Recent comments

  • Michigan Public Questions Proposed Rules on Medical Marijuana   7 hours 57 min ago

    Michigan Ponders Medical Marijuana Rules

    by Bruce Mirken

    -->

    digg_url = 'http://blog.mpp.org/?p=269';
    digg_title = 'Michigan Ponders Medical Marijuana Rules';
    digg_media = 'video';

    Digg Submit/Digg Button Start -->

    MPP director of state policies Karen O’Keefe spoke
    this morning at a hearing convened by the Michigan Department of
    Community Health to consider draft regulations implementing the state’s
    new medical marijuana law.

    The very well attended hearing took the whole
    morning, Karen reports, with large numbers of patients presenting
    constructive criticisms of rules that in some cases go beyond the
    authority given the department by the voter-approved initiative. Of
    particular concern are rules that require participants in the program
    to submit a written inventory of medical marijuana plants grown, and
    defining “use in public” (prohibited by the law) so broadly that it
    would ban patients from medicating in their own living room with the
    curtains open.

    Karen’s full written comments are here.

    As is probably inevitable at such an open, public
    forum, a few speakers veered off-topic, but very few were hostile to
    the law. Even the Michigan State Police gave generally constructive
    testimony, though one police comment having to do with a law
    enforcement database raises concerns about patient privacy that will
    require MPP to follow up.

    There’s already been extensive media coverage, including early-morning radio news stories, and articles in the Detroit Free Press and Michigan Messenger. Half a dozen TV cameras were present, so we expect lots of coverage on the evening news.

  • McKinley Health Center's plans to cease offering sonogram services at the end of this year.   19 hours 35 min ago

    Wonderful letter!

  • McKinley Health Center's plans to cease offering sonogram services at the end of this year.   19 hours 35 min ago

    Good news! I was told by McKinley staff today that UIUC Vice Chancellor Michael DeLorenzo is backing plans to retain a sonographer at the health center now that the contracted sonographer has completed her final year, and retired, as she announced she would at the start of 2007.  While this is the case, McKinley director Dr. Robert Palinkas sadly has not yet hired a replacement, causing (at the very least) a lapse in sonogram services. McKinley health coverage runs until the spring semester starts on January 19, but students who were ordered sonogram services following January 1 have not able to receive them.  Please call or send an email to McKinley via the web comment board listed above or to Director palinkas(at*)illinois.edu AND COPY your note to Vice Chancellor Michael DeLorenzo michaeld(at*)sab.uiuc.edu / Vice Chancellor Renee Romano romano3(at*)sab.uiuc.edu THIS WEEK to let them know that these services are important to students, and should reinstated at McKinley right away! * = replace (at) with @ Also, efforts from the community were noted as key to the decision to maintain services. Nice work! Keep it up!

  • Jan. 3: Emergency Demonstration in support of Gaza   1 day 8 hours ago

    The demonstration on January 3 in solidarity with the Palestinian people brought various individuals and groups together and invigorated us all. We need to excert a sustained pressure on our elected officials to stop the U.S. illegal funding of Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. There is no place on earth where a change in U.S. foreign policy can improve the lives of an oppressed people as drastically as in Palestine. To engage in the process of change, please join us for the next rally: Saturday, January 10 12:00-2:00 PM In front of the Court House Main and Broadway Downtown Urbana

  • An Early Black Victim of the Post Racial Society   2 days 17 hours ago

    BURYING BURRIS

     

    Sam Smith

    Bad
    as Rod Blagojevich may be, Harry Reid and other superlative hypocrites
    in the Senate are certainly giving him a run for his money. And they're
    getting aid from liberal Democrats who are ready to dump basic
    principles - such as guilt being determined by a court and not by the
    media or a prosecutor - in hopes of saving themselves some
    embarrassment.

    The hypocrisy includes the fact that the current
    Senate is the most corrupt in American history based on the amount of
    contributions accepted from those with clear intent to wrongfully
    influence legislation. The only real difference between Blagojevich and
    the Senate is that the former may have been too dumb to do it all under
    cover of law.

