The resistance is making one last all-out push to kill the GOP health bill
The resistance is making one last all-out push to kill the GOP health bill
More than 300 health care activists, disability rights advocates, and organizers gathered on second floor of the...
More than 300 health care activists, disability rights advocates, and organizers gathered on second floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Monday morning to oppose Senate Republicans’ Graham-Cassidy health care bill.
The bill would sharply reduce spending for Medicaid by billions of dollars by tying it to medical inflation, blow up Obamacare’s marketplaces, and open the door for states to curtail protections for patients with preexisting conditions.
Read the full article here.
Charter Schools are Cheating Your Kids: New Report Reveals Massive Fraud, Mismanagement, Abuse
Salon - May 7, 2014, by Paul Rosenberg - Just in time for National Charter School Week, there’s a...
Salon - May 7, 2014, by Paul Rosenberg - Just in time for National Charter School Week, there’s a new report highlighting the predictable perils of turning education into a poorly regulated business. Titled “Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud and Abuse,” the report focused on 15 states representing large charter markets, out of the 42 states that have charter schools. Drawing on news reports, criminal complaints, regulatory findings, audits and other sources, it “found fraud, waste and abuse cases totaling over $100 million in losses to taxpayers,” but warned that due to inadequate oversight, “the fraud and mismanagement that has been uncovered thus far might be just the tip of the iceberg.”
While there are plenty of other troubling issues surrounding charter schools — from high rates of racial segregation, to their lackluster overall performance records, to questionable admission and expulsion practices — this report sets all those admittedly important issues aside to focus squarely on activity that appears it could be criminal, and arguably totally out of control. It does not even mention questions raised by sky-high salaries paid to some charter CEOs, such as 16 New York City charter school CEOs who earned more than the head of the city’s public school system in 2011-12. Crime, not greed, is the focus here.
In short, the report is about as apolitical as can be imagined: It is narrowly focused on a white-collar crime wave of staggering proportions, and what can be done about it within the existing framework of widespread charter schools.
The report, co-authored by the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education, makes the point that the problem of charter school waste, fraud and abuse, which it focuses on, is just one symptom of the underlying problem: inadequate regulation of charter schools. But it’s a massive symptom, which has so far received only fragmentary coverage.The report takes its title from a section of a report to Congress by the Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General, a report that took note of “a steady increase in the number of charter school complaints” and warned that state level agencies were failing “to provide adequate oversight needed to ensure that Federal funds [were] properly used and accounted for.”
But, the report noted, it’s not just the federal government that should be concerned. Reform efforts are underway in several states; Hawaii even repealed its existing charter school law in 2013, and put strict new oversight measures in place, and “Even the Walton Family Foundation, an avid charter advocate, launched a $5 million campaign in 2012 to make oversight of charters schools more stringent.”
“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,” said Kyle Serrette, the director of education justice at the Center for Popular Democracy. “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.”
The report explained that the problem has its roots in a historical disconnect between the original intentions that launched the charter school movement and the commercial forces that have overtaken it since. At first, the report noted:
Lawmakers created charter schools to allow educators to explore new methods and models of teaching. To allow this to happen, they exempted the schools from the vast majority of regulations governing the traditional public school system. The goal was to incubate innovations that could then be used to improve public schools. i The ability to take calculated risks with small populations of willing teachers, parents, and students was the original design. With so few people and schools involved, the risk to participants and the public was relatively low.
But the character of the movement has changed dramatically since then. As charter school growth has skyrocketed (doubling three times since 2000), “the risks are high and growing, while the benefits are less clear,” the report continued, adding:
This is not an uncommon occurrence in our nation’s history. In the past—in some cases, our very recent past—industries such as banking and lending have outgrown their respective regulatory safety nets. Without sufficient regulations to ensure true public accountability, incompetent and/or unethical individuals and firms can (and have) inflict great harm on communities.
