New Jersey Rated Least Corrupt State By Watch Dog Group

Fuggedaboutit: NJ rated least corrupt state gov't


A nationwide study finds state governments lack transparency and accountability to citizens, and remain at high risk for corruption.

In the ranking, not a single state received an A from the probe, done by the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity.

There's a surprising state atop the list of most transparent and accountable governments: New Jersey.

Despite — or perhaps because of — recent corruption scandals, New Jersey gets the top ranking because of steps it took to combat corruption, including tough ethics and anti-corruption laws it adopted in response.

The report states: "The strong ethics rules were signed into law at the end of the 2004-05 legislative session. They were, in part, a reaction to the abbreviated, scandal-plagued administration of Gov. Jim McGreevey."

Reporters in each state researched 330 corruption risk indicators across 14 government categories.

Eight states got an F. They are: North Dakota, Michigan, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota and Georgia.

On Georgia, the worst-ranked state, the report claims that while the Peach State does have good ethics laws on the books, numerous reports of people and companies circumventing those laws "underscore what can sometimes be a gaping divide between Georgia's legal standards for public accountability, on the one hand, and everyday practice."

To see how your state did, visit the full report here.


Report: Most states do poor job in guarding against Corruption


Most American states are doing a subpar job in protecting against corruption and assuring accountability, according a study released Monday.

The joint report -- from the Global Integrity nonprofit advocacy group, Public Radio International and Center for Public Integrity investigative news organization -- used data on a host of measures to score all 50 states.

No state received an A grade, while five got Bs and 19 were given Cs.

The majority got grades that would be considered not passing in American schools, including 18 Ds and eight with failing grades.

"What's behind the dismal grades? Across the board, state ethics, open records and disclosure laws lack one key feature: teeth," said an overview of the report written by Caitlin Ginley from the Center for Public Integrity.

The report assessed 330 "Corruption Risk Indicators" across 14 aspects of government such as ethics enforcement, lobbying disclosure, auditing practices and executive, legislative and judicial accountability.

The top-ranked state, after an analysis of these measures, was New Jersey.

It got a score of 87, equivalent to a B+. It was followed closely by Connecticut.

The only three other states earned above-average scores of B- or better: Washington, California and Nebraska.

On the other end of the spectrum was Georgia, which ranked at the bottom of the report's rankings when it came to transparency and accountability.

Citing one reason for Georgia's failing grade, the report claimed "more than 650 government employees accepted gifts from vendors doing business with the state in 2007 and 2008" despite this being a clear violation of state ethics laws -- adding that the state hadn't issued a related penalty since 1999.

The Peach State wasn't alone in scoring an F. It was joined by South Dakota, Wyoming, Virginia, Maine, South Carolina, North Dakota and Michigan.

The report's overview notes that low grades in some sparsely populated Western or Plains states may be attributable to "libertarian roots, a small-town, neighborly approach and the honest belief that 'everybody knows everybody' (that) has overridden any perceived need for strong protections in law."

But overall, the study concludes that many failings are preventable, whether by giving more power to ethics boards, bolstering penalties, increasing openness and transparency, or taking stronger measures to decrease the influence of money in politics.

This is despite some public steps in recent years aimed ostensibly at fighting corruption.

"State officials make lofty promises when it comes to ethics in government.

They tout transparency of legislative processes, accessibility of records and the openness of public meetings. But these efforts often fall short of providing any real transparency or legitimate hope of rooting out corruption," wrote Ginley.
The report offers a number of examples.

One is former West Virginia Gov. Arch Moore, in office for three terms in the 1970s and 1980s, who went to a local dealership and took a car on a "test drive" and ended up keeping it for four years, while the dealership earned state contracts.

Then, the report references a North Carolina legislator who owned five billboards and sponsored a bill to loosen billboard construction regulations, with an ethics commission finding no violations. And it also faults a Tennessee ethics commission that hasn't issued a penalty in its six years in existence and that doesn't make complaints available to the public.

Scandals and a history of political corruption can be prime drivers of effective reforms, according to the report, which points to the positive measures taken in New Jersey, Illinois and Louisiana.

It also credits widespread improvements in transparency, in which legislation and "some government records are easier to retrieve than ever." But Ed Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics says in the report that such information often isn't presented in an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand format.

Ginley, in the report's overview, also claims the study found that "lobbyists find ways" around even retooled laws and that "across the board, enforcement is weak."

"When it comes to money, influence and power in state government, interest groups and big-money donors will find ways around just about any limit," she wrote.


North Carolina: The story behind the score

When an influential North Carolina lawmaker named Stephen LaRoque helped sponsor and pass a 2011 bill loosening regulations on billboards, he was the co-owner of five billboards and president of a firm that owned four others.

But when LaRoque asked the North Carolina Ethics Commission to review his key legislative role, it found no conflict, citing what it called a “safe harbor” stemming from the fact that his law would benefit everyone owning billboards.

The case reflected what many analysts say is the prevailing state of North Carolina’s ethics regulations: A lengthy set of rules has been enacted to help keep public officials honest, but enforcement has sometimes not been strict. They also complain that the extensive rules haven’t adequately curbed the influence of monied interests on state policymaking.

North Carolina –a state of 9.7 million residents that will host the Democratic National Convention in September — ranks 18tth with a grade of C- and a score of 71 percent from the State Integrity Investigation, a collaborative project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International.