    Further, journals such as Slate have come up with
    remarkably tortured arguments as to why the Senate should be allowed -
    essentially on an ad hoc basis and without any formal warning in
    advance - to determine who gets to join it. At the very least, however,
    the Senate's membership requirements should be as accessible to
    applicants as those of the Metropolitan Club.

    CNN even reported
    that Senate Democrats were seriously dealing with the question of
    whether to arrest Burris should he show up seeking his seat:

    "The
    first Democratic aide said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber
    on Tuesday, the Senate doorkeeper will stop him. If Burris were to
    persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or
    refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol police would stop
    him, the aide said. 'They [police] probably won't arrest him,' but they
    would call the Senate's sergeant-at-arms, the aide said."

    The
    Democrats are not being driven by any new found love of integrity and
    the law. Rather they have been embarrassed and they're trying
    desperately to keep their distance from Blagojevich after rejecting the
    alternative of a special election, since that might add one more GOP
    senator.

    A dignified and democratic solution would include an
    acceptance of the fact that Blagojevich is the governor of Illinois and
    entitled to act like one until the law says otherwise. It would also
    not engage in the semantic waterboarding of a somewhat obscure
    constitutional provision in order to satisfy only the most puerile of
    political goals. And the Senate should state its qualifications openly
    and not engage in ex post facto legislation, which a far more important
    section of the Constitution prohibits.

  • Discreet Discretions   3 days 12 hours ago

    Currently, Champaign police dectective, Lisa Staples is suspended with pay and has been suspended with pay since December 1, 2008. Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney said he would make a final determination about Detective Staples after Champaign Police finish their investigation into the incident with Staples. Finney said Staples could face discipline, and that discipline could be termination if necessary.

    Staples has been on the police force since 1995.  

  • Discreet Discretions   3 days 12 hours ago

    Here is the laundry list Detective Staples recieved for pleading guilty to Driving Under the Influence of alcohol. It should be noted from the start, that Illinois statutes require an automatic six-month suspension of a driver's license if the offender refuses to submit to a brethalyzer test the night of the offense.

    Staples was represented by local defense attorney Ed Piraino. The presiding judge of Champaign County, Tom Difanis, appointed Tony Lee, a recently retired Ford County prosecutor of 16 years. Lee was appointed when Champaign County State's Attorney Julia Rietz asked for a special prosecutor  because of a professional relationship with Detective Staples. Piraino and Lee worked out the following plea bargain before traffic court Judge Richard Klaus. Klaus accepted the following:

    Staples pled guilty to Driving Under the Influence. Charges of Improper Lane Usage and Driving Without a License were dismissed by the state. Staples punishment was:

    • pay a fine of $750 dollars
    • pay court costs of $2,258
    • pay the above $3008.00 within 300 days.
    • pay a anti-crime fee of $10.00
    • pay a probation service fee of $10.00 a month for 18 months ($180.00)
    • sumbit to 18 months of court supervision with the Champaign County Court Services
    • Perform 250 hours of public servic work (Staples will get credit for public service hours performed any time Staples does the following: education treatment, aftercare, sobriety-based self-help group meetings, attends victim impact panels)
    • Attend a Victim Impact Panel. (The Victim Impact Panel is a proceeding hosted by the Champaign County Court Services department, where DUI offenders are gathered to hear the stories from former victims of drunk drivers or former drunk drivers who hurt someone in an accident.)
    • Obtain a substance/alcohol abuse evaluation with an agency approved by the Champaign County Court Services department and follow any recommendations for treatment or counseling.
    • [In exchange for Staples' plea of guilty,] the State agrees not to file any criminal charges against the defendant based solely on the conduct described in the police reports contained in this written order.
  • Making a simple law about marijuana too complicated   3 days 15 hours ago

    For Mass. Officials, Pouting Is a Form of Political Expression

    by Dan Bernath

    -->

    digg_url = 'http://blog.mpp.org/?p=268';
    digg_title = 'For Mass. Officials, Pouting Is a Form of Political Expression';
    digg_media = 'video';

    Digg Submit/Digg Button Start -->

    Massachusetts voters didn’t like the old marijuana law, so they
    changed it. Some Massachusetts officials don’t like the new law, so
    they’re, well, pouting.

