why privacy provided by DuckDuckGo is more for 3rd-party tracking then from NSA

http://etherrag.blogspot.jp/2013/07/duck-duck-go-illusion-of-privacy.html

There have been several articles in the press recently about users flocking to DuckDuckGo in the wake of the recent NSA snooping revelations.  If you are in this category this post is meant for you.

If you use DuckDuckGo solely for the myriad of other benefits, such as reducing advertiser tracking, filter boxing, etc. move along nothing to see here.  DuckDuckGo will provide you at least that level of "privacy". 

Update: Wow, I didn't expect this blog post to spread so widely.  First of all, let me say to those accusing me of hating on DDG, I am a DDG user.  I think they have a great service.  This post is solely about the misconception that seems to have spread primarily from The Guardian article that DDG can somehow protect you from NSA monitoring.

DDG stated, "We literally do not store personally identifiable user data, so if the NSA were to get a hold of all our data, it would not be useful to them since it is all truly anonymous."  I would like to direct readers to this article which basically nullifies whatever protection DDG thinks it can provide, or you the reader think you have.

Standard Wiretaps

DuckDuckGo can easily be compelled either under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), standard court orders, or by secret orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to provide tap-on-demand.  I don't think anyone can dispute that.  If you are specifically targeted in an investigation, you can bank on the fact that all of your searches and their history "going forward" after the court order will be collected on you and stored.

Google has at least a transparency report detailing the number of non-FISA requests it receives and now a "ballpark" reporting of FISA requests.  Users should demand the same of DuckDuckGo.

Deep Integration

DuckDuckGo has made a lot of hay about their privacy, but like many other technology companies they have remained silent about their collaboration, if any, with law enforcement and security agencies.

Why shouldn't they?  They are reaping the benefits of an uninformed populace flocking to their service to avoid the NSA dragnet.  The privacy they offer is privacy from third-party advertisers and cross-site tracking.

The MarCom departments of big players like Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and others are getting good at crafting extremely carefully worded denials through lies of omission.

DuckDuckGo says:

DuckDuckGo does not store any personal information, e.g. IP addresses or user agents

But what if DuckDuckGo provided a splitter-feed to the NSA?  DuckDuckGo can claim without lying that they store no personal information, but that speaks nothing of a collaborating partner storing it.

Can they refuse to collaborate with the NSA if approached?  If one looks at the recent reports about Yahoo! and others the answer is "No, you cannot".   Yahoo! apparently made concerted efforts to resist, sending lawyers into battle, and ultimately (and silently) lost the fighting the FISA Court.  "Silently" because their loss and the ruling that handed it down is also secret.

Assume, nay bank on, the fact that corporations located within the United States can be and are being compelled to participate in programs like PRISM and are legally powerless to refuse.


rest at http://etherrag.blogspot.jp/2013/07/duck-duck-go-illusion-of-privacy.html

Texas Abortion Bill: @EWErickson Tweet Mocks Women Who Die From Unsafe Abortions

what a douche of epic proportions.

source: http://www.policymic.com/articles/54431/texas-abortion-bill-tweet-mocks-women-who-die-from-unsafe-abortions

On Friday night, the Texas Senate passed one of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the nation and in one vote, closed 37 of the 42 clinics in the entire state and unconstitutionally banned abortions after 20 weeks. This bill is one of many to restrict abortion and target abortion providers and clinics, creating a pre-Roe v. Wade world for many women who have nowhere to go to access safe and legal abortion care. It is not hyperbole to say that women's lives are at risk in the midst of the latest wave of abortion restrictions. What's most disturbing is that anti-choice legislators and activists know this, and they seemingly welcome it.

Fox News pundit Erick Erickson is known for making offensive comments, but last night, as the Texas Senate passed a bill that endangers Texas women's lives, he outdid himself in sheer audacity and cruelty when he sent this tweet, with a link to a site that sells coat hangers:

We've come to expect this kind of mindless trolling from Erickson. He's made a career out of saying offensive things and lapping up the controversial attention he receives. Here, he is openly mocking the impending death of countless women at the hands of a bill he supports. But this tweet encapsulates a much larger reality of the anti-choice movement, one that is so rarely announced and celebrated as it is in Erickson's tweet: the anti-choice movement knows that it is driving women to unsafe abortions, and it does not care.

If we dig deeper, we find that Erickson is not alone. There are scores of anti-choice activists and legislators openly mocking women who have died from abortions or women who have abortions because their lives are in danger. An anti-choice blogger created a "Parody Testimonial" site that mocked women who have later-term abortions because their health or lives are at risk. A woman died after complications from a later-term abortion and anti-choice activists cruelly and illegally leaked her name and private information to the public.

If history were our guide, we would know that restricting or banning safe and legal abortions does nothing to prevent abortion. Instead, it ensures that illegal and unsafe abortions will abound and women will pay for their attempt at reproductive freedom with their lives. Banning abortion and making safe, legal abortion care inaccessible is not only irresponsible and unconstitutional, it is downright deadly.

According to the National Organization for Women, in the two decades preceding the passage of Roe v. Wade, it is estimated that between 160 and 260 women died from an illegal abortion every year, and thousands more were seriously injured. Women who couldn't manage to find an underground doctor often took measures themselves, often inserting large knitting needles or wire coat hangers into their vagina and uterus in order to terminate their pregnancy. The coat hanger is not a myth, and it is not hyperbole. 

Women still die today from unsafe abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 47,000 women die worldwide from unsafe abortions every year, and that number will only increase in response to the onslaught of abortion restrictions and forced closings of abortion clinics in the United States.

Abortion rights activists often reference or display wire coat hangers (as Erickson's tweet mocked), a powerful and pointed representation of these women who paid for an abortion with their lives. We know our history, and we know where women in this country are headed if more bills like the one in Texas are passed. To mock the women who have died because of unsafe abortions and the women who will die because of this bill shows a special kind of heartlessness, but it also reveals the callous indifference that anti-choice activists and legislators feel towards women.

The fight is far from over in Texas. Legal challenges will be filed, and at the very least, this bill and the undemocratic process through which it was forced upon the state of Texas has galvanized abortion rights supporters in the state and nationwide. But in the face of these bills, remember what is at stake. Remember that women paid with their lives because safe abortion was illegal or inaccessible. 

And remember that through it all, anti-choicers like Erick Erickson do not care one bit.

