university

Top Obama Economic Adviser To Resign

June 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — Austan Goolsbee, a longtime adviser to President Barack Obama, will resign his post as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers this summer to return to teaching at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, the White House announced Monday. Obama called him “one of America’s great economic thinkers.” Goolsbee has been the face of the White House on economic news, and is a regular every first Friday of the month explaining the administration’s take on the latest jobless numbers. He brought a mix of levity and a teacher’s sensibility to the job, using the White House blog, Facebook or YouTube to illustrate tax cuts, trade, or the auto industry resurgence on a dry-erase board with a dry wit and a gravel voice. He has been at Obama’s side for years. He advised Obama during his 2004 Senate race and was senior economic policy adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign and has served on the three-member economic council since the start of the administration. “Since I first ran for the U.S. Senate, Austan has been a close friend and one of my most trusted advisers,” Obama said. “Over the past several years, he has helped steer our country out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and although there is still much work ahead, his insights and counsel have helped lead us toward an economy that is growing and creating millions of jobs.” Goolsbee took over last September as council chairman, replacing Christina Romer, who left to return to a teaching position at the University of California, Berkley. He had taught at the University of Chicago for 14 years. His university biography once described him as “insanely committed to his work,” noting that Goolsbee was seen in the classroom, wearing a tuxedo, on the day of his wedding.

Read the full article →

Apple Leaves Facebook Out In The Cold

June 6, 2011

Apple has revamped the software that powers its iPhone, iPad and iPod touch to include, for the first time ever, a major integration with a social network — but not the one you might think. For the social media features in the new version of its iOS operating system, Apple, the world’s most valuable technology company, did not partner with Facebook, the world’s largest social networking site. Instead, the Cupertino company opted to team up with Twitter, a micro-blogging service that has around half as many members as Facebook and remains far from attaining its mainstream status. Twitter will be built in to iOS 5 and integrated across multiple Apple applications. By signing into Twitter just once, users will be able to instantly send tweets containing photos, videos, links and more. Experts suggest the Facebook snub stemmed from Apple’s desire to maintain control over the user experience and preserve its direct relationship with its customers, aims that clashed with Facebook’s own ambitions. As media companies, record labels and television studios know all too well, Apple wants to be the first point of contact for its users when they purchase a subscription, when they see an ad or when they browse for apps. The company has scrupulously maintained an iron grip over the entire experience consumers have with its products, whether at an Apple Store or in the App Store, which offers only applications that have been vetted by Apple. Just as Apple has expanded its reach onto music players, television sets and computers, so too has Facebook grown its own platform, spreading its presence throughout the Internet in order to serve as the connective tissue for consumers’ interactions online. The social networking site, once the online equivalent of the hard-copy Facebook directories given to college students, now serves as a hub for gaming, dating, sharing articles, renting videos, shopping, finding discounts and much more. “We haven’t seen the same antagonism between Apple and Facebook as we have between Google and Facebook, but I think there’s the same underlying concern about being at center of customers’ life and experience,” said Charles Golvin, an analyst with the research firm Forrester. “Facebook desires to be at the center of the consumer experience and while it will work with others, it wants the Facebook experience to be at the core.” Facebook already has its own plans to spread onto cellphones — and they don’t have to include Apple. Though Facebook has denied rumors it plans to build a “Facebook phone,” the social networking service has already been deeply integrated into smartphones such as the INQ Cloud Touch and Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 smartphone operating system. And this may just be the beginning. Asked about Facebook’s ambitions in mobile, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that Facebook should serve as “a platform for making all of these apps more social,” offering “an extension of what we see happening on the web.” The lack of Facebook integration in iOS 5 may also stem from the social network’s close ties to Microsoft, an early investor in Facebook that has partnered with the site on everything from smartphones to search. Microsoft has made Facebook front and center on Windows Phone 7, syncing photos, status updates, contacts and more from the social network. “Microsoft is an investor in Facebook and Facebook is very deeply integrated into the Windows Phone operating system, so there may be contractual agreements there that would preclude integration with a competitor to Windows Phone,” said Ross Rubin, an analyst at NPD. At the same time, Facebook’s relationship with Apple has been far less cozy. Talks between the two companies to integrate Facebook into Ping, an iTunes-based social networking service, reportedly fell apart last year. Rubin also noted that Facebook “has not been supporting the iPad up to this point”—Facebook has yet to release an official iPad app, whereas Twitter has shown more consistent investment in developing for a range of Apple devices, with different versions of its app customized for the iPad , iPhone , and Mac . Analysts concur that the success of Apple’s iOS devices isn’t likely to be hampered by Facebook’s absence as an official partner. But there may be winners. Apple’s competitors, like Microsoft, have a way to instantly differentiate their products, and Twitter will likely get a major boost from Apple’s brand.

Read the full article →

Steve Ressler: The Myth of "Rightsizing" the Federal Workforce

June 3, 2011

Guest Post by Alicia Mazzara President Ronald Reagan was no fan of big government. But would the man who famously said, “As government expands, liberty contracts,” agree with the latest efforts to contract the federal government? One week ago, the House Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce met to discuss “rightsizing” the federal government. So just what is “rightsizing”? It’s a politically correct way of saying cutting people’s jobs. In other words, rightsizing is the new downsizing. While the House debates how many federal jobs are needed to keep the country running, government agencies are taking steps of their own to save on labor. Earlier this month, the Department of Agriculture became the first cabinet-level agency to offer “buyouts” that encourage employees in certain positions to retire early . Smaller agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Trade Commission, and Air Force Material Command, also began offering buyouts earlier this year. We are living in austere budgetary times, and government has a reputation for being bloated and inefficient. No one, not even the average federal worker , disagrees that we need to do more with less. However, it’s exceptionally difficult to figure out what the “right” size is. Moreover, shrinking the federal workforce often means increasing the number of contractors, which does not translate into cost savings. This past week, federal workers have been mulling the following Washington Post article by Joe Davidson. Davidson highlights the following statistic: There are currently 2.1 million federal workers and approximately 10.5 million government contractors and grantees. This growing imbalance is a big deal considering that contractors are usually costlier than federal employees: Carol Davison, a Human Resources Specialist at the Department of Commerce, explains : [R]eplacing Feds with contractors is not more effective or efficient because government employees do the same work for less money. Additionally, they are the subject matter experts on programs under analysis and should perform it because they will be responsible for providing the service. In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent $537.5 billion dollars on contracts. In other words, rightsizing is starting to look like we’re just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Carol also raises a second important point: federal workers have specialized knowledge that a contractor may not have. By cutting federal jobs or encouraging federal workers to retire early, government runs the risk of losing critical institutional knowledge. Learning takes time, and the benefits of this knowledge are often difficult to quantify. Moreover, trading federal workers for contractors doesn’t really shrink government or our costs. The question should not be about size, but about creating well-functioning government. Federal employees have plenty of ideas on how to save the government money. Kathryn S., a Strategic Affairs Officer at the Mississippi Department of Employment Security, offered several alternatives : Streamlining processes, eliminating deadwood employees, crafting retirement options, combining (truly) duplication programs would all reduce costs. Applying the same models to the sacred cows of security and defense would also reduce costs. None of these options are being explored. Anita Arile, a Management Analyst for the government of Guam, brought up the role of technology: Today’s government must find balance between technological resources and human resources. Although technology can replace several human resources, it is the agency’s responsibility to ensure that the human resource available are knowledgeable and capable of continuing the processing flow manually. Through technology, many agencies are capable of minimizing paperwork by sharing common data. This has proven to benefit both the public and the employees of several California health care agencies. As Davidson points out, the question of workforce size depends on the task at hand. Ultimately, any conversation about “rightsizing” must address the intended role of federal government. You can’t figure out how many people are right for the job if you don’t know what it is. But most importantly, it is not really “rightsizing” if we are simply swapping out federal workers for more expensive contractors. To say that we can fix government simply by reducing its size is an oversimplification. As President Obama said in his commencement speech at the University of Michigan: “What we should be asking is not whether we need ‘big government’ or a ‘small government,’ but how we can create a smarter and better government.” Alicia Mazzara is a Graduate Fellow at GovLoop and is currently pursuing her master in public policy at the George Washington University. In a past life, Alicia worked in consumer protection at the Federal Trade Commission.

Read the full article →

Antonio Villaraigosa: Message to Small Business Community: Los Angeles Is Dedicated to Your Needs

June 3, 2011

As National Small Business Month comes to a close, Los Angeles remains committed to the specific needs of the more than 300,000 small businesses that employ nearly 2 million Angelenos. Los Angeles has long been the destination for entrepreneurs from around the globe to build their dreams from the ground up. However, we cannot rely on the City’s trademark entrepreneurial spirit alone to preserve LA as the place where the world creates and innovates. That is why my office created the City’s first-ever small business team to fight for the interests of entrepreneurs and small firms throughout Los Angeles. For the first time, my office required City Departments to meet specific contract goals for local small businesses as well as women-, minority- and veteran-owned businesses. To foster transparency and accountability for this new system, General Managers are required to post contracting results, the first of which are currently available online. This isn’t just the right thing to do — this is the smart, business-savvy thing to do. A larger pool of qualified bidders will generate healthy competition and savings for the City while empowering our local small business community. If you are a small business owner, I encourage you to go visit Los Angeles Works to find out more about these initiatives and other City resources that are at your disposal to help your company grow and thrive. After all, customer service is the core responsibility of our small business team, and you are our most important customer. Below are the recent initiatives and first-time milestones achieved by the Mayor’s Office and aimed at serving the specific needs of small businesses: Signed a Strategic Alliance Memorandum with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to strengthen and expand small business development in the local area. Partnered with the University of Southern California (USC) to create the MBDA Business Center (MBC), which was awarded $1.8M from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) to boost job creation and foster economic growth. Hosted the State’s largest Small Business Advocate’s Advisory Group meeting, enabling more than 100 small business leaders to discuss programs, policies and capital projects impacting small business. Posted the first reports on the City’s procurement efforts. These reports track the number and amount of contracts awarded by department and the participation by minority- and women-owned companies. Click here for a fact sheet with more information on the resources available to the small business community.

Read the full article →

Angela Haines: Girl Tech Inventors and Mentors!

June 2, 2011

HailNYC Team , credit C. Colon One night in May, the premises of AOL in downtown NYC vibrated with the chatty energy and nerves of 47 teenage girls from 17 local high schools getting ready to pitch their newly created apps to a group of four judges from the worlds of both technology and venture capital. The Technovation Challenge pitch night, the first on the East Coast, was the culmination of a nine week program, matching high school girls with high tech mentors from local industry and universities to create mobile phone app prototypes using Google’s App Inventor for Android. The teams met weekly for three hour sessions at Google ‘s New York offices. Early support for the program came from the U.S. Office of Naval Research seeking solutions to a crisis in recruiting sufficient tech savvy professionals. The winning team created a product called HailNYC to help both passengers and drivers find each other efficiently, so they can both navigate the city at a safer and faster rate. Both drivers and passengers open maps on their apps; passengers request a driver at a specific location which alerts drivers who consult maps with dots indicating locations of waiting passengers. Drivers then notify passengers that they are on the way. One member of the winning team, Sharnice Ottley, a senior at Boys and Girls High School, says the idea occurred to the team when they brainstormed the problems of getting around New York City. While Sharnice “jumped at the chance” to participate in the program, the process “really got our brains churning and showed us how to design our app. I learned, for example, that to make the graphics we had envisioned, we had to do a lot of math. This wasn’t the kind of chalk and talk education I am used to; besides creating technology, we had to do marketing research so we could come up with a good business plan.” Team mentor Tamar Shinar, a postdoctorate fellow at NYU’s Courant Institute , says that what surprised her was her team’s deep engagement in a process which was so different from their more passive, routine school work. She observes, “They showed an amazing amount of persistence and patience for three months to get to the end line.” Their victory gave all members of the winning team an Android Tablet, donated by Dell, along with an all-expense-paid trip to San Francisco a week later to participate in the national Technovation Challenge where they placed third, competing against five other wining teams. Technovation Challenge Founder, Anuranjita Tewary, currently a senior data scientist at Linked In , started the program two years ago after spending a weekend with a program called Startup Weekend which paired professionals for an intense weekend of bringing an idea to launch with a prototype. Despite her math and physics degree from MIT and a PhD in applied physics from Stanford, followed by good jobs at Microsoft and Ad Mob, Anu remained a successful scientist who had never considered she could start, or become CEO of, a company. The Startup Weekend, she says, “made me think if I had had this experience early on, my outlook on life would have been as different as I pursued my career.” So she left her job to develop the Technovation Program for underprivileged girls around the Bay Area, relying heavily on her network to bring in mentors, instructors and coaches for the girls. “I wanted to show these girls not to use computer science only as a tool, but to learn to program so they can create products that become tools.” Because she had little experience in the nonprofit world, Anu folded her program into Iridescent Learning , a nonprofit educational organization in Los Angeles founded by Tara Chklovski, an aerospace engineer and former school principal. Currently, Iridescent stimulates interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) for about 8,000 underprivileged students and their families with a number of programs, including Summer Engineering Boot Camp, Family Science Program and Science Studios in Los Angeles and New York. In her opening remarks at Pitch Night NYC, current executive director of Irisdescent , New York, Erika Allison, formerly a Dow engineer who has initiated several engineering programs for high school girls, told the assembled girls and their families that because there is a critical shortage of women in technology, the goal of the Challenge is to inspire girls to see themselves not just as users but as inventors and designers of technology. After the event, Erika admits, “I was completely blown away by all that these 47 girls mastered in just 12 weeks, along with the level of detail in both their apps and their business plans, including market research.” Another New York Technovation mentor, Vanessa Hurst, a database engineer for Paperless Post which provides customized formal invitations online, says since her days as a computer science major at the University of Virginia, she has been aware of the underrepresentation of women in computer science. Working with Technovation to develop an app that allows people to monitor their personal recycling habits, Vanessa was amazed “at how capable the girls were, but then how easily they got caught up in the tango of timidity so that no one wanted to step up, even when she had a great idea because she didn’t want to take the credit.” Vanessa continues, “Besides teaching the girls technical skills like programming and product design, the Challenge also provided a psychological journey for the girls to believe they can do anything.” For more on women entrepreneurs, visit www.wStartup.com .

Read the full article →

Commercial Real Estate Demand Grows as Markets Stabilize

June 2, 2011

Demand for commercial real estate is on the rise due to the improving economy and job creation, according to the National Associati read more

Read the full article →

Liz Hamburg: Am I Past My Entrepreneurial Prime?