    Today is the first day Massachusetts adults will no longer have to
    fear arrest for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. Under the new
    system, approved by 65% of commonwealth voters on Election Day,
    violators will now be subject to a $100 civil citation and nothing more.

    The question now is whether those law enforcement officials who
    campaigned against the decriminalization initiative will respect the
    will of the voters and make a good-faith effort to implement this
    modest reform. So far, there hasn’t been much evidence this will be the
    case. In fact, in the months following the election, many of these
    officials have behaved as though the matter were still up for debate.

    Also potentially troubling is a recommendation made by the commonwealth’s office of public safety
    for cities and towns to consider passing local ordinances enhancing
    penalties for public marijuana use. Although it’s too early to tell
    exactly what the implications might be, the effect could be an end-run
    around the will of the voters. We’ll keep an eye on that.

    Meanwhile, officials have relied on two main arguments as they seek
    to prolong a debate that should have ended on Election Day: 1) that
    they lack the competence to sort out the details of the law, and 2)
    that the voters were naïve dupes who allowed themselves to get suckered
    by “legalizers” intent on creating chaos with an unenforceable law.

    So far, demeaning the voters and calling attention to their own incompetence hasn’t won very many people over, despite the wide coverage their tantrums have received in the press.
    The more paternalistic and condescending they sound, the more it looks
    like these opponents are actually hoping for the lawless chaos they’ve
    been clamoring about for months.

    If so, they’re sure to be disappointed. Voters understood exactly
    what they were doing and simply want the penalties for small marijuana
    violations to match the severity of the violation. And they have
    confidence in the ability of Massachusetts cops to write a $100 ticket
    and move on, even if their superiors don’t.

  • Making a simple law about marijuana too complicated   5 days 20 hours ago

    Still Lying to the End

    by Bruce Mirken

    -->

    digg_url = 'http://blog.mpp.org/?p=267';
    digg_title = 'Still Lying to the End';
    digg_media = 'video';

    Digg Submit/Digg Button Start -->

    David Murray, the alleged “chief
    scientist” at the White House drug czar’s office, seems determined to
    end his tenure in a blaze of dishonesty. In a just-published article in New Scientist that examines the excellent Beckley Foundation Global Cannabis Commission report,
    Murray touts recent declines in U.S. teen marijuana use and claims, “In
    the absence of prohibition, it would have been difficult to achieve
    that.”

    That’s nonsense, as we’ve already pointed out. As many U.S. teens currently smoke marijuana as smoke cigarettes, which are legal for adults. Since 1991, teen marijuana use has increased while teen cigarette smoking has dropped by nearly half.  A
    good case can be made that a major reason for this has been a concerted
    campaign to curtail tobacco sales to persons under 18 — a campaign that
    has only been possible because tobacco is legal, allowing producers and
    sellers to be regulated — but at the very least, it demonstrates that
    prohibition for adults is not necessary to curb misuse of a substance
    by children.

    A few months ago, a World Health Organization survey published in PLoS Medicine
    found that the U.S. and New Zealand to have the world’s highest rates
    of marijuana use, despite having some of the world’s strictest laws.
    Both the overall rate of use and use by age 15 in the U.S. were far
    higher than in the Netherlands, with its famously tolerant marijuana
    policies.

    We still don’t know who president-elect Barack  Obama
    will appoint to replace drug czar John Walters and his gang of hacks
    like Murray, but it’s hard to imagine how he could do worse.

    An enterprise of the Marijuana Policy Project

  • Vance on Christianity and War - the Prince of Peace vs. the Prince of the Power of the Air   6 days 12 hours ago

    "Kcin", you're developing a pattern of simply using this space as a place to cross-post your blog. Please stop. 