@EWErickson jokes about hangers re: abortion law - anti-choicers don't value women's health and lives

from https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1014162_586784904677637_238169568_n.png

https://www.facebook.com/PolicyMic



http://www.policymic.com/articles/54431/texas-abortion-bill-tweet-mocks-women-who-die-from-unsafe-abortions

On Friday night, the Texas Senate passed one of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the nation and in one vote, closed 37 of the 42 clinics in the entire state and unconstitutionally banned abortions after 20 weeks. This bill is one of many to restrict abortion and target abortion providers and clinics, creating a pre-Roe v. Wade world for many women who have nowhere to go to access safe and legal abortion care. It is not hyperbole to say that women's lives are at risk in the midst of the latest wave of abortion restrictions. What's most disturbing is that anti-choice legislators and activists know this, and they seemingly welcome it.

Fox News pundit Erick Erickson is known for making offensive comments, but last night, as the Texas Senate passed a bill that endangers Texas women's lives, he outdid himself in sheer audacity and cruelty when he sent this tweet, with a link to a site that sells coat hangers:

We've come to expect this kind of mindless trolling from Erickson. He's made a career out of saying offensive things and lapping up the controversial attention he receives. Here, he is openly mocking the impending death of countless women at the hands of a bill he supports. But this tweet encapsulates a much larger reality of the anti-choice movement, one that is so rarely announced and celebrated as it is in Erickson's tweet: the anti-choice movement knows that it is driving women to unsafe abortions, and it does not care.

If we dig deeper, we find that Erickson is not alone. There are scores of anti-choice activists and legislators openly mocking women who have died from abortions or women who have abortions because their lives are in danger. An anti-choice blogger created a "Parody Testimonial" site that mocked women who have later-term abortions because their health or lives are at risk. A woman died after complications from a later-term abortion and anti-choice activists cruelly and illegally leaked her name and private information to the public.

If history were our guide, we would know that restricting or banning safe and legal abortions does nothing to prevent abortion. Instead, it ensures that illegal and unsafe abortions will abound and women will pay for their attempt at reproductive freedom with their lives. Banning abortion and making safe, legal abortion care inaccessible is not only irresponsible and unconstitutional, it is downright deadly.

According to the National Organization for Women, in the two decades preceding the passage of Roe v. Wade, it is estimated that between 160 and 260 women died from an illegal abortion every year, and thousands more were seriously injured. Women who couldn't manage to find an underground doctor often took measures themselves, often inserting large knitting needles or wire coat hangers into their vagina and uterus in order to terminate their pregnancy. The coat hanger is not a myth, and it is not hyperbole. 

Women still die today from unsafe abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 47,000 women die worldwide from unsafe abortions every year, and that number will only increase in response to the onslaught of abortion restrictions and forced closings of abortion clinics in the United States.

Abortion rights activists often reference or display wire coat hangers (as Erickson's tweet mocked), a powerful and pointed representation of these women who paid for an abortion with their lives. We know our history, and we know where women in this country are headed if more bills like the one in Texas are passed. To mock the women who have died because of unsafe abortions and the women who will die because of this bill shows a special kind of heartlessness, but it also reveals the callous indifference that anti-choice activists and legislators feel towards women.

The fight is far from over in Texas. Legal challenges will be filed, and at the very least, this bill and the undemocratic process through which it was forced upon the state of Texas has galvanized abortion rights supporters in the state and nationwide. But in the face of these bills, remember what is at stake. Remember that women paid with their lives because safe abortion was illegal or inaccessible. 

And remember that through it all, anti-choicers like Erick Erickson do not care one bit.

City College of San Francisco to lose accreditation - this is frontal assault on public education

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/sfcc-j13.html

The Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), which one year ago threatened to revoke the accreditation of the City College of San Francisco if its fiscal house was not rapidly put in order, has officially announced its intention to revoke the academic license of the school.

The City College (CCSF) has aroused the wrath of the accreditation board by moving with insufficient haste to decimate its educational and cultural programs and drastically curtail spending.

Losing accreditation will mean that CCSF will abruptly cease to function as an institution of higher education. Having lost its right to issue diplomas and certificates, the college's undersized staff will have to scramble to assist thousands of students as they seek another avenue to obtain their credentials. The vast majority will inevitably be left with no viable options to continue their education. Furthermore, because taxpayer funds cannot go to unaccredited institutions, the college's funds will virtually evaporate overnight.

City College of San Francisco, in other words, is to be gutted. There is little chance it will continue to exist beyond the coming academic year.

City College is the largest community college in the United States, serving nearly 100,000 students on 12 total campuses around San Francisco. Community colleges are a bastion of education for working people, being significantly less expensive than four-year institutions. They are often a centerpiece of the community, offering not only academic but also cultural and vocational programs. A high proportion of their students work part- or full-time, and many are over the age of 25. Such colleges are used as an affordable and easy-to-access springboard into four-year colleges or universities by millions of students around the state and nation.

The ACCJC's warning to the City College, issued on July 2, 2012, outlined the myriad budgetary shortcomings facing the school. The commission presented a laundry list of 14 problems that had to be fixed within a year to save the institution. These "recommendations" cynically cited the need for increased human resources and leadership—after battered finances had forced the college to reduce its staff to effectively a skeleton crew. In essence, the Committee's demand was that the college must carry out more ruthless budget cuts or else face annihilation. The subtext of the Commission's criticism of the school's budget—that 92% of the budget went to salaries—is that programs must be cut and the professor-student ratio increased.

It is not for lack of will that CCSF's officers have been unable to meet the ACCJC's demands. The budget has been continually slashed, forcing many classes to be abruptly canceled mid-semester. A mere 39 administrators coordinate 2700 faculty and staff.

The political motivation behind the ACCJC's decision is clear. It can be seen in no light other than as a frontal assault on public education, in keeping with the reactionary political climate, exemplified in the evisceration of public education budgets, the vilification of teachers, and the promotion of for-profit charter schools.

The assault on education is nationwide in scope. President Obama, building on the legacy of George Bush, has led the charge. His "race to the top" program pits states against one another in an attempt to drive down the cost, and thus quality, of K-12 education. The program incentivizes "innovation" in education—code for rewarding moves toward privatization, merit pay for teachers and scapegoating of educators for systemically falling student achievement. Obama's initiatives have been echoed by the moves of California's Governor, Democrat Jerry Brown. His proposed budget for 2013 pushes for charterization of public schools in return for a pittance of spending above the previous level. 2012's Prop 30, touted as the rescuer of the state's beleaguered education system, effectively held the system ransom to the proposed higher sales tax. In the aftermath of the passing of the tax, less than half the funds raised go to education.