The report found that “charter operator fraud and mismanagement is endemic to the vast majority of states that have passed a charter school law.” It organized the abuse into six basic categories, each of which is treated in its own section:
• Charter operators using public funds illegally for personal gain; • School revenue used to illegally support other charter operator businesses; • Mismanagement that puts children in actual or potential danger; • Charters illegally requesting public dollars for services not provided; • Charter operators illegally inflating enrollment to boost revenues; and, • Charter operators mismanaging public funds and schools.
Perhaps most disturbingly, under the first category, crooked charter school officials displayed a wide range of lavish, compulsive or tawdry tastes. Examples include:
• Joel Pourier, former CEO of Oh Day Aki Heart Charter School in Minnesota, who embezzled $1.38 million from 2003 to 2008. He used the money on houses, cars, and trips to strip clubs. Meanwhile, according to an article in the Star Tribune, the school “lacked funds for field trips, supplies, computers and textbooks.”
• Nicholas Trombetta, founder of the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School is accused of diverting funds from it for his private purchases. He allegedly bought houses, a Florida Condominium and a $300,000 plane, hid income from the IRS, formed businesses that billed even though they had done no work, and took $550,000 in kickbacks for a laptop computer contract.
• A regular financial audit in 2009 of the Langston Hughes Academy in New Orleans uncovered theft of $660,000 by Kelly Thompson, the school’s business manager. Thompson admitted that from shortly after she assumed the position until she was fired 15 months later, she diverted funds to herself in order to support her gambling in local casinos.
Others spent their stolen money on everything from a pair of jet skis for $18,000 to combined receipts of $228 for cigarettes and beer, to over $30,000 on personal items from Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, Louis Vuitton, Coach and Tommy Hilfiger. But the real damage came from the theft of resources for children’s future.
“Our school system exists to serve students and enrich communities,” said 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 whistle-blowers 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.”
Stevens was not just expressing a nebulous hope. The report also offered a set of proposals on how to go about reining in the abuses. Initial suggestions on how to respond to each kind of abuse are presented in each of the six areas mentioned above, but there is also a comprehensive framework integrating them into a coherent whole.
The report’s first proposal is that all states should establish an oversight “Office of Charter Schools.” It “should have the statutory responsibility, authority, and resources to investigate fraud, waste, mismanagement and misconduct,” including the authority to refer findings for prosecution. It should have “an appropriate level of staffing” so that “The ratio of charter schools to full-time investigators employed by the Office should not exceed ten to one.” It should have the power to place distribution of charter school funds on hold. And it should have the authority to intervene in funding or other decisions made by charter authorizing entities if they are violating state or federal law.
A second proposal is that states amend their charter laws to “explicitly declare that charter schools are public schools, and are subject to the same non-discrimination and transparency requirements as are other publicly funded schools.”
A third proposal is to require public online availability of each charter school’s original application and charter agreement.
Not surprisingly, a number of proposals target those running charter schools. Specifically, regarding charter school governing board members, the report proposes: 1) Require them to live in close proximity to the school/s physical location. 2) Require boards to be elected “with representation of parents (elected by parents), teachers (elected by teachers) and in the case of high schools, students (elected by students).” Other board members should be “residents of the school district in which the school/s operate.” 3) Require board members to file full financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest reports, similar to those required of traditional school district board members — and post them online on the school’s website. 4) Hold board members legally liable for fraud or malfeasance occurring at the school or schools that they oversee.
More broadly, charter schools — and the oversight entities that authorize them — should be publicly transparent in the following ways: 1) A full list of each charter school’s governing board members, officers and administrators with affiliation and contact information should be available on the school’s website. 2) Minutes from governing board meetings, the school’s policies, and information about staff should be available on the school’s website. 3) Charter schools should be fully compliant with state open meetings/open records laws. 4) Charter school financial documents should be publicly disclosed annually, on the authorizer’s website, including detailed information about the use of both public and private funds by the school and its management entities. 5) Charter schools should be independently audited annually, with audits published on the school’s websites. 6) All vendor or service contracts over $25,000 should be fully disclosed. No such contracts should be allowed with any entity in which the school operator, or any board member, has any personal interest.
