Remember the excitement education deformers showed when Philadelphia decided to turn over a bunch of schools to for-profit school operator Edison Schools?
For profit public school operators like Edison were supposed to be the future of public education, supplanting the traditional public schools that operate with unionized teachers under the administration of public servants.
At the height of its power and prestige in 2005, Edison was running a total of 22 schools in Philadelphia.
But Edison's running of the schools in Philadelphia was a miserable failure.
By 2008, Philadelphia had revoked its contract with Edison and voted to seize 4 of the schools it was operating back from the company immediately.
Edison had lots of other contracts around the country canceled as well.
So much for the future of for-profit public education.
But charter operators are run as for-profits too and Philadephia has many of those as well. While Washington D.C. is the epicenter of the education deform/for-profit charter school movement, Philly isn't far behind with 63 charter schools enrolling 34,000 students at a total cost of $320 million as of the 2008-2009 school year.
Education reformers had much hope for the success of the charters, but so far, much of the success seems to be in lining the pockets of the charter school operators.
As I detailed here yesterday, 13 Philadelphia charter schools are under investigation by the City Controller's Office for financial abuse and fraud. 9 charter schools are under investigation by the US Attorney's Office in Philly for the same reason.
The most striking example of abuse is at Harambee Institute of Science and Technology, where the operator ran a nightclub out of the school on weekends, handed out $7.5 million in construction contracts to her husband for work on her schools, stole hundreds of thousands of dollars for personal travel and expenses and listed them as business-related, and claimed to work more than 365 days a year when she put in for compensation.
Then you also have the charter school operators of Philadelphia Academy who were caught defrauding the school for close to $1 million dollars and bribed a policewoman with $34,000 to keep quiet. When it became clear investigators were going to arrest everybody involved, one of the charter operators committed suicide. The other pleaded guilty to mail-fraud theft and tax evasion. The police officer, a 25 year vet, was given a year in prison.
Philadephia Academy was considered a "success" by education reformers, btw, before one of the operators was hauled off to jail for fraud and the other committed suicide before he could be arrested.
Well, I guess in a way it was a success - it showed what happens when you turn a blind regulatory eye to these for-profit schools and simply assume that the marketplace will regulate itself.
You would think one scam and scandal after another - from Teapot Dome to the S&L crisis to the AIG/Lehman/Bear Stearns collapse - where taxpayers were left to pick up the mess and the bill from deregulation would relieve us of this silly notion, but so far they haven't.
Rather, the deregulators and privatizers grow more powerful and bring their deregulation/pro-privatization agenda to public schools.
Indeed, even the "Socialist" president, Barack Obama, is a deregulation/pro-privatization guy when it comes to public education.
But just as Philadelphia showed us how miserable a failure turning public schools over to for-profit Edison Schools has been, it is also showing us just how crooked and corrupt many charter operators are.
Did they start crooked and simply use the charter school movement for their latest scam? Or does the lack of regulation tempt good people to steal - to see their charter school budgets as their personal bank accounts and their charter schools as their own "private fiefdoms", as the City Controller put it?
It's probably a little of both. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
The only thing that does matter is that these crooks are stealing millions of dollars from education at the very same time school districts are being forced to slash their budgets by double digits.
When the NY State legislature takes up the Race to the Top jive again and charter operators and pro-charter education deformers clamor for the lifting of the charter caps, the UFT and others must again push for stronger regulation of the admissions policies and the finances of these schools.
And they can use the plethora of scandals in Philadelphia (and the burgeoning ones here in NYC involving Malcolm Smith and the charter schools he founded) as reasons why there must be more stringent regulation and outside accountability of these schools.
That way we can put the crooks out of the education business and into the license-making business (which is where most of them belong anyway.)
Perdido 03
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Charter School Operated As Nightclub On Weekends
This story is unbelievable, but given the crookedness of many charter school operators, maybe it shouldn't be:
You have to watch the footage the ABC affiliate shot of the nightclub/charter school in action.
The nightclub at the charter school has been up and running since 2002.
That's 8 years ago.
Neighbors have complained, the Philly school district knew about the nightclub as far back as 2002, but nothing was done about either closing the nightclub down or investigating the finances of the school or the pay of the charter school operator, which clearly are fishy.
Not to mention looking into the $7.5 million dollar construction contracts the operator's husband "won" to do work at the schools his wife operates.
Explain to me again why it is charter school operators say outside auditing and oversight of their schools is a problem?
Could it be they're afraid hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of criminal activities will be exposed when outside oversight is done on the charter school/for-profit school industry.
PHILADELPHIA - March 31, 2010 (WPVI) -- School officials in Philadelphia say a charter school will no longer allow a nightclub to operate on its premises during nights and weekends.
District officials met with operators of the Harambee Institute of Science and Technology Charter School on Wednesday.
The school had come under fire for allowing Club Damani to operate in its cafeteria during off-hours. The club had been serving alcohol despite an expired liquor license.
A statement from the district says Harambee officials have removed all banquet supplies and equipment from the building.
...
On Tuesday, City Controller Alan Butkovitz says his office has found questionable spending at the Harambee Institute of Science and Technology Charter School.
Butkovitz announced his findings Tuesday following an Action News report that Harambee operates in the same building as Club Damani.
At a news conference on Tuesday, Butkovitz raised the name of one Rhonda Sharif. Butkovitz says she was the chief operating officer at Harambee and the CFO and /or business manager at two other charter schools all at the same time. The other two schools are the The Mathematics, Civics and Sciences Center on North Broad Street and Khepera in Germantown.
Butkovitz said Sharif pulled in hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal income from 2003 until 2008 and he listed hundreds of thousands of dollars in spending by Sharif for conferences, retreats and travel for which no documentation is provided.
However, he stopped short of claiming there's any illegal activity here.
During this same period, according to the controller, Rhonda Sharif's husband, Shamsud-Din Sharif, hit the jackpot with millions in construction contracts at those same three charter schools. His company, Str8 Hand Construction, did an estimated $7.5 million in business at the schools over four years.
You have to watch the footage the ABC affiliate shot of the nightclub/charter school in action.
The nightclub at the charter school has been up and running since 2002.
That's 8 years ago.
Neighbors have complained, the Philly school district knew about the nightclub as far back as 2002, but nothing was done about either closing the nightclub down or investigating the finances of the school or the pay of the charter school operator, which clearly are fishy.
Not to mention looking into the $7.5 million dollar construction contracts the operator's husband "won" to do work at the schools his wife operates.
Explain to me again why it is charter school operators say outside auditing and oversight of their schools is a problem?
Could it be they're afraid hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of criminal activities will be exposed when outside oversight is done on the charter school/for-profit school industry.
Charter School Crooks
Charter school advocates in New York State were opposed to the law that would lift the cap on charters but impose stricter standards on how they're created and additional accountability on how they run their finances.
For some reason, charter operators just don't want to be transparent about how they're running their businesses and what they're doing with the money.
This story from the Philadelphia Inquirer gives us an idea why transparency scares charter school operators silly:
Indeed.
For some reason, charter operators just don't want to be transparent about how they're running their businesses and what they're doing with the money.
This story from the Philadelphia Inquirer gives us an idea why transparency scares charter school operators silly:
One Philadelphia charter-school operator runs a private parking lot on the side. Another rents out apartments and collects the rent at his school. Yet another rents property to herself, signing her lease as both tenant and landlord.
These are some of the findings in a draft of a city controller's report on 13 Philadelphia charter schools obtained by The Inquirer that cites excessive salaries, compliant boards whose members are handpicked by school chiefs, inflated rents, and rampant conflicts of interest.
It "is abundantly clear that taxpayer money is at risk," according to the draft report, which is expected to be released within two weeks.
City Controller Alan Butkovitz declined on Friday to comment on specifics because the completed report has not been made public, but he confirmed that the document The Inquirer obtained was his final draft.
"Charter schools are an experiment in using private business models in the educational field, but this is not private money," Butkovitz said. "Charter schools are spending tax dollars as if it's nobody's business - as if they were private fiefdoms."
Indeed.
One of the charter operators claimed she worked more than 365 days a year, charged over $100,000 on her school’s credit card for undisclosed expenses, and ran the charter school as a nightclub on weekends.
No wonder charter school operators do not want transparency or outside accountability of their “businesses.”
Many of them are crooks.