The ACCJC reflects the interests of the ruling class and its current campaign against public education. It is not a public body, and its primary officials are essentially perpetual self-appointees. Operated by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, its board combines representatives drawn from public, religious, private and charter schools, along with state education departments. The ACCJC's ability to dominate academic institutions of every level by fiat and ultimatum is being used to make an example of CCSF. The experience demonstrates that even a center of public education as well-established as the City College of San Francisco may be liquidated with impunity.

The accreditation board recently issued a nearly identical sanction to College of the Sequoias in the San Joaquin Valley. About 20 colleges around the state are currently facing actions that may lead to closure.

rest at http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/sfcc-j13.html

US child poverty surged in 2011 @gop wants to take away food stamps @speakerboehner

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/povr-j13.html

The number of children living in families with incomes below the official poverty level rose to 16.4 million in 2011, according to the annual Kids Count report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation released this month. This is an increase of one full percentage point in one year, up to 23 percent from 22 percent (15.7 million) in 2010. More than one in four children under five—26 percent—were officially poor in 2011.

The increase of 700,000 children in poverty in the US between 2010 and 2011 was almost as high as the one million increase the year before.

Data from the foundation's report last year indicated child poverty had already soared upward by nearly 30 percent from 2000 to 2010. The number of children living in poverty in the US went up by 4.2 million between 2000 and 2011.

"Kids Count Databook 2013" compares the change in several factors of child well being between 2005 and 2011 in order to compare pre- and post-Great Recession measures. Between 2005 and 2011 child poverty increased by 3 million children.

The official poverty level of $22,811 for a family of two adults and two children leaves out nearly half the families that suffer from deprivation. According to the foundation: "families need an income of roughly twice the official poverty level to meet their basic needs, including housing, food, transportation, health care and child care." Nearly half of all children, 45 percent, live in low-income families that earn less than twice the poverty threshold.

The increases in child poverty continued well after the Obama administration officially declared that the recession had ended. The recession officially lasted for a year and a half, from December 2007 to June 2009. But after a similar period of eighteen months of "recovery" child poverty was still climbing rapidly.

This was so even as the national unemployment rate registered a gradual decline. The report ties lack of family income to two related economic indicators exacerbated by the continuing economic crisis: the availability of regular employment and housing costs.

One-third of American children live in households without secure employment, i.e., no parent has full-time, year-round employment, up from 27 percent in 2008. Part of this is due to the growing trend of replacing full-time jobs with part-time work .

The authors also note in the 2013 report: "Although the overall unemployment rate continues to decline, five years after the crisis, unemployment remains high, at 7.5 percent, with almost 12 million Americans out of work. Furthermore, long-term unemployment is increasingly a problem: A total of 4.5 million workers were unemployed for more than six months, and more than 3 million were without work for a year or more."

Nationally, over forty percent of children live in households that spend more than the benchmark of affordability for housing each month of 30 percent of household income. This is up from 37 percent in 2005.

The report gathered data from various government agencies to rate each state on 16 different criteria. The criteria were split into four different categories: economic well being, family and community, health, and education. All four indicators revealed a dramatic increase in economic stress on children. National and statewide data were compared to previous years and states were compared to each other.

One important finding in the report is the vast regional inequality between states. They write: "States in the Southeast, Southwest and Appalachia—where the poorest states are located—populate the bottom of the overall rankings. In fact, with the exception of California, the 17 lowest-ranked states are located in these regions. For the first time, New Mexico ranked worst among states for overall child well being in this year's KIDS COUNT Data Book. Along with Nevada and Arizona, states in the Southwest now occupy three of the five lowest rankings for child well-being."

Detailed data for each state is available. The difference between the top- and bottom-ranked states is quite large in most categories. For example, twelve percent of children in New Hampshire live in poverty, as compared to one in three in Mississippi.

The data was also broken down for other categories such as married-couple and single-parent households and African-American and Hispanic households. The percentage of children living in single-parent families continued to climb. In 2011 more than one-third (35 percent) of all children lived in a single-parent household, as did 37 percent of infants and toddlers.

A comment in the report indicates the primary difficulty for children in single-parent families is poverty. They comment: "Such children are at higher risk of negative outcomes later in life because they typically have fewer economic and emotional resources than children growing up in two-parent families."

Overall 8.6 million children or 12 percent lived in high poverty areas—communities where more than 30 percent of the population is under the poverty line. This is up by 2.3 million or 9 percent of all US children in 2000.

For minority populations, the measures of well being were worse than the average. Half of African-American and American Indians—more than double the national average—and almost forty percent of Hispanic and mixed-race children lived in families where no parent had stable employment year-round compared to 25 percent of non-Hispanic white children. Thirty-nine percent of black children live in poverty; 34 percent of Latino children are in poverty.

Again this year the report cites a recent Stanford University study that found "the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students has grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s and is now double the testing gap between African American and non-Hispanic whites, which declined over the same period."

The report focuses on early childhood education, stating that "only a small percentage of poor children participate in programs of sufficient quality and intensity to overcome the developmental deficits associated with chronic economic hardship and low levels of parental education."

However, cutbacks through the federal sequester, not mentioned in the report, have already adversely affected programs like these for low-income pre-school children that are connected to Head Start.

The report does not offer solutions to the devastating economic and social conditions. In his introduction to this year's Kids Count report Patrick McCarthy, president and CEO of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, endorses the falsehood that underlies the Obama Administration's assault on social programs. He asserts: "Given the consensus on the need to reduce the country's long-term debt, simply adding more public dollars to existing strategies is neither wise nor feasible."

The gutting of existing assistance programs has exacerbated the alarming decline in well being for children. For example the foundation's Michigan affiliate has released figures for the decline in welfare support to children in poor families since welfare cuts began. Then-president Clinton abolished welfare entitlement nationwide in 1996.

Peter Ruark from the Michigan League for Public Policy reported in May that the Family Independence Program (FIP) caseload dropped to 45,236—its lowest level ever. In May 2013 the number of cases dropped again.

He noted: "Twenty years ago, in April 1993, there were 232,795 Michigan households receiving cash assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Ten years later, in April 2003, there were 74,851 households receiving cash assistance through the Family Independence Program, which replaced AFDC in Michigan.

"The March unemployment rate was 8.5 percent and the FIP caseload dropped below 50,000 for the first time. The last time Michigan had an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, in August 2008, there were more than 69,000 families receiving assistance, but the caseload hardly budged over the following year as unemployment jumped to 14.2 percent. In fact, from 2007 to 2010, caseloads dropped consistently as the unemployment rate rose."

The League attributes the cuts in support not to a decline in unemployment in the state, but to new sanctions and lifetime time limits imposed by Michigan lawmakers as well as policy changes at the Department of Human Services that imposed stringent application paperwork and reporting requirements.