No state received an A, but North Carolina ranked lower than many others on measures of its public access to information, executive accountability, state budget processes, and its procurement. It bested all other states on its lobbying disclosure rules.

Many of its ethics requirements stem from legislation enacted in 2006, following a major scandal in which a powerful lawmaker bribed a rank-and-file legislator. In exchange for his vote the legislator received campaign donations and a government job for his son. A smaller package of changes was enacted in 2010, boosting disclosure requirements and imposing stiffer penalties for illegal fundraising.

The ethics legislation was “a breakthrough, a quantum jump in the way all kinds of things are regulated,” said Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, a non-partisan group that promotes government accountability. “We improved our regulation of the whole system.”

There have been some notable accomplishments, signaling the determination of some officials to punish ethics violators: In 2007 the two politicians involved in the bribe went to prison, in 2008 a legislator was expelled for violating ethics rules, and in 2010 a former governor pleaded guilty to a felony campaign law violation.

But campaign financing loopholes remain, enforcement is dispersed among several state agencies and commissions, and critics say the Ethics Commission – the principal body charged with policing conflict of interest standards —lacks sufficient staff and authority to punish violators.

“For the most part, they lack teeth,” said Frank Perry, a former Ethics Commission staff member who now directs investigations for the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service, a North Carolina watchdog group. “They could be a serious force in preventing and exposing and attacking corruption, and sadly we don’t have any proof that they’re doing it.”

The Commission – with four members appointed by the governor and four by the legislature — oversees the filing of financial disclosure reports, issues advisory opinions to officials, and launches a few investigations every year in response to complaints.

But its actions are mostly confidential, and the most severe punishment it can issue is a private admonishment. The Commission also can refer cases to the Governor, legislative leaders, or other elected officials for further action, but it never has done so. The Commission received more than 300 complaints between 2006 and 2010, and investigated fewer than twenty.

Commission Executive Director Perry Newson said most complaints are dismissed because they lack adequate factual support; in some cases, complainants refuse to reveal their identities and sign sworn statements, as the law requires.

But Chris Fitzsimon of NC Policy Watch, the group that first called attention to LaRoque’s financial interests, says the commission “seems to be unwilling to issue firm rulings that might not be in the interest of public officials.”

In LaRoque’s case, his group noted, two state officials with ties to billboards withdrew from a mandated review of the law’s implementation, citing their own conflicts of interest. Of the ethics commission decision to approve LaRoque’s role, Fitzsimon said, “That’s a very narrow interpretation of ethics laws.”

A different state government agency – the Board of Elections — administers campaign finance laws, while the Judicial Standards Commission governs judges’ behavior; legislative ethics committees investigate allegations against members of the General Assembly; the Secretary of State regulates lobbyists; and an elected State Auditor serves as a general government watchdog.

Recent efforts by state leaders to combine agencies and clarify their duties have provoked turf battles and partisan debates, partly because some of the regulatory boards are controlled by Democrats and others by Republicans.

But persistent confusion over enforcement authority was highlighted in January 2012, when a judge acquitted a lobbyist for a steel importer and other firms of charges that he had failed to register properly with the Secretary of State. The judge said the law is ambiguous and that the Secretary lacked authority to impose a $30,000 fine.

Scandal provokes reforms

The lobbying reforms, for which North Carolina scored the best, grew out of a 2002 encounter in the men’s room at an International House of Pancakes in Salibury.

Present were two state legislators: Democratic Rep. Jim Black, who was desperate for power, and Republican Rep. Michael Decker, who was desperate for money.

Black needed one more legislator’s vote to be elected a third time as Speaker of the House. In the IHOP bathroom, as Decker later admitted in federal court, he agreed to provide it in exchange for $50,000 in campaign donations and a job for his son.

The deal was part of a pattern of corruption involving Black, investigators eventually concluded. The former speaker pleaded guilty to accepting money from industry groups in exchange for legislation and admitted to the State Board of Elections that he collected blank checks from donors. By 2007, both he and Decker were in federal prison.

Other North Carolina politicians, meanwhile, spent campaign money on children’s clothing, home repairs, and merchandise from Victoria’s Secret. Lobbyists not only raised funds for politicians’ campaigns, but invited them to sports events and golf outings, and picked up the checks for legislators who ate at expensive restaurants near the capitol.

“One lobbyist told me that if he took three legislators out to dinner, three others legislators would send their checks over to him,” said Jane Pinsky of the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform. “There were legislators who thought it was their prerogative to be wined and dined.”

State legislators responded to the disclosures of these acts by prohibiting the personal use of campaign funds, banning gifts from lobbyists, and establishing the ethics commission.

The ethics law also restricted contributions and gifts from lobbyists to elected officials.

While Pinsky said the revised law still has a few loopholes that allow lobbyists to entertain lawmakers, there’s no longer a culture of lavish hand-outs.

“Lobbyists and legislators work really hard to make sure they don’t cross the line,” she said. “I don’t think that everyone even saw the line before.”

Loopholes and gaps remain

The law has a few holes in it. Lobbyists no longer can buy meals for individual legislators, but still can sponsor receptions for large groups of lawmakers. Benefactors also can treat public officials to trips or outings that are classified as “educational meetings.”

Though lobbyists no longer personally can contribute to political campaigns, the political action committees or interest groups that employ lobbyists are free to donate when the legislature is out of session or on recess. Political parties and caucus committees also have taken a more active role in funneling money to individual candidates, allowing politicians to bypass some of the fundraising restrictions.