And Mayor Moneybags and Uncle Joel, along with President Accountability and Secretary Arne, want tens of thousands of additional charter schools around the country.
But of course they do not want any outside accountability for how they're run or what happens with the money.
That would stifle their "innovation" and "creativity."
Sunday, April 4, 2010
While Some NJ Schools Get 100% State Aid Cuts...
...Wall Street traders and business execs who live in New Jersey pay $200 a day for a helicopter commute.
And of course Governor Christie refuses to raise taxes on these people, preferring instead to cut school aid, lay off teachers in 268 school districts and skip payments on the pension funds of state employees.
Because taxing Wall Street traders and business execs would be bad for the economy but cutting all those school budgets and laying off all those teachers isn't bad at all.
And of course Governor Christie refuses to raise taxes on these people, preferring instead to cut school aid, lay off teachers in 268 school districts and skip payments on the pension funds of state employees.
Because taxing Wall Street traders and business execs would be bad for the economy but cutting all those school budgets and laying off all those teachers isn't bad at all.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Poor Newsweek...
...the test prep guys took their swanky new offices:
How ironic that both the Washington Post and Newsweek - which are publications at the nexus of the education deform movement with eduwankers like Jay Matthews and "reporters" like Evan Thomas pushing for the privatization of public schools, the wide expansion of charter schools and the busting of teachers unions - are owned by test preparation company/for-profit school operator Kaplan.
Coincidence?
I think not.
Even more ironic that Thomas, who says "bad" teachers who do not raise the test scores of their students need to be fired immediately can't seem to keep the circulation or the revenue of his weekly "news" magazine from plummeting.
Under his own guidelines for teachers, Thomas ought to be fired for failure.
I believe it was Thomas (or his headline writers) who said about teaching: "In no other profession are workers so insulated from accountability."
I dunno, given the performance of Newsweek over the past few years, that anybody from the editorial board has still got a job looks like a failure of accountability to me.
But I have a feeling that oversight will be rectified soon enough.
Moving the test prep unit to Newsweek's office and moving Newsweek to where Kaplan used to be - that's a sign, I'll tell you what.
Maybe after they finally shut Newsweek down, Thomas and the others at the magazine can go into test prep.
Newsweek staffers, having suffered through layoffs and the struggle for the title’s future, have to endure yet another loss: their new offices.
Scarcely a year after they moved from their unglamorous Midtown offices to cushier Tribeca digs, staffers were told they would have to pack up again, to relocate uptown.
Newsweek will trade places with Washington Post Co. sibling Kaplan, the test-prep unit, which is outgrowing its Midtown space, according to a March 31 staff memo from Newsweek chief executive Tom Ascheim.
Staffers will make the move in August from 395 Hudson St. to Kaplan’s current space at 888 7th Ave., down the street from Newsweek’s old digs.
In the interim, Newsweek employees will have to endure construction and some internal relocation to make room for incoming Kaplan employees.
Ascheim tried to put a positive spin on the news, pointing out that after the move, staffers will be closer to Central Park.
The news comes at a particularly tough time for the newsweekly. Ad pages fell 26 percent to 1,117 in 2009. With ad revenue declining, the title cut its rate-base guarantee twice in the past year, to 1.5 million in January from 2.6 million a year earlier.
How ironic that both the Washington Post and Newsweek - which are publications at the nexus of the education deform movement with eduwankers like Jay Matthews and "reporters" like Evan Thomas pushing for the privatization of public schools, the wide expansion of charter schools and the busting of teachers unions - are owned by test preparation company/for-profit school operator Kaplan.
Coincidence?
I think not.
Even more ironic that Thomas, who says "bad" teachers who do not raise the test scores of their students need to be fired immediately can't seem to keep the circulation or the revenue of his weekly "news" magazine from plummeting.
Under his own guidelines for teachers, Thomas ought to be fired for failure.
I believe it was Thomas (or his headline writers) who said about teaching: "In no other profession are workers so insulated from accountability."
I dunno, given the performance of Newsweek over the past few years, that anybody from the editorial board has still got a job looks like a failure of accountability to me.
But I have a feeling that oversight will be rectified soon enough.
Moving the test prep unit to Newsweek's office and moving Newsweek to where Kaplan used to be - that's a sign, I'll tell you what.
Maybe after they finally shut Newsweek down, Thomas and the others at the magazine can go into test prep.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Christie Continues Assault Against Teachers
Governor Christie wages class warfare against teachers and a political war against the union:
I bet Christie doesn't have any problem with the bonuses paid out to the JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs employees who live in New Jersey.
Yet the "deferred compensation" for the NJEA head - that he says is "outrageous".
Well, maybe - but certainly not more outrageous than Wall Street execs getting 0% interest loans from all the money President Accountability and Uncle Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve are printing for them, betting that money high-risk, and paying themselves billion dollar bonuses at the taxpayer's largesse on those returns.
No - Christie is fine with that. So fine he doesn't even want to tax those bonuses.
As long as the people getting them are making over $400,000 a year, of course (and as the NY Times reported today, 2009 was a banner year for hedge fund managers.)
But teachers making $90,000 a year in his state - they have to take a pay freeze or be scapegoated for "hurting the kids" as he holds state aid hostage to his demands.
What a corrupt scumbag Christie is - making sure his fat cat rich friends are taken care of at the expense of the middle and working classes and students in his state's schools.
Gov. Chris Christie ratcheted up his fight against the state’s largest teachers union today, criticizing its director’s half-million-dollar payday and saying districts could get cash back if teachers give up raises.
Christie said the pay package for the New Jersey Education Association’s Vince Giordano was "shocking" — more than $421,000 in salary and $128,500 in benefits in 2007 — and called the union part of the state’s "shadow government."
"Everybody has a right to make a living, but $550,000 for the executive director of the NJEA? It’s outrageous," Christie said.
An NJEA spokesman said its director now makes $300,000 a year, and the 2007 figure included deferred compensation paid when he was promoted.
Addressing the press today in an otherwise empty science lab at Montclair High School, Christie outlined a proposal to give districts money if teachers agree to wage freezes — a move the treasury department said could return just over $27 million to schools that saw $820 million in budget cuts.
Teachers union representatives said the offer was a paltry distraction from Christie’s refusal to increase taxes on the rich.
"He is politicizing the distribution of state aid," NJEA spokesman Steve Wollmer said. "He’s dug his heels in on reinstating the millionaires’ tax, and instead he’s trying to use state aid as a lever to force middle-class school employees and teachers to pay the price for his priorities."
In his relentless campaign against the NJEA, Christie has drawn parallels between the organization and other public entities. He calls the union’s dues public money because they are paid for by teacher salaries, and called on the group to "open its books." The union has responded by pointing out it is not public and saying it files all required financial disclosures. One of those is the 2007 tax form that shows Giordano’s salary and benefits.
I bet Christie doesn't have any problem with the bonuses paid out to the JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs employees who live in New Jersey.
Yet the "deferred compensation" for the NJEA head - that he says is "outrageous".
Well, maybe - but certainly not more outrageous than Wall Street execs getting 0% interest loans from all the money President Accountability and Uncle Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve are printing for them, betting that money high-risk, and paying themselves billion dollar bonuses at the taxpayer's largesse on those returns.
No - Christie is fine with that. So fine he doesn't even want to tax those bonuses.
As long as the people getting them are making over $400,000 a year, of course (and as the NY Times reported today, 2009 was a banner year for hedge fund managers.)
But teachers making $90,000 a year in his state - they have to take a pay freeze or be scapegoated for "hurting the kids" as he holds state aid hostage to his demands.
What a corrupt scumbag Christie is - making sure his fat cat rich friends are taken care of at the expense of the middle and working classes and students in his state's schools.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
It's For The Good Of The Kids
The salary and benefit cuts, I mean:
Governor Christie can't restore the millionaire's tax - that would hurt the kids, specifically the kids of millionaires as well their wealthy parents.
But teachers have to take salary and benefit cuts or be scapegoated as "hurting the kids..."
This story is from Jersey, but it's coming to a school near you in New York State too once the fall-out from Paterson's budget cuts and failure to pay the districts their state aid hits home.
You can be sure UFT members will be asked to pay for health benefits, take salary cuts or 0% "raises," okay the firing of the ATR's and make other concessions to the city and the state or be scapegoated as selfish, mean-spirited grinches who are "hurting the kids."