The entire Kids Count 2013 report, along with links data and sites for Michigan and other states, can be found at Kids Count 2013 Report

rest at http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/povr-j13.html

@Microsoft Microsoft conspires with the NSA in spying on its users

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/micr-j13.html

Newly released documents reveal the depth of collaboration between Microsoft and the National Security Agency in collecting data from the company's users, including communications and documents sent or accessed over Outlook.com, SkyDrive and Skype. They also show that Microsoft worked with the NSA to break the company's own encryption, ensuring the fullest possible access for the agency.

The latest files, provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported in the Guardian, come from the Special Source Operations (SSO) division. The SSO oversees all programs that target US telecommunications via corporate partnerships, of which Prism, exposed by Snowden last month, is just one.

What has been released so far reveals how Microsoft in particular worked with the US intelligence apparatus to provide full access to all documents and messages of the company's users. The NSA referred to the program as a "team sport."

Microsoft—which boasts the slogan "your privacy is our priority"—was reportedly involved in the Prism program to provide NSA data since 2007, the year the program began. While Microsoft claims that it only submits to "legal processes" initiated by the government, it does not specify what those are. Such a vague statement could mean anything, especially since it is now known that the NSA operates under a set of laws secretly overseen and interpreted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

According to the documents, a major project between Microsoft and the NSA involved handing over the data passing through Outlook.com, Microsoft's primary email client, which includes Hotmail. Last July, the NSA became concerned that it would be unable to intercept the encrypted messages being passed through Outlook's chat service. In response, Microsoft worked with the agency to break its own encryption.

A document from 26 December 2012 states: "MS [Microsoft], working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal" with the need to bypass Outlook's encryption. "These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012." This was a full two months before Outlook.com went live to the public.

At the time, the NSA already had full, unencrypted access to all emails sent via Outlook.com. "For Prism collection against Hotmail, Live, and Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption," the documents state. The only difficulty was collecting email aliases, which can make tracking specific people slightly more difficult. However, as one entry states, "The FBI Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) team is working with Microsoft to understand" this feature and overcome it.

Microsoft's collusion with the NSA also extends to the SkyDrive cloud storage service introduced last year, which now houses documents of 250 million users and is fully integrated into Windows 8 and the latest Office suite. The company worked "for many months" with the FBI to allow Prism full access to the service without any separate or special authorization.

This means, according to a document dated April 8, 2013, "that analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO for this—a process step that many analysts may not have known about".

In other words, every analyst at the NSA has full and easy access to everything that is on SkyDrive. This includes essentially every file that is generated in Microsoft Word, Excel, and other office programs on a Windows 8 machine, which automatically "backs up" everything to the SkyDrive.

In the words of the NSA, "this new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response" of the data of Microsoft users. The agency then applauded Microsoft: "This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking and collection solution established."

The NSA has also worked intensively with Skype, both before and after it was bought by Microsoft, to gain access to the text, audio and video communications of Skype's estimated 800 million users. Despite its denials, Skype does appear to have the ability to collect all the information and data from all calls and hand them over to the US government. This throws into question denials of other companies, such as Facebook, Google and others, on the same question.

According to the files, the NSA began working on integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010 but didn't succeed until February 4, 2011. Two days later, it began full audio communications interception. "Feedback indicated that a collected Skype call was very clear and the metadata looked complete," reads the initial reports on collected Skype calls.

Now, even video communications are collected. "The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete 'picture'", bragged one NSA file from July 14, 2012, when the NSA tripled its ability to collect Skype video communications.

These revelations underscore the extent to which the government has relied on, and received the active assistance of, giant companies that control much of the Internet and telecommunications systems. Through relations with these corporations—including Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL, Verizon, AT&T, and others—the government has been able to tap into the Internet backbone, collect online communications, and gather the phone records of hundreds of millions of people.

These companies are all part of a state, intelligence and corporate nexus that has been engaged in the systematic and illegal violation of the democratic rights of the population of the United States and the world.

rest at http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/micr-j13.html

Democrats @TheDemocrats @gop Republicans conspire to hike student loan rates @barackobama

from http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/pers-j13.html

As millions of US students prepare to return to college this fall, the already intolerable burden of student debt is being increased.

On July 1, with the expiration of the federal student loan law, the interest rate on subsidized loans, which are given out selectively to low- and medium-income students, automatically doubled, rising from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The rate increase affects nearly 7.5 million students, according to the White House.

In the name of rolling back this draconian rate increase and passing a new law on federal student loans, the Obama administration and Congress are conspiring to pass a bipartisan measure that will further cut subsidies and tie loan rates to the vagaries of the financial markets, allowing them to rise even higher than 6.8 percent.

One of the provisions under discussion will eliminate the difference in interest rates on subsidized and unsubsidized student loans, effectively ending a policy intended to provide low-income young people with access to education. Under a tentative deal worked out by Senate negotiators Wednesday, the interest on all federal student loans will be tied to the rate on ten-year government bonds.

Student loan rates will be capped at 8.25 percent for undergraduates and 9.25 percent for graduates. These exorbitant rates, approaching those charged by credit card companies, have been tentatively approved by Democratic negotiators and are in line with the White House's latest budget proposal.

Over the past two months, interest rates have been sharply rising. This means borrowing costs are likely to be far higher for students who take on new loans. If the interest rates on US government debt were to return to the levels seen in the 1990s, borrowing costs for undergraduates would jump to over 8 percent.

The very proposal to make students' ability to finance their education dependent on the vagaries of the market and the Wall Street sharks who control it is entirely reactionary.

The attack on students, particularly those who come from low-income families, is part of a broader bipartisan assault on key social programs. On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a version of the farm bill that excludes $743 billion in food stamps in preparation for sharply cutting the nutrition program upon which 48 million people—one in six Americans—depend.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced it was delaying for one year the implementation of a legal requirement for businesses to provide health insurance to employees working full-time as part of its health care overhaul. This follows multiple reports of tens of millions of people remaining uninsured under the cost-cutting scheme, and tens of millions more being saddled with higher premiums and fewer benefits.

In the stage-managed negotiations between the two big business parties on both student loans and food stamps, the future and well-being of millions of working people are cynically used as bargaining chips in discussions over how deeply and quickly to cut social programs. These "debates" follow a well-established pattern. The more extreme positions of the Republicans become the baseline for the Democrats to shift even further to the right and propose even deeper cuts than they initially proposed.

The political establishment treats the masses of people, for whom student loan rates, food stamps and health insurance are life-and-death questions, with contempt. At the same time, it kowtows to every whim of the financial aristocracy.