  • McKinley Health Center's plans to cease offering sonogram services at the end of this year.   6 days 19 hours ago

    Graduate employees have some coverage for prescriptions at McKinley. There is now a $5 minimum co-pay for each month's supply, with some medications being considerably more. When the current contract was negotiated, there was no co-pay.

    Many prescriptions that grad employees typically need are NOT carried at the McKinley pharmacy. For those, all the student employees have for coverage is a preciption discount card. I found that it offered little or no discount at local pharmacies.

    Thanks to the AFL-CIO and the United Way, there is a FamilyWize pharmacy discount card. The good thing about it is that it does offer substantial discounts on prescriptions, although it still doesn't make many precriptions really affordable on the limited income that grad employees have due to the less than living wage income we subsist on.

    I have no idea how much the University pays for their precription card, but it is a waste of money. The FamilyWize card costs nothing, although it technically is charity. However, this sad situation matches well with the substandard health care that the University provides under our current contract. Essentially, the University relies on the fact that the low pay of grad employees qualifies them for charity care in some cases at Carle and Provena. Other than that, a major illness quickly becomes a threat to our ability to teach, work, and continue in our programs.

    The state of Illinois thus relies on charity to provide much of the healthcare for graduate employees. Added to the state's tendency to take months to reimburse local health providers, this represents yet another shameful situation created by the state's frequent failure to provide for even the most basic services of those who work and live in Illinois. It is a definite disincentive for the best graduate students to come to Illinois and to stay here after graduation so that the citizens of Illinois can benefit from the investment made in devloping our skills and talents.

  • McKinley Health Center's plans to cease offering sonogram services at the end of this year.   1 week 12 hours ago

    Putting pressure on Mckinely can work.  Contact them directly or write a commentary for N.G. or a letter-to-the editor.  I sent a letter on the 17th which was published on Christmass Eve., when most people don't look at the newspaper.  Such an irony, given the title they have chosen for the letter:  "dubious timing in revealing..."!  Here's the link for what it's worth:  http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2008/12/24/dubious_timing_in_revealing_health_cut

  • Obama Slam-Duncans Education   1 week 1 day ago

    ARNE DUNCAN CONT'D

     

    Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

    st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Chicago teacher Jesse Sharkey - In
    the past couple years, Arne Duncan has been turning public schools over
    to private operators ­ mainly in the form of charter and contract
    schools - at a rate of about 20 per year. Duncan
    has also resuscitated some of the worst 'school reform' ideas of the
    1990s, like firing all the teachers in low-performing schools (called
    'turnarounds'). At the same time, he's eliminated many Local School
    Councils and made crucial decisions without public input."

    To me, the thing that made Duncan's role clear came after three months of organizing at Senn High School, the community school where I teach, against the Chicago Board of Education's proposal to install a Naval Academy.
    After an inspiring campaign that involved literally hundreds of people
    in the biggest education organizing effort in the area in decades, we
    forced Duncan to come up to our neighborhood to listen to our case for
    keeping the military out of our school.

    More than 300 of us - parents, teachers, and community supporters -
    held a big meeting in a local church and, at the end of the meeting, we
    asked Duncan to postpone the decision to put the military school at Senn.

    Duncan's answer was a classic. He said: 'I come from a Quaker family, and I've always been against war. But I'm going to put the Naval Academy in there, because it will give people in the community more choices.'

     

    http://prorev.com/indexa.htm

  • Senate Report Links Bush to Detainee Homicides; Media Yawns   1 week 5 days ago

    Seasonal Forgiveness Has a Limit. Bush and His Cronies Must Face a Reckoning

    Heinous crimes are now synonymous with this US administration. If it isn't held to account, what does that say about us?

    by Jonathan Freedland

    'Tis the night before Christmas and the season of goodwill. The mood
    is forgiving. Our faces warm with mulled wine, our tummies full, we're
    meant to slump in the armchair, look back on the year just gone and
    count our blessings - woozily agreeing to put our troubles behind us.