You'll note that all of this is happening to schools and school staffs even as Bloomberg hands out $700 million dollar no-bid contracts to crooks and bonuses to city managers while the City Council staff get 4% raises.
Not to mention the billion dollar bonuses Wall Street is handing out with either TARP money or money made from the 0% interest loans Uncle Ben Bernanke and President Accountability have made available through the Federal Reserve ATM machine for Too Big To Fail Institutions like Goldman and Chase.
But we have to give out all these bonuses and no-bid contracts and salary increases to politicians and their staffs while cutting school budgets, cutting school staff, and forcing the ones still around take salary and benefit cuts.
Otherwise the terrorists win. Or something like that.
And most importantly, it's for the good of the kids.
BRIDGEWATER -- The 1,360-member Bridgewater Raritan Education Association voted to approve $1.4 million in concessions today, a move that will save 16-full time teaching positions and help soften the blow created by millions of dollars in state-aid cuts to the Bridgewater-Raritan School District.
The BREA did not specify how the give-backs will affect teachers' salaries for the coming school year, but said the teachers and maintenance union agreed to waive $403,000 for tuition reimbursement. Teachers will also pay 1.5 percent of their salaries toward the cost of health benefits next year.
BREA President Steve Beatty said the move was necessary to preserve the quality of education in the district, but blasted Gov. Chris Christie for criticizing the union last week when it appeared contract talks had stalled.
“Our members care about our students and our community,” said Beatty. “It’s unfortunate that the governor’s cuts are requiring the people who work in public schools to make even more concessions than they already have in order to preserve as best we can our excellent public schools.”
“We reject the governor’s attempts to deflect blame for his devastating cuts onto our members,” said Beatty. “He could restore districts' funding just by reinstating the tax on millionaires and dedicating those funds to our public schools.”
Governor Christie can't restore the millionaire's tax - that would hurt the kids, specifically the kids of millionaires as well their wealthy parents.
But teachers have to take salary and benefit cuts or be scapegoated as "hurting the kids..."
This story is from Jersey, but it's coming to a school near you in New York State too once the fall-out from Paterson's budget cuts and failure to pay the districts their state aid hits home.
You can be sure UFT members will be asked to pay for health benefits, take salary cuts or 0% "raises," okay the firing of the ATR's and make other concessions to the city and the state or be scapegoated as selfish, mean-spirited grinches who are "hurting the kids."
You'll note that all of this is happening to schools and school staffs even as Bloomberg hands out $700 million dollar no-bid contracts to crooks and bonuses to city managers while the City Council staff get 4% raises.
Not to mention the billion dollar bonuses Wall Street is handing out with either TARP money or money made from the 0% interest loans Uncle Ben Bernanke and President Accountability have made available through the Federal Reserve ATM machine for Too Big To Fail Institutions like Goldman and Chase.
But we have to give out all these bonuses and no-bid contracts and salary increases to politicians and their staffs while cutting school budgets, cutting school staff, and forcing the ones still around take salary and benefit cuts.
Otherwise the terrorists win. Or something like that.
And most importantly, it's for the good of the kids.
Drill, Baby, Drill
It really feels like Bush never left.
When President Obama signed the health care "reform" law that forces millions of people to buy garbage insurance they won't be able to afford to use and levies an excise tax of 40% on middle and working class people with employer-provided health care plans to do it, he said "This is what change looks like."
I thought "Really - looks more like business as usual at the Bush administration where President Bush forced through the Medicare drug bill giveaway to Big Pharma and called it "reform" too.
Then there's Obama's NCLB re-authorization, NCLB Jr., in which President Accountability is taking the battery of tests Bush first imposed and adding them to every subject in every year. Adequate Yearly Progress measures for schools are gone - now they've been added to teacher evaluations. Teachers must increase the test scores of their students from September to May or risk being fired like President Accountability had all those teachers in Rhode Island fired. NCLB Jr. is a wet dream Bush never could have gotten through a Democratically-controlled Congress but when a Democratic president pushes through Republican policies, Democrats seem to vote for them anyway.
And today the NY Times reports that Obama has decided to drill baby drill:
It's like Bush never left.
Obama seems to relish sticking it to people who voted for him - teachers, environmentalists, health reform advocates.
Apparently the Change We Can Believe in Obama spoke about bringing America was Bush administration policy.
POSTSCRIPT: I should also note that Obama has doubled down on the war in Afghanistan, has kept troop levels in Iraq the same as Bush, swallowed the Bush/Paulson TARP/TALF bailout-plan whole and continued to hand out billions to Too Big To Fail Institutions, and renominated Bush's Fed Head Bernanke to the Federal Reserve.
All very Bush/GOP-friendly policies.
And remind me, did I miss the DADT repeal signing ceremony in the Rose Garden or did that not happen?
When President Obama signed the health care "reform" law that forces millions of people to buy garbage insurance they won't be able to afford to use and levies an excise tax of 40% on middle and working class people with employer-provided health care plans to do it, he said "This is what change looks like."
I thought "Really - looks more like business as usual at the Bush administration where President Bush forced through the Medicare drug bill giveaway to Big Pharma and called it "reform" too.
Then there's Obama's NCLB re-authorization, NCLB Jr., in which President Accountability is taking the battery of tests Bush first imposed and adding them to every subject in every year. Adequate Yearly Progress measures for schools are gone - now they've been added to teacher evaluations. Teachers must increase the test scores of their students from September to May or risk being fired like President Accountability had all those teachers in Rhode Island fired. NCLB Jr. is a wet dream Bush never could have gotten through a Democratically-controlled Congress but when a Democratic president pushes through Republican policies, Democrats seem to vote for them anyway.
And today the NY Times reports that Obama has decided to drill baby drill:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.
The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.
Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.
The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.
...
While Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. And it is no sure thing that it will win support for a climate bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.
The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling.
But even as Mr. Obama curries favors with pro-drilling interests, he risks a backlash from some coastal governors, senators and environmental advocates, who say that the relatively small amounts of oil to be gained in the offshore areas are not worth the environmental risks.
The Obama administration’s plan adopts some drilling proposals floated by President George W. Bush near the end of his tenure, including opening much of the Atlantic and Arctic Coasts. Those proposals were challenged in court on environmental grounds and set aside by President Obama shortly after he took office.
It's like Bush never left.
Obama seems to relish sticking it to people who voted for him - teachers, environmentalists, health reform advocates.
Apparently the Change We Can Believe in Obama spoke about bringing America was Bush administration policy.
POSTSCRIPT: I should also note that Obama has doubled down on the war in Afghanistan, has kept troop levels in Iraq the same as Bush, swallowed the Bush/Paulson TARP/TALF bailout-plan whole and continued to hand out billions to Too Big To Fail Institutions, and renominated Bush's Fed Head Bernanke to the Federal Reserve.
All very Bush/GOP-friendly policies.
And remind me, did I miss the DADT repeal signing ceremony in the Rose Garden or did that not happen?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Heckuva Job, Barack!
It sure didn't take long for the insurance companies to find the loopholes in Great Leader's new health insurance company giveaway/"reform" measure:
It's not outrageous - it's expected. They're insurance companies and they make money by screwing other people out of coverage.
That's how the system works, Senator.
It's called capitalism.
What is outrageous is that you and President Accountability and the rest of the Democrats who voted for the "reform" bill didn't see that the insurance companies would look for, find and exploit these loopholes right from the beginning - literally less than a week after the bill was signed into law.
That's what's outrageous.
What I want to know is, did you and President Accountability see this possibility and pass "reform" for political reasons anyway or are you just fucking stupid?
I'm guessing it's the former, but sometimes when you open your mouths, I think it might be the latter.
WASHINGTON — Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.
Mr. Obama, speaking at a health care rally in northern Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”
The authors of the law say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide those youngsters with access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.
To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear.
Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.
William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”
Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.
“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”
It's not outrageous - it's expected. They're insurance companies and they make money by screwing other people out of coverage.
That's how the system works, Senator.
It's called capitalism.
What is outrageous is that you and President Accountability and the rest of the Democrats who voted for the "reform" bill didn't see that the insurance companies would look for, find and exploit these loopholes right from the beginning - literally less than a week after the bill was signed into law.
That's what's outrageous.
