If you looked at the video I shared from Brookings Institute you see the global structure already formed ready to become those public private partnerships in the US. These are global corporations----global financial investment firms----and global monetary funds like IMF and World Bank. They are the ones enriched by these few decades of massive frauds of developing world assets, only rich because they have been allowed to keep it. Wall Street is flooding US cities like Baltimore with people geared to promote all this as good. These people no doubt decided having a job that pays well is worth selling out the American people. When I hear in Baltimore that public private partnerships are controlled by the Maryland Assembly or Baltimore City Hall----THEY ARE LYING----
THESE PARTNERSHIPS ARE WHAT HAVE TAKEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MADE THEM WORK FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
Campaign finance holds no candle to controlling our elected officials than this PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP POLICY. If a labor and justice organization is not educating against PP as they are called----the leadership is working for Clinton/Obama neo-liberals.
We already know what are called local business 'partners' in these policies are simply local offices of global corporations. Many times they don't try to hide these partnerships are global corporations. HighStar global investment firm has Baltimore's Port-----it is behind VEOLA ENVIRONMENT taking our public water and waste---and global corporations are being handed control through Exelon of all of our BGE energy infrastructure. On top of that -----global corporations behind SMART CITY technology infrastructure. So, Maryland's pols are installing as fast as they can all these global structures making Maryland and especially Baltimore ruled by this global corporate tribunal that is this global public private partnership entity.
Citizens in Baltimore have been unable to have a public voice for a few decades as Johns Hopkins is ground zero for all this global corporate tribunal structure.
IF A POLITICIAN IS SHOUTING FOR THESE SAME WALL STREET DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES YOU KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE! BE THAT CANDIDATE AND RUN IN ALL PRIMARIES TO GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL POLS. IT'S EASY PEASY.
Baltimore elections should be filled with seniors and former teachers and education administrators having been fired to install this autocratic Race to the Top----be that city council candidate running against all the Wall Street players.
As you see below it was Bush that created Federal law sending Federal funding to SMART GRID---even as Obama installs it. Who hates this autocratic capture by SMART GRID technology most? Republican voters. Who is hurt by it most? Democratic labor and justice voters. WHOSE VOICES ARE SILENCED BY BUSH NEO-CONS AND CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS? Republican and Democratic voters.
Public-private partnerships: Joining core business interests with global development
On May 7, Brookings and Project Concern International (PCI) hosted a discussion on how public-private…
Itron's Investors section is designed for existing and potential investors, as well as others who are interested in learning more about our company. In addition to quarterly and annual reports, this section houses financial statements and recent news. Be sure to check back often for new and updated information on Itron.
Microsoft and Itron Alliance
Itron is a world-leading technology and services company dedicated to the resourceful use of energy and water, providing comprehensive solutions that measure, manage and analyze energy and water. Itron and Microsoft have joined together to create technology systems capable of helping utilities organize, interpret and optimize the massive data provided by advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). Together Itron and Microsoft are paving the way for smart cities of the future.
42 U.S. Code § 17386 - Federal matching fund for smart grid investment costsCurrent through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
prev | next
(a) Matching fund
The Secretary shall establish a Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program to provide grants of up to one-half (50 percent) of qualifying Smart Grid investments.
(b) Qualifying investmentsQualifying Smart Grid investments may include any of the following made on or after December 19, 2007:
In the case of appliances covered for purposes of establishing energy conservation standards under part B of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), the documented expenditures incurred by a manufacturer of such appliances associated with purchasing or designing, creating the ability to manufacture, and manufacturing and installing for one calendar year, internal devices that allow the appliance to engage in Smart Grid functions.
In the case of specialized electricity-using equipment, including motors and drivers, installed in industrial or commercial applications, the documented expenditures incurred by its owner or its manufacturer of installing devices or modifying that equipment to engage in Smart Grid functions.
In the case of transmission and distribution equipment fitted with monitoring and communications devices to enable smart grid functions, the documented expenditures incurred by the electric utility to purchase and install such monitoring and communications devices.