June 2, 2011

I made the mistake of attending the Tech Crunch Disrupt NYC conference on my birthday last week. One of the morning presentations was by uber-angel investor Ron Conway and David Lee who runs SV Angel, giving the results of their survey of 500 of their portfolio companies. They were trying to figure out what made their top investments so successful. No surprise, the results showed that co-founders tend to do better than individual founders. 95% of the success stories were male founders. The really disheartening one was that almost 70% of the “big” successes (defined by them as over $500m in value) were under 30 years old. And, 90% were repeat entrepreneurs which meant that these under 30′s already had at least one company under their belt. It’s not clear whether this data was skewed by the fact that they mostly invested in male repeat entrepreneurs under 30 or if I should take this birthday wake up call as a sign and as an over 30 woman, pack up my start-up bag and go home! While this is just one data point and I know many, many successful entrepreneurs who are “older and wiser,” I do think that there is a cultural shift partially driven by the media — especially in the tech world — towards convincing young people that they need to make their first (not even million) but $500 million NOW! At the Tech Crunch conference, there were two Stanford freshman who had worked all night to program their app then flown on the red-eye to set up a booth at the conference with the hopes of getting selected to present. Conway told a story of being in a conference room with a team of young entrepreneurs whom he was about to fund. They needed their parents there to co-sign the documents because they weren’t old enough! Peter Thiel, another very well respected venture capitalist who was one of the co-founders of PayPal and the first outside investor in Facebook, is promoting the idea that a college education may not be worth it and true entrepreneurs should skip school and jump right in. He just announced the first “20 under 20″ Thiel Fellows who will each be given $100k over 2 years plus mentorship and access to an amazing network of tech entrepreneurs to work on projects instead of going to university. The idea is that a young person who has graduated from college already has so much student debt and maybe even a mortgage. So, Thiel wants to give them the opportunity to work on their ideas without taking on a lot of risk — if you call dropping out of college for two years not taking risk! We’ve all heard the Bill Gates’ story and by now probably seen The Social Network . I’ve been on the board of my alma mater, Brown University’s Entrepreneurship Program for years and have personally seen some amazing young entrepreneurs build sustainable businesses. However, maybe I’m getting old and crotchety (OK, it was my birthday!), but there’s something to be said for learning from others and paying your dues. Sure, younger entrepreneurs can afford to take more risk and work longer hours. But what about the benefit of years of experience, strong networks, perspective? Thank you to Adeo Ressi, the founder of the Founder Institute and an over-30 entrepreneur who argued recently against a peak age for entrepreneurship. Their research at the Founder Institute shows that “an older age is actually a better predictor of entrepreneurial success.” Conway says that older founders are “more conservative” and maybe more likely to go for more modest returns. So, part of the question is how do we define “success”? What message are we sending if every entrepreneur thinks they will only be considered a “success” by providing investors with a extremely large and relatively quick return? A recent New York Times article talked about companies like Facebook and Google acquiring start-ups for millions of dollars to grab young talent. Often, the acquiring companies shut down the company they’ve just acquired and just keep the talent. Of course, I love that young people are following their passions and feeling empowered to pursue them. But I just worry that perhaps we are sending them the wrong message about the goal of starting a business. Is the idea of building a sustainable business that creates jobs, provides value to the community and satisfaction and long-term employment to its founders a thing of the past? So, I think I’ll blow out one more birthday candle and have one more glass of champagne while I ponder the question of what it means to be a successful entrepreneur today. By the way, I should mention … I started my first business before 30!

Read the full article →

Grim Prospects For Latest Effort To Restore Extended Jobless Benefits In N.C.

June 1, 2011

Sonia Street does not want to be evicted from her apartment in Charlotte, N.C., but she says that’s what will happen if Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly and Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue can’t agree on a budget deal that restores 20 weeks of benefits for the long-term unemployed. “Provided this thing goes through next week, I should be okay,” Street, 43, told HuffPost. She said she found an eviction notice last month on the front door of her apartment. “If I have money in my hand by the 11th, I’ll be fine. If not, I don’t know what I’m going to do.” Street is one of 46,000 unemployed North Carolinians who have prematurely stopped receiving federal unemployment benefits because of the political standoff. Perdue vetoed a GOP proposal that she said would have resulted in massive state layoffs, though Republicans insisted layoffs could only happen if a formal budget for the next fiscal year is not in place by the end of July. On Tuesday, statehouse Republicans announced a bipartisan budget deal that includes retroactive payments for people who have missed checks since the federal Extended Benefits program expired in the state on April 16 . The state Senate will likely approve the budget on Thursday, and the House will approve it over the weekend, said a spokesman for Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis. Perdue doesn’t like it. “I am taking a close look at the Senate budget, but at first glance it raises enormous concerns,” she said in a statement. “With regard to education funding, the proposed budget appears to be a charade. While the Senate claims to protect teaching positions, they are actually forcing local school districts to make substantial layoffs of education personnel to the tune of more than a quarter billion dollars — meaning thousands of teachers and teaching assistants will be cut. It also appears to take a devastating toll on higher education.” Democratic House Minority Leader Joe Hackney told HuffPost that Perdue “probably will veto” the bill; a veto override by the legislature “is possible but not assured.” Street will be watching closely. She says she lost her job as an accountant for a commercial property management company in July 2009. She’s been taking classes since then in hopes of eventually earning a bachelor’s degree. Her job search has been lousy: “I haven’t one interview the whole time I’ve been laid off.” The benefits lapsed because the state has failed to modify its Extended Benefits eligibility law to conform to a new federal standard, which the U.S. Congress created in December to ensure states with high unemployment rates would not lose the final 20 weeks of benefits. That aid kicks in for people who use up 79 weeks of combined state and federal benefits without finding work. Twenty-five states have passed laws to keep the benefits. Chapel Hill resident Ali Braswell, who also said she is facing eviction, doesn’t get why it’s been such a struggle for North Carolina. “I at least thought I was gonna get the 99 weeks that everybody else did,” Braswell, 40, told HuffPost. She said she lost her job as a payroll coordinator in July of 2009 and that the only work she’s had since then was as a desk attendant in a University of North Carolina residence hall. From October to May, she worked 12 hours a week, earning $7.50 an hour. Braswell said she had a job interview on Wednesday that went well. “I have $213 to my name and my rent is due as of today,” Braswell said. “I have a cutoff notice from my electric. I’m really hoping this job will come through. I really don’t know what I’m going to do.”

Read the full article →

Investors Balance Risk and Return

May 31, 2011

Whether they are located in top-tier cities or secondary markets, commercial real estate investors share some common ground when it comes to being cautiously optimistic and weighing risk, accord read more

Read the full article →

Dana P. Goldman: Congress and Medicare

May 31, 2011

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that rising Medicare costs are the principal long-term driver of the federal deficit. They just don’t agree on how to rein in the spending. The lesson from New York’s special House election is that the Republicans’ plan — vouchers to purchase a private insurance plan — may be political kryptonite, and some are starting to back away. So what will the Democrats do to curb costs? The new health-care law gives an independent board the power to make sweeping cuts in Medicare spending. President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan proposes to beef up that power. Republicans and some Democrats want none of it. They claim the Independent Payment Advisory Board usurps Congress’ spending power over a huge and important social program. “It’s our constitutional duty, as members of Congress, to take responsibility for Medicare and not turn decisions over to a board,” said Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), a co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the board. True, Congress is responsible for establishing policies affecting all aspects of Medicare, including payments to health-care providers, hospitals and insurance plans. The problem is that Congress also has a long record of walking away from the most promising attempts to save money in the Medicare program. Congress should not be allowed another opportunity to repeat history. Take bundled payments. In this cost-saving approach, health- care providers receive a fixed sum of money for a package of services, which reduces incentives to overuse services. Many health economists – and even Congress’ own Medicare Payment Advisory Commission – agree that bundled payments show the greatest promise to reduce Medicare spending. In 1991, Congress seemed to agree. It authorized a demonstration project to test the effectiveness of bundled payments for cardiac- bypass surgeries, one of the most common and costly services in Medicare. Four hospitals were chosen for the demonstration, and each was paid a single fee for all inpatient and physician services for heart-bypass patients. The result? Medicare saved more than $50 million over five years — and quality of care improved. Yet the American Hospital Association and organizations like the Mayo Clinic didn’t like the idea. Congress caved in to the pressure, killing any chance of broader implementation. Another promising solution to Medicare’s cost problems involves competitive bidding. Because certain health-care services can be considered as commodities, Medicare could save money by buying them from the lowest-cost supplier. In 2002, Medicare began a demonstration project using competitive bidding when buying such medical equipment as oxygen tanks, diabetes supplies and wheelchairs. The approach produced a 20% savings over a six-year period, according to Medicare. Initially a strong supporter of competitive bidding, Congress again wilted in the face of vigorous opposition from large medical supply companies. The effort remains on hold. There are other areas where money can be saved if Congress would join the cause. The use of diagnostic and imaging services has exploded in recent years. In 1980, 3 million CT scans were done in this country. By 2008, the figure had climbed to 68 million . The rise came despite evidence that CT imaging could be responsible for 1 in 50 future cases of cancer, according to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. In 2007, Medicare moved to disallow CT imaging for cardiovascular disease in cases where the scan was not clinically warranted. With the backing of Congress, Medicare officials took the risky step of demanding evidence of a scan’s benefit before paying for it. Lobbyists for cardiologists soon arrived on Capitol Hill, and Congress again lost its nerve. The result is that Medicare is helping to subsidize a technology that may be doing extensive harm. Congress can’t even agree to pay more money for better performance. In yet another demonstration project started in 2005, Medicare created a pay-for-performance reimbursement system that rewarded health-care providers who were better at managing their patients. In three years, physician groups and hospitals showed better outcomes on 28 of 32 clinical measures — such as blood pressure, weight and LDL cholesterol levels — for patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease. Participating hospitals saw their Medicare quality scores – such as readmission rates — increase by 17% in four years. But not a peep from Congress. The beauty of the Independent Payment Advisory Board is that it keeps Congress on the sidelines. If Medicare spending growth exceeds a set target, the board is required to recommend cuts to reduce spending by specified amounts, starting in 2015. The reductions automatically go into effect unless Congress comes up with alternative cuts that result in equivalent savings. Congress, of course, flinched when it could have enhanced the board’s powers when drawing up the Affordable Care Act. By not giving the board the authority to recommend changes in Medicare benefits, impose cost-sharing on patients or reduce payments to providers and suppliers already scheduled for cutbacks, Congress bypassed yet another opportunity to save money. Medicare is one of the few areas in government where we know what to do to start saving money. Congress’ long history of support for wasteful Medicare spending shows that we can’t trust it to help. Dana P. Goldman is director of the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. Veeral Shah is a graduate student in the school of public policy.

Read the full article →

FASB Lease Accounting Update

May 31, 2011

With the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s proposed changes to lease accounting standards, many firms and organizations have expressed concern. read more

Read the full article →

Video: Momani Says U.S. Is `Swing Voter’ in IMF Chief Selection

May 30, 2011

May 30 (Bloomberg) — Bessma Momani, associate professor of political science at the University of Waterloo in Canada, talks about the selection process for the next head of the International Monetary Fund. Momani speaks from Ontario with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

The Summer Gas Squeeze

May 28, 2011

NEW YORK — There’s less money this summer for hotel rooms, surfboards and bathing suits. It’s all going into the gas tank. High prices at the pump are putting a squeeze on the family budget as the traditional summer driving season begins. For every $10 the typical household earns before taxes, almost a full dollar now goes toward gas, a 40 percent bigger bite than normal. Households spent an average of $369 on gas last month. In April 2009, they spent just $201. Families now spend more filling up than they spend on cars, clothes or recreation. Last year, they spent less on gasoline than each of those things. Jeffrey Wayman of Cape Charles, Va., spent Friday riding his motorcycle to North Carolina’s Outer Banks, a day trip with his wife. They decided to eat snacks in a gas station parking lot rather than buy lunch because rising fuel prices have eaten so much into their budget over the past year that they can’t ride as frequently as they would like. “We used to do it a lot more, but not as much now,” he said. “You have to cut back when you have a $480 gas bill a month.” Alex Martinez, a senior at Arcadia High School outside Los Angeles, said his family’s trips to San Francisco, which they usually take once or more a year, are on hold. As he stopped at a gas station to put $5 of fuel in his car – not much more than a gallon – he said the high prices are crimping social life for him and his friends. “We’re always worrying, `How are we going to get home. We’ve got less than half a gallon left,’” Martinez said. “We definitely can’t go out as much, and we can’t go as far.” As Memorial Day weekend opens, the nationwide average for a gallon of unleaded is $3.81. Though prices have drifted lower in recent days, analysts expect average price for 2011 to come in higher than the previous record, $3.25 in 2008. A year ago, gas cost $2.76. The squeeze is happening at a time when most people aren’t getting raises, even as the economy recovers. “These increases are not something consumers can shrug off,” says James Hamilton, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, who studies gas prices. “It’s a key part of the family budget.” The ramifications are far-reaching for an economy still struggling to gain momentum two years into a recovery. Economists say the gas squeeze makes people feel poorer than they actually are. They’re showing it by limiting spending far beyond the gas station. Wal-Mart recently blamed high gas prices for an eighth straight quarter of lower sales in the U.S. Target said gas prices were hurting sales of clothes. Every 50-cent jump in the cost of gasoline takes $70 billion out of the U.S. economy over the course of a year, Hamilton says. That’s about one half of one percent of gross domestic product. The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending rose just 0.1 percent in April, excluding the extra money spent on more expensive gas and food, while wages stayed flat for the second straight month. Mike Nason, a marketing consultant from Laguna Niguel, Calif., says he’s clipping coupons to save money for gas and cutting back wherever else he can. His daughter Chandler, 17, recently settled for a prom dress that cost $170 instead of asking her parents to spend $400 for another that caught her eye. “In prior years we would have spent more money on the dress, but money has become a big object,” he says. The tourism industry is bracing for an uncertain summer. AAA predicts the typical family will spend $692 on its vacation, down 14 percent from $809 last year. Many of those surveyed said they are planning shorter trips and expect to pinch pennies when they arrive. AAA estimates 34.9 million Americans will travel 50 miles or more from home this weekend, an increase of about 100,000 from last year. But they will have to do more complicated math to make the summer budget work. The median household income in the U.S. before taxes is just below $50,000, or about $4,150 per month. The $369 that families spent last month on gas represented 8.9 percent of monthly household income, according to an analysis by Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at Oil Price Information Service. Since 2000, the average is about 5.7 percent. For the year, the figure is 7.9 percent. Only twice before have Americans spent this much of their income on gas. In 1981, after the last oil crisis, Americans spent 8.8 percent of household income on gas. In July 2008, when oil price spiked, they spent 10.2 percent. Average hourly earnings, meanwhile, have risen just 1.9 percent in the past year. That’s only just enough to keep up with inflation. The good news is that analysts expect gas to fall to $3.50 a gallon in the coming weeks. In order for household gasoline expenses to return to their historical place in the family budget for the year, gas prices would have to fall by about half and stay that way for the rest of the year. Demand for gasoline has fallen for eight straight weeks as drivers try to cut back, but higher prices can’t keep drivers parked for long. Even with high prices this year, the government expects gasoline demand to grow slightly for the year. “Drivers try to do what they can, but they have to go almost all the places they go,” says David Greene, a researcher at the Center of Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and manager of the Department of Energy website fueleconomy.gov. “There’s no magic gizmo that will drastically change someone’s gasoline use.” Mike Siroub clutched his heart as he described the experience of filling up lately. He owns a Union Oil gas station in Arcadia, Calif., but one of his cars is also a 1975 Oldsmobile. “Think about it,” he said. “If you’ve got a car with a 30-gallon tank and gas is $4 a gallon and you fill it up, you’re out $120.” He says high gas prices will keep him home this weekend. And he runs a gas station for a living. As he greeted a steady stream of customers at his station, he laughed and said, “I have to pay for gas just like everyone else.” ___ Associated Press writers John Rogers in Los Angeles and Brock Vergakis in Norfolk, Va., contributed to this story. Jonathan Fahey can be reached at . http://www.facebook.com/Fahey.Jonathan

