CPD IN THE NEWS

ProgressOhio - May 16, 2014 - A new report released today reveals that fraudulent charter operators in 15 states are responsible for losing, misusing or wasting over $100 million in taxpayer money.

“Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud And Abuse,” authored by the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education, echoes a warning from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General. The report draws upon news reports, criminal complaints and more to detail how, in just 15 of the 42 states that have charter schools, charter operators have used school funds illegally to buy personal luxuries for themselves, support their other businesses, and more.

The report also includes recommendations for policymakers on how they can address the problem of rampant fraud, waste and abuse in the charter school industry. Both organizations recommend pausing charter expansion until these problems are addressed.

“We expected to find a fair amount of fraud when we began this project, but we did not expect to find over $100 million in taxpayer dollars lost. That’s just in 15 states. And that figure fails to capture the real harm to children. Clearly, we should hit the pause button on charter expansion until there is a better oversight system in place to protect our children and our communities,” said Kyle Serrette, the Director of Education Justice at the Center for Popular Democracy.”

“Our school system exists to serve students and enrich communities,” added Sabrina Stevens, Executive Director of Integrity in Education. “School funding is too scarce as it is; we can hardly afford to waste the resources we do have on people who would prioritize exotic vacations over school supplies or food for children. We also can’t continue to rely on the media or isolated whistleblowers to identify these problems. We need to have rules in place that can systematically weed out incompetent or unscrupulous charter operators before they pose a risk to students and taxpayers.”

You can read the report by going to www.integrityineducation.org or www.populardemocracy.org.

Source

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2015 – What difference will my vote make? Too many will say: I am only one person. When asked why they do not exercise our constitutional right to vote for our governmental representatives they wonder if their one vote makes a difference.

But that is foolish as history has shown that “one person” can prevail.

It was one brave soldier standing alone during a mass protest who stopped a column of armed tanks in China on Tiananmen Square in 1989; one frail man named Mahatmas Gandhi who was the driving force behind banishing the British Empire from India; one conservative, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, who was the black community’s conscience when it needed someone to articulate the horrors inflicted upon blacks by a racist Democratic South.

Even before these 20th century [peaceful] activists,  back in the 1860s, there was one conservative black Frederick Douglass. Douglas stood out as a champion of an enslaved people, the fight for their civil rights.

Frederick Douglass made it his life’s mission to rally others to join in with him in the liberation of his oppressed people. Born a slave, he died a millionaire in today’s terms.

Other men and women of courage, conviction and destiny have made a difference: Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Booker T. Washington, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner.

Today America is in need of such sons and daughters, born of virtue, courage and conviction to take the smallest action. They need to vote.

Many see that the United States is drifting towards the edge of ruination. At the helm is a president who happens to preside over our moral and economic collapse while pressing on relentlessly with the left-wing agenda. Same-sex marriages, illegal aliens, an under-employed America and a potential $19 trillion deficit do not bode well for our future and this country’s stability.

Barack Hussein Obama has met with numerous world leaders, many of them not so friendly to this country, either then or now.

Yet, in his adopted home city of Chicago, where gangland shootings take place regularly, where body bags fill up, by the hour, where black on black crime runs rampant, this president has yet to seriously address the issue.

As the first black president, he could have met these gang leaders at a presidential sponsored summit to appeal to them on a personal level, and to impress upon them how dangerous and detrimental their life of crime is impacting their own neighborhoods in a negative way.

How bad is it in Chicago? Just over the Fourth of July weekend of this year, alone, 10 people were killed and 55 wounded by gunfire. Shootings rose by about 40 percent during the first three months of this year, according to March statistics released by Chicago Police Department. The mayor, Rahm Emanuel, seems clueless on how to decrease these figures.

Make no mistake; this is largely black on black crime. Yet, when a white person, or a white cop, kills a black anywhere in America, the president cannot get to the podium fast enough to denounce it; neither can race baiters such as Jackson and Sharpton.

This is when the clueless come out with signs chanting “Black Lives Matter.” They ignore the subject of innocent black fetuses being aborted, thanks largely to the efforts of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger and uninformed blacks who work for and support this organization.

Though serving his last year in office, the president has opted to focus on, and press for, immigration reform. This is an agenda that will further impact the black community in a negative way in terms of employment opportunity.

African-Americans who have achieved higher-education degrees, a key investment leading to the middle class, still find themselves more likely to face long-term unemployment than their white, Hispanic and Asian counterparts, according to the Center for Popular Democracy.

Some believe the president’s end game is granting amnesty for over 30 million illegals and resettling hundreds of thousands of Muslims here in the United States. Not surprisingly, his party supports this president’s efforts while the Republican leadership does not.

And the Supreme Court — they have been missing in action for the past three years when it comes to defending, preserving and upholding the United States Constitution and the laws of the land.

So you ask, What can we do about it?