In the case of metering devices, sensors, control devices, and other devices integrated with and attached to an electric utility system or retail distributor or marketer of electricity that are capable of engaging in Smart Grid functions, the documented expenditures incurred by the electric utility, distributor, or marketer and its customers to purchase and install such devices.
In the case of software that enables devices or computers to engage in Smart Grid functions, the documented purchase costs of the software.
In the case of entities that operate or coordinate operations of regional electric grids, the documented expenditures for purchasing and installing such equipment that allows Smart Grid functions to operate and be combined or coordinated among multiple electric utilities and between that region and other regions.
In the case of persons or entities other than electric utilities owning and operating a distributed electricity generator, the documented expenditures of enabling that generator to be monitored, controlled, or otherwise integrated into grid operations and electricity flows on the grid utilizing Smart Grid functions.
In the case of electric or hybrid-electric vehicles, the documented expenses for devices that allow the vehicle to engage in Smart Grid functions (but not the costs of electricity storage for the vehicle).
The documented expenditures related to purchasing and implementing Smart Grid functions in such other cases as the Secretary shall identify.
(c) Investments not includedQualifying Smart Grid investments do not include any of the following:
Investments or expenditures for Smart Grid technologies, devices, or equipment that utilize specific tax credits or deductions under the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
Expenditures for electricity generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure or equipment not directly related to enabling Smart Grid functions.
After the final date for State consideration of the Smart Grid Information Standard under section 2621(d)(17)  of title 16, an investment that is not in compliance with such standard.
After the development and publication by the Institute of protocols and model standards for interoperability of smart grid devices and technologies, an investment that fails to incorporate any of such protocols or model standards.
Expenditures for physical interconnection of generators or other devices to the grid except those that are directly related to enabling Smart Grid functions.
Expenditures for ongoing salaries, benefits, or personnel costs not incurred in the initial installation, training, or start up of smart grid functions.
Expenditures for travel, lodging, meals or other personal costs.
Ongoing or routine operation, billing, customer relations, security, and maintenance expenditures.
Such other expenditures that the Secretary determines not to be Qualifying Smart Grid Investments by reason of the lack of the ability to perform Smart Grid functions or lack of direct relationship to Smart Grid functions.
(d) Smart grid functionsThe term “smart grid functions” means any of the following:
The ability to develop, store, send and receive digital information concerning electricity use, costs, prices, time of use, nature of use, storage, or other information relevant to device, grid, or utility operations, to or from or by means of the electric utility system, through one or a combination of devices and technologies.
The ability to develop, store, send and receive digital information concerning electricity use, costs, prices, time of use, nature of use, storage, or other information relevant to device, grid, or utility operations to or from a computer or other control device.
The ability to measure or monitor electricity use as a function of time of day, power quality characteristics such as voltage level, current, cycles per second, or source or type of generation and to store, synthesize or report that information by digital means.
The ability to sense and localize disruptions or changes in power flows on the grid and communicate such information instantaneously and automatically for purposes of enabling automatic protective responses to sustain reliability and security of grid operations.
The ability to detect, prevent, communicate with regard to, respond to, or recover from system security threats, including cyber-security threats and terrorism, using digital information, media, and devices.
The ability of any appliance or machine to respond to such signals, measurements, or communications automatically or in a manner programmed by its owner or operator without independent human intervention.
The ability to use digital information to operate functionalities on the electric utility grid that were previously electro-mechanical or manual.
The ability to use digital controls to manage and modify electricity demand, enable congestion management, assist in voltage control, provide operating reserves, and provide frequency regulation.
Such other functions as the Secretary may identify as being necessary or useful to the operation of a Smart Grid.
(e) Procedures and rules
(1) The Secretary shall, within 60 days after February 17, 2009, by means of a notice of intent and subsequent solicitation of grant proposals--
establish procedures by which applicants can obtain grants of not more than one-half of their documented costs;
require as a condition of receiving funding under this subsection that demonstration projects utilize open protocols and standards (including Internet-based protocols and standards) if available and appropriate;
establish procedures to ensure that there is no duplication or multiple payment for the same investment or costs, that the grant goes to the party making the actual expenditures for the qualifying Smart Grid investments, and that the grants made have a significant effect in encouraging and facilitating the development of a smart grid;
establish procedures to ensure there will be public records of grants made, recipients, and qualifying Smart Grid investments which have received grants; and
establish procedures to provide advance payment of moneys up to the full amount of the grant award.