If most of these sound like simple common sense, that’s pretty much just the point. There are plenty of issues around education that are controversial. Protecting ourselves, our children and their future against a massive white-collar crime wave should not be one of them.
Source
Austin becomes first city in the South to mandate paid sick leave
Austin becomes first city in the South to mandate paid sick leave
But Austin’s paid sick leave vote has implications for many other areas. Sarah Johnson, the co-executive director of...
But Austin’s paid sick leave vote has implications for many other areas. Sarah Johnson, the co-executive director of Local Progress, an organization that has worked to help Austin’s paid sick leave efforts advance, told ThinkProgress that the wider region stands to benefit from the city’s example.
Read the full article here.
By A Thousand Cuts: The Complex Face of Wage Theft in New York
In recent years—at least as far back as the passage of the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2010, through 2015,...
In recent years—at least as far back as the passage of the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2010, through 2015, when a series of New York Times articles explored the shocking extent of wage theft and other workplace abuses in the nail salon industry—mainstream elected officials and the press alike have turned meaningful attention to the problem of wage theft in New York State and nationwide. The question is what remains to be done. This brief study does not attempt to answer that question fully, but begins the inquiry by delving into the shape that wage theft takes in New York City and statewide.
Download the report here
Case studies in this report focus on particular employers that low-wage worker advocates have identified as illustrating broader problems in sectors where wage theft is prevalent.
Though this study is merely an entry point to a much broader and deeper analysis, our results point to some common-sense first steps in improving wage theft enforcement in New York City, New York State, and beyond.
Recommendations include the following:
City, state and federal government should invest in rigorous social science and economic research to evaluate what types of education, enforcement, penalties, and damages are most successful in encouraging workers and others to blow the whistle on wage theft, compensating directly impacted workers, and deterring and reducing wage theft. Our legislative and regulatory approach to penalizing wage theft and retaliation should be reevaluated to take into account the impact that wage theft and retaliation have not only on the directly impacted workers but also on competing employers, entire geographic areas, sectors, and the economy. Outreach, education, and enforcement efforts need to be tailored to address the specific situations of certain sectors, ethnic groups, and communities. Government should partner with, and resource, community-based partners who have established trust in hard-to-reach communities of workers and employers. Government should partner with community and labor organizations with expertise in specific sectors and types of wage theft, to assist in bringing forward adequate and accurate testimony and evidence to evaluate compliance in that sector or type of employer. Government inspectors and investigators should receive regular training in sector-specific practices in order to rigorously evaluate testimony and facts presented by employees and employers for reasonability. Government enforcement needs to explore substantial regulatory, legislative and strategic changes to enable collection of unpaid wages, damages and penalties. Pilot projects should aggressively test the use of bonds in exploitative industries, the ability of courts and the Department of Labor (DOL) to freeze assets pre-judgment, and wage liens. Public procurement rules should prohibit convicted wage thieves from bidding on public contracts or dispositions at the federal, state and local level, or from receiving public subsidy, with permanent removal from bidding or eligibility lists in cases of egregious wage theft.Download the report here
US lawmaker welcomes plan to aid Caribbean immigrants
Guardian - July 22, 2013 - Caribbean American Congresswoman Yvette D Clarke has welcomed a plan by New York City (NYC)...
Guardian - July 22, 2013 - Caribbean American Congresswoman Yvette D Clarke has welcomed a plan by New York City (NYC) to aid undocumented Caribbean immigrants. NYC officials say the city will spend US$18 million to help undocumented Caribbean and other immigrants find jobs. City council speaker Christine Quinn, a mayoral candidate, said the money will fund adult education classes and legal services that the US federal government requires immigrants to take to qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme.
The New York Immigrant Family Unity Project will provide free legal services to immigrants threatened with deportation who are unable to represent themselves in proceedings. “New York has always been a city of immigrants within a nation of immigrants,” said Clarke, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, who represents the 9th Congressional District in Brooklyn.