What I want to know is, did you and President Accountability see this possibility and pass "reform" for political reasons anyway or are you just fucking stupid?
I'm guessing it's the former, but sometimes when you open your mouths, I think it might be the latter.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Accountability Check
Via Cunning Realist, here is a snapshot TODAY IN ECONOMIC HISTORY:
"The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained."
-Ben Bernanke in congressional testimony, 3/28/07
Gee, how'd that work out?
From what I recall, not well.
Was Mr. Bernanke held accountable for his horrific inability to see the catastrophe he and the boys and girls on the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee helped create by enabling the worst excesses of Wall Street?
Nope - President Accountability renominated him to the Fed.
Heckuva job, Barack!!!!
"The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained."
-Ben Bernanke in congressional testimony, 3/28/07
Gee, how'd that work out?
From what I recall, not well.
Was Mr. Bernanke held accountable for his horrific inability to see the catastrophe he and the boys and girls on the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee helped create by enabling the worst excesses of Wall Street?
Nope - President Accountability renominated him to the Fed.
Heckuva job, Barack!!!!
Subway Crime? What Subway Crime? (Redux)
Mayor Moneybags defended cutting cops and subway employees last week on his radio show, saying that "there is no crime on the subway from a practical sense."
He estimated that there are about 5 crimes a day on the subway, which is great "given that we have five million people that take the subway a day, that is essentially zero."
So according to the mayor, cutting cops and subway employees is not a big deal since the city is the safest it's been since Peter Stuyvesant's day.
Of course that was last week, before the newspapers reported that for 2010 murders are up 23% and shootings up 16%.
I wonder if any of those crimes are happening on the subway and therefore the mayor would be full of shit?
Hey - whattya know - they are and he is:
Now here is a question for Hizzfullofshitness: Would he consider the stabbing deaths of two men and the injury of the third one crime or three?
I bet he considers it just one.
That way, he can have four more crimes take place on the subway during a 24 hour period and technically not be considered full of shit.
Even though he is.
He estimated that there are about 5 crimes a day on the subway, which is great "given that we have five million people that take the subway a day, that is essentially zero."
So according to the mayor, cutting cops and subway employees is not a big deal since the city is the safest it's been since Peter Stuyvesant's day.
Of course that was last week, before the newspapers reported that for 2010 murders are up 23% and shootings up 16%.
I wonder if any of those crimes are happening on the subway and therefore the mayor would be full of shit?
Hey - whattya know - they are and he is:
Two men were killed and another injured after an early morning confrontation on a subway train.
The police responded to a call shortly after 5 a.m. Sunday and found the three men when the train was stopped at the station at Varick and Houston streets.
Two of the men had been stabbed multiple times in the chest and were pronounced dead at a nearby hospital. The third man had been stabbed in the arm and neck and was in stable condition.
Police said the stabbings occurred during a confrontation between two groups. The authorities were searching for those involved.
Now here is a question for Hizzfullofshitness: Would he consider the stabbing deaths of two men and the injury of the third one crime or three?
I bet he considers it just one.
That way, he can have four more crimes take place on the subway during a 24 hour period and technically not be considered full of shit.
Even though he is.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
"Stunning"
That's how the Daily News described Judge Lobis's ruling that Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein broke the law by closing 19 NYC public schools without following proper procedures as required by the 2009 re-write of the mayoral control law.
Here's how the Times described the judge's ruling:
Following the law - what a concept! Certainly not a concept Mayor Moneybags is used to, of course, as I will get to in a minute, but it surely is nice to see a court enforce it on a billionaire politician/bully and his corporate minion every once in a while.
The Times says the city argued that yes, they knew they might have not followed the letter of the law, but these schools are "failing" and therefore for the good of the kids and the city they must be closed, law be damned.
The judge did not agree, though the city says they will appeal and we'll have to see where this goes from here.
But even as Bloomberg and Klein were being beaten in the UFT and the NAACP lawsuit against school closures, Klein was going ahead to circumvent the ruling, as noted in this comment thread at Gotham Schools by Leonie Haimson:
So even if the city loses an appeal of this decision (or fails to appeal) and these 19 schools remain open, they will die next year because the Klein and the DOE will have made sure no new students apply.
This is of course the m.o. of Bloomberg and Klein - to break the law - both letter and spirit - and not give a shit about the consequences. I think Leonie is right - Klein ought to be tossed in jail for contempt for violating the court order by sending out acceptance letters without the 19 schools that had been slated for enclosure being included.
As for Bloomberg, he's got lawsuit troubles all around. Even as he and Klein were losing the school closures lawsuit, three more women joined a discrimination lawsuit against Bloomberg LP, bringing the total number of women in the lawsuit to 79.
Moneybags himself has been named as a defendant in the case and will have to testify about the "culture of discrimination" he and other top management at Bloomberg LP created against women.
That culture of discrimination includes firing female employees seeking maternity leave with management making comments like "I'm not having any pregnant bitches working for me" or Bloomberg himself telling a top saleswoman who alerted him to her pregnancy that she should "Kill it!" if she wanted to continue working at Bloomberg LP.
This culture of discrimination and misogyny at Bloomberg LP is not new, of course. Nor is Bloomberg's own contempt for the law.
Bloomberg and his company had been hit with numerous discrimination complaints even before Moneybags bought his first mayoral term.
Here is how Wayne Barrett wrote that story up in October 2001:
Why do I bring up the current E.E.O.C. discrimination case against Bloomberg LP and the past cases against both Bloomberg himself and his company in a post about the school closures lawsuit?
Because they show a pattern here of a very nasty and very powerful bully with a contempt for the law, a contempt for women, and a contempt for common decency. They also show his willingness to throw his money around to circumvent the law and destroy enemies. Notice how he had management try and portray the woman bringing the rape charge against one of his top managers as a "sex hound" and "flirtatious." Notice how they told employees to lie about her and change their stories so she could be sufficiently depicted as promiscuous. Also notice how Bloomberg bankrolled the legal fees of his accused manager and how the suit "mysteriously disappeared" right before Bloomberg began his mayoral run in 2001.
This is classic Bloomberg behavior and it is behavior he has brought from the private sector to the public.
Bloomberg's treatment of women at his company, the culture of discrimination and contempt he helped create and indeed even fostered is the very same contempt and discrimination he has for those of us in public education, both male and female. Perhaps it's because he sees education as a "feminine sphere," perhaps it's because he's just used to getting his way in all things, but the connection between telling an employee to "kill" her baby and telling Klein to "kill" a bunch of schools every year, no matter the circumstance, are connected.
You see, in Bloomberg's mind, whatever he wants is always "right" and anybody who doesn't see it that way must be destroyed. He's been getting his way with this for a very long time now, but that just may be coming to an end. As I wrote above, we'll have to see how the school closures lawsuit shakes out and we'll have to see how the E.E.O.C. lawsuit plays out, but lately Bloomberg is not getting his way 100% of the time in these matters. I do hope the schools remain open, that Klein and Bloomberg are not allowed to manipulate the finding of the case, keep students from applying to those schools and closing them next year anyway. I also hope the 79 women in the E.E.O.C. lawsuit against Bloomberg and his company get their day in court and beat him for millions. Bloomberg is wily enough to not have a Captain Queeg moment on the stand, but it still would be nice to get him up there and force him to address the "kill it!" remark and the other acts of misogyny he either took part in ("I'd do her!") or condoned at Bloomberg LP.
It would be nice if people outside of the public school system got to know Michael Bloomberg the way the women at Bloomberg LP and the teachers and administrators in the DOE know him.
That would be the most stunning thing of all.
Here's how the Times described the judge's ruling:
Justice Lobis, who voided the panel’s decision, said the new law “created a public process with meaningful community involvement regarding the chancellor’s proposals.” The entire mayoral control law, she wrote, “must be enforced, not merely the portion extending mayoral control of the schools.”
Following the law - what a concept! Certainly not a concept Mayor Moneybags is used to, of course, as I will get to in a minute, but it surely is nice to see a court enforce it on a billionaire politician/bully and his corporate minion every once in a while.
The Times says the city argued that yes, they knew they might have not followed the letter of the law, but these schools are "failing" and therefore for the good of the kids and the city they must be closed, law be damned.
The judge did not agree, though the city says they will appeal and we'll have to see where this goes from here.