Read the full article →

Tornadoes, Floods Don’t Pose Threat To Larger Economy, Experts Say

May 27, 2011

WASHINGTON — The tornadoes and floods that have devastated parts of the South and Midwest have also hammered the local economies – flooding farmlands, suspending factory work and disrupting energy production. Yet for the U.S. economy overall, the damage will likely be scant. At most, the disasters might knock one-tenth of 1 percentage point off national economic growth in the April-June quarter, Wells Fargo economist Mark Vitner estimates. “It’s so small, you aren’t going to notice it,” said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight. Others caution, though, that the tornado season hasn’t ended yet, and the hurricane season has yet to arrive. Further major disasters could begin to weigh on the U.S. economy. Early forecasts estimate that the economy will have grown at a 2.5 percent to 3 percent annual rate in the current April-June quarter. That’s a relatively weak pace that wouldn’t spur robust job growth. Still, it’s above the 1.8 percent growth the government reported Thursday for the January-March period. The natural disasters haven’t led economists to reduce their estimates for April-June quarter. “This is a very extreme year,” said Tom Larsen, a senior vice president at Eqecat, a firm that estimates the impact of catastrophes for insurance companies and government agencies. “If it were to stop right now, it would be a once every 25 years’ or every 50 years’ occurrence.” But Larsen doesn’t expect it to stop. “There will be more tornadoes and more property damage,” he said. Typically, damage caused by tornadoes is more concentrated than damage from powerful hurricanes, such as Katrina, economists say. The tornado that devastated Joplin, Mo., on Sunday probably won’t slow the overall state’s economy very much, said Ben Kanigel, an associate economist at Moody’s Analytics. That’s because Joplin accounts for only about 2 percent of Missouri’s economic output. Larsen estimates that the Joplin twister, the deadliest in the United States in more than six decades, and the tornadoes in late April that damaged parts of Alabama and six other Southern states could cause more than $8 billion in losses. His firm hasn’t yet made a similar estimate for the Mississippi flood. Though a blow to the local areas, $8 billion in losses would hardly make a dent in a national economy that produces about $15 trillion in goods and services every year. The United States is the world’s largest economy. The economy is measured by the gross domestic product. The GDP tracks only what the economy produces; it doesn’t account for wealth or property. So if a tornado destroys a factory, the value of the lost factory isn’t counted in GDP. Only its lost output is. Likewise, the loss of a house and other personal property isn’t reflected in GDP. Yet rebuilding from a disaster can add to GDP, because reconstruction would boost output. Construction firms rebuild homes and factories. And consumers replace lost cars and appliances. That’s why analysts predict that any loss of economic output in the April-June period would be reversed in the July-September quarter. “Despite the fact that Joplin and Missouri are clearly worse off, we don’t subtract this destruction from GDP,” said David Mitchell, an economist at Missouri State University. “But we do add people’s work to recreate the infrastructure, homes and buildings that were destroyed. In this sense, GDP can be a poor measure of a country’s economic well-being.” The disasters have had devastating consequences for many communities. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that nearly 3.6 million acres of farmland are either under water or have been damaged by the Mississippi River flood. The river, swollen by spring rains and a large snow melt, has forced evacuations of thousands of homes from Tennessee to Mississippi. John Michael Riley, an agricultural economist at Mississippi State University, estimates that the flood has destroyed up to $1.5 billion of corn, wheat and other crops. Livestock pastures and fish farms have also been hurt, he said. Still, some industries haven’t been hit as hard as analysts had feared. Many had economists worried that several major oil refineries near New Orleans might be flooded and have to shut down. That would have crimped supplies and potentially driven up the price of oil. But that didn’t happen. “The worst fears have not been realized as of yet,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, a Houston-based firm.

Read the full article →

Job Growth Continues for Ninth Consecutive Month

May 27, 2011

Retail, professional and business services, and hospitality added jobs in April, contributing to an overall increase of 244,000 jobs last month. read more

Read the full article →

Research Reveals Top Trends in Parking

May 25, 2011

Demand for sustainable solutions and high-tech advances are revolutionizing the parking industry, according to new research released by the International Parkin read more

Read the full article →

CNBC Anchor Mark Haines Dies

May 25, 2011

NEW YORK — Mark Haines, co-anchor of CNBC’s morning “Squawk on the Street” show, died unexpectedly on Tuesday evening, the network said. He was 65. The network said he died in his home. It did not specify the cause of death. Haines worked at CNBC for 22 years after working as a news anchor at TV stations in Philadelphia, New York and Providence, R.I. He was the founding anchor of CNBC’s “Squawk Box” morning show. In 2005, he started co-anchoring “Squawk On The Street,” a 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. show, with Erin Burnett, while “Squawk Box” was pushed to an earlier slot. Burnett recently left CNBC to host a general news show on CNN. CNBC President Mark Hoffman said Haines was “always the unflappable pro.” “He was an authentic voice in business media,” said Eric Jackson, who runs the hedge fund Ironfire Capital. “He resonated with so many people because he would speak out, and with opinion. Too often the media lets the corporate PR army and highly trained CEOs get their points across without question. He wouldn’t let that happen.” WATCH: Barry Ritholtz, head of the research firm Fusion IQ and frequent guest on CNBC, said Haines was “a no-nonsense straight shooter. He knew what questions to ask and how to ask them.” Ritholtz said that the biggest complaint about CNBC in the 1990s was that its anchors cheered on the stock-market bubble. He said the exception was Haines, who was always skeptical. “He was trained as an attorney,” Ritholtz said. “He brought that keen lawyer’s eye to everything he did. It wasn’t something often seen in the financial media.” Haines had a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and was a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association, CNBC said. Haines is also remembered for calling a bottom to the stock market decline on March 10, 2009, his first call of the recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average never closed below its level of March 9. Haines is survived by his wife, Cindy, his son, Matt, and daughter, Meredith. CNBC said funeral arrangements have yet to be made.

Read the full article →

NYU-Poly Expands Campus in Brooklyn’s MetroTech Center

May 25, 2011

NEW YORK, NY May 25, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — In an important step to fulfill NYU’s city-wide strategic vision for expansion of its academic facilities, NYU’s engineering affiliate, the Polytechnic Institute of New York University (NYU-Poly) (top left center), will expand into neighboring space in Downtown Brooklyn’s MetroTech Center.   The move is part of NYU-Poly’s $38 million capital plan, called the i-squared-e Campus Transformation – where the “i-squared-e” stands for invention, innovation and entrepreneurship.   The expansion into MetroTech will allow NYU-Poly to accommodate faculty offices, dry computational labs, small classrooms, and administrative functions, while freeing up space in current facilities for renovation and potential redevelopment. “MetroTech Center has a great central commons area,” said NYU-Poly President Jerry Hultin (lower right photo).   “Expanding into buildings that flank the commons creates a better presence of NYU-Poly in the square, and imparts a more dynamic, vibrant feel to our campus.” NYU-Poly is entering into a 20-year lease with real estate developer Forest City Ratner Companies for a total of 120,000 rentable square feet of space at 2 MetroTech and 15 MetroTech, which also involves a 9-year sub-lease of space from Wellpoint Insurance.   For more information about NYU 2031 and a complete copy of the institution’s news release ,   please log onto www.nyu.edu/nyu-in-nyc or contact   .    Wendi Parson of Polytechnic Institute of New York University, wparson@poly.edu ,   +1-718-260-3323 Web Site: http://www.poly.edu

Read the full article →

Slush-Fund Surtax? IRS Could Penalize Secret Campaign Spending

May 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — Top Republican political strategist Karl Rove’s method of secretly funneling unlimited contributions from big donors was so hugely successful in the 2010 campaign that Democrats are now trying to copy it. But his model may yet end up backfiring spectacularly. In one scenario, groups like Rove’s Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategies could find themselves subject to massive fines, ranging as high as 35 to 70 percent of the money they received in secret donations. In another scenario, their deep-pocket donors could be hit by a 35 percent tax on their contributions. Rove may well have found a way around the nation’s federal election laws. But now the key question is whether the Internal Revenue Service is willing to be assertive. Because if it is, then just like with Al Capone, it could be the IRS that gets him. In Crossroads GPS’s solicitations for money, the group describes itself as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organization, and due to a controversial loophole in federal campaign finance rules, the names of donors to those organizations do not have to be disclosed publicly. But contrary to popular belief, Rove’s group has not formally attained 501(c)(4) status. The group’s application, requesting the IRS to classify it as a “social welfare” group, is still pending. And while the designation is typically not much more than a formality — organizations routinely call themselves (c)(4) groups before they’ve been formally approved — tax and campaign finance experts contacted by The Huffington Post said the IRS could well deny Crossroads GPS’s application. IRS guidelines for 501(c)(4) status state that social welfare groups “must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community” — which “does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” Intervening in political campaigns isn’t prohibited, it just can’t be the primary activity. Were Crossroads GPS denied its 501(c)(4) status, the organization could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in fines. And operating in secrecy would suddenly come with an enormous new price tag. THE RISE OF 501(c)(4)s In the 2010 cycle, Rove wasn’t the only one to use a 501(c)(4) as a source of clandestine funds. A slew of other , mostly conservative, often interrelated groups did so as well, led by the Wall Street-backed American Action Network . Indeed, more of these groups seem to be popping up every day, with Rove’s organization often cited as a role model. “If people look at what Crossroads did over the course of the last couple of years, that’ll give them a good sense of our activity,” said Bill Burton, a former aide to President Barack Obama and one of the co-founders of Priorities USA, a newly-formed Democratic 501(c)(4), in an interview with The Huffington Post last week. Crossroads GPS spokesman Jonathan Collegio confidently insists that his group “is comfortably within the guidelines set out by the IRS” for social welfare groups. “GPS invested millions of dollars in social welfare issue advocacy advertising before the FEC’s 60 day reporting window last summer,” he said in an email. And, Collegio added, “we’ve been one of the most heavily active issue advocacy organizations in Washington over the last six months.” But when it comes to defining political activities, the IRS doesn’t engage in the same kind of legalistic hairsplitting that the Federal Election Commission does, and much of the spending Collegio puts on the non-political side of his group’s ledger, the IRS might well decide does not belong there. “Lots and lots of things that would not be considered ‘express advocacy’ by the FEC, the IRS would consider intervention in a political campaign,” said Donald Tobin, a tax and campaign finance law expert at the Moritz College of Law. TIPPING THE SCALE To qualify as a legitimate 501(c)(4) organization, in its first fiscal year Crossroads GPS would need to have spent more on what the IRS considers non-political expenditures than on political ones, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who used to head the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations. “My guess is they haven’t,” he said. And there’s not enough time to take dramatic measures to restore the balance, either — the group’s first fiscal year ends on May 31. Consider the numbers: Crossroads GPS dropped a whopping $17 million on campaign spending that it considered obligated to report to the FEC — most of it on televised attack ads — in the run-up to the November 2010 elections. And while Collegio said the group raised a total of $43 million in 2010 — leaving plenty available for other purposes — there are few indications that it spent more than a fraction of that money on anything that, by IRS standards, is unrelated to campaigning. Asked for examples of big-ticket expenditures that weren’t election-related, Collegio came up short. Crossroads GPS made a $750,000 ad buy in March attacking public sector unions, and recently launched an anti-Obama wiki , he said. But all that only amounts to pocket change for the group. Collegio also cited as unrelated to elections the $1 million Crossroads GPS spent to run an ad in California during August 2010, that called on Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer “to stop the Medicare cuts.” Boxer was facing reelection three months later. “What Crossroads is going to argue is that these ads you’re talking about are lobbying — and lobbying is a social welfare purpose — because they say in the tagline: ‘Call Barbara Boxer,’” Tobin said. “But that is using federal election law jurisprudence, not tax jurisprudence.” The IRS, he said, takes a “fact and circumstances approach” to decide whether ads — or groups — are basically there to influence elections. And the group’s primary purpose really couldn’t be clearer. Its own blog recently linked to a Wall Street Journal story in which Rove and fellow Republican strategist Ed Gillespie — the co-founders of Crossroads GPS and its Super PAC twin American Crossroads — announced that they’re “raising $120 million in the effort to defeat President Barack Obama, win a GOP majority in the Senate and protect the party’s grip on the House in the 2012 election.” “There’s a good chance the IRS will deny the (c)(4) application,” said Lloyd Mayer, who teaches tax law at the University of Notre Dame. So what would the group do should it come to that? Collegio told The Huffington Post he was “not going to argue hypotheticals based on a tax expert’s opinion.” And he stuck to his guns, adding: “[t]he laws as they are set out by the FEC and IRS are clear, and Crossroads follows them closely.” MILLIONS IN PENALTIES But without its 501(c)(4) status, the group would find itself in real trouble. Experts say the most likely scenario is that the IRS would classify Crossroads GPS as a “527″ organization instead. Unlike 501(c)(4), Section 527 of the U.S. Code is specifically intended for organizations that are primarily engaged in political advocacy. It exempts them from taxes and allows unlimited donations from individuals and corporations. And, thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions, it no longer imposes any limits on what they can say in their ads. But Section 527 also explicitly requires political groups to publicly disclose from whom they got their money and how they spent it. Karl Sandstrom, a former FEC commissioner now at the Washington law firm of Perkins Coie, predicts that “the IRS would come in and say, ‘you’re not properly a (c)(4), all indications are that you’re operating as a political organization. And political organizations have a responsibility to file regular reports with the IRS, and you failed to do so.’” Suddenly in violation of those disclosure rules, the group would then be subject to a massive penalty, established in the statute as the maximum corporate tax rate (35 percent) times all the money that should have been disclosed but wasn’t. For Crossroads GPS, that turns out to be a lot. “You would aggregate all donations that were not disclosed, and you would take that amount at 35 percent,” said Tobin. If indeed the group took in $43 million in donations in 2010 alone, that would mean well over $15 million in penalties right there. “In addition, the organization is also taxed on non-disclosed expenditures, so my reading of the statute would subject all expenditures that were not disclosed to the FEC to the 35 percent tax,” Tobin said. So Crossroads GPS would also owe more than a third of however much it spent beyond the $17 million it has already reported. In a twist sure to be frustrating to disclosure advocates, however, the group still would not have to disclose its donors’ identities once it paid its fines. But that would be secrecy at a very high price, indeed. The tax experts consulted by The Huffington Post say that another possible path exists for Crossroads GPS should it be denied its 501(c)(4) status: It could conceivably declare itself a regular, tax-paying corporation. But the group would arguably take a huge hit there, as well. In that case, the company would potentially have to pay corporate income tax on all the money in took in as donations. And all those campaigns ads wouldn’t be deductible, as they don’t qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses. WAITING ON THE IRS Why, then, is Collegio still so confident? And why, given these huge potential pitfalls, are political (c)(4)s the hottest thing in D.C.? Because the IRS may be afraid of a fight. “That’s the issue here,” said Mayer, the Notre Dame law professor. “Because usually when there are penalties — especially of this magnitude, especially when you’re dealing with an organization this politically sensitive — the IRS blinks.” An IRS spokesman declined to comment for this story. Mayer described what he considers a likely scenario: The IRS denies Rove’s group its (c)(4) status, but ends up letting him off with just a slap on the wrist. “The IRS can waive those penalties if they find that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect,” Mayer said. “And, of course, reasonable cause is all in the eye of the beholder.” “That would be the easy way out,” he added. Another possibility is that the IRS could just decide to let the issue drag out indefinitely, Mayer said. As it is, the earliest opportunity for decisive action may not be for almost another year. Experts say that at this point, the IRS would be wise to hold off on any action until Crossroads GPS files it annual tax form, a Form 990. By law, that form has to include a lot of detailed information about donations and expenditures. But Crossroads GPS will have four and a half months after the end of its fiscal year to file its taxes. That won’t be until Oct. 15. And tax rules make it pretty easy to get extensions for as long as six months, or until mid-April 2012 — still before the November elections, but not soon enough to stop the proliferation of copycats 501(c)(4)s. The IRS is notoriously skittish about making political decisions, Mayer said. “They will go after these (c)(4)s, but they may not have the stomach or the resources to fight a battle royale all the way to the Supreme Court.” That’s particularly the case if Rove’s group fights back hard — as it would be expected to do — and accuses the IRS of trying to limit free speech, he said. But this time around, the IRS could also face a lot of heat if it blinks — not just if it doesn’t. This past fall, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman was besieged with letters demanding that he enforce the (c)(4) rules. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) requested an investigation into the use of tax-exempt groups for political advocacy, generally speaking. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) sent a letter requesting an investigation of the tax status of Crossroads GPS and other groups like it. And campaign finance reform groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center called for an investigation of Crossroads GPS, in particular. “If the IRS investigation establishes that the facts and circumstances show that Crossroads GPS is primarily engaged in participating or intervening in political campaigns,” the letter from the reform groups said, “appropriate penalties should be imposed on the organization, including penalties that take into account the need to deter similar widespread violations from occurring in future elections.” THE COST OF GIVING There have also been some signs lately that the IRS is getting a bit bolder in this area. Last December, when it released its annual workplan, the IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division noted its intention to broaden its historical historical concentration on 501(c)(3) organizations — groups that are not only tax-exempt, but can accept tax-deductible contributions. “Beginning in FY 2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations,” the workplan said. And during the last two weeks, media reports have disclosed that the IRS is examining what could be the first five of many cases in which taxpayers who donated large amounts of money to 501(c)(4)s failed to report them on their gift tax returns. Gift taxes are not an issue for most people; gifts greater than $13,000 — or $26,000 per couple — don’t need to be reported at all. And there is a $5 million lifetime exemption for gifts made after 2010. But for the really big donors, especially those who give away several million dollars a year, the gift tax could result in a hefty assessment on some or all of their contributions. The gift tax rate is 35 percent this year. And unless Congress acts, it will jump to 55 percent in 2013, even as the lifetime exemption falls to $1 million. The IRS insisted in a statement to reporters that the examinations were “not part of a broader effort looking at donations to 501(c)(4)s” but rather were initiated by career employees looking at non-filing of gift and estate tax returns. But this could nevertheless be the tip of a very big iceberg. The examinations in the news were based on 2008 donations to (c)(4)s — back when such groups were still severely limited in what sorts of campaign ads they could run. The 2010 elections brought a huge infusion of campaign money, a good chunk of which is thought to have come from a handful of deep-pocket donors, such as the Koch brothers on the right, and George Soros on the left. For the IRS, cross-referencing those huge donations with gift tax filings would be the work of seconds. (Groups that don’t disclose their donors publicly still have to report them to the IRS in a confidential section of their Form 990s.) What it all comes down to is that, just as 501(c)(4)s weren’t designed to enable non-disclosure of massive political spending, the gift tax may turn out to be an accidental — but hugely effective — enforcement mechanism. By contrast, the gift tax issue wouldn’t be an issue at all if donors hadn’t tried to circumvent disclosure with (c)(4)s, as donations to 527 groups are, by statute, exempt from the gift tax. “That’s sort of one of the underlying themes here, that there is a potential cost to your anonymity,” said Ofer Lion, a Los Angeles tax lawyer who represents tax-exempt organizations. “Your anonymity is currently worth 35 percent of your contribution,” he said. “And 55 percent in 2013.” ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