“Under this programme, thousands of immigrants in Brooklyn and other parts of the city will finally have an opportunity to challenge the deportation proceedings that separate families and weaken communities,” she said.
Source
Interest rate clock ticks for Janet Yellen and the Fed – but is China a wild card?
In just a little over three weeks’ time, on 17 September, the US central bankers are going to have to sit down around a...
In just a little over three weeks’ time, on 17 September, the US central bankers are going to have to sit down around a table and decide whether to raise interest ratesfor the first time since before the financial crisis of 2008 unfolded. And just as the markets were preparing for the news, China has thrown a wrench in the works.
Just to put this in its proper context, the last time the Fed raised interest rates, it was June 2006. Microsoft was releasing a version of Windows Vista; Google officially became a word in the Oxford English Dictionary. The Da Vinci Code ruled at the movie box office. The iPhone hadn’t even been introduced yet; we didn’t yet live in a world of apps and selfies. Hey, you could even collect interest on your bank savings account!
If it all feels blurred and slightly unreal (especially the idea of earning interest from a bank account) in your mind, that’s OK. Time has a habit of doing that to us. Then, too, what has happened since then has rendered the events of 2006 pretty forgettable: the financial crisis, the recession, and the struggle to get back to where we were, all neatly summarized in the glib phrase that some use when describing the first part of the 21st century: the “lost decade”.
But the Fed really, really, really wants to get back to normal. And that would be the old normal – when its team of policymakers meets once every six or seven weeks to monitor the economy and determine whether it’s overheating or cooling down too rapidly. Then they whip out the key tool in their monetary policy arsenal – interest rates – and adjust it accordingly. If the economic environment is too robust and the threat of inflation looms large on the horizon, well then, higher interest rates should make money more costly, dampen demand for it and calm everyone down a bit. On the other extreme, if animal spirits are low and unemployment is high, low interest rates should generate some economic activity and get everything moving again.
For now, the Fed’s leaders have said repeatedly, they are waiting until they are reasonably sure that inflation is heading toward their annual target of 2%. For the last three years, it hasn’t approached that level, and there’s tremendous uncertainty about acting too soon – and causing the economy to stall altogether – or delaying and perhaps allowing bubbles to take shape and jeopardize the credibility of the Fed itself as a policy-making institution.
It doesn’t help that the post-crisis recession seemed to throw the ability of monetary policy as a tool to guide the economy smoothly through storms into question. It certainly wasn’t enough to get the economy going once the financial system had been rescued from bankers intent on dashing off a precipice like lemmings, carrying the whole structure with them.
And now policymakers must continue to grapple with economic news that can be used in whatever way a pundit wants, to advocate for pretty much whatever point of view one wishes. The housing market is recovering at its strongest pace in nearly a decade! But it’s still functioning well below long-term historical averages, when compared to total national GDP levels. It all depends on which data set you prefer to look at. Employment? Well, the good news is that unemployment levels have fallen. On the other hand, there’s absolutely no wage inflation to be found, much less to be contained: most Americans would find the idea to be laughable. Indeed, middle income earners have seen a significant erosion in their buying power. There is inflation, but it’s in the prices of goods and services, not in wages.
Yellen and her fellow policymakers need to wake up and smell the espresso, according to a consortium of progressive policy organizations led by the “Fed Up” campaign, a nonprofit created by the Center for Popular Democracy. They’re putting together an online petition to be delivered to Yellen and other Fed members at their annual Jackson Hole, Wyoming retreat at the end of August. “Working families haven’t made a full economic recovery, and now is not the time to declare victory,” the petition states, noting that higher interest rates would make it more costly for Americans to buy homes or cars, as well as boosting the costs of student loans and credit card or any other form of debt.
All of that is true, but the Fed policymakers aren’t just thinking about working families when they consider boosting interest rates. They’re considering the bigger picture, and specifically what might happen if they don’t act: inflation (in the form of a flood of new, cheap loans from banks) and, far more dangerously, asset bubbles.