Even as the discussions over jacking up student loan rates were proceeding in the Senate, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke delivered a speech whose entire purpose was to reassure Wall Street that near-zero interest rates and virtually free credit—which have made possible a dizzying rise in stock prices, corporate profits and CEO pay—would continue indefinitely. Stocks hit new all-time records on Thursday in response to Bernanke's speech.

Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, two of the largest US banks, posted record profits. JPMorgan made $6.1 billion in the second quarter, up 32 percent from a year ago, while Wells Fargo took in $5.27 billion, up 20 percent.

The federal student loan program is already a financial racket, in which debt-laden students furnish the government with tens of billions in profits. The Congressional Budget Office reported earlier this year that the US government will receive a record $51 billion in profit this fiscal year from student loan interest. This figure is equal to the combined profits of the four largest US banks and is significantly higher than the profits of either Apple, which recorded $41.7 billion last year, or Exxon Mobil's $44.9 billion.

The total amount of student loan debt, standing at $1.1 trillion, has eclipsed credit card debt and is the largest form of household debt outside of mortgages.

Tuition costs, meanwhile, continue to skyrocket. According to a report issued by the Department of Education Thursday, average in-state tuition costs rose by 6.7 percent between the 2010-11 and 2012-13 academic years. Detroit's Wayne State University announced last month that it would increase its tuition by 8.9 percent in the fall semester.

The Socialist Equality Party and its youth organization, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE), say that education, including higher education, is not a privilege. It is a basic social right. This right, however, must be secured through the mobilization of youth and the working class as a whole in opposition to the existing economic and political system.

We call for the abolition of all student loan debt.

We oppose subordinating the ability of students to finance their education to the capitalist market and the interest rates manipulated and rigged by the most powerful banks and hedge funds. Instead, we propose to close down the Wall Street and global gambling casino and expropriate the ill-gotten wealth of the parasites who run it.

There are ample resources to fund quality education for all, but they are monopolized by a modern day aristocracy of wealth and privilege that controls both political parties. By nationalizing the banks and major corporations and putting them under public ownership and democratic control, the working class will be able to develop a rationally planned, socialist economy based on social need, not private profit.

We call on students and youth to join the IYSSE and establish IYSSE clubs on the campuses and in the high schools as part of the fight to build the Socialist Equality Party as the new leadership of the working class.

rest http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/13/pers-j13.html

Google @google Raises Campaign Funds For Climate Change Denier Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe

from http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/12/google-upsets-environmentalists-plays-d-c-money-game/

A handful of environmental activists gathered Thursday outside a glitzy fundraiser in Washington to protest corporate hypocrisy. Like most of the demonstrations that dot downtown D.C. each day, it was a ragtag scene: a few paid staffers, a couple of passionate locals, and a clutch of students toting signs and chanting slogans outside a glassy office tower. The company being targeted, however, was an unlikely villain for environmental protests. "Google is supposed to be green," says Matt Owens, a climate activist from suburban Washington. "What they're doing is completely unacceptable."

What Google was doing was hosting a fundraiser for Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, who is up for re-election next year. Inhofe is one of the Senate's most conservative Republicans. He believes, for instance, that the birthers "have a point," and that Barack Obama is trying "to destroy every institution that makes America great." Inhofe is perhaps best known, however, for his position on climate change. He is a staunch opponent of EPA regulations. He authored a treatise called "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future." He thinks the Bible disproves global warming, and he once denounced the "arrogance" of scientists who suggest that "we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate."

Inhofe's skepticism toward the settled science of global warming makes him a strange ally for Google, which has nurtured a reputation as a socially conscious firm that is committed to the environment. Its website boasts of more than $1 billion donated to renewable-energy projects. "You can lie about the effects of climate change," Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman and informal adviser to Barack Obama, said last month, "but eventually you'll be seen as a liar."

Which isn't to say Google won't still hobnob with you, or pay for the privilege. The search firm isn't the quirky, idealistic upstart it once was, and hasn't been for a while now. It is a corporate behemoth with the third largest market cap in the U.S. and a lobbying footprint that reaches deep into the Washington mud. Last year Google forked over more than $18 million in lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — more than any company except General Electric. As it learns to navigate the capital's insular folkways and hidebound bureaucracies, it has lavished cash on politicians from both parties.

What prompted Google to host a shindig where attendees shelled out up to $2,500 for lunch with Inhofe? A data center the company operates at an industrial park in Pryor, Okla. "Google runs a significant operation … that provides around 100 jobs," Rusty Appleton, Inhofe's campaign manager, tells TIME. "The Senator had an opportunity to tour the facilities in May of last year, and is committed to ensuring that Oklahoma remains a great place to do business."

A Google spokesperson tells TIME the company regularly hosts fundraisers for candidates of all stripes, even when Google disagrees with some of their policies — as it does with Inhofe on climate change. "While we don't agree with Senator Inhofe on several issues, we agree with him on many, such as open and free competition for defense contracts, for enterprise services," says the spokesperson. "We engage on Google issues because we are a home-state employer."

This explanation didn't wash with the activists outside Google's D.C. headquarters near K Street. "What's their slogan? 'Don't be evil'?" asked Eric Anderson, a software engineer from Silver Spring, Md. "If they're doing things to further damage our planet, well, that's pretty evil in my book."

But if environmentalists were outraged, they should not have been surprised. As Google and its Silicon Valley competitors plunge further into Washington politics, they have found allies on all bands of the political spectrum. As the Washington Post reported, last month Google sent $50,000 to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank linked to the Koch brothers. (Facebook doled out $25,000.) Google was among the tech firms that lobbied to loosen hiring restrictions on high-skilled workers as part of the Senate's immigration bill, a provision opposed by organized labor. It is hardly the only tech firm with liberal roots to court controversy. Fwd.US, the immigration-reform advocacy group partly funded by Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg, incensed progressives by running ads that praise lawmakers for backing the Keystone pipeline and drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.

"Google has cultivated a reputation for working to support scientific inquiry and pursuing environmental sustainability," wrote Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts, the group that staged Thursday's protest. "This reputation will be rendered meaningless if the fundraiser goes forward." But it did, of course. A pair of polite young Googlers in business casual went downstairs to collect a petition. The smattering of protesters chanted "Google, don't fund evil," as a pair of black-clad security guards blocked the doors, directing employees carrying takeout lunches to use the side door.

Upstairs, the business of Washington went on.

rest at http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/12/google-upsets-environmentalists-plays-d-c-money-game/

@democrats @barackobama -student loan interest rate hike was assured all along - Dems failed low income students

source http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/12/stud-j12.html

A group of negotiators in the US Senate said they reached an agreement Wednesday that would increase the interest rates of federally subsidized student loans by pegging them to the US government's borrowing costs.