Grubb & Ellis Company’s Ernest L. Brown IV Elected to CCIM Institute’s Board of Directors

May 24, 2011

  SAN ANTONIO, TX (May 24, 2011) – Grubb & Ellis Company (NYSE: GBE), a leading real estate services and investment firm, today announced that Ernest L. Brown IV, CCIM (top right photo ), executive vice president and managing director of the company’s San Antonio office, has been elected to the board of directors of the CCIM Institute, a global leader in commercial and investment real estate education and services.   Brown was one of 18 Certified Commercial Investment Members elected to the board responsible for voting on policy, procedural and financial issues pertaining to the organization, its membership and educational programs.   He will serve a three-year term beginning January 2012.     Brown has more than 27 years of commercial real estate experience and as managing director, oversees roughly 30 employees.   He is the director of the Austin/San Antonio regional chapter of NAIOP, serves on the board of trustees of the Texas Military Institute and is president of the Texas Military Institute Alumni Association.   Brown holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of the South. Contact: Julia McCartney, Phone: 714.975.2230                                       Email: julia.mccartney@grubb-ellis.com           

Read the full article →

Members of Congress Get Abnormally High Returns From Their Stocks

May 24, 2011

Members of the House of Representatives considerably outperform the stock market in their personal investments, according to a new academic study. Four university researchers examined 16,000 common stock transactions made by approximately 300 House representatives from 1985 to 2001, and found what they call “significant positive abnormal returns,” with portfolios based on congressional trades beating the market by about 6 percent annually. What’s their secret? The report speculates, but does not conclude, it could have something to do with the ability members of Congress have to trade on non-public information or to vote their own pocketbooks — or both. A study of senators by the same team of researchers five years ago found members of the higher chamber even better at beating the market — outperforming it by about 10 percent, an amount the academics said was “both economically large and statistically significant.” “Being one of 435, as opposed to one of 100, is likely to result in a significant dilution of power relative to members of the Senate,” the researchers wrote. The researchers, Alan J. Ziobrowski of Georgia State University, James W. Boyd of Lindenwood University, Ping Cheng of Florida Atlantic University and Brigitte J. Ziobrowski of Augusta State University, noted that the circumstances are ripe for abuse. “In the course of performing their normal duties, members of Congress have access to non-public information that could have a substantial impact on certain businesses, industries or the economy as a whole. If used as the basis for common stock transactions, such information could yield significant personal trading profits,” they wrote. At the same time, House rules don’t require them to divest themselves of common stocks when they assume office, don’t prevent them from trading freely while in office — and don’t require them to recuse themselves from votes that could affect their own interests. The House ethics manual clearly states that “all Members, officers, and employees are prohibited from improperly using their official positions for personal gain” and members must disclose their holdings annually. But the House’s official position is that demanding that members either divest themselves of potential conflicts or recuse themselves when there is a conflict is “impractical or unreasonable” because it “could result in the disenfranchisement of a Member‘s entire constituency on particular issues.” Ever since 2006, a small coterie of Democrats has been trying to officially prohibit members of Congress and their staffs from using non-public information to enrich their personal portfolios. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act was most recently re-introduced in March by Reps. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Tim Walz (Minn.) . It has not been heard from since. The study found some significant difference based on party membership and seniority, with the Democratic sample beating the market by nearly 9% annually, versus only about 2% annually for the Republican sample. And representatives with the least seniority considerably outperformed those with more seniority. Why would that be? The researchers suspect need had something to do with it. “The financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious” than a senior member’s, they wrote. “House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.” The report does not make any firm conclusions on causality, although the researchers explain that their kind of “event analysis” has become a common “method for analyzing whether actors have profited from confidential information in their possession.” * * * * * Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

The Center for Public Integrity: Excluded groups want in on health information technology funding

May 24, 2011

By Kimberly Leonard Providers frozen out of a $27 billion federal fund for conversion of medical records to electronic form are now fighting back in an effort to qualify for the money and possibly increase the size of the pot. The results of these multi-front battles are uncertain — but they are representative of a larger war. All over Washington, special interests are scrambling to improve their position by attempting to renegotiate portions of President Barack Obama’s health care reform — in new regulations, interpretations and proposed legislation. The new money for health information technology, or health IT, is the result of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which was part of Obama’s massive economic stimulus legislation in 2009. The idea was to allot stimulus funds to Medicare and Medicaid, which would then distribute the money to providers who demonstrated they were using electronic records to improve patient care. But like a lot of spending decisions in Washington, this one ended up choosing winners and losers. In the weeks leading up to the stimulus bill’s passage it became clear that the $50 billion Obama had promised during his campaign wouldn’t fly. In the end, some health care providers were shocked to discover they would not be eligible to participate in the program because Congress had narrowed the criteria and limited HITECH’s pricetag to $27 billion. But they’re not giving up. Among those lobbying anew with lawmakers and rule-writers are groups representing behavioral health providers, rural health centers and home-care practitioners. Causes of exclusion The conversion of medical records to digital form has been a long-sought goal of health care reformers, and the idea of funding federal investment to make it happen has been around for a while. Representatives of various health sectors were lobbying Congress and helping to craft legislation in 2007, said Tina Olson Grande, senior vice president for policy at the Healthcare Leadership Council. In the fall of 2008, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., chairman of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, sponsored a bill in which incentives were specifically promised to physicians and hospitals. That measure never got out of committee, but it provided a template for the HITECH bill that emerged as part of the $787 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Obama signed on Feb. 17, 2009. Like most legislation, the economic stimulus was altered by fast-moving negotiations. Exactly how the HITECH winners and losers were decided remains a bit murky. Though it had been widely reported months ahead of time that the health IT effort would receive $50 billion, the Congressional Budget Office ultimately scored the initiative at about $20 billion. Physicians, chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, psychiatrists and most hospitals were made eligible to receive the incentive payments. But nurses, physician’s assistants, behavioral health providers, home-care practitioners, emergency medical services, long-term care providers, post-acute providers, federally qualified health centers, rural health centers, rehabilitation hospitals and cancer centers were excluded from participation in parts or all of the program. “Those providers who were included had an inside track,” said Al Guida , a lobbyist for the behavioral health community. “By the time it came out and you realized you were left out, there was little time to lobby the process to get yourself back in.” Guida said behavioral health providers also “tactically … shot ourselves in the foot” by focusing their lobbying efforts on addressing protections regarding the security and privacy of personal health information, only to discover that even though those demands were met no behavioral health providers would qualify for the cash rewards. The groups that were excluded, said Dylan Roby , assistant professor of health policy at UCLA’s School of Public Health, have historically been less successful in getting Congress to support their agendas than those who were included. House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committee staffers met with non-eligible providers after the bill was drafted and explained that they wanted to maximize effects with limited funds, rather than try to spread the money over a greater number of providers and possibly have less impact, said Rich Brennan, executive director of the Home Care Technology Association of America. The final bill did specify that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was to file a report to Congress in June 2010 regarding the progress made by providers who were left out, but that effort hasn’t yet amounted to much. An interim report issued in July 2010 says only that the department awarded $561,632 to the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to conduct the study. That document said a final report would be issued in December 2010, but no final report has yet appeared; HHS officials told iWatch News the document would be delivered by the end of 2011. Influencing Efforts Backers of expanding eligibility and funding for health IT improvements say allowing all providers access to funds would improve health for patients and cut back on costs in the long run. One medicine or disorder can often impact another, they say, and patients cannot be provided coordinated care unless the technology spans across all health fields. Ever since the stimulus passed, excluded health care providers have drafted legislation, spent thousands on lobbying, posted their arguments on public-comment boards, sent letters and met with members of Congress and HHS officials to push the government to include more groups in the program. The effort is but the latest example of health interests seeking to revisit portions of Obama’s health care reform plan. An April iWatch News piece focused on efforts by medical device makers to exclude themselves from a 2.3 percent excise tax slated to pay for expanded health coverage. Another iWatch News piece the same month detailed insurance brokers’ attempts to seek a rule recalculating how much insurers could spend on administrative costs. The effort to expand health IT funding has been led by the behavioral health community, representing providers such as clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, psychiatric hospitals, substance abuse treatment centers and mental health treatment centers. These providers have been lobbying together since May 2010, and in March formed the Behavioral Health IT Coalition. The group is pushing the Behavioral Health Information Technology Act , a measure introduced in March by Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island that is designed to expand funding for health IT. Republican Sen. Susan Collins from Maine and several Democratic senators signed on to cosponsor the legislation in May. If the bill does not pass on its own, Guida says, the behavioral health coalition will try to attach it as an amendment to another piece of health care legislation at the end of the year. The group’s lobbying firm, Guide Consulting Services, received $90,000 for lobbying in Congress during the first quarter of this year on health IT and other health reform-related bills. A separate bill would assist federally qualified health centers, which receive government grants to provide health care to underserved communities, and rural health clinics. The Fix HIT Act, introduced in March by Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow on the Senate side and Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger on the House side, would amend HITECH to qualify health centers for incentive payments paid through Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office has not scored the bills, nor has the Obama administration issued a statement of administration policy about them. The Senate bills have been referred to the Committee on Finance and the House bill has been referred to the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. Other providers excluded to date from the health IT funding are taking a more moderate approach. The American Academy of Physician Assistants has expressed its concerns to HHS, and sent a letter to targeted members of Congress recommending that HITECH be amended to extend Medicaid incentives to physician assistants if at least 30 percent of their patients are on Medicaid. “The current HITECH limitation on Medicaid [electronic health records] limits the development of EHR systems for Medicaid beneficiaries who are served by PAs,” they wrote. “PAs are often the sole health care professional in medically underserved communities.” Rescue squads and other emergency medical services providers are also not qualified to receive reimbursement under the law because they fall primarily under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, not HHS. Because the role of emergency services is often misunderstood, “we get left out of virtually everything Congress does,” said Gary Wingrove, a volunteer leader of the National Rural Health Association who has EMS experience. The group has focused its efforts on raising awareness of its role to make sure future health care policies can apply to them. Other groups are concluding they would rather not take part in the program — because it not only provides incentive payments now, but also holds out the prospect of penalties several years from now for not implementing technology that adheres to government standards. The Home Care Technology Association of America has made the office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) at HHS aware of its feelings on the funding issue by submitting a public comment via the department’s website. “Our industry envisions a future where the integration of EHRs, remote monitoring and community based services will be the backbone of the national health care delivery system,” they wrote. “Therefore, information sharing amongst physicians and hospitals with home care and hospice providers will be critical to advancing care coordination efforts and reducing re-hospitalizations.” However, Rich Brennan, the group’s spokesman, said the association was mostly focusing current efforts on a separate measure, the Fostering Independence Through Technology (FITT) Act , which would encourage Medicare reimbursements for audio and video home monitoring. Looking Ahead Dr. Farzad Mostashari , who was appointed as the new national coordinator for health information technology in April, told iWatch News he does not think ONC can meets its goal of improving care through health IT unless all providers are able to help track patient records throughout their lifetime and across different medical conditions. But he also said that the prospect of passing pending legislation to expand the stimulus to other providers would be an “uphill battle.” Other experts agree, especially in light of the government’s current fiscal challenges. Even the existing funding could be threatened. A pot of billions of dollars such as that set aside for HITECH, particularly as it has sat unspent for two years, is potentially an attractive target for budget cutters at a time of escalating debt. The HITECH language specifically required that the money be appropriated ahead of time, allowing for a timeline that would give health practitioners the opportunity to begin implementing the required technology, demonstrate results and then apply for government reimbursements. Even now, two bills are pending in Congress to rescind HITECH funds for the purpose of beginning to pay down the country’s $14 trillion debt. In January, Republican House member Jim Jordan of Ohio introduced the Spending Reduction Act, which proposes — among other cuts — eliminating $45 billion in unspent stimulus dollars, including the funds for HITECH. In February, Republican Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan introduced the Preserving Patients’ Choices Act, which specifically proposes repealing health care-related stimulus appropriations. The two bills have been referred to committee. The fact that little cash has been awarded could also encourage a rescinding of funds, experts say. Starting in January, 13 states have now launched the program in which incentive payments through Medicaid are disbursed. Though the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says it is pleased with the participation so far, only eight states have actually made Medicaid payouts — totaling just $83 million. Payments through Medicare began just this month, as had been scheduled in HITECH. Stephen Zuckerman , health economist for the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, doubts either bill will make it past the Democratic-controlled Senate or gain the president’s signature. But he also doubts HITECH will gain any additional funds for excluded providers. That leaves one other possibility: that more providers find a way to qualify, but without the pot of funds increasing. That scenario presents its own challenges. “If the goal is to give every provider who qualified in the original bill some fixed or minimum amount of funding, then adding new categories of providers without adding new dollars would not make sense,” said Zuckerman. “Unless new money is made available, and this seems unlikely, the only way to add new providers would be to reduce the funding available to each provider in the original group.” The fate of excluded providers remains unclear, but so far all other attempts to include additional providers in the stimulus program have failed. Some of the groups appear to be making small strides in at least getting their voices heard by having ONC assess their progress in adopting digital records. In March, the national coordinator’s office hired a new policy analyst — Liz Palena-Hall — to help providers who haven’t qualified for funds move forward in acquiring electronic health records. In its strategic plan published this March, the national coordinator’s office said it would look into “the creation of an incentive program to support the adoption of certified EHR technology within the behavioral health community.” Some providers will no doubt also find a way to bypass the laws, making individuals or clinics apply for the funds as each qualifies. For instance, though rural health clinics do not qualify, their physicians do. With or without the impetus of government funds, experts agreed that the country’s health care system is eventually heading toward widespread use of electronic records. “Some will be brought along because they are associated with another provider or it may just lower their costs,” said Neal Neuberger , executive director at the Institute for e-Health Policy. “Some of these technologies are beginning to take off because it makes good business sense.”