The latter is a real risk: the Fed already is stepping up its scrutiny of one particularly risky and active party of the market fueled by ultra-cheap financing, the leveraged loan market. According to at least one source, since the Fed tried to crack down when banks were shrugging off the regulator’s guidelines, the market has only grown still larger, to nearly $875bn. And it is full of the kind of excessive risk taking that led to the 2008 crisis.
In a perfect world, Yellen and the Fed would rather not preside over a repeat of that event, and if the price to pay is higher interest rates, well, that’s a perfectly acceptable tradeoff, thank you very much. Indeed, some economists believe that they already are delinquent; that they should have begun “normalizing” interest rate policy a long time ago. Already, a Bank of America securities report has scoffed that keeping rates unchanged for so long has left the Fed suffering from “central bank policy impotence” – and no little blue pill in sight.
So, will the Fed act?
The minutes of the Fed’s last meeting, held in late July, which were released to the public last week, display a lot more dithering and a considerable amount of wariness. Inflation data just isn’t there; Federal Open Market Committee members say they want more evidence that economic growth is “sufficiently strong”. How Yellen will forge a consensus out of this group is baffling.
And then there is the wild card: China. Is it even possible for the US to consider raising interest rates with the yuan depreciating, stock markets plunging and the contagion spreading to other markets in Southeast Asia? The precise extent to which these events might affect the United States is hard to gauge, but in a globalized economy, of which China and its 1.4 billion citizens play a growing and significant role, the Fed can’t pretend that they are blips on the horizon.
For my part, I’m left with only one certainty. Charged with sorting through all these issues, weighing them, and making the right policy choices for the country, Yellen is earning every penny of her annual salary of $201,700.
Source: The Guardian
Regional Feds' head-hunting under scrutiny over insider bias, delays
Efforts to fill top positions at some U.S. Federal Reserve regional branches are casting a spotlight on a decades-old...
Efforts to fill top positions at some U.S. Federal Reserve regional branches are casting a spotlight on a decades-old process that critics say is opaque, favors insiders, and is ripe for reform.
Patrick Harker took the reins as president of the Philadelphia Fed this week, in an appointment that attracted scrutiny because he served on the committee of directors that interviewed other prospective candidates for the job he ultimately took.
The Dallas Fed has been without a permanent president for more than three months as that search process stretches well into its eighth month. And the Fed's Minneapolis branch abruptly announced the departure of its leader, Narayana Kocherlakota, more than a year before he was due to go, with no replacement named to date.
The delays and reliance on Fed employees in picking regional Fed presidents can only embolden Republican Senator Richard Shelby to push harder for a makeover of the central bank's structure, which has changed little in its 101 years.
A bill passed in May by the Senate Banking Committee that Shelby chairs would strip the New York Fed's board of its power to appoint its presidents. And it could go further, given the bill would form a committee to consider a wholesale overhaul of the Fed's structure of 12 districts, which has not changed through the decades of shifting U.S. populations and an evolving economy.
The bill is part of a broader conservative effort to expose the central bank to more oversight, and some analysts saw the Philadelphia Fed's choice as reinforcing the view that the Fed needs to open up more to outsiders.
Nine of 11 current regional presidents came from within the Fed, a proportion that has edged up over time. Twenty years ago, seven of 12 were insiders.
"The process seems to create a diverse set of candidates in which the insider is almost always accepted," said Aaron Klein, director of a financial regulatory reform effort at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Since it was created in 1913, the central bank's decentralized structure was meant to check the power of Washington, where seven Fed governors with permanent votes on policy are appointed by the White House and approved by the Senate.
The 12 Fed presidents who are picked by their regional boards usually vote on policy every two or three years, and they tend to hold more diverse views.
Former Richmond Fed President Alfred Broaddus told Reuters the regional Fed chiefs have more freedom "to do and say things that may not be politically popular" because they are not politically appointed. "On the other hand, there is the question of legitimacy since they are appointed by local boards who are not elected."
"TONE DEAF"
Two-thirds of regional Fed directors are selected by local bankers, while the rest are appointed by the Fed's Board of Governors in Washington.