    As
    in families, so in the realm of public and international affairs. And
    this December that feels especially true. The "war on terror" that
    dominated much of the decade seems to be heading towards a kind of
    conclusion. George Bush will leave office in a matter of weeks and
    British troops will leave Iraq a few months later. The first, defining
    phase of the conflict that began on 9/11 - the war of Bush, Tony Blair
    and Osama bin Laden - is about to slip from the present to the past
    tense. Bush and Blair will be gone, with only Bin Laden still in post.
    The urge to move on is palpable.

    You can sense it in the
    valedictory interviews Bush and Dick Cheney are conducting on their way
    out. They're looking to the verdict of history now, Cheney telling the
    Washington Times last week: "I myself am personally persuaded that this
    president and this administration will look very good 20 or 30 years
    down the road." The once raging arguments of the current era are about
    to fade, the lead US protagonists heading off to their respective
    ranches in the west, the rights and wrongs of their decisions in office
    to be weighed not in the hot arena of politics, but in the cool seminar
    rooms of the academy.

    Not so fast.

    Yes, the new year would
    get off to a more soothing start if we could all agree to draw a line
    and move on. But it would be wrong. First, because we cannot hope to
    avoid repeating the errors of the last eight years unless they are
    subject to a full accounting. (It is for that reason Britain needs its
    own full, unconstrained inquiry into the Iraq war.) Second, because a
    crucial principle, one that goes to the very heart of the American
    creed, is at stake. And third, because this is not solely about the
    judgment of history. It may be about the judgment of the courts -
    specifically those charged with punishing war crimes.

    Less than a
    fortnight ago, in the news graveyard of a Friday afternoon, the armed
    services committee of the US Senate released a bipartisan report - with
    none other than John McCain as its co-author - into the American use of
    torture against those held in the war on terror. It dismissed entirely
    the notion that the horrors of Abu Ghraib could be put down to "a few
    bad apples". Instead it laid bare, in forensic detail, the trail of
    memos and instructions that led directly to the then defence secretary,
    Donald Rumsfeld.

    The report was the fruit of 18 months of work,
    involving some 70 interviews. Most of it is classified, but even the
    29-page published summary makes horrifying reading. It shows how the
    most senior figures in the Bush administration discussed, and sought
    legal fig leaves for, practices that plainly amounted to torture. They
    were techniques devised in a training programme known as Survival,
    Evasion, Resistance and Escape or SERE, that aimed to teach elite
    American soldiers how to endure torture should they fall into the hands
    of pitiless enemies. The SERE techniques were partly modelled on the
    brutal methods used by the Chinese against US prisoners during the
    Korean war. Yet Rumsfeld ruled that these same techniques should be
    "reverse engineered", so that Americans would learn not how to endure
    them - but how to inflict them. Which they then did, at Guantánamo, Abu
    Ghraib and beyond.

    The Senate report cites the memorandums
    requesting permission to use "stress positions, exploitation of
    detainee fears (such as fear of dogs), removal of clothing, hooding,
    deprivation of light and sound, and the so-called wet towel treatment
    or the waterboard". We read of Mohamed al Kahtani - against whom all
    charges were dropped earlier this year - who was "deprived of adequate
    sleep for weeks on end, stripped naked, subjected to loud music, and
    made to wear a leash and perform dog tricks". Approval for this kind of
    torture, hidden under the euphemism of "enhanced interrogation", was
    sought from and granted at the highest level.

    And that doesn't
    mean Rumsfeld. The report's first conclusion is that, on "7 February
    2002, President George W Bush made a written determination that Common
    Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which would have afforded minimum
    standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al-Qaida or Taliban
    detainees". The result, it says, is that Bush "opened the door" to the
    use of a raft of techniques that the US had once branded barbaric and
    beyond the realm of human decency.

    For this Bush should surely be
    held to account. And yet there is no sign that he will, and precious
    little agitation that he should. A still smiling Cheney denies the Bush
    administration did anything wrong. Note this breathtaking exchange with
    Fox News at the weekend. He was asked: "If the president during war
    decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?" Cheney's
    answer: "General proposition, I'd say yes."