Read the full article →

WATCH: College Grads Move Home, Face Uncertain Futures

May 24, 2011

LANSDALE, Pa. — One midnight in April, Sabrina Malik pulls her red Chevy Blazer into her mother’s asphalt driveway, removes the keys from the ignition, and stops to take a deep breath. Alone in the darkness, a sense of defeat courses through her body — disappointment about her past and uncertainty about what lies ahead. This, she thinks to herself, is surely what failure feels like. Six years ago, Malik fled this town for Syracuse University. Since graduating in 2009 with a bachelor’s degree in art history, she has yet to find a decent job. She hadn’t planned on moving back home and, at the age of 23, never expected to return to her mother’s house for an extended and open-ended period of time. “At times, it really feels very personal, it really feels like I’ve failed,” says Malik, standing in the kitchen of her mother’s two-story stone house and recalling the eight weeks since she returned home. She’s wearing khaki shorts and white socks that come up to her ankles. Glasses frame her brown eyes and wavy chestnut hair grazes her shoulders. “Your dream is a very personal thing and when you can’t do it, it feels like you’re being told that you’re not talented enough and that you haven’t worked hard enough.” After graduating from college, Malik moved to Boston. There, she worked as a nanny, sold books, and waited tables — a series of dead-end jobs that didn’t pay more than the minimum wage, didn’t require a college degree, and weren’t remotely related to what she wanted to do for the rest of her life. Two months ago, she ran out of money and drove home from Boston to Lansdale, a middle-class suburb north of Philadelphia, her car brimming with the contents of post-college life: canned food, twinkle lights, potted plants. A dozen of her paintings, stacked to the ceiling, kept hitting the back of her head. When a gas station attendant in New Jersey asked why she was moving and where she was headed, Malik didn’t know quite how to respond. She’s hardly alone. Malik is part of a generation of 20-somethings that’s experiencing what it’s like to graduate from college, move back in with your parents, and then get stuck there. Though estimates vary, a recent study by Twentysomething Inc., a consulting firm specializing in marketing to young adults, predicted that of the 2 million graduates in the class of 2011, 85 percent will return home because they can’t secure jobs that might give them more choices and more control over their lives . To be sure, having a college degree still matters. Nationwide, while the unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, the jobless rate for college graduates 25 years and older is 4.5 percent. By contrast, 20 to 24-year-olds who only have a high school diploma are contending with an unemployment rate of nearly 20 percent. While college graduates typically navigate periods of economic decline far better than those lacking such credentials, the past few years have still taken an especially brutal toll on them. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobless rate for younger workers with a college degree has more than doubled since the recession began four years ago — from 3.5 percent in April of 2007 to 6.4 percent in April of this year. For college graduates under the age of 25, finding stable work is a particular challenge. According to Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, about half, or 3.2 million, are “underutilized”  — meaning they’re unemployed, working part-time, or working a job outside of the college labor market, such as bartending or waiting tables. Added to the lack of jobs is an increased amount of debt. Student loan debt recently outpaced credit card debt in terms of total amounts owed by borrowers. By year’s end, it is on track to surpass a trillion dollars, according to Mark Kantrowitz, an expert on student financial aid who runs the websites FinAid.org and Fastweb.com. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, an independent, nonprofit organization that works to make higher education more affordable, the average graduate finishes school with $24,000 of debt — though many struggle to repay far more. Like Malik, many 20-somethings are experiencing early adulthood as one long pause in their lives, affecting not only conventional coming-of-age milestones such as becoming financially independent, but more deeply personal things as well — like their hopes and their dreams.  THE AMERICAN DREAM Recently, after sending out dozens of resumes and cover letters, all of which went unanswered, Malik’s spirits plummeted. Even rejection feels better than no response at all, she thought to herself. In her second-floor bedroom, where handmade quilts cover the bed and charcoal drawings line the walls, she tries as best she can to avoid her mother’s notice. Mostly, she just doesn’t want her to worry. But Marilyn Malik is close to her daughter and is an expert at reading Sabrina’s shifting moods. “Sabrina gets down on herself and I worry,” says Marilyn, sitting in her home office in the basement, where she works as a nursing supervisor for a health insurance company. While she says that her daughter is welcome to live in the house for as long as she needs, she hopes that Sabrina might find a job sooner rather than later. And Marilyn is adjusting to the fact that her daughter’s path may not mirror the one she took 30 years ago, when, as a college-educated young woman, she first ventured out into the world.  Marilyn, 53, grew up in a small town in the Poconos. Her father worked as an electrician; her mother worked as a nurse. Marilyn studied nursing in college and she and her parents split the $4,000 annual tuition. She worked as a waitress to earn her share. A few years after college, Marilyn married Ajmal Malik, a Pakistani immigrant. He attended college at the University of Lahore in Pakistan and earned two master’s degrees after moving to the U.S. The couple made their home in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., where they raised Sabrina and her older brother Omar, who’s now 25. In those early years, Ajmal, an accountant, worked his way up the ladder while Marilyn picked up night shifts at the nearby hospital. She describes their standard of living as lower-middle-class — borrowing money to purchase their first starter home and relying on quick, cheap dinners of soup and biscuits to get by. Ajmal died of cancer when his children were nine and 11, leaving Marilyn to support an entire household on her income alone. “You grieve for yourself, and you grieve for your kids,” explains Marilyn, who started working full-time after Ajmal died and has yet to let up. Sending both kids to college was always the plan. The majority of the payout from her deceased husband’s life insurance went towards a college savings account, which ultimately wasn’t enough to cover the high costs associated with sending two kids to out-of-state schools. Marilyn paid about $100,000 for Sabrina to attend Syracuse University in upstate N.Y. and took out another $20,000 in loans to cover the rest. Sabrina and Omar, who attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, will have to shoulder their own graduate school costs, however. “She’d probably say no to doing things if she knew how much everything cost,” says Marilyn, who pays down the $20,000 in Sabrina’s student loans while also saving up for her own retirement. Sabrina is struggling to pay off about $2,000 in credit card debt and her remaining student debts weigh on her relationship with her mother. Marilyn hates owing money and tries to put an extra $100 or $200 towards paying down the student loans whenever she can. Marilyn and Sabrina find it hard to talk about Sabrina’s student loans and generally avoid the subject. Sabrina wishes she could do more to help her mother pay the debt and had planned on having a job after graduating that would allow her to do that — yet another part of her future that hasn’t exactly gone as planned. While living in Boston, she made barely enough to cover her own rent and utilities, let alone scrape together enough extra to help her mother with the monthly loan repayments. Sabrina also wonders whether paying so much for college has made her mother’s own life more insecure. “I know she’s further away from her own retirement because she sent us to such expensive schools” says Malik, whose plans for graduate education are indefinitely on hold until she can save up some money. Right now, even $80 application fees for graduate school seem like a lot.  Although Marilyn remarried a few years ago, her first husband’s absence is deeply felt — especially now, when their daughter is struggling. “I wonder if he had been around, whether my kids would have been better placed, whether they would have received better advice,” says Marilyn, who plans to work for at least another decade. She long ago decided that sending her kids to college was more important to her than saving for the day when she could retire. By this point in her life, Marilyn imagined that her daughter would have already embarked upon a well-paying career and be living on her own. She also wonders what it means for the next generation of 20-somethings, and whether they’ll have access to better opportunities than their parents’ generation. “My generation had it better than what my parents had and you’d think it would continue progressing that same way,” she says. “Historically, each generation gets better as it goes along — they’re more affluent, they have more education, they reach more goals. This generation, you would hope that would happen, too, but it doesn’t seem to be going that way.” DREAMS ARE CHEAP Half a century ago, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had attained traditional markers of maturity by their 30th birthday: They had left home, finished school, gotten a job, married, and started a family. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2000, less than half of 30-year-old women and just one-third of 30-year-old men had attained similar markers of adulthood. A lot, but not all, of the shift has to do with work — or, more specifically, a lack of work, say analysts and others . They argue that the current recession has pushed 20-somethings farther and faster in a direction they were already headed. Sending your kid to college once was a way of ensuring their sure-footed success. But with 20-somethings mired in debt and confronting a dearth of decent-paying jobs, many are returning to the nest. “I can assure you that few people in my generation are living high off the hog in their parents’ house,” says Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old founder of Our Time , a national membership organization for young people under 30. He says he resents the popular characterization of 20-somethings as lazy and unmoored. “Trust me, they’re not getting too comfortable sleeping in their childhood bedroom or eating out of their parents’ fridge. They’re moving home because they don’t have jobs and they have a lot of debt.” Except for designated downtime, when she’s either making art or weaving on her loom, Malik spends much of her time avoiding thinking about what became of the goals her parents helped her to set. Her mother always encouraged her to think and dream big. Yet since graduating from college, she’s found herself doing the exact opposite. Her dream for the future used to encompass a well-appointed and comfortable life — a farmhouse, two artist studios, a husband, and several children. “But it’s not worth dreaming so big anymore,” says Malik. “My plans now are far less extravagant. I guess I’m learning to dream on a much smaller scale.” Specifically, she doesn’t think she’ll be able to afford a home as nice as her mother’s. Nor, she predicts, will she be able to send her own children to schools as fancy as those that she attended. “The hope that things are going to get better is really all we have,” she explains. “I mean, on top of being the generation that’s struggling, we don’t want to be the generation that’s cynical, too.” Some scholars attribute such hard-wired optimism to the way that the parents of 20-somethings raised them. Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais co-author books about millennials (typically defined as the generation born between 1982 and 2003). “Millennials were raised the way Bill Cosby told parents to raise their kids — set rules, show encouragement, don’t use physical discipline, build up a child’s self-esteem,” explains Winograd. “If you tell someone from zero to 13 that they’re always doing a nice job and that they’re really special and wonderful, they’ll wind up believing they are.” Self-confidence breeds optimism, according to Winograd and Hais, even when times are tough. “The millennials don’t have a sense that everything is wonderful, because obviously it isn’t, but they believe as a country that things will get better and their lives will also get better,” says Hais. “In part, it’s because they’re young and they actually have time to accomplish this. But it’s also because generations like the millennials feel they’ve accomplished good things in the past and that they will again in the future because their parents told them so.” Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University, is also struck by the optimism of the young adults that he studies. “I think the main reason for their optimism is that dreams are cheap in emerging adulthood. That is, their dreams haven’t yet been tested in the fires of real, adult life. And who knows, maybe they really will find their dream job?” In general, young people are taking longer to assume more traditional adult responsibilities and young lives are unfolding in a less predictable sequence , Arnett says. He views the twenties as a new and distinct life stage and classifies it as “emerging adulthood.” According to Arnett, this stage generally starts around the age of 18 and continues until an individual is in his or her mid-to-late twenties. While the category itself is fluid, “emerging adulthood” refers to a time during which young people are relatively free of obligations. But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are increasingly delaying adult responsibilities because they can’t secure a job stable enough to allow them to take the steps necessary to establish an independent life. As such, even youthful optimism has its limits . Despite a general proclivity toward positive thinking, analysts say current circumstances are weighing down this generation of 20-somethings. “The mood for young people definitely isn’t as optimistic as it’s been in the past,” says Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. Last week, he and his colleagues released a study titled “Unfulfilled Expectations: Recent College Graduates Struggle in a Troubled Economy.” It polled young people who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010. “You expect people to be optimistic when they’re young about their ability to get ahead,” Van Horn says. “It’s pretty clear that this group of college students are feeling very much like their opportunities have been stunted.” A FALSE PROMISE? Since moving home, the highlight of Malik’s weekend involves walking to the edge of her mother’s driveway on Sunday morning and retrieving the hand-delivered copy of The New York Times . She’s on a $15 weekly budget and getting the paper delivered is a rare indulgence. Last Sunday, Malik accompanied her extended family to a pancake breakfast to support the local firehouse in the nearby town of Sellersville, Pa. Without traffic, it’s about a 20-minute drive from Lansdale. As her family and some of her mother’s friends waited for a table, Malik carved out a tiny space where she sat and read the paper in silence. She wasn’t up for answering the questions that usually follow — about what she was up to, or how the job search was going. She mostly just needed a break from the constant inquisition. “I spend a lot of my time trying as best I can to appease everyone and show them that I’m in good spirits and putting forth all this extra effort,” says Malik. “Every once in a while, I just need to be by myself. They know what I’m going through.” Even the relentless optimism of millennials is straining under the depth and length of the current recession. A poll released in April by AP-Viacom indicated that among Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, there was skepticism about the notion that life would improve with each passing generation. Four in 10 of those surveyed predicted difficulty in raising a family and affording the lifestyle they felt they deserved. Like homebuyers who took on outsized mortgages they couldn’t afford, either out of ignorance or because banks cajoled them, in order to realize the American Dream of home ownership, many students and their parents have taken on crushing piles of educational debt in order to realize another part of the American Dream: a college education. Andrew Sum, a 64-year-old economist at Northeastern University who’s studied the college labor market for the past 30 years, thinks the current economic slump is giving both recent graduates and their parents a rude awakening. Sum grew up in Gary, Ind. with a father who worked as a welder. While he says that he and his four siblings were able to achieve a better life than their parents, for the first time in recent American history, the majority of the young people he studies are not. “Every generation ought to try and leave behind a better world for the next generation,” says Sum. “And until recently, it’s generally been true that the next generation exceeded the living standard of the current one. But over the last decade, that’s no longer the case.” One of Sum’s pet theories is the “age twist effect.” He says that over the decade from 2000 to 2010, the younger someone was, the more likely they were to get fired or be otherwise left without a job. Historically, and in every decade since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling such data, it’s been the exact opposite. Sum’s findings conclude that 7 million more young people under the age of 30 would be working today if the labor market behaved as it did only a decade ago. Sum and his colleagues predict that underutilization and underemployment will leave an indelible mark on this generation. In the near term, Sum finds college graduates moving home, and staying there. And while college degrees matter, they only matter if young people are able to then convert them into a job — hence, generating the considerable college premium. “If you can manage to do that, you can do well,” says Sum. “But if you end up outside, you’ll only do marginally better than someone who has a high school diploma and those losses stay with you for a lifetime.” For Malik, both in terms of her current and future income, the longer she’s out of work, the more dire the consequences will be. Being unemployed is always worse than working, but it’s ultimately the type of job she gets that will affect her future stability. For instance, should Malik secure yet another job outside the college labor market — working again as a nanny or as a clerk in a retail shop — the chances that she’ll regain a more permanent economic toehold will grow ever more unlikely. The impact that the job she lands will have on her future wages is likely to be staggering. For the public at large, Sum finds there’s a 73 percent gap in the annual earnings of college graduates that have a college labor market job versus those that work in a job that doesn’t require a degree — say, the difference between working as a paralegal and a receptionist in a law firm. Bachelor’s degree holders between the ages of 22 to 64 that have a college labor market job make an average salary of $52,873. Those working outside the college labor market earn $30,503 — or a difference in salary of more than $22,000 a year.  But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are also struggling with what is likely a case of bad economic timing. Graduates of 2009 were hit especially hard. A study conducted by the  John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers indicates that 50 percent of 2009 graduates are either unemployed or working in jobs that don’t require a college degree. Lisa B. Khan, who studies economics at Yale’s School of Management, recently conducted a study that looked at the long-term impact of graduating into a weak economy. Khan examined young people that graduated from college during the peak of the recession that occurred in the 1980s. In their first three years on the job market, Khan found they made about 30 percent less than classmates with more advantageous economic timing. And their subsequent salaries, even a dozen years later, were between eight and ten percent lower. This means that it might take Malik, who graduated two years ago during the beginning of a particularly brutal recession, up to a decade to recover the wages she might have earned had she sidestepped the downturn altogether. Paul Oyer, an economist at Stanford University, concedes that young people who start work when times are tough not only get behind, but generally have a tough time catching up. But Oyer also thinks that luck plays a role in the making of any successful career, good economic times or bad. What does concern him is that some historical trends seem to be withering in the current economy. Although wealth in America has increased from generation to generation, Oyer isn’t convinced that the current generation of 20-somethings will enjoy the rewards of a similar phenomenon. He attributes the shift to globalization and the number of available jobs. Because of these factors, he doesn’t think it makes much sense for young people to pile on educational debt to attend elite schools when they have less expensive alternatives — unless, of course, their parents are willing to go on the hook for it. Parents exert a powerful shaping force on their children’s decisions to go to college, as well as which college to attend. In addition, they are often caught up in the emotional rush that a college education entails, further complicating an issue that has already become a financial minefield for the middle class. “All along, I was going to make it work,” explains Marilyn. “If I had to take out loans, I was going to do that.” Once Sabrina and Omar were admitted into the colleges of their dreams, Marilyn saw it as her personal responsibility to make sure they could attend — even when it meant taking out additional loans in order to finance it. And while Marilyn says she doesn’t regret her investment, she assumed that a $120,000 degree would at least translate into a decent-paying job for her daughter. “One thing that terrifies parents more than budget deficits or a weak economy is job security for their kids. They’re afraid they won’t be able to pass along their middle class status to the next generation,” says Anthony P. Carnevale, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “In raising a child in America, the fear of failing is just enormous. Sending your kid to college used to pretty much guarantee their future success. It no longer necessarily works that way.” And, of course, what if this generation simply doesn’t value the same things their parents’ generation did? John Della Volpe, who directs polling at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, spends much of the year gauging the thoughts of young people. His company SocialSphere recently conducted a study of 5,000 millennials between the ages of 16 and 24. It asked them to think about the next five to seven years of their lives and to rank the importance of what they hoped to achieve. His findings indicate that many young people aren’t focused on becoming famous or making piles of money. On the contrary, their hopes for the future revolve around making a contribution to society and staying in close touch with family and friends. “There’s a potential for this younger generation to have an economic reset,” explains Della Volpe. “It’s now okay to stay in your hometown.” AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE When it’s your decision, returning to your hometown is one thing. Being stuck there feels like something else entirely.  Malik says her days are an exercise in resilience. She has yet to shake her loneliness and general feeling of isolation. Most weekdays, she gets up by nine o’clock and immediately forces herself to get dressed. After breakfast, she typically positions herself on one of two floral upholstered couches in the sunroom, where, with laptop in hand, she begins the daily chore of scouring websites for job openings. When not job hunting, Malik helps out around the house — taking out the trash, doing the dishes, going grocery shopping, walking the dog, or making dinner a few nights a week. In some ways, the chores remind her of being in high school. Before her mother remarried and she and her brother headed off to college, it was just the three of them helping out around the house. Growing up, when her mother made dinner or when the house needed cleaning, the two siblings alternated chores. “Now that I’m back, I do those same kinds of things and it feels like the least I can do,” explains Malik. “It doesn’t feel like a task or a chore. I’m just helping my mom out, like I’ve always done.” But now, Malik is a grown woman. Part of her yearns for her own place where she can come and go as she pleases, and where the rules are hers and hers alone. On visits to see her boyfriend, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. and works for a private art collector, she sees glimpses of the independent life she expected to be living by now. Until she can land her ultimate gig of working as a curator in an art gallery, or begin a long trajectory of jobs that might eventually get her there, she’s looking for something to pay the bills. She’s looked into working as a clerk in a local retail shop and selling hot water heaters. Businesses in Lansdale are inundated with swarms of recent colleges graduates looking for any job they can get. Locally, there’s the option of working for a big pharmaceutical company, Starbucks or Walgreens, but not much else. When things start to feel overwhelming, Malik finds it helpful to make lists of things to accomplish. The current two-page iteration lists everything from big to small stuff — like getting a job and someday opening an art gallery to straightening her hair and eating fewer bagels. A recent addition, which has yet to be crossed off, is that Malik aspires to be less hard on herself. Namely, that for the time being at least, it’s okay to allow herself to feel sad sometimes. “Right now, it’s a battle of trying to remain levelheaded — and I don’t know if it’s trying to stay optimistic, or become more realistic, or just learn to be okay with going through the motions,” she says. “It feels like a lot of pressure. I want to make everyone proud. I want to blow everyone out of the water with everything I’ve accomplished. And I just can’t get there.” 