Americans can express their dismay and anger by voting in the next primary and election. Only then can we make a difference. History has shown that one man can effect positive change. Conservatives in this country number around 45 million strong, so if all would step up and vote, there’s immense power in those numbers.

Up until now, politicians, Sunday morning news pundits and Washington bureaucrats have an open microphone to sway voters, thanks to 24-hour news programs.

It’s time for Americans to really listen to what is being said and recognizing what is unrealistic, not sell low-information voters a bad bill-of-goods.

Forbes writes (We’ve Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits):

..perhaps 52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government, thanks to President Obama.  And Mr. Entitlement is just getting started.  If Obamacare is not repealed millions more will join the swelling rolls of those dependent on government handouts.

Conservatives have long dreaded the day when the U.S. crossed the halfway mark because of all the implications for individual and fiscal responsibility. As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”  They learned that from the 2008 election and turned out in big numbers again in 2012.

One popular agenda being pushed by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is free college tuition – Bernie wants it at every academic institution, Clinton is calling for free public colleges.

Remember what Franklin said above:

 “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

And college tuition is off the charts, most can agree. So maybe free college tuition is a great idea; however, no one is explaining who is going to pay for the professor’s salary, buildings, campus maintenance, food, books and the necessary technology infrastructure necessary to support a child seeking the college experience.

Look at the reasons parents choose private over public schools. They want a better eduction, higher test scores, smaller class size and more.  If parents see that many [not all] public schools fail their children, why would we want to see college follow that same model?

And how many of those students taking that free college will be looking not for education but a continuation of the high school experience and a delay of entering the work force.  College should be something a student works for with grades, service participation, sports and learning to be a well-rounded person – a lesson that begins in the home.

Now it is our turn to voice our opinions at the ballot box, for conservatives, independents and libertarians to band together to make a difference in saving this republic. Even if the person presented by the GOP is not the person you want over others,

…we still need to vote for the party otherwise, liberals and progressives continue to rule the day.

The path will not always be smooth and easy. Most things worthwhile ever are. Just remember this.

As former military men, George Washington fought the good fight, Andrew Jackson fought the good fight, Ulysses S. Grant fought the good fight and Theodore Roosevelt fought the good fight while serving in the armed forces.

Professional military leaders such as Adm. Chester Nimitz and Gen. George S. Patton fought the good fight, as well, and all of these men did it against overwhelming odds and all of them prevailed.

Some say, and truly believe, that the American political system is rigged, that the powers that be, like powerful fathom puppet masters, have often manipulated the results of elections so that it does not matter what the voter does, they still pull the strings.

It doesn’t matter who the president is when Valerie Jarrett is pulling the strings.

There is some truth in every urban legend, but it will take voters to weed out these myths and uproot these puppet masters and make the necessary changes to insure the integrity of our political system and our republic. We must all make a stand.

This is a nation with a history of breeding courageous fighters, and right now America needs fighters.

The next generation is counting on you showing up at the polls. including your children and grandchildren. Your decision to get involved and vote will impact their future in many ways.

That is why now is the time America. Not next time, but now!

Unless conservatives from all corners vote to change the ownership of the White House, there may not be a next opportunity to save America.

Source: Communities Digital News

The New American - May 9th, 2013 - On Wednesday the New York City Council voted 45-3 to pass the New York City Earned Sick Time Act, a bill that will require employers with more than 20 employees to provide five paid sick days to each of them every year while mandating that those employees using their sick days can’t be fired. The law would become effective on January 1, 2014, and companies with more than 15 employees would be required to comply with the law starting in 2015.

Even if Mayor Bloomberg vetoes the bill, the council will likely override it, making the law effective anyway. This will impact the employers of more than one million employees who currently have no paid sick days provided for them. The costs to be borne by those employers weren't provided in any public announcements.

The AFL/CIO explained why such legislation was needed:

In addition to the potential loss of wages for working families, the lack of paid sick days forces many people to go to work when they are contagious and [make] co-workers and customers sick.

No paid sick time also decreases [the] productivity for workers who show up unable to perform to their normal level of ability.

The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) was joyous over the vote, calling it “a historic agreement to give over one million New Yorkers the right to take paid days off from work to care for themselves or a sick family member. The new legislation represents a major step forward for workers’ rights.” The CPD was joined by Make the Road New York; 32 BJ SEIU, the largest property service workers union; NYC City Council’s Progressive Caucus; the Working Families Party; A Better Balance; and the NY Paid Sick Leave Coalition.

Bill Lipton of the Working Families Party was equally ecstatic: "This is a sweet victory. It provides economic security for New Yorkers, and a shot in the arm for the paid sick days movement across the country."

The bill was first introduced by council member Gale Brewer, a permanent politician and long-time progressive political activist, back in July 2009 but went nowhere for nearly four years, owing to resistance by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Quinn’s change to allow a vote coincided nicely with her announcement in March to run to succeed Mayor Bloomberg.

Brewer exulted in the victory:

After 4 years of non-stop advocacy and coalition building, I want to thank the Paid Sick Days Coalition members and my Council colleagues with all my heart for support [of my bill] and never giving up.