“Every time I think we’ve done something smart, they do something at least as smart if not smarter,” Pinsky said. “There’s a level of corruption that has to do with the campaign finance system and the way money dominates politics…that has not gone away,” said Hall of Democracy North Carolina.

Public officials still engage in “pay to play” – in which major donors are rewarded with favorable legislation, state contracts, or appointments to powerful government boards and commissions.

“They put in an inordinate amount of money and have special status,” Hall said of big campaign contributors, noting that relatively small industries, such as video poker operators, have gained influence in state government by showering politicians with donations.

He recently documented how contributions from the commercial finance industry helped Republicans win control in 2010 of both houses of the legislature for the first time since the late 1800’s. Months later, GOP leaders tried to fast-track a bill allowing the industry to charge consumers higher interest rates.

“There was over $100,000 in small donations from commercial lending outfits going to targeted Republican challengers who became the majority,” Hall said. “It looks like a pay to play."

The funds were part of a large infusion of money in 2010 from wealthy conservatives, often to advocacy groups and think tanks, which prompted the New Yorker magazine to profile North Carolina politics in October 2011 under the headline, “State for Sale.”

Leaders of both parties still reward their contributors with appointments to powerful government boards and commissions, such as the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, the Wildlife Commission, and the Board of Transportation. The transportation board “acts like an ATM machine for the governor and other state politicians,” Hall wrote in a 2008 report.

“I think the reforms that we put in place, the reporting that we put in place, and the penalties that we put in place are working pretty well,” said Democratic Rep. Joe Hackney, who sponsored the 2006 ethics bill, then succeeded Jim Black as House Speaker in 2007. “We’ve demonstrated that we will take action.”

Hackney notes that during his tenure as Speaker, the House of Representatives expelled a member for violating ethics rules – the first time in more than a hundred years a North Carolina legislator was forced from office.

A legislative ethics committee concluded that Rep. Thomas Wright – a top lieutenant of Jim Black – failed to report $180,000 in campaign contributions and mishandled a similar amount of money in loans and charitable contributions. Wright is now imprisoned for fraud and obstruction of justice.

Since then, another North Carolina House member resigned amid an investigation of questionable campaign spending, the State Board of Elections assessed almost a million dollars in fines and penalties against politicians who violated campaign finance laws, and in 2010 former governor Mike Easley pleaded guilty to a felony for failing to report a contribution.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Fox News, State Integrity.org, Google Maps

Ron Paul Gaining Steam At 2011 Ames Iowa Straw Poll; Major Threat To Romney & Perry (Videos)

Ron Paul could be a surprise victor in Ames straw poll

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has long been regarded as a somewhat entertaining distraction in his two presidential races over the past four years.

But, on the eve of the Ames Straw Poll, the first major organizing test of the 2012 Republican presidential race, there is a strain of thinking that Paul could seriously challenge the likes of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty for supremacy on Saturday.

“He’s got the supporter passion of a Bachmann with the organization of a Pawlenty,” said one senior Iowa Republican strategist unaffiliated with any of the campaigns. “He builds on 2007 and the caucus last time, and I think he can turn out the 3,000 votes he needs to win.”

The idea of a Paul straw poll victory — while beginning to be discussed more openly — is still far from expected.

Pawlenty has gone all out — organizationally and financially — to make his mark at Ames, recognizing that if he can’t win or come in a very close second it could very well spell the end of his campaign.

Bachmann, too, is making a major play at Ames — her Friday schedule is packed with five events designed to rally supporters in advance of the straw poll — and, if polling is to be believed, she looks something close to a frontrunner in the Iowa caucuses next year.

The conventional wisdom on the ground in Iowa is that Paul, Bachmann and Pawlenty will finish in the win, place and show slots — with Bachmann still regarded as the most likely first place finisher.

But, Paul is clearly hoping to make his mark; his campaign paid $31,000 for the prime spot at tomorrow’s straw poll (right outside the Hilton Coliseum where the voting takes place) — the same plot of land that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney staked out in 2007 when he won the straw poll.

Despite that spending, Paul’s campaign team is doing everything they can to lower expectations.

“Michele is pushing full force, Tim Pawlenty has an expensive team of top-drawer consultants and Mitt Romney, the national front runner, is working hard behind the scenes,” said Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton. “We hope to do well, compete with these big names and finish right there with them in the top four.”

Paul’s chances of pulling off an upset are entirely contingent on the number of people of voting. As he has demonstrated by winning a series of straw votes over the past few years, he has a very dedicated group of supporters who would walk over hot coals — maybe literally — for him.

But Paul has also shown — and he did it again in the debate last night — that he has little interest in expanding beyond that base of people. As the electorate gets larger the ability of Paul’s supporters to dominate it recedes. It’s why he didn’t win a single primary or caucus in the 2008 race.

The operative question in assessing Paul’s chances at winning at Ames tomorrow is just how many people will show up.

Virtually no one expects turnout to come near the 1999 Straw Poll when nearly 24,000 people voted thanks to heavy spending by both then Texas Gov. George W. Bush and wealthy businessman Steve Forbes. Bush won the vote that year with 7,418 votes — a massive total that may not be eclipsed for some time to come.

The two more likely voter universe estimates are 2007 and 1995.