Read the full article →

AFL-CIO Threatens To Break From Democrats

May 21, 2011

WASHINGTON — Prominent labor leaders, frustrated that Democrats in Washington aren’t aggressively pursuing the union agenda, are threatening to limit their campaign support for Democrats, an act that would hamper the party’s bid to regain control of the House next year and keep a majority in the Senate. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka’s threat of a pullback Friday was the latest warning to a party that has long relied on labor’s cash and grass-roots support. If it makes good on its threat, labor probably would spend more time and money combating union-busting efforts by state officials. “We will change the way we spend, the way we do things and the way we function that creates power for workers,” Trumka said. In a speech at the National Press Club, Trumka called for “an independent labor movement” and said unions were not responsible for building the power of any political party, but for improving the lives of working families. He promised that unions would spend the summer holding leaders in Congress and the states accountable. If labor makes itself truly independent of the Democratic Party, it would mark a major shift in a long-standing political relationship. “It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside to let it happen,” Trumka said. “The outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, then working people will not support them.” The AFL-CIO’s executive council is considering a plan that could spend less on congressional races and more on fighting state battles like those in Wisconsin and Ohio, where lawmakers want to weaken collective bargaining rights and reduce union clout. But Trumka made clear the federation had no plan to follow the lead of the nation’s largest firefighters union, which announced last month that it would halt all political donations to members of Congress because they are not fighting hard enough for union rights. The move has won praise in many corners of the labor movement, where union activists have openly grumbled about House and Senate Democrats being too quiet while unions are getting pummeled in dozens of states. “We’ve spent money where we have friends and we will continue to do that,” he said. Leon Fink, a labor historian at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said unions are tired of being taken for granted and discouraged that their influence with moderate and conservative Democrats has been limited. “Spending a lot of money electing conservative Democrats in marginal districts had no legislative payoff for unions,” Fink said. “They don’t seem to have the capacity to impose their will on the party.” Unions have been disappointed that Congress has not passed a more ambitious stimulus plan to create jobs, that health care reform didn’t go far enough and that Democrats – when they held a majority in Congress – couldn’t muster enough votes to pass a bill that would make it easier to organize unions. The AFL-CIO spent more than $50 million to support Democrats in last year’s midterm elections, much of it in critical get-out-the vote efforts in dozens of key races. But a growing number of union leaders remain frustrated at what their money has bought. Some activists want to reallocate resources permanently so that more is spent bolstering grass roots support in the states. Unions have threatened to pull support from Democrats before, only to come back as election time draws closer when they realize there are few political alternatives. Asked how seriously Democrats should take the threat, Trumka pointed to former Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln. Unions spent about $10 million last year trying to unseat Lincoln in the Democratic primary because she refused to support a broader health reform package and a bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions. Lincoln beat back the challenge, but lost in the general election. Yet unions continued to offer support to other Democrats in the 2010 election who also wavered on the health overhaul, as some leaders feared the consequences of a GOP majority would be even worse. It remains unclear how far the trend on unions trimming back political donations might spread. The politically powerful Service Employees International Union does not intend to reduce its role in federal races, SEIU political director Brandon Davis said. Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said organized labor is not just an important part of the Democratic Party, but is “critical to rebuilding our entire economy.” “We are working closely with labor at every level to build strong campaigns and deliver results for working families,” Cecil said. Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said “labor’s fight is our fight and we’re proud to partner with them.” Trumka saved his harshest criticisms for Republicans in Congress and dozens of state legislatures for passing budgets that slash pensions and curb bargaining rights of union members while giving tax cuts to “the powerful and well-connected.” “The final outrage of these budgets is hidden in the fine print,” Trumka said. “In state after state, and here in Washington, these so-called fiscal hawks are actually doing almost nothing to cut the deficit.” He said these budget deals are sending a message that “sacrifice is for the weak.” “Powerful political forces are seeking to silence working people – to drive us out of the national conversation,” Trumka said. Trumka and other union leaders have said they expect the moves in some states to curb union rights will create a backlash that will help organized labor grow stronger. Unions are already spending millions to help recall campaigns in Wisconsin and Ohio. They are hoping the momentum of those recalls can be sustained through the 2012 elections.

Read the full article →

Antonia Juhasz: Chevron’s Shareholders Should Say No to Offshore Drilling

May 20, 2011

Next week, Chevron — California’s largest corporation and the nation’s third largest — holds its annual shareholder meeting in San Ramon. The gathering will be met by protesters, including those who will travel from Angola, Nigeria, Canada, Alaska, and the U.S. Gulf Coast to demonstrate against Chevron’s deep-sea operations and to deliver a new report to the company: The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report . At the meeting, Chevron will ask shareholder permission to pursue an aggressive expansion into ever-deeper offshore operations. Chevron’s role in the aftermath of BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, and investigations finding systemic problems within the entire offshore industry, should give both its shareholders and the broader public great concern about the safety of this expansion. Chevron is well aware of the dangers. As the company writes, “Navigating uncertain weather conditions, freezing water and crushing pressure, deepwater drilling is one of the most technologically challenging ways of finding and extracting oil.” On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 men and igniting what would become the largest unintentional oil spill in world history. A massive underwater blowout at BP’s Macondo well 18,500 feet below the ocean surface was the immediate cause. Within weeks of the blowout, a horrifying fact was revealed. Not a single major oil company, including Chevron, knew what to do in response, nor did government regulators. All knew that a blowout was likely, but none had developed the technology, much less the equipment, with which to address it. Blowouts have been on the rise in the Gulf of Mexico. From 2005 to 2010, 28 blowouts occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, four of which took place in the 18th months preceding the blowout of the Macondo well. From 1999 to 2004, there were 20 blowouts, and from 1993 to 1998 there were just 11. Moreover, deaths, fires, and serious injury in the Gulf of Mexico are common. For example, a Chevron offshore worker has been killed on the job in four out of the last five years (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2009 alone (the most recent year data is available), Chevron reported 15 incidents of fire and nine employee injuries at its Gulf of Mexico offshore operations. In just the five years before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, federal investigators documented nearly 200 safety and environmental violations in accidents on platforms and rigs in the Gulf. While BP lead the others with at least 47 accidents or blowouts, Chevron was a very close second at 46, and Shell had 22. Instead of preparing for a deepwater blowout, however, in the words of the President’s National Oil Spill Commission , every major oil company “learned on the fly” for 87 long days. They tried to apply shallow water technology applicable to wells at 400 feet below the ocean surface or less, to a well 5,000 feet below. While they learned, 210 million gallons of oil were released into the Gulf. Once the oil was released, we learned that no company, including Chevron, had invested any significant dollars into cleanup research or preparedness, although all were required to do so under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. Ships to contain the oil were not ready, nor were adequate boom or skimmers to protect the shore. And while all of their applications to drill deepwater wells state their preparedness for even much larger oil spills than that at the Macondo, the companies were not prepared. Instead, they applied the same failed technology that had recovered just 14 percent of the oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster over 20 years earlier to the Macondo well gusher. The failures that led to the explosion, moreover, were in no way limited to just BP. While BP was the leasee of the Deepwater Horizon, Transocean was the owner and operator. All the major oil companies use Transocean’s services, including Chevron. However, since 2008, 73 percent of incidents that triggered federal investigations into safety and other problems on deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf have been on rigs operated by Transocean. Chevron, the largest leaseholder in the Gulf of Mexico, is pushing the limits in these operations. It’s latest project, Moccasin , is situated 216 miles offshore Louisiana, at a water depth of 6,750 feet — over 150 miles farther out from shore than the Macondo and 1,750 feet further below the ocean surface. Initial drilling began in March 2010 by Transocean’s Discoverer Inspiration drill ship. Professor Robert Bea, head of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group at the University of California, told me of the group’s final findings (not yet released): “We have come to a unwavering conclusion. This is an industry problem. It is not just BP. BP just got to the finish line first. They know this is an endemic systemic problem.” If we do not want Chevron to follow, Chevron’s shareholders must demand the same protections provided here in California — a moratorium on offshore drilling — be provided nationally and, if possible, internationally as well. Antonia Juhasz is the co-editor of The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report , to be released May 24, 2011. She is author of Black Tide: the Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill (Wiley 2011) and Director of the Energy Program at Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based human rights organization.