But even as Bloomberg and Klein were being beaten in the UFT and the NAACP lawsuit against school closures, Klein was going ahead to circumvent the ruling, as noted in this comment thread at Gotham Schools by Leonie Haimson:
Klein appears about to defy the court order by sending out the acceptance letters with none of the closing schools on them, as though the decision never happened; not only should this be barred, but the court ought to throw him in jail for contempt of court.
So even if the city loses an appeal of this decision (or fails to appeal) and these 19 schools remain open, they will die next year because the Klein and the DOE will have made sure no new students apply.
This is of course the m.o. of Bloomberg and Klein - to break the law - both letter and spirit - and not give a shit about the consequences. I think Leonie is right - Klein ought to be tossed in jail for contempt for violating the court order by sending out acceptance letters without the 19 schools that had been slated for enclosure being included.
As for Bloomberg, he's got lawsuit troubles all around. Even as he and Klein were losing the school closures lawsuit, three more women joined a discrimination lawsuit against Bloomberg LP, bringing the total number of women in the lawsuit to 79.
Moneybags himself has been named as a defendant in the case and will have to testify about the "culture of discrimination" he and other top management at Bloomberg LP created against women.
That culture of discrimination includes firing female employees seeking maternity leave with management making comments like "I'm not having any pregnant bitches working for me" or Bloomberg himself telling a top saleswoman who alerted him to her pregnancy that she should "Kill it!" if she wanted to continue working at Bloomberg LP.
This culture of discrimination and misogyny at Bloomberg LP is not new, of course. Nor is Bloomberg's own contempt for the law.
Bloomberg and his company had been hit with numerous discrimination complaints even before Moneybags bought his first mayoral term.
Here is how Wayne Barrett wrote that story up in October 2001:
In a 1998, 272-page deposition never before made public, Michael Bloomberg said he would believe a rape charge only if it was supported by "an unimpeachable third-party" witness, and accused an ex-employee who said she'd been raped by a Bloomberg executive of "extortion." Asked if he believed "false claims of rape are common," the GOP mayoral contender and CEO of a vast financial-information empire replied: "I don't have an opinion." [Read excerpts.]Barrett revisited the sexual harassment/discrimination story in 2005, reported on six separate sexual/racial discrimination cases against Bloomberg and noted that he threw lots of money around to buy silence. Barrett writes that we will never know the full stories in these cases because they have all been settled out of court and the ex-employees all have signed "confidentiality agreements," but that voters should know that there is a dark side to Bloomberg:
Bloomberg's comments are drawn from one of three sexual harassment lawsuits that have dogged him since 1996, all of which contended that "a hostile environment of persistent sexual harassment and the general degradation of women" existed at the 8000-employee company of the same name that Bloomberg founded and ran. In addition to his uninformed testimony about rape, Bloomberg also displayed a chilly indifference to sexual harassment laws and guidelines during the deposition. Bloomberg declined to discuss these issues with the Voice,though a company spokeswoman insisted it has "zero tolerance" for harassment or rape. While the rape case of sales representative Mary Ann Olszewski has been mentioned in occasional news accounts, it has not attracted as much attention as a companion case filed by Sekiko Garrison, another member of the predominantly female, and usually young, attractive, and short-skirted sales force.
...
The company settled the Garrison case, without admitting wrongdoing, for what the Voicehas learned was "a very high six-figure" amount, making it appear more credible than Olszewski's, which was dismissed by a federal judge in 1999. But a closer examination of the Olszewski record reveals that the dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the case—her lawyer had ignored repeated deadlines to submit a response to a motion to end the case. Indeed, a new lawyer revived the case in 2000, allowing it to mysteriously disappear from the court docket just as Bloomberg's mayoral candidacy emerged earlier this year.
While Olszewski, then 28, claimed she was forced out of her job shortly after making the rape charge in a May 25, 1995, meeting, the accused rapist, Bryan Lewis, who was Olszewski's immediate supervisor, remained in a top position throughout the litigation. Court records also indicate that the company conducted a wide-ranging investigation of Olszewski, attempting to get coworkers to portray her as "flirtatious" or a "sex hound." On the other hand, attorneys for Lewis and the company successfully thwarted repeated attempts by Olszewski to determine if the company was paying Lewis's personal legal bills, and the company declined the question now.
...
Though Bloomberg testified that he "became aware" of the allegation "instantly" after she told Louis Eccleston, the head of the company's 500-member sales force, he said all he did about it was "ascertain that we had commenced the appropriate investigative process and were treating all parties appropriately." The investigation eventually resulted in a 60-page report on Olszewski that company attorneys refused to turn over in the litigation. But one sales staffer questioned during the probe, Michael Medd, said in a phone conversation secretly taped by an Olszewski ally that he'd been asked three times to provide "reputation" information about her.
"I don't think she was very provocative, and I keep telling them I'm not going to change my words," said Medd, who complained at the time that the company was pressing him for the name of a client who could provide a "bad character portrayal" of Olszewski. Said Medd: "I don't think she was a sleep-around person." Bloomberg said in his deposition that he recalls "some discussion as to her relationships with clients, but I don't remember the specific situation," adding that his knowledge of this was "nothing other than to ensure that we were making the appropriate investigations."
Bloomberg took the position that Olszewski's refusal to cooperate with the internal probe—combined with the fact that she didn't raise the issue until two years after the alleged incident—made him "skeptical" of her allegation. He never spoke to either Olszewski or Lewis about the charge—though he testified he "knew" Lewis and "could vaguely picture" the tall, statuesque Olszewski—and admitted he neither read anything about rape nor consulted rape experts when the charge surfaced. The company first published a handbook with a section about sexual harassment procedures in 1996, after both the Olszewski and Garrison charges surfaced.
In his deposition, Bloomberg conceded that the most the company offered to do was to transfer Olszewski out of Lewis's unit, meaning she would still be working on the same wide-open sales floor, without any offices or partitions, as Lewis, who was regarded as a powerful figure within the department. Asked why the company didn't offer to move Lewis, Bloomberg said: "He seemed content with where he was." Lewis was not Olszewski's supervisor at the time of the alleged rape in 1993, but became her boss shortly afterwards, a sequence that assumed great importance in Bloomberg's deposition. Though Lewis was a senior executive within Olszewski's department, Bloomberg said it was only a violation of company policy if supervisors had sex with subordinates who "reported" to them.
The six sagas here are both unsettling and incomplete. The confidentiality blanket that covers them gives each episode a powerfully suggestive aura short of definitive fact, but the cumulative picture that emerges is one of a corporate Bloomberg awash in unusual personnel problems either connected to his own unhinged repartee or his company's insensitive policies.
Why do I bring up the current E.E.O.C. discrimination case against Bloomberg LP and the past cases against both Bloomberg himself and his company in a post about the school closures lawsuit?
Because they show a pattern here of a very nasty and very powerful bully with a contempt for the law, a contempt for women, and a contempt for common decency. They also show his willingness to throw his money around to circumvent the law and destroy enemies. Notice how he had management try and portray the woman bringing the rape charge against one of his top managers as a "sex hound" and "flirtatious." Notice how they told employees to lie about her and change their stories so she could be sufficiently depicted as promiscuous. Also notice how Bloomberg bankrolled the legal fees of his accused manager and how the suit "mysteriously disappeared" right before Bloomberg began his mayoral run in 2001.
This is classic Bloomberg behavior and it is behavior he has brought from the private sector to the public.
Bloomberg's treatment of women at his company, the culture of discrimination and contempt he helped create and indeed even fostered is the very same contempt and discrimination he has for those of us in public education, both male and female. Perhaps it's because he sees education as a "feminine sphere," perhaps it's because he's just used to getting his way in all things, but the connection between telling an employee to "kill" her baby and telling Klein to "kill" a bunch of schools every year, no matter the circumstance, are connected.
You see, in Bloomberg's mind, whatever he wants is always "right" and anybody who doesn't see it that way must be destroyed. He's been getting his way with this for a very long time now, but that just may be coming to an end. As I wrote above, we'll have to see how the school closures lawsuit shakes out and we'll have to see how the E.E.O.C. lawsuit plays out, but lately Bloomberg is not getting his way 100% of the time in these matters. I do hope the schools remain open, that Klein and Bloomberg are not allowed to manipulate the finding of the case, keep students from applying to those schools and closing them next year anyway. I also hope the 79 women in the E.E.O.C. lawsuit against Bloomberg and his company get their day in court and beat him for millions. Bloomberg is wily enough to not have a Captain Queeg moment on the stand, but it still would be nice to get him up there and force him to address the "kill it!" remark and the other acts of misogyny he either took part in ("I'd do her!") or condoned at Bloomberg LP.