In 2007, 14,000 people voted with Romney emerging victorious with 4,516 votes. (Paul finished fifth in that straw ballot with 1,305 votes.)

In 1995, just 10,500 voted as then Sens. Bob Dole (Kans.) and Phil Gramm (Texas) tied for first place by each winning 2,582 votes.

The 3,500 vote difference between overall turnout in 1995 and 2007 may make all the difference in assessing Paul’s chances of winning.

In a 1995 turnout model, 3,000 votes for any one candidate is likely to win it and several smart strategists in the state believe Paul could get to that number. In the 2007 turnout model, though, 3,000 isn’t enough votes to win — although it would likely guarantee Paul a top three finish.

“Turnout under 12,000 favors Ron Paul,” said one veteran GOP straw poll watcher. “Turnout over 14,000 favors Bachmann.”

There is little expectation that a Paul victory at Ames — even if did come to pass — would mean much of anything in the race to come.

Turnout for next year’s caucuses in Iowa could be as much as ten times that of Ames and, as we noted above, Paul struggles in larger electorates. “He won’t win the caucuses or be the nominee, but it will be a recognition that Iowans are looking for someone who will offer bold answers on our fiscal crisis,” said one Iowa Republican strategist.




Rep. Ron Paul Campaigns in Iowa With Son Sen. Rand Paul in Tow

For the first time since Congressman Ron Paul announced in May that he will be running for president, he was joined on the campaign trail by his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The two made four stops across Iowa on Wednesday -- speaking on how a Ron Paul presidency would be beneficial to America.

They started their day in Mason City, Iowa – but ABC News caught up with the father-son duo in Waterloo, Iowa. Ron and Rand Paul spoke to a crowd of about 50 people during a lunchtime meet and greet.

Ron Paul had an optimistic assessment of the current economic condition in America, saying that the financial turmoil is temporary. He then presented proposals for what he would do as president to correct the ship, one of which includes eliminating the capital gains tax.

ABC News asked Congressman Paul about President Obama's view that spending cuts alone can't fix American's long-term deficit situation, and that we need to also look at increasing revenue.

"We need to know what the role of government ought to be -- Obama probably endorses entitlements as rights," said Ron Paul. "We can get there -- we can cut entitlements."

Sen. Rand Paul took the microphone and said: "Democrats have to admit that entitlements and welfare need to be reformed. Social spending needs to go down and Republicans need to admit that military spending needs to go down. They say the Tea Party won't compromise -- we will compromise."

When pressed by ABC News about a long-term deficit deal by this Congress -- Ron Paul says there will be something -- but it will have no meaning.

"It will not reassure the markets -- it will not cause us to have a strong dollar and it will not revive the economy," he said.

At the day's third campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, ABC News asked what he would specifically do on day one of his presidency to create jobs. He pointed out the need to control the regulatory system and the tax code -- but offered no specifics. Rand Paul then took the microphone and offered a clearer articulation of his father's vision, specifically pointing out the need to lower corporate tax rates in America.

At the final campaign stop in Des Moines, ABC News caught up with Rep. Paul and asked him about the one clear difference between him and Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has been getting a lot of media attention and, in some polls, is leading Paul.

"I approach this differently than all the other candidates -- Republicans or Democrats," said Paul. "I defend individual liberty in a different way. I am the one that says, 'War -- there is too much of it.' They are undeclared. It's time to end war."

"I am the one that says, 'I'm sick and tired of this Patriot Act -- this pretence to destroy our individual liberties and molest us at the airport.' None of the other candidates are saying that. How many of the other candidates are going to talk about the financial situation and tie it into the reality of the Federal Reserve? Those views are different from other views, and it's my strong defense of liberty that separates me from other candidates."


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, AP, Fox News, Politico, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Bank Of America Prepares For Assange's Wikileaks Attack

Bank of America Executive: We're Preparing For Wikileaks


A senior Bank of America executive Wednesday suggested the company is prepared to deal with a possible release of internal documents by WikiLeaks in part because the bank has been through similar public disclosures before.

Anne Finucane, head of global strategy and marketing for Charlotte-based Bank of America, said in a speech in Boston that the company has already endured grueling government investigations that resulted in the public release of executives' e-mails and other internal documents.

"I don't think there's a company that has had more leaks, more of our information provided to congressional hearings, attorneys general ... etc.," said Finucane, referring to investigations by Congress and regulators over its controversial acquisition of failing investment bank Merrill Lynch in January 2009.

"We have been out there pretty much 24-7, whether those of us who run communications like it or not, and we have learned not only to react, but deal with this as a given," she added.

Among the material that came out during a congressional investigation of Bank of America's Merrill acquisition was an e-mail one bank director wrote to another director about the company's decision to slash its dividend: "Unfortunately, it's screw the shareholders!!" Another note by the same director suggested the company was forced by the government to complete the Merrill deal.

In February, Bank of America agreed to settle a separate investigation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it failed to properly disclose to investors the size of losses at Merrill Lynch, as well as bonuses Merrill employees would be receiving. The company agreed to pay $150 million and strengthen its corporate governance and disclosure practices.

Finucane spoke Wednesday before a women's networking breakfast sponsored by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. She made only a fleeting reference to the brewing controversy with WikiLeaks and spoke mainly about how Bank of America tried to respond to the financial crisis, as well as of her own career path to one of the top jobs in the nation's largest bank.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Forbes magazine last month that the nonprofit group, which released a huge cache of sensitive U.S. diplomatic correspondence this week, plans to release thousands of documents from a major U.S. bank early next year, spurring speculation that Bank of America could be the target.