Read the full article →

Video: Roger Martin Says Stock-Based Compensation Doesn’t Work: Video

May 20, 2011

May 20 (Bloomberg) — Roger Martin, dean of the University Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, discusses his book “Fixing The Game: Bubbles, Crashes, and What Capitalism Can Learn From the NFL.” Martin talks with Erik Schatzer on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

McDonald’s Stockholders Reject Obesity Proposal, Defends Ronald

May 19, 2011

OAK BROOK, Illinois (Debra Sherman) – McDonald’s Corp spurned calls to assess the impact of its food on childhood obesity, and said its trademark clown Ronald McDonald would be hawking Happy Meals to kids for years to come. “This is about choice and we believe in the democratic process,” Chief Executive Jim Skinner told a packed room at its shareholders’ meeting, to an enthusiastic wave of applause. “This is about the personal and individual right to choose.” Shareholders of the world’s largest fast-food chain resoundingly rejected a proposal that would have required it to issue a report outlining its role in the childhood obesity epidemic, saying customers were free to make their own dietary choices. “Ronald McDonald is an ambassador to McDonald’s and he is an ambassador for good. Ronald McDonald is going nowhere,” Skinner said firmly, prompting more cheers from shareholders. Among the dissenters at the meeting was Dr. Donald Zeigler, director of Prevention and Health Lifestyles at the American Medical Association, who asked when the burger chain will stop marketing to children using Ronald McDonald. Zeigler, who is also visiting assistant professor at Rush University Medical Center, was one of 550 healthcare professionals who had signed an open letter to McDonald’s pleading that it “stop making the next generation sick.” On Tuesday, a watchdog group placed ads in newspapers across the country calling for McDonald’s to stop marketing to children through the clown, toy giveaways and other tactics. Some 17 percent of children and adolescents are obese, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Being overweight during childhood raises the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension and a host of other diseases. McDonald’s has been a lightning rod for criticism for years over its marketing tactics and sales of Happy Meals for children that include toys as inducements. McDonald’s allows parents to swap milk or juice for soda in its Happy Meals. It also offers sliced apples with caramel sauce and chicken nuggets as alternatives to french fries and hamburgers. The restaurant chain has added healthier options to its menu, including salads and oatmeal, but critics argue there is still too much fat, salt and sugar in its meals. Even the oatmeal, one critic noted, contains about as much sugar as a Snickers candy bar. Skinner defended McDonald’s strategy, which has resulted in hefty sales and earnings for shareholders. McDonald’s shares have gained nearly 12 percent in the last four months and rallied to a record high of $82.63 on Thursday. But as experts point out, obese children often grow into obese adults, overburdening the entire healthcare system. Ironically, Miles White, chairman and chief executive of diversified healthcare company Abbott Laboratories, has been a director of the McDonald’s board since 2009. Abbott makes a broad range of drugs, including cholesterol-lowering statins, and medical devices, such as heart stents used on patients with clogged arteries. (Reporting by Debra Sherman, Lisa Baertlein and Jessica Wohl; Editing by Richard Chang) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Hospitality Values Expected to Rise

May 19, 2011

After experiencing the greatest property value decline in 2010, hospitality/lodging has the second-best growth prospects among all sectors, according to

Read the full article →

Gold Scams On The Rise

May 18, 2011

NEW YORK — Last year, Brian Gurl spent some time reading about the state of the U.S. economy. He kept hearing about the gargantuan size of the federal debt and the threat of inflation on TV. Gurl is approaching retirement age, so he and his wife needed safe investments. The couple decided on gold. “We approached several companies. But it was American Precious Metals who were the most aggressive,” said Gurl, who invested about $100,000 with the company last Fall. “They just sounded very expert.” In the span of a few months, the couple lost about $60,000, Gurl said. Last week, a Florida U.S. District Court issued a temporary injunction barring American Precious Metals from doing business, freezing its assets and putting the company in the hands of a court-appointed receiver. The case against American Precious Metals marks the third gold-related case brought by the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission since March. The agency has also issued a fraud advisory for investors interested in precious metals. 2011, it seems, is the year of commodities and companies prepared to capitalize on investor anxiety. The soaring prices of all sorts of commodities, uncertainty about the broader economy and the low interest rates banks are paying on savings has drawn both companies and investors to precious metals, said Brad Barber, a professor of finance at the University of California Davis. “It’s always easy to sell an investment — real or fraudulent — when it’s earned really high returns recently,” Barber said. “People tend to think they are getting in on the ground floor, but in fact the elevator may have already gone up and may be on its way down.” Institutional and individual investors hungry to make up losses suffered during the recession, people looking for a safe investment with potentially large returns and those concerned about the economy’s stability have all scrambled to join the gold profit party. Together they have created what many analysts insist is a bubble sure to burst. Gold prices — which reached about $1,495 an ounce on Wednesday — have hit and nearly returned to record highs this year. Yet with public interest in gold remaining high, precious metals scams have begun to proliferate. In March the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that in the last three years nearly 50 companies selling precious metals investments have opened in just two Florida counties. This month, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that companies targeting Minnesota seniors persuaded gold coin investors to pay for their purchases with reverse mortgages . Last year, Goldline, a company that advertised during the “Glenn Beck Show” — and had the good fortune of Beck suggesting on air that gold was a good investment — also became the subject of two state-level investigations. Beck has described the investigations as government efforts to eliminate opportunities to buy gold. In a pair of companion cases, the CFTC and FTC have accused American Precious Metals of targeting investors — particularly senior citizens — across the country with a combination of high-pressure and illegal sales tactics and misleading and fraudulent claims. “What these telemarketers said in general is … you can’t lose, you’re going to make money,” said Sana Chriss, an FTC attorney working on the case. “Well that just isn’t true. The value of everything can change. At one point it was real estate that was the hot and infallible area and then we had the bust there. Before that it was tech stocks.” At American Precious Metals, the sales pitch usually began with a world event, Chriss said. Peruvian miners were on strike, rendering the world’s silver supply suddenly short of demand. Silver prices would skyrocket tomorrow, went one pitch. The value of the U.S. dollar was sliding. But gold bar and uncirculated coins will always retain their value. In fact, gold prices are flirting with record highs and were certain to keep climbing, said another. American Precious Metals telemarketers rounded out each story with the same high-pressure sales pitch, according to court documents. Only the utterly unwise would pass on the company’s super-safe precious metals investments, the telemarketers claimed. The approach worked well enough to bilk as much as $37 million from investors, according to court documents filed this month in U.S. District Court by the FTC. A hearing that could lead to the permanent closure of American Precious Metals is scheduled for next week. Andrea and Harry Tanner Jr., the husband and wife owner-manager team behind American Precious Metals, did not respond to a request for comment left at their home. The company’s other owner, Sammy Goldman, could not be reached for comment. Both Goldman and Harry Tanner have been the targets of previous regulatory action. Between 1982 and 2006, Goldman was listed as a principal or an executive at companies that were the subject of regulatory action bought by the CFTC and National Futures Association, an industry trade group and self-regulatory body, according to court documents. In 2000, the NFA charged Tanner with making false and deceptive sales solicitations. Tanner agreed to a $5,000 fine and a requirement that he record his conversations with customers over a six month period, according to court documents. In 2006, the trade group expelled Tanner permanently and fined him $100,000. The NFA had found Tanner made misleading and deceptive sales calls to potential investors. Just months after his NFA expulsion, Tanner set up American Precious Metals and hired several sales people who had also been disciplined for deceiving customers about investments, according to court documents. By early January 2010, American Precious Metals had nearly 400 customers who thought they owned gold, silver, platinum and palladium. Gurl can not speak in detail about his interactions with American Precious Metals because he and his wife filed suit against the company in December. He did say they thought their money would be used to buy gold and other precious metals. But the federal agencies that shut down American Precious Metals this month say that the company never purchased any physical quantities of any precious metal, according to court documents. Instead, the company moved investor funds between a series of accounts in the United States and the United Kingdom. American Precious Metals also allegedly converted a large portion of each customer’s investment into a loan. Customers were then charged fees, commissions and interest that totaled about 40 percent of their total investment, according to court documents. Investors were encouraged to keep contributing. If they refused, their accounts were closed. And if an investor asked to take possession of the gold or other metals, he or she was assured the goods were safely stored. Shipping, security and other costs associated with delivery would simply chip away at the customer’s account balance, the company said, according to court documents. “What that really meant is that people invested large sums of money, paid all sorts of fees and interest and got very small amounts back when the accounts were closed,” said Chriss. “One consumer put in maybe $40,000. I think she got back $100 in the end.”

Read the full article →

Corporations Implement Smart Growth Strategies

May 17, 2011

U.S. corporations are taking a more strategic approach to business growth as the economy continues to improve. read more

Read the full article →

Don McNay: A Different Look at Life Insurance

May 14, 2011

Like most people, I recognize that I am going to die someday. Unlike most people, I have a lot of life insurance. I’ve come to the conclusion that we really need more life insurance agents. Too many people need more insurance than they have. I started my career in life insurance and annuities. All of the initials behind my name are related somehow to the insurance industry. I am a true believer. I practice what I preach. I have purchased a number of life insurance policies on myself to achieve different goals. I have a policy that will help endow a law school scholarship and another that will support a scholarship fund at a college. Few people think to purchase life insurance policies for their charitable donations, even though the concept has tremendous tax and planning benefits. The concept of buying life insurance unnerves most people. Life insurance forces people to deal with the idea that death may come and come in an untimely fashion. It was impossible for some people to get their arms around dying. I had a medical professional spend hours explaining how he was sure he was going to live to 90. He died at age 50. I hope someone else convinced him to get insurance, but I suspect they never did. Although I am going to help charities and do other things, the bulk of my insurance is designed to assist my family. Most people buy life insurance with their families in mind. I don’t think that as many think about the next step. What will the family do with the money? When you hear that 90% of people who receive a lump sum will blow it in five years, some people conclude that life insurance is futile. Why give your family a lump sum and have them blow it? Most insurance policies have options to pay out over time, but few people use them. It limits them to the terms, rates and restrictions of the insurance company. Thus, I came up with a simple system. My life insurance is owned by a trust. When I die, the trustee will buy annuities for the beneficiaries. The annuities will pay monthly for the rest of the beneficiaries lives and increase at 3% a year. When I die, I want to assure those people will have money for the rest of their lives. They won’t be susceptible to quick-buck artists and outside pressures. A lot of hasty decisions are made when a family member dies. Many of them are bad. There seems to be an army of vultures waiting to prey on the vulnerable. As Glenn Frey once said, “The lure of easy money has a very strong appeal.” I don’t want my family to be in a position where a “friend” can burn them after my death. That is why the combination of life insurance, a trust and lifetime annuities works for me. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond Kentucky is an award winning, syndicated financial columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. He has Masters Degrees from Vanderbilt University and the American College and is in the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni. McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.

Read the full article →

2011 College Grads Moving Home In Record Numbers, Saddled With Historic Levels Of Student Loan Debt

May 13, 2011

NEW YORK — While one’s college graduation is normally a time of jubilation, Megan Muller can more than relate to the sense of defeat that now hangs over the class of 2011. Muller, 26, graduated from Kean University in Union, N.J., yesterday with a bachelor’s degree in communication. She is the first person in her family to graduate from college. Like many graduates, she’s now faced with the larger worry of living back at home while also paying down vast amounts of debt. All along, money’s been a chronic source of anxiety. In order to finish, Muller took out more than $70,000 in student loans and has another $10,000 in credit card debt. Midway through college, after transferring and taking a few semesters off, Muller moved back in with her parents in order to save money. And until she can move out and find her own place, it’s the credit cards she must first pay down — in addition to beginning repayments on her student loans. “Trust me, you don’t want to be 26 and still living at home with your parents,” explains Muller, who, daunted by the expense of college, struggled with whether to finish at all. She currently makes about $25,000 as an assistant editor at Federal Practitioner , a peer-reviewed medical journal. Muller is hardly alone in her ongoing quest to establish an independent life. In addition to the normal job worries, the class of 2011 is saddled with a dual set of other obligations: moving home and paying back debt . A study conducted by Twentysomething Inc., a consultant firm specializing in young adults, reports that 85 percent of this year’s graduating class will be forced to move back home . Meanwhile, 2011 graduates also face historic amounts of student loan debt — or an average of $27,200 for graduates that borrowed money in order to finish school. “We tell people they need to get a college education in order to succeed, but then we put all of these roadblocks in their way by then making it practically impossible to repay what you owe,” says Michael D. Hais, who, along with Morley Winograd, coauthored the forthcoming book “Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America.” The two men describe the number of 20-somethings moving home as “historically unprecedented.” Andrew Sum, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, couldn’t agree more. “This is our country and this is our future and we’re failing them,” says Sum, who reports a record number of 2011 graduates returning home to their parents’ nest. As a consequence, Sum sees young graduates not only delaying the formation of their own households, but consequently unable to achieve a desirable standard of living. Apart from the longer-term consequences associated with moving home, Sum’s data reveals another concern altogether. Namely, that young people face high amounts of debt and a lack of decent jobs. Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sum reports that as many as 50 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 are underutilized, meaning they’re either working no job at all, working a part-time job or working a job outside of the college labor market — say, as a barista or a bartender. Mark Kantrowitz, who came up with the $27,200 figure based on the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study and publishes the financial aid sites Fastweb.com and FinAid.org , is concerned that debt at graduation is outpacing starting salaries. It’s a worry that Muller and many of her classmates also share. Going to school while working full-time required that Muller learn to survive on fewer and fewer hours of sleep. Coffee became her fuel. Name the job — whether working as a nanny, as a waitress, behind the counter at a beauty supply store or at the front desk of her local gym — and she’s done it. And while Muller realizes she’s fortunate to have a job, her paycheck is hardly enough to repay her existing debt while she saves to get her own place. Meanwhile, Muller is toying with whether to go into more debt in order to finance a graduate degree, hoping that more qualifications might lead to a bigger paycheck. “But so what if I’m $100,000 in debt and living in a smaller house and not able to afford the nicest clothes?” asks Muller, whose to-do list remains longer than her shopping list, despite yesterday’s high of finally receiving her diploma. “One day, it’s all going to pay off.”