The Secretary shall have discretion and exercise reasonable judgment to deny grants for investments that do not qualify.
(f) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are necessary for the administration of this section and the grants to be made pursuant to this section for fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
The SMART GRID is NOT GREEN. They promote that to advance a very globally-controlled infrastructure policy----I am using one national policy-----SMART GRID to show how global entities tie into all national policy-----a national bridge and road infrastructure policy will look the same.
Below you see how a Federal government moves policy written by global corporations with absolutely no public discussion. We have not in modern history had these kinds of behind closed door policy movements until we allowed global corporate pols get control of our national politics. GET RID OF GLOBAL POLS AND WE BRING GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE PEOPLE.
Public Private partnerships is too a Republican policy to take control of government from people and hand it to corporate partners. So, these Federal grants by Dept of Energy under the guise of 'being green' push states and local governments to these policies just as Obama used Federal grants to push Race to the Top Wall Street education reform. Governments starved of public revenue because of massive corporate frauds and tax evasion---are supposedly NEEDING these global corporate partners.
Erhlich and O'Malley were kings of this public private partnership as neo-con and neo-liberal----now we have global neo-con Hogan all pushing public private partnerships for the same reason---global corporate control of US government. Maggie McIntosh is the queen of public private partnerships in Maryland Assembly and that is why she was appointed head of Appropriations---she will make sure all funds go to these global entities and not to governent coffers. When this economic crash comes----McIntosh will be there to say NO STATE FUNDING for Baltimore----you must partner with global corporations to survive. Mary Pat Clarke is the public private partnership leader in City Council and of course Baltimore's Mayors must all support these policies.
THIS IS THE CAPTURE---NOTICE IT IS BALTIMORE CITY POLS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS MOVING THIS AS BALTIMORE CITY IS THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE IN THE AREA.
All Maryland pols are Bush neo-cons or Clinton/Obama neo-liberals moving these policies so it is not only Maggie and Mary Pat----it is especially Maryland Black Caucus as well.
DOE’s $3.4B Smart Grid Grant Program: The Winners
The Department of Energy has chosen 100 smart grid projects to receive $3.4 billion in matching grants. Here’s the list.
by Jeff St. John
October 27, 2009
The Department of Energy has chosen 100 smart grid projects to receive $3.4 billion in matching grants. Here’s the list.
by Jeff St. John
October 27, 2009
The Department of Energy on Tuesday named 100 smart grid projects as winners of $3.4 billion in stimulus grants – and it looks like the smart meter industry is going to be happy.
That's because a lot of that money is going to deploy two-way communicating electricity meters to customers, according to the list of winners DOE published on Tuesday.
Projects that include smart meters make up at least $2.8 billion of the total amount, according to a quick tally of awards. That doesn't include a tally of projects that won grants of $20 million or less, which make up three-fourths of the recepients.
Making and installing smart meters involves a lot of jobs, Matt Rogers, the DOE advisor in charge of managing stimulus funding, noted in a Monday press pre-briefing – and boosting job growth was part of the DOE's imperative in spending the stimulus funds (see Smart Grid Gets $3.4B in DOE Stimulus).
The first winners to be announced included Baltimore Gas and Electric and Florida Power & Light, each getting the $200 million maximum amount to speed up multi-million smart meter deployments (see A Million Smart Meters For Miami).
Funded projects are expected to install 1.8 million smart meters over the coming three years, bringing them to about 13 percent of the nation's homes, Rogers noted Monday.But grant-winning projects will also deliver 200,000 advanced transformers, 700 automated substation systems and 850 transmission grid sensors to help manage the delivery of power, Rogers said.
As for managing home energy use, grant-funded projects would deploy one million in-home energy displays, 175,000 load management devices and 170,000 smart thermostats, he said.
All told, the projects would lead to $8.1 billion in public and private investment into the smart grid sector, Rogers said. That's welcome news for smart grid companies that have seen a drop-off in business over the last six months, as utilities held off on signing contracts until they could know if DOE money was coming (see Green Light post).