    It takes a few
    seconds for the full horror of that remark to sink in. And then you
    remember where you last heard something like it. It was the now
    immortalised interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon. The
    disgraced ex-president was asked whether there were certain situations
    where the president can do something illegal, if he deems it in the
    national interest. Nixon's reply: "Well, when the president does it,
    that means that it is not illegal."

    It is no coincidence that
    Cheney began his career in the Nixon White House. He has the same
    Nixonian disregard for the US constitution, the same belief that
    executive power is absolute and unlimited - that those who wield it are
    above the law, domestic and international. It is the logic of
    dictatorship.

    But Nixon was forced from office, his vision of an
    unrestrained presidency rejected. If Bush and Cheney are allowed to
    retire quietly, America will have failed to reassert that bedrock
    principle of the republic: the rule of law.

    This is why there
    must be a reckoning. Bush will do all he can to avoid it: and it is
    wholly possible that one of his last acts as president will be to cover
    himself, his vice-president and all his henchmen with a blanket pardon.
    Even if that does not happen, Barack Obama is unlikely to want to spend
    precious capital pursuing his predecessor for war crimes.

    But
    other prosecutors elsewhere in the world should weigh their
    responsibilities. In the end, it was a lone Spanish magistrate, not a
    Chilean court, who ensured the arrest of Augusto Pinochet. A pleasing,
    if uncharitable, thought this Christmas, is that Rumsfeld, Cheney and
    Bush will hesitate before making plans to travel abroad in 2009. Or
    indeed at any time - ever again.

     

    © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 The Guardian/UK

     

    Jonathan Freedland has been a columnist for the
    Guardian since 1997. He served for four years as the Guardian's
    Washington correspondent and US affairs remain a keen interest, along
    with British politics and the Middle East

  • Senate Report Links Bush to Detainee Homicides; Media Yawns   2 weeks 9 hours ago

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    December 22, 2008
    10:00 AM

    CONTACT: The Real News Network
    Taruna Godric, 416-916-5202 ext. 414
    smcommunications@therealnews.com

    Why Did Cheney Confess on National Television?
    Michael Ratner: Cheney's admission of guilt is a plea for a presidential pardon

    WASHINGTON - December 22 - The Real News spoke to Michael Ratner
    about Dick Cheney's statements regarding U.S. counter terrorism
    measures and whether the use of torture as well as illegal wiretapping
    has been successful. Dick Cheney acknowledged that he endorsed and
    supported such torture techniques including water-boarding. Ratner
    comments that "Cheney is running through a lot of the policies that
    have been condemned both in the United States as illegal and worldwide"

    "I
    think people should understand that this was a pretty astounding
    statement" says Ratner in response to Cheney's admission of illegal
    tortue techiniques, he continues adding "here you have the vice
    president of the United States saying it's okay to water board people
    and I approved it"

    According to Ratner these admissions are a
    last minute attempt for members of the Bush administration to receive a
    pardon before Obama is sworn in, "this interview is leading up and
    putting pressure on Bush to give pardons to Bush himself and the rest
    of them."

    For complete coverage of this story visit our website

     

    ###

    The Real News Network is
    a television news and documentary network focused on providing
    independent and uncompromising journalism. Our staff, in collaboration
    with courageous journalists around the globe, will investigate, report
    and debate stories on the critical issues of our times. We are viewer
    supported and do not accept advertising, government or corporate
    funding.

    The Real News Network Links: Homepage

  • Where Have the Bailout Billions Gone?   2 weeks 20 hours ago

    Where'd the Bailout Money Go?

    by Matt Apuzzo

    WASHINGTON – It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?

    But
    after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's
    largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the
    money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

    "We've
    lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any
    accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a
    spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

    The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion
    in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent?
    What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the
    plan for the rest?

    None of the banks provided specific answers.

    "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

    Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.

    "We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp.
    spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is
    not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of
    the financial bailout.

    The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.

    There
    has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers
    summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them
    to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses,
    junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make
    sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't
    comply.

    "It is entirely appropriate for
    the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent
    in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.

    But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.

    Pressured
    by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress
    attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And
    the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks
    how it would be spent.