The agreement came after a Democratic-sponsored procedural vote to keep subsidized student loan interest rates at the previous level of 3.4 percent failed to reach the 60 votes required to overcome a Republican filibuster.

On July 1, the interest rate on federally subsidized loans doubled, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, due to the lapse of a 2007 law. According to the White House, the rate increase would affect nearly 7.5 million low-income students.

The Senate Democrats' proposal to keep subsidized loan rates at 3.4 percent was entirely for show, designed with the certainty that it would be shot down by the Republican majority. The Democrats' real position is that put forward by the Obama administration and accepted by negotiators Wednesday, aimed at doing away with reduced interest rates for low-income students.

Under the agreement, the interest rate on both subsidized and unsubsidized federal Stafford loans would be set based on the US government's 10-year borrowing cost, which stood at 2.39 percent Thursday. Undergraduates would pay 1.8 percentage points on top of this rate, graduate students would pay an additional 3.4 percent, and parents who take on student loans for their children would pay 4.5 percentage points more than the treasury rate. Inside Higher Ed reported that "undergraduate loans issued today would have an interest rate of 4.5 percent; graduate loans, 6.1 percent; and PLUS loans, 7.2 percent."

The proposal would set a single rate on both subsidized and unsubsidized student loans, ending the reduced rate on federally subsidized loans, which are given out to students from low- and medium-income households. From 2007 to the beginning of this month, subsidized loan rates had been set at 3.4 percent, while unsubsidized loans, which were available to a broader range of borrowers, were at 6.8 percent.

The New York Times reported that senators from both parties are waiting on the Congressional Budget Office to finish analyzing the deal before they bring it to a vote. Once they do, it is likely to pass, as it has already received the support of leading Senate Democrats and closely tracks proposals made by both congressional Republicans and the White House.

While the measure's proponents claim that it would reduce costs for borrowers of unsubsidized loans, this is only under the conditions of the current unusually low interest rates. With the Federal Reserve signaling that it intends to reduce its money-printing operations in the coming period, interest rates have been increasing significantly, meaning that borrowing costs are likely to be even higher for students who take on loans in the coming semesters. If the interest rates on US government debt were to return to the levels seen in the 1990s, borrowing costs for undergraduates would jump to over 8 percent.

"All the projections we have right now show interest rates going up," Ethan Senack of the US Public Interest Research Group told the Huffington Post. "This would keep interest rates low next year, but the caveat is that it does this on the backs of future students."

Rates are capped at a maximum of 8.25 percent for undergraduates and 9.25 percent for graduates.

The deal came after figures from the Congressional Budget Office showed that the US government received a record $51 billion in profit this fiscal year from student loan interest. This figure is equal to the combined profits of the four largest US banks, and significantly larger than the profits of either Apple Inc., which received $41.7 billion in profit last year, or Exxon Mobil Corp., which received $44.9 billion.

The Department of Education has taken in $120 billion in student loan interest over the past five years, according to budget documents. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the US government would garner $184 billion in profit over the next 10 years.

The total amount of student loan debt, standing at $1.1 trillion, recently eclipsed the total amount of outstanding credit card debt and is the largest form of household debt outside of mortgages.

The deal is entirely in line with the proposals of the White House, which in its 2014 budget called for tying student loan rates to the government's borrowing costs, arguing that "taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize higher and higher costs for higher education."

The effect of the proposal will be to create further obstacles to low-income people receiving an education and saddle students and graduates with a lifetime of debt.

@speakerboehner @gop Republicans voted to starve 46.6 million Americans who are on food stamps

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/07/12/gop-gangstas-republicans-voted-to-starve-46-6-million-americans-who-are-on-food-stamps/

Thursday the House passed a farm bill and from that they cut the food stamp program, which breaks a standard in our country going back decades, since 1973 when food stamps were included in the farm bill .

The Washington Post reports, "Unlike the Senate farm bill, the House version has no funding whatsoever for food stamps for the poor. The House leadership has said it will come back later this month and try to scrounge up money for food aid in a separate piece of legislation."

Sure, they could take care of the food stamp program later, but we know better, unless they feel the heat and have no other alternative, which pretty much sums up their motivating factor and it's not for the good of the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But there is good news, which will also make Republican heads explode, "The improving budget picture has drained away Congress' urgency to negotiate a budget deal that would raise the federal borrowing limit." A headline from Reuters reads, "Surprise! Huge Budget Surplus Shatters Record."

Republicans just lost their leverage while trying to demonize the President over the economy. In fact, President Obama is bettering the economy. Meaning, every attempt at enacting painful austerity measures has been proven to be detrimental to the economy. An improving economy and tax hikes enacted earlier in the year led government receipts to rise to $287 billion, up 10 percent from a year earlier. Those tax hikes are the same ones Republicans claimed to be futile in bettering the economy.

Via the Washington Post:

There's a fair bit at stake here: Some 46.6 million people received food stamps in 2012 — a number that had surged in recent years due to the recession. The average benefit is about $133.41 per month. If that funding lapsed, that would be a lot of money pulled out of the U.S. economy all at once.

Any questions? Vote the GOP out of the House. At least give our next president a Congress to work with. Imagine the possibilities if our President wasn't obstructed at every turn. The GOP's contempt for the middle class and the poor is appalling. A living wage is disregarded by the majority of Republicans, and now they're starving the poor. Really GOP?

rest http://freakoutnation.com/2013/07/12/gop-gangstas-republicans-voted-to-starve-46-6-million-americans-who-are-on-food-stamps/

