 06.22.16I’m pleased to be the newest fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, where my focus will be the ins and outs of global economic governance. I’m especially interested in how international treaties affect domestic law, politics, and economics—and vice versa.
The moment demands big new ideas in this space. From investor-state dispute settlement, to the World Trade Organization, to even our own Supreme Court’s forays into foreign affairs, the manner in which countries integrate has become heavily judicial and less susceptible to normal democratic influence. At the same time, corporations have more choices than ever about where to locate, produce, and incorporate. If they’re willing to “lawyer up,” a U.S. company can become a Swiss company or a Hong Kong company, shopping for the best treaties and protections from governments. Meanwhile, domestic political actors are as suspicious as ever about foreign entanglements and actors. How these trends get reconciled (or not) will shape the course of the 21st century.
Some have called this domestic-global impasse global “gridlock,” a regime complex, or “G-Zero” (where no country dominates decision-making). We need more scholarly attention and systematic policy work drawing out the domestic implications of the global economic governance system, and in particular its judicialized parts. That’s what I hope to do here.
How This Work Fits in with Roosevelt’s MissionThe Institute is all about furthering and updating the legacy of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for the 21st century. This is an opportune time to be parsing how that legacy can help us navigate modern global governance challenges. As in FDR’s time, global finance wrecked the planet, developing countries are flexing their developmental muscle, and the U.S. has to figure out its place in all of this.
My work will be motivated by several principles:
1. Evidence and intelligibility matter.
A lot of debate about global economic governance takes place under the shadow of votes pending in Congress right now. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is just the latest example. I’ll be complementing that by taking a broader view and thinking through the thorny empirical problems that sometimes get lost in the political scuffle. In particular, governments have established literally thousands of trade, investment, and tax treaties over the last several decades. We now have tons of data on the lived experience of these systems, and more being generated every day. I’ll aim to translate that data out of technocratic silos and into plain (or plainer!) English.
2. Questions matter.
Our global economic governance system gives rights to business and property owners that it doesn’t to communities, labor groups, and other interests. Is this asymmetry of power inherently objectionable on normative grounds? Does it matter on empirical grounds? What about those arguments that our legacy trade policy is necessary for foreign policy and business success? I won’t shy away from asking questions, including ones I don’t have immediate answers for.
3. Legitimacy matters.
Early in the 20th century, Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis recognized that judges are among the most consequential policymakers, but that they often ignore social science data and the political context in which they operate. Indeed, after years of blocking New Deal policy, Brandeis helped the Supreme Court usher in a new era of deference to elected officials and experts (with a small assist from FDR’s court-packing plan!). It is therefore unsurprising that liberal internationalists like Woodrow Wilson and FDR were cautious about putting lawyers and judges in charge of international institutions. Today, we have a plethora of international “courts” (with acronyms like ISDS and WTO) that operate at a remove from communities and non-legal experts. I will look at what if any consequences this gap has for these courts’ legitimacy, and what that experience can tell us about pushing a progressive international agenda on problems like climate change, tax avoidance, and corporate governance.
4. Balance matters. Throughout U.S. history, our greatest political thinkers and doers have been concerned with how concentration of power affects the substance of policy. The musical Hamilton brilliantly captures how our founding fathers both worried about concentration of executive power and exploited it to develop the country. Would the king, or a king-like figure, always make the last call? In today’s global economy, court-like actors make the authoritative pronouncements on many questions that matter for environmental sustainability, global finance, and other important issues. Is this an unchecked form of judicial supremacy, or a needed check on nationalism? Is it a necessary device to coordinate foreign policy between countries, or a tangled and internally contradictory legal web? I will look at the role of national executives, legislatures, courts, and even market actors in checking the power of transnational institutions, and vice versa.
In the weeks to come, I’ll be looking at the takeaways from recent legal challenges against public health legislation, debt crises, and more. To find out more about my work, check out my Roosevelt Institute page and my personal blog, and follow me on Twitter @toddntucker.
Todd N. Tucker is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. His interests revolve around global economic governance, including dispute settlement and the domestic regulatory implications of international trade, investment, and tax treaties.
The REAL issues for the American people are: ENDING THE DESIGNATION OF OUR US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES; ENDING TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT AS A WHOLE; AND PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THIS COMING MASSIVE US TREASURY AND MUNICIPAL BOND MARKET FRAUD which the people at Roosevelt Institute NEVER MENTION. Who knows better than Stiglitz these several years of subpriming our bond market has occurred and needs to be stopped? What we will hear from Roosevelt Institute AFTER THE CRASH how bad Wall Street acted and ask for the same financial reforms.
RSS Feed