    "Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member
    who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is
    the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we
    going to get a record on it?"

    Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America,
    two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic
    public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to
    strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit
    crisis.

    A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.

    But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

    "We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.

    Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp.,
    said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said
    taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida
    insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't
    being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal
    regardless.

    Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman
    Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on
    condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying:
    "We are going to decline to comment on your story."

    Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.

    "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.

    Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't
    share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't
    say that we're not going to discuss those details."

    The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc.,
    that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But
    neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money
    would be spent.

    Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the
    remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money
    before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.

    "What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to
    put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and
    then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a
    recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're
    going."

    Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said
    her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've
    spent the money.

    "It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.

    But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.

    "If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin
    with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be
    in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the
    basic information that should already be in public documents," she
    said.

    Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might
    never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

    "A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York and
    Christopher S. Rugaber and Daniel Wagner in Washington contributed to
    this report.

  • Where Have the Bailout Billions Gone?   2 weeks 20 hours ago

    AP Study Finds $1.6B Went to Bailed-Out Bank Execs

    by Frank Bass and Rita Beamish

    Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top
    executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits
    last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.

    The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold
    the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government
    rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank
    performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay
    packages.

    Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal
    use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club
    memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal
    securities documents found.

    The total amount given to nearly 600
    executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that
    have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines.

    Rep.
    Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a
    long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by
    the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which
    they are well paid in the first place.

    "Most of us sign on to do
    jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
    "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive
    positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"

    The
    AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks
    file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so
    far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:

    • The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
    • Lloyd
      Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took
      home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top
      five executives received a total of $242 million.

      This year,
      Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid
      executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the
      company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on
      executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as
      essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and
      judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their
      compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman
      Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.

      The
      New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss
      since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money
      on Oct. 28.

    • Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives
      were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can
      only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One
      Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his
      company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock
      options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in
      bailout money on Nov. 14.
    • John A. Thain, chief executive
      officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83
      million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer
      for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007,
      avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since
      he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15
      million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.

      Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.

    The
    AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the
    goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to
    buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush
    administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury
    Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent
    wholesale economic collapse.

    The program set restrictions on some
    executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit
    salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging
    excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden
    parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for
    tax purposes.

    Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions
    for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues.
    Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San
    Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its
    top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.

    At
    Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's
    stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his
    $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost
    $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses,
    including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in
    Manhattan, the company said.

    Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars
    and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its
    shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are
    important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs.

    JPMorgan
    Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab
    last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New
    York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds.

    Banks cite
    security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some
    executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned that rationale,
    saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the
    nation's security-conscious commercial air terminals.

    Sherman, a
    member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses
    undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an
    escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions -
    something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue
    money.

    He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds.

    "The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout," he said.

    ___

    On the Net:

    SEC Filings & Forms: http://www.sec.gov

    Emergency Economic Stabilization Act: http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/eesa/

    © 2008 the Associated Press

     

  • making progress on transparency in Urbana   2 weeks 1 day ago

    Please note:

    1.   the drive for transparency was a coalition effort of greens, libertarians, AWARE members, and IMC members, as well as the "paulistas" of which you are so fond.

    2.  if you watched the video you could discover that the  city did start putting the comprehensive budget on the internet AFTER the coalition asked for it, and BECAUSE we asked for it.

    3.  there is almost no limit to what one can accomplish if one is not concerned about who gets credit for it.   

    4. the resolution is not EMPTY because it does get in writing a policy statement to continue posting the items on the internet.  The city council recognized the value of this and passed the resolution

    5. the person referred to by the mayor as being "mad about being outvoted" was a Green who is a member of  IMC.

    6.  i do believe that it is important that the public see this video and understand the response  of the mayor to a simple request for a "good government" measure from the people. 

    Again, this was a coalition effort by a broader spectrum group encouraging good government, not just an effort by "Paulistas".

     

  • making progress on transparency in Urbana   2 weeks 2 days ago

    I don't see this as "totally empty" for a number of reasons.