I also extend my thanks to Speaker Quinn and her staff for their contributions to this legislation….

The argument over [paid sick leave] was always about common sense and fairness. I believe this law enshrines the principle that American exceptionalism is not just about large profits and small elites, but a workplace that is safe, fair and respectful of the lives of workers.

Approximately one million New Yorkers will now have the fundamental right to a paid day off when they or a family member falls ill, and no worker will be fired if they must stay home. This is a tremendous accomplishment of which all fair-minded New Yorkers can be proud.

Four major cities have already passed paid sick leave laws — Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. — while similar measures are being considered in 20 others. On the national level, two other progressives, Sen. Tom Harken (D-Iowa) and Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn.), are pushing the Healthy Families Act, which proposes essentially the same thing as Brewer’s bill: seven paid sick days each year required to be paid for by employers with more than 15 employees. The National Partnership for Women & Families outlined the benefits of such national legislation:

• Paid sick days provide families with economic security;

• Providing paid sick days is cost effective to employers;

• Paid sick days reduce community contagion;

• Paid sick days can decrease health care costs.

Each of these assumptions can be rebutted successfully, but none does it better than Ayn Rand, who always asked “At whose expense?” and Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson, which also asked about the unseen consequences of such meddling. The "broken window fallacy" is also helpful in understanding what progressives refuse to see: Someone must pay for such mandates, usually someone silent or impotent, without enough political influence to stop such “progress” — usually the taxpayers or employers unlucky enough to have a successful business large enough to be included in the mandate.

Some of the unseen consequences would naturally include higher employment costs to the business owners, as these are, in effect, pay raises to employees. The business owners' higher costs would be reflected in higher prices to consumers, which would likely reduce competitive advantage in a market niche. More likely, however, owners will discover that they can’t afford all the people working for them and will be forced to reduce their payrolls through terminations or attrition. That will increase social costs, as those no longer working will start receiving unemployment benefits provided by the state.

In the longer run, however, making employers less competitive will shrink rather than expand the general economy. Some will not hire new workers. Others may decide to retire, deciding that it’s no longer worth the effort, as government becomes more and more intrusive. Still others may choose to move out of the city, or the state, to more tax-friendly environments, further reducing the city’s economic output.

The biggest cost of all, however, is the continued and growing acceptance of government intervention as a way to solve perceived social “problems” and giving progressives more opportunities to expand the power and reach of government

Perhaps the best rebuttal is to review the bill of rights of another country, well-known to historians, which also had a progressive agenda very similar to that of Quinn, Brewer, and the AFL/CIO. It stated:

Citizens … have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality….

Citizens … have the right to rest and leisure … the reduction of the working day to seven hours … [and] the institution of annual vacations with full pay….

Citizens … have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work … ensured by the extensive development of social insurance for workers and employees. [Emphasis added.]

These are, of course, the rights enshrined in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.

Source

PHOENIX (AP) - A group advocating for worker’s rights is gathering signatures for a ballot initiative in Arizona that would increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020, at the same time Republican lawmakers are proposing their own ballot measure that would give the Legislature sole authority to set the wage in the state.

The fight over Arizona’s minimum wage has grown amid widespread worker frustration over sluggish wage growth that has fueled presidential campaigns and led to legislative battles on both sides of the country - California and New York lawmakers are poised to pass bills lifting the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next several years.

The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Initiative incrementally increases minimum wage in Arizona to $12 per hour by 2020 and requires employers to provide earned paid sick time.

The initiative campaign has less than four months to collect more than 150,000 valid signatures necessary to get on the November ballot. Arizona’s current minimum wage is set at $8.05 per hour and is increased annually based on inflation.

Campaign manager Tomas Robles said his group has worked with people on both sides of the issues to find a compromise that offers workers a livable wage without putting too much of a burden on employers.

“We feel that this wage increase is that happy medium that protects small business and helps workers who can’t pay their rent at the end of the month even though they work full time,” he said.

 The campaign committee has received backing from the Latino rights organization Living United for Change and the Center for Popular Democracy, a social and economic justice advocacy organization, Robles said. The campaign aims to collect more than 250,000 signatures using a combination of paid and volunteer petitioners to ensure they can get on the ballot.

At the same time, Arizona Republicans have proposed to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2020 with annual adjustments based on inflation - in a bid to stymie an increase in wages they say small businesses could not handle.

“This offering is kind of a counter-balance to the insane socialism we hear in other quarters,” said Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, during a committee hearing in March.

It would also prevent cities, towns and counties from setting their own minimum wage, which Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey has said would “drive our economy off a cliff.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed the measure on a 5-3 party-line vote. It will now undergo a standard review before going to a Senate vote. If passed, House Concurrent Resolution 2014 could go before voters this November.

If both measures end up on the ballot and both pass, the initiative with greatest number of “yes” votes would win.

By RYAN VAN VELZER

Source