House Should Vote Down Stand-Alone Farm Bill

Special from Off the Charts Blog: House Should Vote Down Stand-Alone Farm Bill by Robert Greenstein For several decades, legislation to reauthorize farm programs and SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) have moved together.  Now, the House Republican leadership is splitting the bills, moving a stand-alone farm bill today and planning to move a separate SNAP bill later. The reason is clear.  Even though the farm bill the House defeated a few weeks ago contained more than $20 billion in SNAP cuts (nearly all of them in food assistance benefits) as well as an unprecedented measure allowing states to cut families off SNAP if a parent wants to work but can't find a job and letting state politicians take half of the resulting savings and use them for any purpose, that wasn't enough for many of the most conservative House Republicans.  So the House leadership has dropped the SNAP provisions and plans to come back later with a still harsher SNAP bill designed to pass solely with Republican votes. This turn of events is deeply disturbing: Until now, farm/SNAP legislation has been one of the few remaining areas of bipartisan legislative activity.  The House Republicans' scorched-earth policy with respect to SNAP is ending that, turning farm and SNAP legislation into a bitter partisan battleground on the House floor. The likely result will be enactment of farm-only legislation, with SNAP being placed in a more tenuous position when its authorization expires on September 30.  (The House very likely will later pass a severe SNAP-only authorization bill to which the Senate likely will not respond.)  What happens then is unclear, with a decided risk of Republican threats and actions to short-change SNAP's appropriation on the grounds that the program hasn't been reauthorized. Tens of millions of Americans (including many who work for low wages) live in poverty, struggle to make ends meet, and often suffer significant hardships, but they can at least get basic nutritional assistance through SNAP.  They ought not to be pawns in political maneuvers, and Congress should not jeopardize their chances of getting enough food to eat. Splitting the farm bill and paving the way for the House to pass a more draconian SNAP-only bill in coming weeks would be the latest demonstration of how dysfunctional the House is becoming. The way to prevent this is clear.  House Members should reject the stand-alone farm bill coming to the House floor today and go back to producing legislation that not only covers agriculture and nutrition together, but also can pass the House because it is bipartisan and moderate (unlike the current bill and the one defeated a few weeks ago), not partisan and extreme. Read the blog post Contact Regan Lachapelle Senior Communications Associate Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 820 First Street, NE, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20002 lachapelle@cbpp.org Resources Support the Center's Work Preferences If you wish to unsubscribe or change the e-mail address to which these notices are transmitted, please log on to myCenter to update your preferences or e-mail us.

@gop dropped funding for food stamps from a new version of the Farm Bill - no jobs bills from this useless congress

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/11/house-republicans-drop-food-stamps-from-new-farm-bill/?wpisrc=nl_pmpol

House Republicans have dropped funding for food stamps from a new version of the Farm Bill expected to be voted on Thursday, earning a strong rebuke from the White House and congressional Democrats who plan to oppose the measure.

(AP Photo/Ed Andrieski, File)

It is unclear whether sufficient Republican support exists for the new bill that is scheduled for a vote by early afternoon Thursday. Two key conservative groups that hold sway over dozens of House Republicans said they were opposed to the bill, because it fails to slash the federal deficit.

The legislation would make changes to federal agricultural policy and conservation programs and includes language ending direct subsidy payments to farmers, but says nothing about funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, which historically constitutes about 80 percent of the funding in a Farm Bill.

Several Democratic lawmakers rose in opposition to the plan early Thursday as debate began, with several of them repeatedly saying that the new bill "hurts the children of America" or "increases hunger in America."

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) mockingly made a parliamentary inquiry, saying he had just obtained a copy of the 600-page bill.

"It appears to have no nutrition title at all, is this a printing error?" Butterfield asked.

The nutrition title is the portion of the bill that sets food stamp funding.

Republicans attempted to tamp down the opposition by assuring Democrats that they will hold votes on a separate measure dealing with food stamp funding later in the month.

Current federal farm and food aid policy expires on Sept. 30 and failure to pass a new bill in time means American farmers will fall back to a 1949 law governing the industry, which could lead to steep price increases on items such as milk.

Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said moving forward Thursday makes sense in order to ensure that negotiations between the House and Senate on a final Farm Bill can begin later this summer.

"I don't know if they've got 218 votes or not, I have no idea," Gibbs said, who added later that "the alternative of not getting this into conference and getting this done is bad."

The bill's fate may rest with conservatives like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who said he voted last month for a Farm Bill that included food stamp funding because it sufficiently slashed spending and addressed food aid and farm policy. Chaffetz said he and most of his colleagues had not yet been briefed on details of the new legislation.

"If it was just the same bill split into two, of course I'd vote for that, but if they've made changes that are substantive? Yikes," he said. "Even though I whipped yes, I might vote no. I've got to go figure that out."

House Republican leaders rushed late Wednesday to set up Thursday's vote after securing sufficient support among rank-and-file members. The decision comes as many rural-state Republicans are facing pressure from constituents for so far failing to approve the legislation.

The White House said late Wednesday that President Obama would veto any Farm Bill that fails to comprehensively address federal farm and food aid policy. In a statement, White House officials said they had insufficient time to review the bill.

"It is apparent, though, that the bill does not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms and does not invest in renewable energy, an important source of jobs and economic growth in rural communities across the country," the statement said.  "Legislation as important as a Farm Bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the Nation."

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) blasted Republicans for violating their own rules on waiting three days before voting on major legislation.

Hoyer called the new Farm Bill "a bill to nowhere," and said that Senate Democrats would reject the House version even if it passes. "This dead-on-arrival messaging bill only seeks to accomplish one objective: to make it appear that Republicans are moving forward with important legislation even while they continue to struggle at governing," Hoyer said.

Conservative organizations closely aligned with dozens of House Republicans also cast doubt on the new bill.

The Club for Growth said that while it supports splitting up farm and food policy, the new farm-only bill "is still loaded down with market-distorting giveaways to special interests with no path established to remove the government's involvement in the agriculture industry." The group also faulted House GOP leaders for proceeding with what it calls a "rope-a-dope exercise" that likely will result in House and Senate negotiators restoring commodity and food stamp funding opposed by Republicans.

Heritage Action said the new bill would wrongly make permanent several programs, including aid to sugar producers that would drive up costs for customers and taxpayers.

Conservative GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats last month to defeat a broad, five-year farm bill, in the latest rebuke to House GOP leaders, who have struggled to control the chamber to pass major legislation.

Conservatives objected to the bill's spending levels, while Democrats opposed a $20.5 billion cut to food stamps.

The surprise defeat signaled the difficulty congressional leaders face in the coming months in passing legislation on the budget and immigration that is expected to be debated this month and in the fall.

rest http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/11/house-republicans-drop-food-stamps-from-new-farm-bill/?wpisrc=nl_pmpol

.@CharlesGKoch - Billionaire Koch Brother: Dumping Minimum Wage Will Help The Poor

http://progressivepopulist.org/2013/07/11/billionaire-koch-brother-dumping-minimum-wage-will-help-the-poor-video/

Charles Koch, he of the notorious Koch Brothers and worth around 34 billion dollars, said in an interview with the Wichita Eagle that eliminating the minimum wage will… wait for it… it's coming… help the poor.

Quoted from the Eagle interview, Koch said this…

We want to do a better job of raising up the disadvantaged and the poorest in this country, rather than saying 'Oh, we're just fine now.' We're not saying that at all. What we're saying is, we need to analyze all these additional policies, these subsidies, this cronyism, this avalanche of regulations, all these things that are creating a culture of dependency. And like permitting, to start a business, in many cities, to drive a taxicab, to become a hairdresser. Anything that people with limited capital can do to raise themselves up, they keep throwing obstacles in their way. And so we've got to clear those out. Or the minimum wage. Or anything that reduces the mobility of labor.