"This will unleash a lot of projects that have been held up," Katherine Hamilton, president of the GridWise Alliance trade group, said Tuesday. The alliance issued a statement calling for state utility commissions to support projects that didn't get funded.
While smart meters did figure prominently in the list of grant-winning projects, Hamilton noted that many of those projects also seek to integrate distribution, transmission, generation and customer information and control systems – an "integrative approach" that she said she supports.
A number of projects also will include so-called variable pricing pilot programs, testing out the idea of charging customers higher prices at peak demand times, usually in exchange for extra-cheap off-peak power.
Projects in Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, as well as Washington D.C., propose to try out such programs, which are already being mandated at some scale for utilities in California (see PG&E Asks Cisco to Help Make 75K Businesses Energy Wise).
Projects that weren't picked won't have a second chance. Plans to hold multiple rounds of funding for the $3.4 billion program were canceled, after applications for the smart grid investment grant program came in at about five times the amount available, Roger said.
Still, a separate $615 million pool for demonstration projects hasn't been allocated yet, which leaves another set of applications awaiting word (see DOE Issues Rules for $3.9B in Smart Grid Stimulus Grants).
Utilities made up almost all the winners of the larger, $3.4 billion round, with a few noteworthy exceptions.
Among them, Honeywell Corp. won $11.4 million to deploy peak pricing control systems in Danvers, Mass., and Whirlpool Corp won $19.3 million to accelerate development of its line of smart appliances (see Whirlpool Plans 1M Smart Dryers by 2011).
And Idaho-based M2M Communications won $2.2 million to expand to California's Central Valley a system for remote-controlling water pumps and farm irrigation systems that it has deployed in Idaho, Colorado and other western states (see M2M Brings Demand Response to Farmers).
Of course, smart grid companies teamed up with utilities on proposed projects will be poring through the list of winners to see which projects got the green light.
Here's a rundown of some of the larger projects to win grants, along with a brief description of what the winning utility intends to do with the money:
- Southern Co., $164.5 million for smart meters, distribution and transmission line automation, and smart power substations (see Green Light post).
- Salt River Project, $56.9 million for a 550,000 smart meter deployment (see story).
- Sacramento Municipal Utility District, $127.5 million for a "comprehensive regional smart grid system" that includes 600,000 smart meters.
- San Diego Gas & Electric, $28.1 million for its GridComm project to deploy a variety of communications networks across its service territory (see Green Light post).
- Burbank Water and Power and the City of Glendale Water and Power, each winning $20 million for smart grid deployments including 51,000 and 84,000 smart meters, respectively.
- City of Fort Collins (Colo.) Utilities, $18.1 million for 79,000 smart meters and in-home energy controls.
- Pepco, $104.8 million to speed up deployment of 570,000 smart meters in Maryland. The utility also landed $44.8 million for 280,000 smart meters in Washington, D.C. (see story).
- Idaho Power Company, $47 million for distribution automation and smart meters for all 470,000 customers.
- Central Maine Power Co., $95.9 million for a 650,000 smart meter deployment.
- Detroit Edison Co., $83.8 million to deploy 660,000 smart meters.
- South Mississippi Electric Power Association, $30.6 million for a 240,000 smart meter deployment, as well as grid monitoring equipment.
- Duke Energy, $200 million for its "comprehensive grid modernization" plans, which include lots of distribution automation as well as its plans to install 1.4 million smart meters, some attached to home energy monitoring systems (see story).
- Raleigh, N.C.-based Progress Energy Service Co., $200 million for a "virtual power plant" project and to speed up its 160,000 smart meter deployment.
- Las Vegas-based NV Energy, $138 million for a smart grid rollout including 1.3 million smart meters, distribution automation, in-home energy monitoring and other technologies.
- Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, $136.2 million for a 40,000 smart meter deployment, in-home energy controls, distribution automation and a control network for it all (see Green Light post).
- Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Service Co., $57.5 million for a grid modernization project including smart meters and distribution automation.
- Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co., $130 million for a 771,000 smart meter deployment.
- PECO Energy Co., $200 million for 600,000 smart meters, seven intelligent substations and an overlying communications network.
- Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (Tenn.), $111.6 million for 170,000 smart meters and extending fiber optic networks throughout its service territory – an expensive and rare, but very robust, communications backbone.
- CenterPoint Energy, $200 million to accelerate its deployment of 2.2 million smart meters, as well as 550 grid sensors and automated switches to help it deal with future hurricanes.
- Vermont Transco, $68.9 million to deploy 300,000 smart meters and distribution and transmission automation systems.
Duke Energy also won a $3.9 million grant for phasor measurement. ISO New England won $3.7 million and the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) won $37.4 million for similar projects.
And for those who heard Rogers promise that the DOE would fund projects in 49 out of 50 states, it appears that Alaska was the odd state out. But Hamilton of the GridWise Alliance noted that she didn't believe any projects in the state applied for funds.
As I have shown, energy corporations like Exelon are simply subcontracting all these projects to global corporations which are the ones partnered with global investment firms so all of our Federal, state, and local tax revenue is being channelled into this global policy that almost all citizens hate.
IT IS THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE FOLKS! IT IS THE MARYLAND NON-PROFIT STRUCTURE FOLKS---------- NOT MONEY IN POLITICS!
Citizens are now forced into these non-profit structures because they want jobs and these non-profits will always keep unemployment high with a well-paid director installed by the global corporations behind the grants.
Federal funding in the past had very little corporate backing because corporations used to pay taxes that went into our general funds government coffers. This allowed politicians to work for their constituents. That is why corporations paying no taxes and sucking all government revenue with corporate subsidy and fraud is bad. We simply need pols running in primaries that will reverse these policies.
HAVING BUSINESSES AS TAXPAYERS DRIVING YOUR LOCAL ECONOMY MAKES THEM ONE OF ALL TAXPAYERS SOLICITING POLITICAL ATTENTION. HAVING THEM A GRANTORS MAKES THEM PATRONS GARNERING POWER TO BUY POLITICIANS.
Remember, we must have our municipal infrastructure in public hands to have control of the who, what, why, when, and how of public policy. Below you see PA and MD with the same Public Private Partnership grant funding structure and it is all tied to global transportations partnered with global investment firms getting all Federal/state grant funding for transportation projects and of course these corporations are winning all state and city Board of Estimates government contracting awards.
PennDOT lets $279 million in projects during September
October 5, 2015
PennDOT continued its strong, post-Act 89 momentum by letting just over $279 million in projects during September, bringing the year-to-date total to just over $2 billion. Last year, PennDOT ended the year with $2.6 billion in lettings, the highest since 2009 when the program was boosted by the one-time economic stimulus package. PennDOT exceeded its initial 2014 estimate of $2.2 billion and it was reported earlier that PennDOT’s 2015 anticipated lettings will again be $2.6 billion.
At the end of 2013, PennDOT only bid $1.638 billion in lettings. Act 89 enabled PennDOT to put nearly a $1 billion more projects on the street in 2014 than it was able to do in 2013.
With the recent enactment of the transportation funding bill there is reason to see this trend continue well past 2015. Act 89, which will implement a $2.3 billion comprehensive transportation funding plan over the next five years, will result in PennDOT exceeding the $2 billion construction lettings mark for years to come.
As in year’s past, PHIA will continue to track contract lettings on a monthly basis.
Below you see the first thing a super-majority of 'Democrats' in Congress and President Obama did as we were killed by the last public private partnership----Wall Street to our Federal Housing Agency-----O'Malley of Maryland was made national governor association leader because of his raging connection to Wall Street and public private partnerships-----and this International Economic Zone policy----this is why Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore was made head of the national Mayor's association......
THIS REPRESENTS WHERE NATIONAL LEADERS PLACE IMPORTANCE ON POLICY AND IT SHOWS OUR NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC LEADERS ARE ALMOST ALL CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS.
When a Congressional pol shouts he/she is against big banks and global free trade----or TPP while silent about all this----THEY ARE LYING. This is how we knew Heather Mizeur running in Maryland Governor's race as a progressive supporting public justice was a poser----she was 100% Wall Street investment/public private partnership. Think which organizations supported Heather as progressive.
Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs or P3s) for TransportationAs state governments struggle to meet growing transportation infrastructure needs while revenues dwindle, leveraging existing resources through the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs or P3s) has become increasingly attractive. As of Dec. 2010, twenty-nine states and Puerto Rico had legislated an authorization framework for transportation PPPs, and more than $46 billion had been invested in these projects over the last 20 years. The legislative trend grew in 2010 as 21 states and the District of Columbia considered 52 legislative measures concerning transportation PPPs.
PPPs are agreements that allow private companies to take on traditionally public roles in infrastructure projects, while keeping the public sector ultimately accountable for a project and the overall service to the public. In PPPs, a government agency typically contracts with a private company to renovate, build, operate, maintain, manage or finance a facility. PPPs cover as many as a dozen types of innovative contracting, project delivery and financing arrangements between public and private sector partners.
Though PPPs are not optimal for many transportation projects, they have been shown to reduce upfront public costs through accelerated or more efficient project delivery. PPPs don’t create new money but instead leverage private sector financial and other resources to develop infrastructure. In the end, a source of revenue such as tolls or other public revenue still is required to pay back the private investment. In this era of fewer viable choices for moving ahead with critical infrastructure development, PPPs are an option many states are contemplating.
The NCSL ToolkitWith the growing interest in PPPs, the debate over their use has become somewhat polarized and reasoned voices have been harder to discern. The NCSL Partners Project on PPPs for Transportation produced the report Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators in December 2010. The toolkit provides expert guidance, dependable counsel and a compilation of best practices to assist state legislatures as they consider whether and how to pursue PPPs in their states.
Solid, balanced and comprehensive state enabling legislation is the key to thorough consideration and success of PPP projects, while protecting the public interest. The centerpiece of the toolkit is nine principles that promote a sound public policy approach to the consideration of PPPs. Clear explanations of PPP approaches, benefits and controversies, and roles and responsibilities also are provided. As well, the appendices have a wealth of specific state legislative information and detailed instruction on PPP issues.
See press release from Dec. 9, 2010.
The NCSL Partners Project on PPPs for TransportationState legislators and legislative staff involved with NCSL have been tracking the trends in transportation funding, including PPPs, for several years. In 2008, NCSL formed a working group of state legislators, legislative staff and representatives of private sector entities to assemble reliable information and to identify effective tools for considering PPPs in the context of overall transportation funding decisions. The NCSL Partners Project on PPPs for Transportation met, deliberated and gathered information for 18 months, analyzing legislators’ needs and hearing from a variety of invited experts. It developed the NCSL toolkit and other nonpartisan, balanced and absorbable materials to aid the legislative process, both in their respective states and when considering state-federal relationships.
The project's Phase II (2010 to 2011) was a focused educational and awareness effort to help legislators put the principles developed in the toolkit into practice, as states continued to seek innovative financing solutions for the nation’s transportation needs. Phase II achieved this through outreach, technical assistance, ongoing meetings and educational sessions with decision makers; follow-up activities in 2012 will include additional in-depth research into PPP policy options. For more information, see the project's Web page.
This public policy capture happened between Clinton/Bush-----our Federal legislator's tied themselves to thse global corporate policy writing entities----neo-liberals like to shout that Republicans are tied to ALEC----one of those entities----but as we see here----Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are as well. That is why we are getting all this major policy rollout without the American people knowing about it or knowing what the end product will do to our society. They don
't tell us because we won't not want it and the goal is a bad one----global corporate tribunal rule by autocratic militarized structure....THAT IS WHAT TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT BUILDS........
You see here----2010---when Democrats overwhelmingly came out for what was supposed to be progressive, social democrats holding corporations accountable and protecting labor and justice----THEY WERE ALL CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS coming back to continue this neo-con/neo-liberal strategy.
Almost all of Maryland's Congressional pols have been in office for 20 years building this global corporate rule structure. Mikulski, Cardin, Sarbanes, and Cummings all in the Baltimore City districts being elected with 20% of vote because no one wants them and Baltimore Elections are rigged and captured.