Critics question how well those regional boards - mostly made of the heads of corporations and industry groups meant to represent the public - fulfill their mission.
Last year, a non-profit group representing labor unions and community leaders organized by the Center for Popular Democracy, urged the Fed's Philadelphia and Dallas branches to make the selection of their presidents more transparent and to include a member of the public in the effort.
Philadelphia's Fed in particular proved "tone deaf" in its head-hunting effort, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.
Harker was a Philadelphia Fed director when the board started looking to replace president Charles Plosser, who left on March 1, and he was among the six directors who interviewed more than a dozen short-listed candidates for the job, according to the Philadelphia Fed.
But on Feb. 18, Harker floated his own name, recused himself from the process and a week later his colleagues on the board unanimously appointed him as the new president.
While the selection follows Fed guidelines and was approved by its Board of Governors, it raised questions of transparency and fairness.
"The Philadelphia Fed's search process might have made perfect sense in a corporate environment, but is obviously problematic for an official institution," said Crandall.
The board's chair and vice chair, Swathmore Group founder James Nevels and Michael Angelakis of Comcast Corp, respectively, declined to comment, as did Harker.
Peter Conti-Brown, an academic fellow at Stanford Law School's Rock Center for Corporate Governance, and an expert witness at a Senate Banking Committee hearing this year, proposed to let the Fed Board appoint and fire regional Fed presidents or at least have a say in the selection process.
In the past, reform proposals for the 12 regional Fed banks have focused on decreasing or increasing their number and their governance.
Changes to the way the regional Fed bosses are chosen could strengthen the influence of lawmakers at the expense of regional interests.
For now, delays in appointments of new chiefs force regional banks to send relatively unknown deputies to debate monetary policy at meetings in Washington, as Dallas and Philadelphia did last month when the Fed considered raising interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade.
The Minneapolis Fed still has time to find a new president before Kocherlakota steps down at year end.
"For now the Fed criticism is just noise, mostly from Republicans," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group. "But once the Fed begins to raise interest rates ... then the left will weigh in as well."
(Additional reporting Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
Source: Reuters
Report: Hedge funds that ‘killed’ Toys ‘R’ Us ‘prey’ on Puerto Rico
Report: Hedge funds that ‘killed’ Toys ‘R’ Us ‘prey’ on Puerto Rico
Some of the hedge funds that are speculating on Puerto Rico debt also forced Toys R Us to shut down, according to a...
Some of the hedge funds that are speculating on Puerto Rico debt also forced Toys R Us to shut down, according to a report released by Hedge Clippers, which advocates for income equality by targeting hedge and private equity funds, in partnership with the Center for Popular Democracy, a nonprofit that advocates for workers rights.
Read the full article here.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen: Slowdown in job market likely ‘transitory’
Fed Chair Janet Yellen: Slowdown in job market likely ‘transitory’
Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen expressed hope Tuesday morning that the slowdown in the U.S. job market...
Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen expressed hope Tuesday morning that the slowdown in the U.S. job market would prove temporary, but she emphasized that the central bank would be cautious in raising interest rates again.
Yellen, testifying before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, acknowledged that hiring has dropped off sharply in recent months, but she also pointed to early signs that wages are beginning to rise after years of stagnation. She said she is "optimistic" that the progress in employment will continue.
"We believe that will turn around, expect it to turn around, but we are taking a cautious approach … to make sure that expectation is borne out," Yellen told lawmakers.
The Fed is responsible for charting the course for the nation’s economy, with the dual mission to keep prices stable and strengthen employment. It does that by adjusting the influential federal funds rate. A higher rate helps curb inflation by making borrowing money more expensive, which discourages spending and investment and reins in economic growth. A lower rate means that money is cheap, stimulating purchases by households and businesses. That helps boost employment and speeds up the economy.
The Fed chief's assessment comes less than a week after the Fed unanimously voted to leave its benchmark interest rate unchanged. The central bank raised rates in December for the first time since the Great Recession but has not done so again amid persistent concerns about the health of the global economy.