Assange did not identify the bank. But in a separate interview 13 months ago, Assange told Computerworld magazine that his organization had obtained a five-gigabyte hard drive from an unidentified Bank of America executive. Still, Bank of America said it has no contact with WikiLeaks and is unable to verify the assertion that WikiLeaks has an employee's hard drive.

"We can assume it's us, but we don't know it's us, because we've had no further evidence beyond what we have read and heard," Finucane said.

Finucane is the only member of Bank of America's senior executive committee based in Boston. Chief executive Brian Moynihan lives in Massachusetts, but is officially based in Charlotte.

Finucane's responsibilities include overseeing Bank of America's vast philanthropic efforts. In her speech Wednesday, she said Bank of America has several priorities for its charitable giving: economic development, cultural institutions, and social services. For instance, Finucane noted the bank recently donated $10 million to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, which just opened a new wing to public acclaim.

Overall, Bank of America has said it plans to give away about $12 million by the end of this year to nonprofit organizations and other groups in Massachusetts, up from $9 million a year six years ago when it acquired FleetBoston, then New England's largest bank.

"Happily, we have been able to increase our community relations and philanthropy over the last several years," Finucane said.






Exclusive: WikiLeaks Will Unveil Major Bank Scandal


First WikiLeaks spilled the guts of government.

Next up: The private sector, starting with one major American bank.

In an exclusive interview earlier this month, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Forbes that his whistleblower site will release tens of thousands of documents from a major U.S. financial firm in early 2011. Assange wouldn’t say exactly what date, what bank, or what documents, but he compared the coming release to the emails that emerged in the Enron trial, a comprehensive look at a corporation’s bad behavior.


Read on....“WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Wants To Spill Your Corporate Secrets”.


View Larger Map


Sources: Boston.com, CNBC, Emirates247, Forbes.com, Life.com, McClatchy Newspapers, Young Turks, WCNC, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Signs Executive Order To Control Churches & Faith-Based Organizations

Obama Signs Order To Reform Faith-Based Office


President Obama signed an executive order Wednesday (Nov. 17) that reforms the White House's Faith-based office in a bid to improve transparency and clarify rules for Religious groups that receive federal grants.

The nine-page order reflects numerous recommendations made more than six months ago by a blue-ribbon advisory council charged with streamlining and reforming the office created under former President George W. Bush.

"The recommendations that they've put forth make really concrete and tangible improvements to the government's relationship with faith-based organizations," said Joshua DuBois, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

The executive order, however, does not address controversial questions of whether grant recipients can hire and fire based on religion. Administration officials have said those questions will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

DuBois and others said the new order gives better legal footing to public-private partnerships. "It ... clarifies that decisions about financial awards must be free from political interference or the appearance thereof," DuBois said.

In particular, the order reflects the council's special concern about the treatment of people who receive social services from a religious group receiving federal funding.

"The government has a responsibility to give a referral to a nonreligious program if the beneficiary objects to the religious program they're in," DuBois said in explaining the order.

Melissa Rogers, who chaired the advisory council, said the order both continues and changes the work begun under Bush. For example, grant recipients may continue offering services in buildings containing religious symbols, but will be required to provide beneficiaries with written information about their rights.

"In the case of Social Service beneficiaries, that's been a real worry for many of us, that they might not know what their rights are," Rogers said.

Responding to recommendations for greater transparency, the order calls for agencies to post rules affecting religious organizations online, as well as lists of federal grant recipients.

Rogers said such steps may dispel notions there is a "pot of gold" waiting solely for religious groups that apply for grants.

"By having all this easily accessible, it heightens the chances that we'll be able to demystify the process and watch the process," she said.

Obama's order implements most of the dozen reform recommendations crafted by the council's task force on internal reform, which included a former Bush administration staffer and church-state separationists.

With the new order in place, DuBois said "well over half" of the council's total 64 recommendations -- on topics ranging from poverty to interfaith relations -- will have been implemented.

Other council members, who represent both conservative and liberal religious organizations, said they were pleased with the order.

"President Obama has advanced America's social welfare sector and protected constitutional principles," said Nathan Diament, the top Washington lobbyist for Orthodox Jewish congregations.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said the new rules will "set the faith-based initiative on far firmer constitutional ground, and give much broader protections to both religious institutions and the beneficiaries than they've had so far."

The order calls for a new Interagency working group that will issue Guidance to Federal agencies within 120 days.

DuBois said new members of an advisory council, who will succeed the group that finished its work in March, will be announced "as soon as possible."


Sources: Huffington Post

Pres. Obama Pledges He'll Return American Gov't To Voters...Weekly Address

Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Youtube

Obama Talks Tough About Wall Street Reform..Weekly Address

Obama's Weekly Address: Holding Wall Street Accountable

The strongest Consumer Protections ever.

Bringing Transparency to financial dealings.

Closing loopholes to stop recklessness and irresponsibility.

Holding Wall Street accountable and giving shareholders new power in the financial system.

President Obama lays out what Wall Street Reform is about, and questions whether opposition from the Senate Republican Leader might have something to do with his recent meeting with Wall Street executives.



Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Youtube

Eric Davis: CMS Board Chair Calls For Transparency, Public Input

CMS Board Chair: We Want More Transparency, Public Input


Eric Davis became a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools' Board Member and Board Chairman in December 2009.

He recently answered the Observer's Sunshine Week questions about public records by e-mail. (Questions and answers are edited.)

Q. In the past few years, CMS has been putting more information online for public review. What do you see as the best steps toward Public Access and Accountability?

In my opinion, we do a good job achieving the right degree of transparency. Obviously, we cannot communicate items such as individual personnel or student records because of privacy concerns. But we do want the public involved in our schools, and having access to information and having a voice in the direction of our schools is an important part of that process.

The fact that we've gone beyond what the law requires in many instances is evidence of our intent to be as transparent as possible.

In addition to online access, board members and the CMS Superintendent are engaged across our community in small group and town hall meetings, not to mention hundreds of e-mails and phone conversations. This extremely personal communication demonstrates our commitment to Public Access and Accountability.

Q. Until recently, you were outside the system trying to figure it out. Where do you see room for improving public access?

By virtue of being so large - 137,000 students, 176 schools - CMS can be overwhelming at times. So can our Web site. We are constantly working on improvements to the district's Web site that will make it more accessible and user-friendly. The district is also beginning to use some of the social media to connect with even more citizens.

In addition, I see an opportunity to improve public input to student-assignment planning. Last fall, many parents provided thoughtful, practical solutions that could be included in our planning process. We are working to provide clear, effective planning information and public engagement earlier in the process in order to benefit from the creativity of our fellow citizens.

Q. When Peter Gorman became superintendent, he notified the board - and by extension, reporters who had requested copies of correspondence -- about all sorts of incidents in schools, from fights and weapons to teachers disciplined for improper conduct. After about a year, he noted that this was generating bad publicity for CMS, and the reports tapered off.

Now "incident reports" generally go out only after reporters start asking about an episode. Do you think CMS has struck the right balance, or should the district volunteer more real-time information about problems in schools?

Incident reports are sent regardless of whether a reporter makes a request. The CMS communications department sends incident reports when the incident is determined to meet the standard for board notification, and when the facts have been verified.

We are very careful to verify our incident reports because we don't want to needlessly alarm families, or report erroneous information. Even in a 24-hour news cycle, an error that makes its way into the media is likely to stay there. We want media coverage of CMS to be accurate.

The district's management of incident reports strikes the right balance.

Q. Last year's layoffs generated intense interest, and intense difference of opinion over what should be released.

Some people were angry that CMS fulfilled media requests for payroll information and lists of people who lost jobs to the "reduction in force." Others wanted more information about who lost jobs and what cause was given. It looks like another round of layoffs is imminent. Do you foresee any changes in what information CMS will release?

No, I don't expect any changes there. We are required by law to provide the kind of payroll information and lists that were given the media last year because we're funded with tax dollars. The district follows the law, which balances employee privacy rights with the right of the public to know how its tax dollars are spent.

We will continue to provide the information that is required when employees are laid off while protecting our employees' privacy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Charlotte Schools Block Black Kids From Attending AP Classes


Students in Charlotte-Mecklenburg's high-poverty schools face an "opportunity gap" in access to college-level classes, says a report from a citizen advisory panel being presented today.

Students at several low-poverty suburban schools can choose from more than 20 Advanced Placement subjects this school year, while students at four high-poverty schools have fewer than 10, the report says.

The Equity Committee, appointed by the school board, spent the past year looking at Advanced Placement along with services for students who don't speak English well. The recommendations, designed to boost equal opportunity, are likely to clash with budget-cutting plans.

For instance, the panel recommends that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools do more to increase AP offerings at the high-poverty schools, where most students are Black or Hispanic. The panel also calls for more minority enrollment in AP courses at all schools. But a consultant advising CMS on the likelihood of budget cuts for 2010-11 has suggested cutting some AP classes with low enrollment to focus on boosting basic skills.

"We're just in challenging times right now," said board Vice Chair Tom Tate. "I think that the board is going to have some pretty interesting debate on this."

AP Challenge

AP offerings range from 25 subjects at South Mecklenburg High to seven at Waddell, the report says. Even at schools such as Mallard Creek High and Northwest School of the Arts, which have large numbers of middle-class black students, AP classes are disproportionately white.

Taking AP classes can help students get into competitive universities, and students who earn high scores on the exams can get college credit. "The lack of a diverse range of core and elective AP courses at all schools raises serious equity concerns," the report says.

CMS offers other college-level options, including classes hosted by Central Piedmont Community College and advanced classes in International Baccalaureate magnets. The report did not look at those.

High-poverty high schools tend to have lower enrollments and more students struggling to meet graduation requirements, both of which can make it challenging to fill AP classes. For instance, Waddell offered 10 options on its "enrollment card" last winter but ended up only teaching seven, the report says.

But those schools also have successful college-bound students. The equity panel recommends offering a set number of AP courses at each school, even if enrollment is low, and urges schools to "actively recruit and place students in those courses."

The report says white students make up 37 percent of CMS's high-school students but account for 62 percent those taking of AP exams. Minority students may be hindered by home support, peer culture or low expectations in lower grades, the report says. Recommendations range from recruiting AP teachers "of various ethnic backgrounds" to "cluster(ing) students of racial groups in AP courses in order to provide peer support."