    It was supported by the Libertarians, the Greens, a large chunk of Democrats, and probably some Republicans, too. Mr. Smyth felt is was important enough to have this go down on record, rather than to trust it to the whims of this or a future city government.

    I very much appreciate the fact that Mr. Smyth and the others on the council who supported going on the record with the resolution put principle before accomodating the mayor's wishes. 

    Even the mayor, for all her fire and brimstone, thought it was a big enough deal to complain mightily about it. If it is so empty, the best thing to do would have been to ignore it. She could not. She seems to feel she needs to throw her metaphorical chairs in public, unlike the last mayor, who liked to pitch real chairs in private when POed.

    And I see no reason why this couldn't have gone before the people in the form of a referendum, other than that this idea was "not invented here" by the mayor herself.

    I believe it's also the case that there has been some expansion of the city info available online in Urbana. Of almost equal importance is making the user experience on Urbana's website better. It causes me problems every time I use it, too many bells and whistles, I suppose. It certainly suffers by comparison to the Champaign County website, which isn't perfect, but is a damn sight better than the city's.

    From what I've seen of the mayor's histrionics, this is far more about trying to maintain a monopolistic majority than anything else. Whether or not she wants to admit it, Urbana would be far better off if IRV was enacted, because that would ensure a progressive majority, instead of only a Democratic majority. The mayor seems to insist on retaining exclusive control of power for the Democrats, instead of being willing to work across a broader and deeper coalition. So be it. The more energy she puts into that, the farther the fall when change comes.

  • Obama Slam-Duncans Education   2 weeks 2 days ago

    FLOTSAM & JETSAM: FLUNKIN' DUNCAN

     

    Sam Smith

    If
    we're going to insist on judging our children primarily by how well
    they score on tests, we should probably do the same for education
    secretary nominees. The problem is that it spoils the fantasy that the
    major media has been creating around Arne Duncan. Still, turnabout is
    fair play, so here are a few of the results.

    Duncan was named
    head of the Chicago schools the middle of 2001. The following results
    of the National Assessment of Educational Progress cover 2002-2007. To
    summarize what has happened in Chicago schools: not much. Bear in mind,
    that even where there has been improvement, it has amounted to less
    than a 1% increase in test scores over a five year period.

    Fourth grade reading

    Scores
    were 3 points higher in 2007 compared with 2005 and 8 points higher
    than in 2002. Total change: less than one half of one percent.

    The 2007 score was lower than that of public schools in large central cities

    Eighth grade reading

    Scores were one point higher than in 2002.

    Fourth grade math

    Between 2003 and 2007 scores rose 6 points, or less than three tenths of a percent.

    The scores in Chicago rose only 2 more points than in the state of Illinois at large.

    Black students gained 6 points, Hispanics 2 points, and whites nine points.

    Eighth grade math

    Scores rose 5 points in Chicago and 7 points nationwide between 2003 and 2007

    Blacks gained 2 points, latinos gained 6 points and whites gained 11 points.

    Duncan
    - like DC's school chancellor Michelle Rhee - has fostered a
    dysfunctional rightwing, corporatized system of education that not only
    isn't working, it is damaging our children as it trains them to be
    obedient worker-drones incapable of analyzing or understanding what is
    really going on about them. This system is being enabled by the same
    media that for three decades enabled a dysfunctional rightwing,
    corporatized economic system that finally collapsed in 2008.

    The dangers of this system include:

    - Teaching our children only to give the right answers and not to ask the right questions.

    -
    Grossly limiting education to fact accumulation and basic manipulation
    of data, leaving little time for analysis, creativity, judgment,
    philosophy, gaining social intelligence, as well as learning about, and
    participating in, the non-mechanical aspects of life such as art,
    theater and music. This system deliberately teaches our children not to
    think.

    - Through the use of charter schools, turning public education into what was known in earlier times as pauper schools.

    -
    Damaging communities by destroying schools, institutions that not only
    served students but their parents and provided commonality in ever more
    atomized urban areas.

    http://prorev.com/indexa.htm