It would be nice if people outside of the public school system got to know Michael Bloomberg the way the women at Bloomberg LP and the teachers and administrators in the DOE know him.
That would be the most stunning thing of all.
Friday, March 26, 2010
So That's Where The Money Is!
Chancellor Klein says he needs to layoff 8,500 teachers because his budget shortfall is so large.
But Juan Gonzalez in today's News informs us the city is wasting millions in fees and salaries for a failed payroll system that the mayor says has been a "disaster":
Gonzalez says some of these "consultants" have been working for as long as ten years at these kinds of salaries.
Nice work if you can get it.
At any rate, there we have $139 million the city could take from paying these crooks at CityTime and use for schools.
See how easy this is getting more money for schools and less money for Bloomberg's no-bid contract cronies?
In addition, the City Council has raised its budget for this year by $52 million - that includes 4% raises for staff.
4% raises when every other agency is being asked to cut between 2.7% and 7% of their budget?
Seems to me we could look at whatever Quinn and Company are doing with the money they're doling out at the City Council, make some cuts, and start spending it on education.
Let's say we reduce the raises to 2% and return $26 million to education.
Now we have restored a total of $165 million to education.
See how easy this really is?
When you really don't want to lay people off and you want to find productive solutions to problems - including budget shortfalls - you can.
But Bloomberg and Klein do not want to do that.
Rather, like Obama is using the financial crisis to remake/privatize public education through rttT and NCLB Jr, Bloomberg and Klein want to use the fiscal crisis here in NYC to redo the contract, gut seniority protections and start laying off all those "bad" (i.e., expensive, veteran teachers.)
I'm sure John Podesta, Evan Thomas and the wankers at Morning Joe would approve.
But Juan Gonzalez in today's News informs us the city is wasting millions in fees and salaries for a failed payroll system that the mayor says has been a "disaster":
The city is paying some 230 "consultants" an average salary of $400,000 a year for a computer project that is seven years behind schedule and vastly over budget.
The payments continue despite Mayor Bloomberg's admission the computerized timekeeping and payroll system - called CityTime - is "a disaster."
Eleven CityTime consultants rake in more than $600,000 annually, with three of them making as much as $676,000, city records obtained under a Freedom of Information request show.
The 40 highest-paid people on the project bill taxpayers at least $500,000 a year. These enormous salaries are coming out of a $139 million extension to the CityTime contract that began July 1 and runs to Sept. 30.
Gonzalez says some of these "consultants" have been working for as long as ten years at these kinds of salaries.
Nice work if you can get it.
At any rate, there we have $139 million the city could take from paying these crooks at CityTime and use for schools.
See how easy this is getting more money for schools and less money for Bloomberg's no-bid contract cronies?
In addition, the City Council has raised its budget for this year by $52 million - that includes 4% raises for staff.
4% raises when every other agency is being asked to cut between 2.7% and 7% of their budget?
Seems to me we could look at whatever Quinn and Company are doing with the money they're doling out at the City Council, make some cuts, and start spending it on education.
Let's say we reduce the raises to 2% and return $26 million to education.
Now we have restored a total of $165 million to education.
See how easy this really is?
When you really don't want to lay people off and you want to find productive solutions to problems - including budget shortfalls - you can.
But Bloomberg and Klein do not want to do that.
Rather, like Obama is using the financial crisis to remake/privatize public education through rttT and NCLB Jr, Bloomberg and Klein want to use the fiscal crisis here in NYC to redo the contract, gut seniority protections and start laying off all those "bad" (i.e., expensive, veteran teachers.)
I'm sure John Podesta, Evan Thomas and the wankers at Morning Joe would approve.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200
Hey, look who just got lawyered up:
Maybe Smith's defense attorney can help defend him over allegations he steered a charter school he founded to some land owned by a political donor/real estate developer too.
It will be a pleasure to see Smith frog-marched out of Albany in handcuffs and tossed in jail.
Maybe he can share a cell with Bernie Kerik.
Given the number of investigations currently being conducted on Smith, it seems like it will only be a matter of time before the frog-march is a done-deal.
Embattled Senate President Malcolm Smith has hired prominent criminal defense lawyer Gerald Shargel to help him deal with mounting investigations.
Shargel, whose Web bio says he focuses only on "the defense of serious criminal cases," was hired two weeks ago amid a U.S. attorney probe into New Direction, a nonprofit founded by Smith and Rep. Gregory Meeks.
Shargel is also aiding Smith with a state inspector general probe into the ill-fated Aqueduct race track racino project.
Maybe Smith's defense attorney can help defend him over allegations he steered a charter school he founded to some land owned by a political donor/real estate developer too.
It will be a pleasure to see Smith frog-marched out of Albany in handcuffs and tossed in jail.
Maybe he can share a cell with Bernie Kerik.
Given the number of investigations currently being conducted on Smith, it seems like it will only be a matter of time before the frog-march is a done-deal.
Say What?
Miss Eyre points out that while Chancellor Klein is talking all doomsday about having to lay off 8,500 teachers and how the state better allow him to choose which ones go or lots of really good, new teachers are going to lose their jobs and lots of old, burnt out ones will be teaching all the kids he's actually hiring new teachers.
Uh, huh.
And while the Center for American Progress rewrites a Gates Foundation pamphlet about how teacher effectiveness must be the cornerstone of education reform and how layoffs need to be based on evaluation of effectiveness and not seniority, they fail to note that in most districts the bottom line will prevail and the oldest and highest paid teachers will be laid off first regardless of effectiveness.
After all, Klein's already doing this here in NYC by hiring new teachers even as he's getting ready to lay off thousands.
In a corporatocracy, the bottom line will ALWAYS prevail.
That's what unions are supposed to protect against.
The problem is not when a corporate whore like Klein wants to derail these protections - you kinda expect that from a parasite like him.
The problem is when supposedly "progressive" think tanks like the Center for American Progress carry water for him and Bloomberg and write stories like "Improve Education, Fire Bad Teachers."
Uh, huh.
And while the Center for American Progress rewrites a Gates Foundation pamphlet about how teacher effectiveness must be the cornerstone of education reform and how layoffs need to be based on evaluation of effectiveness and not seniority, they fail to note that in most districts the bottom line will prevail and the oldest and highest paid teachers will be laid off first regardless of effectiveness.
After all, Klein's already doing this here in NYC by hiring new teachers even as he's getting ready to lay off thousands.
In a corporatocracy, the bottom line will ALWAYS prevail.
That's what unions are supposed to protect against.
The problem is not when a corporate whore like Klein wants to derail these protections - you kinda expect that from a parasite like him.
The problem is when supposedly "progressive" think tanks like the Center for American Progress carry water for him and Bloomberg and write stories like "Improve Education, Fire Bad Teachers."
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Crime? What Crime?
This is a few days old, but it's still emblematic of the War is Peace/Ignorance is Knowledge era we live in:
Like they say in the Wizard of Oz, you just have to believe!
And keep repeating so you keep believing!
There's no crime on the subway, there's no crime on the subway!
See? Wasn't that easy?
Now repeat after me - graduation rates and test scores are, graduation rates and test scores are up!
Subway crime doesn't exist!
That's the claim Mayor Bloomberg made on WOR radio Friday, saying "there is no crime on the subway from a practical sense."
Bloomberg, a frequent 6-train commuter, was responding to a question about whether crime would increase if the MTA cuts 450 token booth clerks as planned.
He estimated there are five crimes a day on subways - "given that we have five million people that take the subway a day, that is essentially zero."
He credited the NYPD and transit workers for keeping subways safe - even though the Daily News reported this week that cops are handing out fewer fare-evasion tickets even as officials say more riders are beating fares.
The cash-strapped MTA is threatening to cut the clerks to save money, a move Bloomberg defended.
"You can say, 'Well let's not cut that.' Excuse me, what do you want to cut?" he said.
Like they say in the Wizard of Oz, you just have to believe!
And keep repeating so you keep believing!
There's no crime on the subway, there's no crime on the subway!