Language Barrier

On students with limited English skills, the report notes that some schools have so many that students may not be immersed in spoken English, while others have so few that it's tough to provide adequate staff support for kids and families.

CMS has eliminated jobs for bilingual parent advocates, even as the number of students whose families speak Spanish and other languages has grown. The committee recommends restoring those jobs at schools with large numbers of families who need translation, noting that parent involvement is essential to student success.

The report describes a visit to Merry Oaks Elementary, where 19 languages are spoken, most children come from low-income homes, and some students "not only don't speak English but may not have any experience with indoor bathrooms or electricity." Committee members saw a woman arrive to enroll a young child, who did most of the translating between his mother and the school secretary. Two hours later, the child and his mother "were still trying to navigate the enrollment process," it says.

The report urges CMS to make sure schools make better use of available translation services and make it easier for families without cars to get to the Family Application Center south of uptown, where international students must register. City buses used to run along that road, the report says, but no longer do.


View Larger Map

Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, CMS, MSNBC, Google Maps

Left Persuades Obama To Delay Health Care Taxes Until 2018

White House Punts On Containing Health Costs


At Thursday’s health summit, President Barack Obama is almost certain to highlight the importance of reining in skyrocketing health care costs.

But in his own health care bill, it’s a different story.

Obama has put off a tax on high-cost health plans until 2018 — long after he’s out of office, even if he’s a two-termer.And in doing so, he’s essentially neutered the last significant Democratic push to control health costs.

When Obama launched his health care project, the case for reform rested on two pillars. One was helping people who had no insurance or were otherwise struggling with the current system. The other was taking dramatic steps to halt the growth in costs. As the debate lurches toward a close, the emphasis in Obama’s plan now rests overwhelmingly on the first pillar — with only the most modest and preliminary measures being embraced for cost control.

“They thought [the tax] was a major part of their ability to slow the growth in private-sector premiums. And now, at least until after 2017, it doesn’t look like they will bend the cost curve,” said Ken Thorpe, an Emory University professor and Democratic health policy adviser.

In fact, the delay raises questions about whether the tax will ever return. Obama’s punted the decision to some future president and some future Congress that would have to let a brand-new tax come into effect on their watch.

Chalk it up to politics.

Some of Obama’s biggest supporters, labor unions, hate the tax because it hits their members with so-called Cadillac plans. Liberals don’t like it either. And Obama badly needs their support if he still hopes to get his $950 billion health care plan through Congress after Thursday’s summit.

Obama had already agreed to push the start back to 2018 in a special deal for labor union members. Now he’s giving that deal to all Americans and boosting the threshold from $24,000 to $27,500 for family plans that will be hit by the tax.

“This was designed to get more support from the Democratic Caucus. Not surprisingly, there’s higher overall costs and fewer steps to get the savings necessary to pay for those costs,” said Mark McClellan, a former Clinton and Bush administration official who is now a health care economist at the Brookings Institution.

The Cadillac tax is “really the main piece of getting down the cost of health insurance,” and Obama’s changes make it “significantly weaker,” he said.

Even Obama’s own budget chief, Peter Orszag, has previously touted the excise tax to explain how a near-trillion-dollar Democratic health care plan could still cut costs in the health care industry.

But now, Democrats are cheering its demise, at least for eight years.

At a meeting with House Democrats on Monday night, Speaker Nancy Pelosi boasted that the president’s proposal slashed the tax by 80 percent, according to a senior House Democratic aide.

And it’s a claim the White House’s numbers bear out.

As proposed in the Senate bill, the tax would have generated about $150 billion, but Obama’s plan brings in only about $30 billion. The president makes up the $120 billion difference by putting a 2.9 percent Medicare tax on unearned income for families making more than $250,000 annually and by closing two tax loopholes unrelated to health care, according to a senior White House aide.

The official acknowledged that economists correctly viewed the Cadillac tax as one of reform’s most important cost-control provisions.

But the aide defended the changes, arguing that in a tough political environment, it was a victory that the tax survived at all. The president improved the tax by removing dental and vision coverage and ensuring that the tax doesn’t fall disproportionally on businesses with greater numbers of older and female employees.

Now the tax “is better focused on costly plans rather than ... workers who just happen to be costly,” the aide said.

The president’s plan also indexes the premium costs that trigger the tax to inflation plus 1 percent, which is less than traditional health care cost increases. That means if health care premiums continue to rise at a faster clip than inflation plus 1 percent, more insurance plans will be subject to the tax, and insurers would face pressure to offer cheaper plans that aren’t taxable — a move that would help contain health costs, the aide said.

But with its delayed implementation, those would be longer-term savings.

There are still a number of provisions in the president’s plan that will control costs in the short term, including an independent Medicare payment advisory board, administrative simplification, comparative effectiveness research and cutting waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, the aide said.

“The president’s proposal has a wide range of measures aimed at slowing the growth of health costs. One of those measures is the high-premium excise tax, which is designed to slow the growth of costs over the medium-to-long run. A design that is preserved and strengthened in the president’s proposal,” the aide said

In fact, Democratic health policy consultant Chris Jennings argues that far from neutering the Cadillac tax, the president’s plan was an artful compromise that salvages an important cost containment provision while making it difficult for future administrations or Congresses to undo.