Koch is launching a new campaign in his hometown of Wichita to laud economic freedom and warn the public about government overreach. It will cost him around $200,000 and if successful, he would like to expand the campaign to other cities.

He produced a 1 minute video ad, seen below, that starts off condescendingly portraying that if you make $34,000 a year or more, you are part of the proverbial "top one percent". Never mind that it includes the entire world, a world in which 80% of the people live on less than $10 a day.

rest at http://progressivepopulist.org/2013/07/11/billionaire-koch-brother-dumping-minimum-wage-will-help-the-poor-video/

.@ChicagosMayor Rahm Emanuel closes 50 schools fires 600 teachers & hands out $5mil taxpayer subsidy to @ViennaBeef

http://bit.ly/16nNSsz

from http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/teachers-fired-vienna-beef-gets-tif-subsidy/Content?oid=10294370

John J. Kim/Sun-Times

On June 11 Mayor Emanuel officially recommended giving about $5 million to Vienna Beef to move its hot dog factory from the north side to Bridgeport. The mayor hailed it as a shrewd investment that will keep at least 250 jobs in Chicago for the next 15 years.

Three days later the mayor's school board fired Eron Easter, a 34-year-old special education teacher in a high-poverty school in Humboldt Park. Easter was one of 850 Chicago Public Schools employees fired by the mayor when he closed 50 schools.

So if you're keeping track on your scorecards at home, the mayor is down about 600 in the job-retention department for the last month—a fact you'll never see him mention in any of the dozens of press releases he routinely sends out.

As you might expect, Vienna's $5 million comes from the tax increment financing program. That's the one in which you, the taxpayer, cough up more in property taxes in the name of things you want, like schools, so that the mayor has more to spend on things you don't want.

Like $5 million for Vienna Beef.

Yet the Vienna Beef project is by no means the dumbest waste of TIF money I've seen through the years. In fact, I think I could concoct a plausible justification for it, if coerced.

Good job, Mr. Mayor! Every now and then you manage to do something almost right, even as you mess up everything else.

Feel free to use that as a slogan in your coming reelection campaign.

In the case of Vienna, it's a "globally recognized manufacturer of hot dogs and other specialty food products, including corned beef, roast beef and soups," according to a report by the city's Department of Housing and Economic Development.

Since 1972, Vienna has operated out of a facility on the northeast corner of the very busy three-way intersection of Damen, Elston, and Fullerton.

The city is realigning Elston—moving it to the east—in order to unclog the traffic artery, so to speak. As part of that plan, the city will buy a portion of Vienna's property.

So Vienna could stay and deal with all that traffic. Or it could get the hell out.

Since the company chose option two, we'll give them the $5 million to buy a vacant factory—once owned by Sara Lee—at 1000 W. Pershing.

The project was praised at the June 11 meeting of the Community Development Commission, a mayoral advisory board, where a city planner noted that Vienna Beef "has been courted to relocate to other states."

Hey, teachers, maybe the mayor will give you money if you threaten to move to Indiana.

"The relocation of this business would retain Vienna in the city and continue a long tradition of manufacturing its globally recognized product in Chicago," according to the city report.

The CDC voted to accept the mayor's proposal to award the $5 million subsidy—and afterward Vienna passed out Polish sausages to everyone!

Not really. But it's the least they could have done for the handout.

The City Council is expected to ratify the deal sometime in the next few months, since the council always ratifies the mayor's deals.

The mayor says there are a number of benefits to the deal, including a provision that requires Vienna to employ at least 250 full-time employees.

Let's hope someone in the city is keeping track, because no one did when TIF funds were handed out in the past to companies like Republic Windows and Doors, which took the money and ran out of town.

Moreover, the city's report says the Vienna project will "expand the tax base because the investment in the property will result in an increase in its assessed value."

That's a compelling point—and exactly the opposite of what will happen with the mayor's biggest TIF project, the DePaul basketball arena/hotel deal. In that case, Mayor Emanuel is planning to reduce the tax base by spending $55 million to buy taxable land and build a facility that's tax exempt.

So much for the good news on the city's job-retention front. Now for the bad news: those 850 CPS employees getting the ax, including about 600 teachers, according to the Chicago Teachers Union.

That figure doesn't include dozens of teachers the mayor will be firing in the next few months thanks to various employee-reduction schemes.

Apparently, Mayor Emanuel thinks we have too many teachers in the workforce and not enough hot dog factory employees.

• Andrea Bauer
• Eron Easter was one of about 600 Chicago public school teachers pink-slipped this spring.

One of the teachers now looking for a job is Easter, who for the last eight years has taught special ed at various public schools in poor, high-crime neighborhoods that desperately need more economic investment. She spent the last three years at Von Humboldt, which Mayor Emanuel unceremoniously closed this spring over the pleas of parents, students, and staff.

In the course of her tenure, Easter has dealt with grammar school kids suffering a variety of mental breakdowns brought on by everything from gang violence to teenage pregnancies.

"I chose where I went to work because I love what I do," Easter says. "But what CPS has been doing in this past year is disgusting. How can you cut resources from the communities that need them the most?"

The closings will end up cruelly cramming more low-income students into fewer classrooms. But that's not all. They'll also eliminate middle-class teaching jobs, which doesn't make much sense from an economic-development standpoint.

Thanks to residency requirements, public school teachers have to live in Chicago. That means they're invested in the city. In many neighborhoods, particularly on the south and west sides, teachers and city workers are the backbone of the middle class. They're expanding the tax base, as the mayor might put it.

In short, jobs like that are more than numbers in a budget. They allow residents to buy homes and send their kids to college.

Firing teachers is a good way to imperil already vulnerable neighborhoods.

Easter says she'll be looking for jobs at other schools in the system. "But there's not a lot of jobs out there, with all the cuts," she says. In the meantime, she still has about $20,000 in student loans to pay off.

Under the current teacher contract, she'll get paid for up to a year. But if she doesn't get a job within five months, her salary will be cut by about 20 percent and she'll lose her health benefits. After a year, she's on her own.

If all else fails, maybe she and the other 600 pink-slipped teachers can look for jobs selling popcorn in the DePaul basketball arena that the mayor is building with funds diverted from the public schools.

North Carolina House Republicans sneak abortion rules into motorcycle safety bill without notice

here http://boingboing.net/2013/07/10/north-carolina-house-republica.html