Yellen said Tuesday that there is still "considerable uncertainty" over her outlook, with such risks as slow growth at home, turbulence in China and volatility in financial markets.
The most immediate threat comes from across the Atlantic Ocean, where Britain will vote Thursday on whether to remain in the European Union. A decision to exit — popularly known as Brexit — would upend Britain's four-decade partnership with the continent and throw the future of Europe’s open market into doubt.
Already, the British pound has been on a roller coaster as the probability of departure shifts with each poll. International policymakers have warned that a decision to leave would lower economic growth in the country by more than 5 percent over the next three years and potentially ripple across the rest of the world.
"A U.K. vote to exit the European Union could have significant economic repercussions," Yellen said Tuesday.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed slashed its target rate all the way to zero and pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in a bid to bolster the American recovery. More than seven years later, it is finally in the process of withdrawing that support.
The first move was in December, when the Fed nudged its target rate up to a range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent. At the time, officials anticipated raising rates four times this year, but the uncertainty in the global economy has forced them to downgrade that projection. Most Fed officials now think only two rate hikes are warranted this year, and a growing number think only one will be necessary.
That shift in thinking at the central bank is evident in Yellen’s own statements. Just last month, she had signaled that the central bank could raise rates "probably in the coming months." But Yellen dropped the reference in a speech early this month, after disappointing government data showed employers added just 38,000 jobs in May. And last week, she told reporters that she is "not comfortable to say it's in the next meeting or two."
On Tuesday, Yellen made the case for caution. Because rates are already so low, the Fed has limited room to reduce them further if the economy were to weaken, she said. Moving gradually also gives the central bank time to assess whether its forecast of continued economic improvement will come true.
"Our cautious approach to adjusting monetary policy remains appropriate," she said.
The Fed has faced criticism from both the left and the right recently over its governance. Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Banking Committee, opened the hearing Tuesday by calling on the Fed to follow more stringent rules for setting policy and to explain when it deviates.
"The desire to preserve the Fed’s independence, however, should not preclude consideration of additional measures to increase the transparency of the board’s actions," he said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) focused on diversity within the Fed’s top ranks. Last month, more than 100 lawmakers sent a letter to Yellen arguing for more minority representation among its leadership.
The central bank is led by a board of governors based in Washington and 12 regional bank presidents scattered throughout the country. The governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but regional bank leaders are chosen by local boards of directors.
Those officials tend to be white men. Yellen is the first woman to serve as chair in the central bank’s 101-year history. Only three Fed governors have been African American, and there have been no black regional bank presidents. No one now in the top brass is Hispanic.
By Ylan Q. Mui
Source
New Layers of Dirt on Charter Schools
The commentary you find at BuzzFlash and Truthout can only be published because of readers like you. Click here to join...
The commentary you find at BuzzFlash and Truthout can only be published because of readers like you. Click here to join the thousands of people who have donated so far.
An earlier review identified the "Three Big Sins of Charter Schools": fraud, a lack of transparency, and the exclusion of unwanted students. The evidence against charters continues to grow. Yet except for its reporting on a few egregious examples of charter malfeasance and failure, the mainstream media continues to echo the sentiments of privatization-loving billionaires who believe their wealth somehow equates to educational wisdom.
The Wall Street Journal, in its misinformed way, says that the turnaround of public schools requires "increasing options for parents, from magnet to charter schools." Wrong. As the NAACP affirms, our nation needs "free, high-quality, fully and equitably-funded public education for all children." For all children, not just a select few.
The NAACP has called for a moratorium on charter schools. And Diane Ravitch makes a crucial point: "Would [corporate reformers] still be able to call themselves leaders of the civil rights issue of our time if the NAACP disagreed with their aggressive efforts to privatize public schools?"