If the Cadillac tax became law, it would have an immediate impact on the budget outlook in future years because it generates revenue. And under the recently enacted pay-go provisions, if lawmakers wanted to remove the tax, they would be forced to find money from elsewhere to pay for it. Killing the tax would also likely raise premiums, a combination that makes it much more difficult to strip the tax from law, Jennings said.

While the president’s plan is far from perfect, Jennings said, Obama has to make a much stronger case that doing something is better than inaction.

“The consequence of not taking action in all those areas will be a policy choice that allows for increases in premiums and co-payment that harm workers and employers alike and undermines the solvency of the Medicare trust fund,” Jennings said.

Still, the argument that Democratic reforms should be scrapped because they don’t do enough to control costs is a potent political argument and a favorite of Republicans and industry critics.

The insurance industry has been making the cost-containment case for months and reiterated it when Obama’s plan was released Monday. Democrats have singled out insurers as the poster child for skyrocketing health care costs, and the president’s plan proposed giving the federal government authority to block unjustified rate increases. Karen Ignagni, the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said it was wrong to single out her industry when total health care costs as a share of the economy jumped by 1.1 percent last year — the largest increase in history.

“There’s a heavy dose of politics at work. There’s been a strenuous effort to focus on health plans because very few policymakers want to take on the real issue of why costs are rising,” Ignagni said.

Those reasons include the high cost of medical services, a lack of transparency that prevents comparative shopping and payment systems that reward volume instead of value. Premium increases, she said, reflect the underlying increases in the cost of medical services.

“Regulating premiums won’t do anything to reduce the soaring costs of medical care,” she said. “This would be like capping the price automakers can charge consumers, but letting the steel, rubber and technology manufacturers charge the automakers whatever they want.”


Sources: Politico

Obama Unveils His Revised Health Care Proposal Online...$1 Trillion Dollars

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pres. Obama's Revised Health Care Proposal


The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

Over the past year the House and the Senate have been working on an effort to provide health insurance reform that lowers costs, guarantees choices, and enhances quality health care for all Americans. Building on that year-long effort, the President has now put forth a proposal that incorporates the work the House and the Senate have done and adds additional ideas from Republican members of Congress.

The President has long said he is open to any good ideas for reforming our health care system, and he looks forward to discussing ideas for further improvements from Republicans and Democrats at an open, bipartisan meeting on Thursday.

The proposal will make health care more affordable, make health insurers more accountable, expand health coverage to all Americans, and make the health system sustainable, stabilizing family budgets, the Federal budget, and the economy:

* It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.

* It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.

* It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.

* It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.

* It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.


Key Provisions in the President’s Proposal:

The President’s Proposal builds off of the legislation that passed the Senate and improves on it by bridging key differences between the House and the Senate as well as by incorporating Republican provisions that strengthen the proposal.

One key improvement, for example, is eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid. For America’s seniors, the proposal completely closes the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap.

It strengthens the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families, while also strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid to save taxpayer dollars.

The threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans will be raised from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and will start in 2018 for all such plans. And another important idea included is improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to review and rein in unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.

Download the full PDF of the President's key improvements.

* Read the Overview.

* Read the President’s Proposed Policies to Improve Affordability and Accountability.

* Read the President’s Policies to Crack Down on Waste, Fraud and Abuse.

* Read the President’s Policies to Contain Cost and Ensure Fiscal Sustainability.

* Read the President’s Other Proposed Policy Improvements.

Summaries of Key Elements of the President’s Proposal:

* Title I: Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans
* Title II: The Role of Public Programs
* Title III: Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care
* Title IV: Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health
* Title V: Health Care Workforce
* Title VI: Transparency and Program Integrity
* Title VII: Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies
* Title VIII: Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act)
* Title IX: Revenue Provisions
* Title X: Re-authorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act



View Larger Map

Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Google Maps

GOP Wants Obama's Health Care Bill Debates On C-Span Too; Broken Promises

GOP Pushes To Air Health Bill Talks On C-Span


The top U.S. House Republican said Wednesday it would be “a disgrace” if Democrats ignored President Barack Obama’s campaign commitment to broadcast negotiations on the health care bill on C-SPAN.

“Let’s be clear,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a news release. “Skipping a real, open conference would shut out the American people and break one of President Obama’s signature campaign promises.”

C-SPAN has emerged as an unlikely player in the health care debate. Obama and congressional Democrats have thus far resisted Republican demands to broadcast negotiations on television, skirting a promise the president made during the lengthy 2008 presidential campaign. But Brian Lamb, the CEO of C-SPAN, sent a letter Tuesday to top members of Congress asking to broadcast the conference negotiations.

Adding fuel to the fire, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and other top Democrats have signaled that they will bypass a traditional House-Senate conference as they meld the two health care bills.

House Democratic leaders Tuesday did not directly respond to inquiries about C-SPAN’s request to broadcast such proceedings.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is ratcheting up the pressure in his chamber, circulating a letter to be sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that urges the live C-SPAN broadcast. The letter currently has 23 co-signers.

“To ensure that the American people have the ability to witness the on-going negotiations between the House and Senate, be it a formal or informal conference process, we ask that any negotiations regarding a final health care reform bill be conducted in the light of day,” Thune wrote in the letter, obtained by POLITICO.

“The chairman of C-SPAN, the network responsible for broadcasting the deliberations of Congress, has offered resources to cover all negotiation sessions live. We urge you to take him up on this offer.”


Sources: Politico, C-Span, Youtube