See? Wasn't that easy?
Now repeat after me - graduation rates and test scores are, graduation rates and test scores are up!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Duncan Part Of Corruption Probe In Chicago
Not a surprise:
I doubt this particular revelation will do Duncan in, but if they keep digging...
Meanwhile, here in NY, I don't see why Malcolm Smith isn't in jail yet:
Smith says the school moving to the current prison-like location had nothing to do with the land it's on being owned by a political donor/real estate developer.
Sure it doesn't.
And Duncan's office says Duncan wasn't using the log of elected officials and other important contacts as a way of keeping track of/handing out political favors.
Sure he wasn't.
When U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan ran Chicago Public Schools, his office quietly kept a log of elected officials and others seeking to help kids win admission to the most coveted schools in the system, a former top Duncan aide said Monday.
That list has now come under the scrutiny of both federal officials and the schools inspector general as part of a probe of whether clout played a role in admissions to Chicago's elite schools, sources said.
Calls listed on the annual "logs'' included anyone who contacted the schools CEO's office seeking help in placing a student, such as a parent concerned about their child's safety, said David Pickens, who was a top assistant to Duncan and is now chief of staff to the president of the Board of Education.
But the logs also held the names of elected officials, "a lot of aldermen,'' businessmen, local school council members and Board of Education employees who wanted to get kids into selective enrollment or magnet schools, Pickens said.
One year's log, for example, lists a state senator, a former U.S. senator and a top official in Mayor Daley's administration, sources told the Sun-Times.
I doubt this particular revelation will do Duncan in, but if they keep digging...
Meanwhile, here in NY, I don't see why Malcolm Smith isn't in jail yet:
The phalanx of drab trailers ringed by a chain-link fence in a desolate corner of Queens looks more like a prison than a charter school.
The cramped Peninsula Preparatory Academy Charter School has no science lab, no gymnasium, no playground and no on-site kitchen. Hot meals are trucked in from 3 miles away, and the school's 300 students dodge cars just to reach the front door.
Only two years ago, the charter school founded by Senate President Malcolm Smith was housed inside a spacious public school 3 miles away in Far Rockaway.
The official reason for the relocation was "increased enrollment" - but the Daily News has learned Peninsula Preparatory Academy was moved to land owned and under development by one of Smith's top campaign donors.
Queens developer Benjamin Companies is in a partnership building homes near the school - and started using Peninsula as a selling point to hawk the seaside residences.
While the move may benefit the developer, it certainly didn't help students wedged inside the too-small trailers - with no end in sight.
Smith says the school moving to the current prison-like location had nothing to do with the land it's on being owned by a political donor/real estate developer.
Sure it doesn't.
And Duncan's office says Duncan wasn't using the log of elected officials and other important contacts as a way of keeping track of/handing out political favors.
Sure he wasn't.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Who Knew?
What I have learned from the media today is that mandating people without health insurance to buy crappy, expensive private insurance or risk having the IRS audit them and paying for the program with a 40% excise tax on people with employer-provided health care are the greatest things to happen in Washington since the Civil Rights Act.
I guess Great Leader really does walk on water.
I guess Great Leader really does walk on water.
McCain: We Will Not Work With Obama or Dems On Anything
Not sure how this is any different from what has been happening in Washington, but I'll post it anyway because I think it gives some insight into what can happen on education deform for the rest of the year:
Sounds like they're pissed and not ready to do anything with Dems and Obama.
If Repubs vote en masse against every Obama/Dem measure leading up to the November midterms, Democrats would have to win over nearly member of the caucus on ed deform.
In my estimation, that makes Obama's NCLB Jr. blueprint more difficult to pass before the November midterms.
There is enough in there to scare just enough Dems away - the anti-teacher/anti-union stuff which will scare off some Dems who need union support, the additional federalizing of policy and mandates which will scare off some Dems in purple districts, the huge price tag ($4 billion - but only if you do "reform" your state policies to the liking of Obama and Duncan) - that I think "reform" will be put off until after the November 2010 election.
And then what? Hard to know, but if the economy tanks again, as is expected after the Federal reserve raises interest rates and the stimulus money fades away, there isn't going to be a whole lot of support to put $4 billion into public education. And I have a hard time seeing Dems in Congress pass unfunded mandates (though you never know.)
Plus we may be talking about Speaker Boehner running the joint by next January. That surely would change the reform equation, though to what it is hard to know. Obviously Repubs are pro-charter, pro-privatization and anti-union, but if they're pushing the measures, will Dems go along (right now, Dems go along because Obama is pushing them)?
We'll see.
Democrats shouldn't expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.So maybe we have the answer to the question I asked in this post, which was: Now that HCR has passed, will Repubs feel pressure to help pass something else Obama wants so as not to be tarred as the "Do Nothing Party" in '10, and if so, does this mean they'll work with Obama and pro-deform eduwankers on NCLB Jr.
McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber's bill.
GOP senators emerged Monday to warn that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, and warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.
"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."
The Senate is set to take up a bill under budget reconciliation rules that would make a series of changes to its larger health bill, which the House passed Sunday night and President Barack Obama expects to sign into law on Tuesday.
During the months of debate, Republicans have claimed they have been shut out of the process. Democrats, for their part, had invited some GOP participation in the debate, but said that many of the Republican ideas on the bill were meant to be dilatory, if not outright "obstructionist."
Cooperation between parties usually isn't paramount in election years like 2010, with senators jockeying for campaign positioning. But some GOP members said the character of the Senate had changed by virtue of the process used on the health bill.
Sounds like they're pissed and not ready to do anything with Dems and Obama.
If Repubs vote en masse against every Obama/Dem measure leading up to the November midterms, Democrats would have to win over nearly member of the caucus on ed deform.
In my estimation, that makes Obama's NCLB Jr. blueprint more difficult to pass before the November midterms.
There is enough in there to scare just enough Dems away - the anti-teacher/anti-union stuff which will scare off some Dems who need union support, the additional federalizing of policy and mandates which will scare off some Dems in purple districts, the huge price tag ($4 billion - but only if you do "reform" your state policies to the liking of Obama and Duncan) - that I think "reform" will be put off until after the November 2010 election.
And then what? Hard to know, but if the economy tanks again, as is expected after the Federal reserve raises interest rates and the stimulus money fades away, there isn't going to be a whole lot of support to put $4 billion into public education. And I have a hard time seeing Dems in Congress pass unfunded mandates (though you never know.)
Plus we may be talking about Speaker Boehner running the joint by next January. That surely would change the reform equation, though to what it is hard to know. Obviously Repubs are pro-charter, pro-privatization and anti-union, but if they're pushing the measures, will Dems go along (right now, Dems go along because Obama is pushing them)?
We'll see.
The Great Health Insurance Company Giveaway of 2010
The papers this morning are all abuzz with the president's victory getting health care reform passed through both the House and the Senate and readied for him to sign into law (actually the Senate work still has to be done but it is considered a fait accompli.)
Over the top rhetoric about how Obama is now one of the greatest presidents in American history abound (see here) and make no mistake, that was what this fight was about.
Obama's ego, that is.
But this wasn't really about reforming health care or expanding it to everybody in the country.
Because this isn't a great law, it's certainly not monumental reform and it isn't any earth shattering new way of going about health care in the U.S.
In fact, it doesn't even provide universal coverage.
What it does do is cause more harm than good.
It perpetuates the power of the insurance industry, it mandates people buy bad coverage or get nailed on their taxes for an extra 2%, it funds the bill with an excise tax on people with employer-provided health care plans who will soon lose those plans when employers don't want to pay the 40% tax and it leaves millions of people uninsured anyway.
Here is, in full, Jane Hamsher's fine myth-busting piece about HCR from Huffingtonpost.
It is a must read:
The news stories today are almost all "process" stories - Obama did it, he brought monumental change, blah, blah, blah. They are wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny, because as we can see from Hamsher's piece, the only real change in the bill is how people will now be MANDATED to buy insurance they cannot afford to use.
We will have to put up with a few weeks of Obama and Rahm and the rest strutting like cocks in the barnyard. But after that, it will be interesting to see if people actually LIKE what is in the bill. There are a few good things - like the pre-existing conditions clause and extending coverage to kids past 21, but even those have loopholes the insurance companies can drive bull dozers through.