Here are the four big sins of charter schools, updated by a surge of new evidence:
1. Starve the Beast
Corporate-controlled spokesgroups ALEC, US Chamber of Commerce, and Americans for Prosperity are drooling over school privatization and automated classrooms, with a formula described by The Nation: "Use standardized tests to declare dozens of poor schools 'persistently failing'; put these under the control of a special unelected authority; and then have that authority replace the public schools with charters." But as aptly expressed by Jeff Bryant, "As a public school loses a percentage of its students to charters, the school can’t simply cut fixed costs for things like transportation and physical plant proportionally...So instead, the school cuts a program or support service."
It's an insidious and ongoing process, aided and abetted by business-friendly mainstream media outlets, to convince Americans that "every family for itself" is better than the mutual support and cooperation of a public school system.
2. Cream and Segregate and Discard
Urban charter schools primarily enroll low-income minority students. That seems admirable upon first reflection, but selective admissions of the best students from ANY community will make an individual school look good, leading to the belief that the concept will work on a larger scale. Success is much harder to achieve if a school accommodates special needs and English-learner students.
Numerous sources reveal the high degree of segregation in charter schools -- white or black, and by income and special need.
As expressed in the report "Failing the Test," "School choice is just that — except that charter schools are doing the choosing instead of communities."
It gets worse. Prominent New York charter network Success Academy has been accused of "counseling out" students who are low-performing or disruptive or otherwise difficult to teach. Even worse are charters that shut down, stranding hundreds of students, while their business operators can just move on to their next project. Nearly 2,500 charter schools closed their doors from 2001 to 2013, leaving over a quarter of a million kids temporarily without a school.
3. Scream 'Public' to Get Tax Money, Plead 'Private' to Hide Salary Data
Charter schools are increasingly run by private companies, or by private trusts. The National Labor Relations Board affirms that charters are private, not public.
As private entities, they are unregulated and lacking in transparency, and, as concluded by the Center for Media and Democracy, they have become a "black hole" into which the federal government has dumped an outrageous $3.7 billion over two decades with little accountability to the public.
4. Engage in "Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement"
That's how the Center for Popular Democracy describes charter performance in 2015, during which the schools wasted an estimated $1.4 billion of taxpayer money. The fraud is far-reaching, with examples from around the country:
The Department of Education audited 33 charter schools and concluded: "We determined that charter school relationships with CMOs (charter management organizations) posed a significant risk to Department program objectives."
In California, charter performance is so poor that even the National Association of Charter Authorizers is calling on the state to better control the authorization of such schools. At present, there are almost no restrictions on opening a charter school, and existing schools are restrictive in their enrollment policies.
Because of charters, Michigan cities have lost nearly half (46.5%) of their revenue over the past 10 years. Detroit, which is surpassed only by New Orleans in the number of charter students, half of the charter schools perform only as well as, or worse than, traditional public schools. A federal study found an "unreasonably high" number of charters among the lowest-rated public schools in the state.
In Louisiana, according to the Center for Popular Democracy, "charter schools have experienced millions in known losses from fraud and financial mismanagement so far, which is likely just the tip of the iceberg."
According to PR Watch, Florida "has one of the worst records in the nation when it comes to fraud and lack of charter school oversight." Texas has an unknown number of charters housed in churches. Nine charters in Washington remain open despite being declared unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court.
Ohio might be worst of all. Since the 2006-07 school year, 37 percent of the state's charter schools receiving federal grants have either closed or never opened. An Ohio newspaper reported, "No sector – not local governments, school districts, court systems, public universities or hospitals – misspends tax dollars like charter schools in Ohio."
The Big Picture
Despite student selection advantages, charter schools generally perform no better than public schools, according to the most recent CREDO study and as summarized by the nonpartisan Spencer Foundation and Public Agenda: "There is very little evidence that charter and traditional public schools differ meaningfully in their average impact on students' standardized test performance." As for technology-based schools, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools admits that "The well-documented, disturbingly low performance by too many full-time virtual charter public schools should serve as a call to action to state leaders and authorizers across the country."
Charter schools have turned our children into the products of businesspeople. Americans need to know how important it is to get the profit motive out of education, and to provide ALL our children the same educational opportunities.
By Paul Buchheit
Source
2 days ago
4 days ago