WE CAN REVERSE THIS EASY PEASY FOLKS---WE SIMPLY NEED REAL PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS RUNNING IN ALL PRIMARIES AGAINST CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS. ALL OF THIS VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS PROTECTING AGAINST ANTI-TRUST/MONOPOLY AND FOREIGN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
I don't have time for formatting issues----but this is to what your neo-liberal pols are connected and it has nothing to do with campaign reform-----it is the International Economic Zone/Trans Pacific Trade PAct policies that were created back in Clinton's era.
Appendix F. 2010 State Legisla tion Concerning
Design-Build for Transportation Projects247
2010 State Legislation Concerning Design-Build for Transportation Projects
As of Oct. 1, 2010, 19 states--California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming--and the District of Columbia had considered 28 legislative measures concerning design-build contracting for
transportation projects during their 2010 sessions. Eight bills had been enacted and eight were pending; the remainder had failed or had been vetoed.
State Legislation Status Design-Build Provisions
California Senate Bill
Would require the lead agency for a project, before entering into any agreement involving design-build contracting or a PPP, to pass a resolution that identifies the anticipated benefits from using those
methods in comparison to using traditional contracting or financing
methods (see also Appendix C).
Delaware House Bill
July 1, 2010:
Within a larger bond and capital improvements act, authorizes the state DOT to continue utilization of the design-build contract mechanism for a total of 12 transportation construction projects
(eight of which have been authorized).
Makes design-build contracts subject to prevailing wage rates, certain
environmental measures, equal employment opportunity assurances, performance bonding requirements and other provisions.
Requires the co-chairs of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Capital Improvement Program and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to approve all other projects subject to this
Georgia Senate Bill
Amends Ga. Code Ann. §32-2-81 to increase the total that the DOTmay contract for using the design-build method to no more than 30 percent of the total amount of construction projects awarded in the previous fiscal year, and to provide for a reversion to a limit of 15
percent as of July 1, 2014.
Hawaii House Bill
on April 29,
Would specifically authorize the use of design-build by purchasing agencies, subject to certain criteria.249
Would set forth requirements for procurement.
on April 29,
Among other provisions, would streamline requirements for a pre-bid
conference for a construction or design-build project.
You notice most of the articles being released againt public private partnerships come from other developed nations----I use Canada because it is near the US----but the same educating is happening in Europe and all Asian nations tied to Trans Pacific Trade Pact/Trans Atlantic Trade Pact. People around the world KNOW THESE PARTNERSHIPS ARE BAD FOR CITIZENS. The developing nations tied to International Economic Zones in Asia and Latin America have had to deal with this public private partnership policy that is the World Bank, global Wall Street investment firms, and IMF----see what is being said in nations where all this policy has worked for a few decades of Clinton/Bush.
This is the single reason all public policy comes to our states and cities already written----all done behind closed doors---and all very autocratic and militarizing. Our national pols install these policies in Congress-----then the state legislators have been told to do the same at state level, and now even our local pols are being told to do what Congressional pols tell them. THAT ENDS OUR DEMOCRATIC, REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF WE THE PEOPLE AS LEGISLATORS.
US NATIONAL LABOR UNION LEADERS ENDORSE CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS EVERY ELECTION AND DO NOT EDUCATE AGAINST PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS---THEY ARE SIMPLY ALLOWING OUR PUBLIC SECTOR BE DISMANTLED. Unions in Europe and around the world work against neo-liberals because they are not tied to a Wall Street global structure. We must bring our labor unions to local, domestic levels as we rebuild them.
Secretive, risky, unaccountable: How Public-Private Partnerships are bad for democracy
Nov 21, 2004Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) are “all the rage” these days.
Increasingly, throughout Canada, and around the world, public sector managers and politicians are looking to private corporations to provide infrastructure and services that were formerly provided publicly.
Contracts with terms that stretch over several decades are being entered into for a vast array of government projects and services. What does this change portend for democratic values and democratic governance?
Because P3s are, first and foremost, commercial relationships, they are fundamentally changing the values and processes of democratic governments. The thesis of this presentation is that P3s are undermining democratic public institutions because the commercial relationships are inherently secretive, unaccountable and often very risky.
Attachments Report: How Public-Private Partnerships are bad for democracy