So at the end of the day, when people realize that if they already have insurance, they're going to end up paying more for coverage or lose it completely (that's Obama's "cost containment initiatives" - have people with expensive health care coverage provided through employers lose their coverage or have employers choose cheaper plans for them) while those without it are going to be mandated to buy a pretty shitty policy they cannot afford to use or get nailed with an extra 2% on their taxes, we'll see if Obama and Rahm still feel like cocks at the walk.
POSTSCRIPT: Dunno what this means for NCLB Jr. It is possible Obama builds momentum with this victory, Repubs decide they want to do something bipartisan so they cannot be tarred as the Do-Nothing Party and make a deal with Obama and pro-deform Dems to pass the president's blueprint into law.
It is also possible they decide they cannot give Obama anything and decide en masse to vote against NCLB Jr. (there are plausible policy reasons they could give - it costs too much, it cedes too much federal control from the states, etc.)
It is also possible that all the bruised feelings from the arm twisting Rahm and Obama and company had to do to pass HCR will leave many Dems, particularly ones in purple districts, less open to future arm twisting on either immigration reform or NCLB Jr.
We'll see. Public opinion on what is in the HCR bill matters. Nobody knows because the process has been so screwed up and complex. But if Repubs can win a message war on the mandates (and Jane Hamsher thinks that is where the next battle will be fought with this), it is very possible that Obama and Dems will be more weakened by the passage of the Great Health Insurance Giveaway of 2010.
Over the top rhetoric about how Obama is now one of the greatest presidents in American history abound (see here) and make no mistake, that was what this fight was about.
Obama's ego, that is.
But this wasn't really about reforming health care or expanding it to everybody in the country.
Because this isn't a great law, it's certainly not monumental reform and it isn't any earth shattering new way of going about health care in the U.S.
In fact, it doesn't even provide universal coverage.
What it does do is cause more harm than good.
It perpetuates the power of the insurance industry, it mandates people buy bad coverage or get nailed on their taxes for an extra 2%, it funds the bill with an excise tax on people with employer-provided health care plans who will soon lose those plans when employers don't want to pay the 40% tax and it leaves millions of people uninsured anyway.
Here is, in full, Jane Hamsher's fine myth-busting piece about HCR from Huffingtonpost.
It is a must read:
Myth 1: This is a universal health care bill.
Fact: The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office:
- Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million
- Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million
Myth 2: Insurance companies hate this bill.Fact: This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint vice president. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.Myth 3: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.
Fact: The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that President Obama promised during his campaign.
Annual premiums in 2016: status quo / with bill:
Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800
Small group market, family: $19,3oo / $19,200
Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300
Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300
Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800
Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200(The cost of premiums in the individual market goes up somewhat due to subsidies and mandates of better coverage. The CBO assumes that cost of individual policies goes down 7-10%, and that people will buy more generous policies.)
Myth 4: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.
Fact: The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can't afford to use.
A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income -- out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.
Myth 5: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.
Fact: Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can't afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:
- 21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can't afford it, including 12% of children
- 18% have health insurance but can't afford to use it
Myth 6: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.Fact: This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.
Myth 7: You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.
Fact: The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services.
Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now.Myth 8: The "excise tax" will encourage employers to reduce the scope of health care benefits, and they will pass the savings on to employees in the form of higher wages.
Fact: There is insufficient evidence that employers pass savings from reduced benefits on to employees.
Myth 9: This bill employs nearly every cost control idea available to bring down costs.
Fact: This bill does not bring down costs and leaves out nearly every key cost control measure, including:
- Public Option ($25-$110 billion)
- Medicare buy-in
- Drug re-importation ($19 billion)
- Medicare drug price negotiation ($300 billion)
- Shorter pathway to generic biologics ($71 billion)
Myth 10: The bill will require big companies like Wal-Mart to provide insurance for their employees.Fact: The bill was written so that most Wal-Mart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage.
Myth 11: The bill "bends the cost curve" on health care.Fact: "Bends the cost curve" is a misleading and trivial claim, as the U.S. would still spend far more for care than other advanced countries.
- In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.
- Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)
- Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)
Myth 12: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.Fact: Access to the "high risk pool" is limited and the pool is underfunded. Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high-risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.
Myth 13: The bill prohibits dropping people in individual plans from coverage when they get sick.
Fact: The bill does not empower a regulatory body to keep people from being dropped when they're sick. There are already many states that have laws on the books prohibiting people from being dropped when they're sick, but without an enforcement mechanism, there is little to hold the insurance companies in check.
Myth 14: The bill ensures consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to challenge new insurance plan decisions.
Fact: The "internal appeals process" is in the hands of the insurance companies themselves, and the "external" one is up to each state.
Ensuring that consumers have access to "internal appeals" simply means the insurance companies have to review their own decisions. And it is the responsibility of each state to provide an "external appeals process," as there is neither funding nor a regulatory mechanism for enforcement at the federal level.
Myth 15: This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates 30%-40% per year.
Fact: This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.
Myth 16: When the bill passes, people will begin receiving benefits under this bill immediately
Fact: Most provisions in this bill, such as an end to the ban on pre-existing conditions for adults, do not take effect until 2014.
Six months from the date of passage, children could not be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions, though insurance companies could charge more to cover them. Children would also be allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26. There will be an elimination of lifetime coverage limits, a high risk pool for those who have been uninsured for more than 6 months, and community health centers will start receiving money.
Myth 17: The bill creates a pathway for single payer.
Fact: Bernie Sanders' provision in the Senate bill does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, so no, it doesn't create a pathway for single payer.
Obama told Dennis Kucinich that the Ohio Representative's amendment is similar to Bernie Sanders' provision in the Senate bill, and creates a pathway to single payer. Since the waiver does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, it is nearly impossible to see how it gets around the ERISA laws that stand in the way of any practical state single payer system.
Myth 18: The bill will end medical bankruptcy and provide all Americans with peace of mind.Fact: Most people with medical bankruptcies already have insurance, and out-of-pocket expenses will continue to be a burden on the middle class.
Real health care reform is needed. But this bill falls short of that on many levels.
- In 2009, 1.5 million Americans declared bankruptcy
- Of those, 62% were medically related
- Three-quarters of those had health insurance
- The Obama bill leaves 24 million without insurance
- The maximum yearly out-of-pocket limit for a family will be $11,900 (PDF) on top of premiums
- A family with serious medical problems that last for a few years could easily be financially crushed by medical costs
The news stories today are almost all "process" stories - Obama did it, he brought monumental change, blah, blah, blah. They are wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny, because as we can see from Hamsher's piece, the only real change in the bill is how people will now be MANDATED to buy insurance they cannot afford to use.
We will have to put up with a few weeks of Obama and Rahm and the rest strutting like cocks in the barnyard. But after that, it will be interesting to see if people actually LIKE what is in the bill. There are a few good things - like the pre-existing conditions clause and extending coverage to kids past 21, but even those have loopholes the insurance companies can drive bull dozers through.
So at the end of the day, when people realize that if they already have insurance, they're going to end up paying more for coverage or lose it completely (that's Obama's "cost containment initiatives" - have people with expensive health care coverage provided through employers lose their coverage or have employers choose cheaper plans for them) while those without it are going to be mandated to buy a pretty shitty policy they cannot afford to use or get nailed with an extra 2% on their taxes, we'll see if Obama and Rahm still feel like cocks at the walk.
POSTSCRIPT: Dunno what this means for NCLB Jr. It is possible Obama builds momentum with this victory, Repubs decide they want to do something bipartisan so they cannot be tarred as the Do-Nothing Party and make a deal with Obama and pro-deform Dems to pass the president's blueprint into law.
It is also possible they decide they cannot give Obama anything and decide en masse to vote against NCLB Jr. (there are plausible policy reasons they could give - it costs too much, it cedes too much federal control from the states, etc.)
It is also possible that all the bruised feelings from the arm twisting Rahm and Obama and company had to do to pass HCR will leave many Dems, particularly ones in purple districts, less open to future arm twisting on either immigration reform or NCLB Jr.
We'll see. Public opinion on what is in the HCR bill matters. Nobody knows because the process has been so screwed up and complex. But if Repubs can win a message war on the mandates (and Jane Hamsher thinks that is where the next battle will be fought with this), it is very possible that Obama and Dems will be more weakened by the passage of the Great Health Insurance Giveaway of 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)