Read the full article →

Howard Steven Friedman: Grumps, Dreamers, Bean Counters, Cool Cats and Shills: The Taxonomy of High Profile Economists

May 13, 2011

The dismal science has bred a fascinating collection of prominent species. While many economists toil away in obscurity, a small set of economists rise to fame, fortune or even both. Those leading lights of economics tend to fall in a few easily recognizable groups. The Grumps: Ahh, the Grumps. We all know them. They sound like Mr. Wilson, Dennis The Menace’s cranky next-door neighbor. Grumps are terrific at criticizing other people’s work. They poke holes through theories and applications, concepts and methods like a machine gun through toilet paper. Grumps are great backseat drivers, Monday morning quarterbacks and every other cliché you can think of for someone who destructs to perfection but never actually constructs anything themselves. Grumps don’t offer new ideas, because they know that their ideas would be criticized… they know it’s much safer to just attack. Grumps are the archenemies of the Dreamers and cause Bean Counters to cower in pockets of small ideas. The Dreamers: Dreamers believe that they can change the world with grandiose ideas and a few calculations. They occupy that rarefied air that is reserved for strategists who can never implement and visionaries who can’t tie their shoelaces. Dreamers can’t be troubled with error checking, detailed research, analysis of the real world or any of the mundane things that make economic output have any chance of validity. Dreamers are charismatic salesman, able to capture large crowds of non-experts with their glorious ideas then quickly hop away in their donor-subsidized Lear jet once they see a Grump approaching. The Bean Counters: These perfectionists only look into research questions if the conditions are as 100% ideal as they were taught in their freshmen year Introduction to Experimental Design class. Their topics are meaningful and their research papers are textbook examples of how to do science that is both internally valid (the conclusions are true for the population studied) but have absolutely no generalizability (you can’t transfer the conclusions to other populations). Bean Counters aspire to do something meaningful but are so deathly afraid of taking on any large scale or strategic project since the analysis methods might not get them a solid A+. The Cool Cats: The hipsters of the economics world. They wear fashion shades, write best-selling books and are guests on the Colbert Report , NPR and the Daily Show . Cool Cats jump from hot topic to hot topic, each one a fun idea for the public but with no potential for meaning or impact. They can tell you about the revolution in tooth paste dispenser design, how having friends who are plastic surgeons correlates with pre-mature wrinkling and the relationship between the length of your middle name and your life expectancy. The Cool Cats are jealous of the Dreamers’ big ideas but are not taken seriously enough by the Grumps to even warrant criticism except to be asked, “Why don’t you try doing economics for a change?” Lastly, the Shills: Shills are bought and sold by their industry. They’re the economists who lean forward after being quizzed, “What is 2 plus 2?” and ask, “How much would you like it to be?” Shills are found in most major industries but cluster in finance where they can sing the loudest and be paid the most for their lovely voices. Shills either graduated from top schools or proudly proclaim that they are ABD’s (see the special note below). Other economists treat Shills with a healthy mix of contempt and wallet envy. Next time you come across a prominent economist, see how long it takes before you can spot their species. Special note about ABD’s: A good friend of mine (Ph.D. in Math) pointed out that the only people who introduce themselves as having an ABD (All But Dissertation) are Shills who were once enrolled in Economics/Econometrics/Finance Ph.D. programs and dropped out to take lucrative jobs. He noted that they proudly offer themselves as being “equivalent to a Ph.D., but so valuable that the industry just couldn’t wait for them to graduate” while people who dropped out of other Ph.D. programs are often ashamed. Those who try to convince you that an ABD is similar to a Ph.D. are blissfully ignoring the fact that researching, writing and defending the Ph.D. thesis is what takes the vast majority of time, effort and skill in a Ph.D. program. When he hears someone refer to themselves as an ADB, he replies, “where I’m from, those are called Masters degrees or Ph.D. dropouts. That is, unless your university printed a degree that says ABD with your name on it.” Please join Howard’s Facebook Fan page

Read the full article →

Chez Pazienza: Professor Koch’s Psychopathy 101 Class

May 12, 2011

Just a couple of days ago I was mentioning to someone how Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho inadvertently turned out to be the single best chronicle of the entire ethos of the 1980s. What was initially repudiated as relentlessly ugly, hyper-violent nihilism has, in hindsight, taken on a strange air of both sly subversiveness and surprising prescience. What makes American Psycho so subversive is that it imagined soulless consumption and craven materialism taken to its seemingly inevitable conclusion. Patrick Bateman was what you would get if you removed all societal and moral restraint and left only the gooey center buried deep within our rapidly dissolving culture. What makes it prescient, however, is that it imagined a Wall Street populated by indifferent monsters willing to literally kill to get what they want. True, the barons and minions of today’s Wall Street don’t connect car batteries to people’s genitals or scoop out their eyes with pen knives (as far as we know). But if you’ve ever seen the documentary The Smartest Guys in the Room , about the rise and fall of Enron, and listened to recordings of commodities traders laughing to each other at the prospect of the elderly going broke and California burning up as they strangle the state’s power supply in the name of huge profits, you know that there are more subtle forms of sadism. I bring this up because another conversation I had this past weekend was with a friend of mine who represents Howard Dean’s group “Democracy for America” and she was rightfully complaining about the need for our nation’s MBA programs to begin putting more emphasis on business ethics. And two days ago the St. Petersburg Times highlighted how one business school, Florida State University’s, is coming under fire for a move that could very well be in exactly the opposite direction. Apparently, a few years back, billionaire tool Charles Koch donated around $1.5 million to the FSU economics school in exchange for, well, control of the FSU economics school — or at the very least the ability to decide which professors it hires. The goal, ostensibly, would be to ensure that the school does its part to foster his specific brand of free-market libertarian capitalism well into the next few decades. Think of it as Professor Xavier’s School for Randian Supermen, with Koch himself playing the role of Mentor X and choosing the actual professors. This is a disconcerting enough scenario; the fact that this is happening at a public university — funded, ironically, by taxpayers — is just all kinds of unscrupulous. And a lot of people are now starting to realize this. In 2009, Koch and his representatives used their bought-and-paid-for veto power to shoot down 60% of the faculty suggestions, at least a few of whom presumably lacked the conservative credentials that would’ve made Koch comfortable that he was getting his money’s worth. The draconian contract FSU entered into with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation set up an advisory panel appointed by Koch himself, and that panel alone decides which candidates for various professorships deserve consideration. Oh, and the Sword of Damocles hanging over the university’s head? Koch can immediately pull all funding from the school if he doesn’t like who gets hired or if he finds, during his foundation’s annual reviews, that they’ve failed to live up to his “expectations.” This is what’s happening out there — what’s being allowed to happen. A very rich guy is essentially buying the kind of education he thinks your kids should have — one that he assumes will benefit him and his anti-interventionist ilk by turning them into new recruits to the cause. Koch’s plan is brilliantly creative: to go to the source and begin indoctrination from the very beginning — to not simply sell students a product but to make them become both the product and the salespeople at the same time. Forget ethics — Charles Koch is personally cranking out the next generation of Patrick Batemans. Better check the floor around you and make sure you’re not standing on plastic.

Read the full article →

Dinkar Jain: To India and China, With Love: America to Send Back Her Job-Creating Graduates

May 12, 2011

These lines, etched in bronze, embellish the Statue of Liberty and also articulate the sentiment of this great American emblem: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, … Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Emma Lazarus’s sonnet might need to be rewritten. Today, she might write: “Give me your ambitious, brainy young. I will shine the lamp of my colleges, universities and libraries on them. Your masses yearning to learn shall learn, And shall walk back through this golden door straight into your arms.” There are many reasons why graduates of American universities are leaving, especially if they came from overseas. One obvious one is that these graduates find better economic opportunities overseas today than they used to a decade ago. But the fact remains that they also find the American policies on highly skilled immigration irksome. Highly irksome. Never before has a country invited the best brains from around the world, given them an education using her own money and then, pandering to the irrational sentiments of the angry and easily misguided, asked these brains to depart and invest their blossoming talents for the progress and betterment of interests and nations alien to herself. The story of reverse brain drain in the top bracket of human talent plays out something like this: International students come to America to study. They pay tuition, but also benefit greatly from American taxpayer money, grants and endowments. Many colleges will tell you that tuition doesn’t even fully cover the cost of the education they are providing to their students. International students who pay tuition variously benefit from vast amounts of research grants, corporate-sponsored programs and endowment-financed facilities and buildings. Many international students also get large amounts of financial aid and scholarships. Many, if not most, international students who come to the U.S. to obtain advanced degrees, such as PhDs, usually do so on scholarships or tuition waivers in lieu of teaching or research. But after paying for them, American immigration laws make it tough for them to stay. Limits on H1B visas, the tedium & delays of processing green cards and labor certifications for citizens of India and China, and other restrictions on timing and requirements of practical training clauses in student visas greatly restrict economic presence of these graduates in the United States on completion of their degrees. Because it is tough for them to stay, the economic benefits of this labor pool accrue to other countries. Offices are opened abroad. Companies are started and funded abroad. American companies want to hire these international students who turn into managers, scientists and engineers. These companies would have opened offices here, but since they can’t hire them here, they go overseas. From Microsoft on an announcement of opening a new center in 2007: “The Microsoft Canada Development Centre… [in] Vancouver, Canada… will be home to software developers from around the world… [and] allows the company to recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S. … [It] would create a tremendous opportunity for Canada…. while providing strong economic benefits to British Columbia and Canada.” Many entrepreneurs from among these managers, scientists and engineers educated at American universities are starting companies outside America. Visas aren’t available for them to start companies here with local capital. Venture capitalists (with American pension money, American endowment money and the money of wealthy Americans) wanting to fund these entrepreneurs educated at American universities are funding companies outside America. Further, taxes and employment from all this economic activity related to these new companies are benefiting nations outside America. Examples of upcoming companies that have benefited from this reverse migration of people and capital include SnapDeal, PubMatic, Makemytrip.com, A Thinking Ape, Praetorian Group, Campfire Labs and the like. This is in addition to the right-sourcing of jobs and talent by behemoths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Intel and the like. You get the picture. America’s universities educate the world’s best minds, many times at a subsidized price. Then America sends these minds abroad to raise money from American VC funds to start companies abroad and employ foreigners. This is not about comprehensive immigration reform. This is about a common sense and easy economic survival technique. The issues here are not related to comprehensive immigration reform, which deals with highly-sensitive issues pertaining to 10-12 million people. Highly-skilled immigration reform only has to do with a few thousand graduates of reputed American schools every year — it is something so removed from the issues of illegal immigration that conflating these two distinctive issues is like masking legitimate legislation in reams and reams of pork barrel measures. Comprehensive immigration reform is impractical given the politics in Washington, DC. Highly-skilled immigration reform is basic common sense. These two have nothing to do with each other with the exception of political posturing needs. Academics, business leaders and politicians on both sides of the aisle generally agree with this but can’t act: “…engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. from 1995 to 2005….25.3% of these [have] at least one key foreign-born founder. Nationwide, these immigrant-founded companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005.” – Vivek Wadhwa ‘s “America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs” (Duke University, UC Berkeley 2007) “Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities.” – Bill Gates (Congressional testimony , 2008) “It makes no sense to educate the world’s future inventors and entrepreneurs and then force them to leave when they are able to contribute to our economy.” – Charles E. Schumer (D) & Lindsey Graham (R) ( Washington Post , 2010) Until America gets anywhere on this issue, the world will keep taking back its educated, upgraded and highly-skilled people educated and trained in America. Perhaps, like American universities do from alumni, America could also ask these countries and their American-educated citizens for endowment contributions? The solicitation letter will go something like this: “To India & China, with Love: America needs your help now, more than ever before, as we shooed away our job creating graduates.”

Read the full article →

Finance Professionals See Business Opportunity In Strapped Michigan Cities

May 12, 2011

NEW YORK — As Michigan cities grapple with budget deficits and spending cuts, their troubles amount to an attractive opportunity for financial industry players, who are eyeing individual localities for state-sanctioned takeovers. Thanks to a new Michigan law , the governor can appoint an emergency manager to have total control over a municipality or school system deemed to be in dire financial straits. Such officials currently run three Michigan cities and the Detroit school district. Many more, from private and public industries, are waiting in the wings, boning up on municipal governance in case one of them is called upon to turn a city around. Hundreds have already been trained. In Detroit , the largest city in the state, the upcoming budgeting process carries an implicit threat: If local politicians can’t convince the state they have what it takes to repair the city’s finances, the state could appoint an outside official to do the job for them. The city has already hit several of the triggers to initiate the process that could install an emergency manager, say local politicians, who are scrambling to keep the city government out of receivership. But would-be emergency managers say they can succeed where elected officials have failed. They stand to draw six-figure salaries from the local governments under their management, but some talk about this work as if it were a civic duty. “We feel very strongly that not only is there a business opportunity here, but we want to be part of a solution for the greater good,” said Michael Imber, a principal in Grant Thornton LLP’s corporate advisory and restructuring services practice in New York. “We’re absolutely ready to help.” Imber is not alone. In February, he was one of about 50 graduates of a training course for Michigan emergency managers, a two-day program promoted in Crain ‘s business magazine. The course was popular, with a waiting list exceeding 100 people, said Eric Scorsone, an economist at Michigan State University, who helped organize the session with the Turnaround Management Association, a corporate restructuring industry group. More than two-thirds of the participants in February were from the private sector, Scorsone said. At the next training program, held in April, public sector professionals were more heavily represented, and about 400 people participated. That course, too, had a long waiting list. “There’s constant chatter going on about this,” said bankruptcy attorney Harley Goldstein, a partner at the law firm K&L Gates. “Everybody wants to make a buck.” Michigan has had an emergency manager statute on its books for 20 years, but Public Act 4, signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder in March, endows these officials with expanded powers over the localities where they’re dispatched. Emergency managers now can suspend collective bargaining rights for unions. They can terminate worker contracts. They can strip the mayor and the city council of all their power. These officials were once called “emergency financial managers.” Now they’re called just “emergency managers.” “That’s to emphasize that it’s not just about finances,” Scorsone said. “It’s more like a CEO rather than a CFO.” But even “CEO” doesn’t fully capture the extent of emergency managers’ authority. In the city of Benton Harbor, Joseph Harris has been the emergency manager for a year . Elected officials have resisted his rule, but thanks to Harris’ new powers, he is able simply to “put them in the timeout chair,” state Rep. Al Pscholka (R) told Bloomberg Businessweek . For Detroit, the coming two months are a crucial period, a time in which the local elected officials must prove to the governor that they can take care of the city on their own. The fiscal year ends June 30, and a new budget, which local officials are now in the process of writing, will take effect the following day. Mayor Dave Bing’s proposed budget includes cuts totaling nearly $100 million from a $1.3 billion general fund. The actual cuts could be even greater, city council members say. But it might take more than a balanced budget to convince the state to leave Detroit alone. Local politicians are also writing a plan to eliminate the city’s accumulated deficit, which exceeds $200 million, according to the mayor’s estimate. The goal is to give the city a budget surplus in five years. But for all the planning, the city’s finances could remain tenuous. For one, Detroit’s deficit-reduction plan depends on the state’s allowing the city to collect certain taxes, and to raise others. The latest Census data showed Detroit’s population had declined by a quarter over the last decade, falling below a legal threshold and preventing the city from collecting a utility tax. To get this revenue, and to raise its income tax, Detroit needs approval from the Republican-controlled state legislature — the same body that passed the new emergency manager law. Already, the city has made deep spending cuts to compensate for its depleted coffers. Workers have absorbed furlough days that amount to a 10 percent pay reduction. But city officials say they’re prepared to cut even more. The mayor has proposed shrinking the workforce by nearly 200 positions to help achieve that $100 million in savings. Other layoff counts discussed around City Hall reach as high as 1,000 workers, Council Member James Tate said. The pension and health care systems, too, are frequently cited targets for cuts. Between June 2008 and June 2010, the assets in Detroit’s General Retirement System pension plan lost nearly 40 percent of their value as the financial crisis struck, an auditor’s report shows . In his budget address last month, Mayor Bing said he wants to replace the city’s defined benefit pension plan with a 401k-style defined contribution plan for future hires, and to reduce the value of future employees’ pensions. But the city’s organized labor has resisted. In the end, budget savings might depend on whether the elected officials can successfully negotiate with unions. “We have to make those unpopular decisions,” Tate said. “I truly believe that this particular city council and this mayor will probably go down as one of the most unpopular groups of city leaders in the history of this city. We’re talking about massive change, massive sacrifice.” Outside the city, prospective emergency managers say they can do better. “There’s no question that an outside party can move things along faster,” Imber said. “Whatever the constituencies are that are resistant to change need to recognize what the reality is. If they don’t, they’re going to lose the right to choose.” While some prospective emergency managers have little or no experience in the public sector, they say their private sector experience has prepared them for this job. “We run a process to solve the financial issues of the enterprise,” said Michael Boudreau, a director at the financial firm O’Keefe and Associates, who has 20 years of experience in private industry, and who attended the February training session. “That process works in one industry as well as another industry. In this case, I’m going to say that it works just as well in private as in public.” Like elected officials, emergency managers are paid by the municipality they serve. But private sector turnaround artists are accustomed to salaries far larger than what these cities would offer. A “typical” salary for an emergency manager is about $11,000 a month, according to Terry Stanton, spokesperson for the Michigan Treasury Department. For Detroit, the salary would likely be more, said Scorsone, the economist who helped organize the emergency manager training sessions. He estimated that the annual pay for managing Detroit could reach as high as $400,000. The Detroit Public Schools’ Emergency Manager, Robert Bobb, earns about $350,000 annually . Compensation for private sector restructurings is often many times that. But clients in the private sector tend to have deeper pockets than Detroit taxpayers, who would foot the bill for an emergency manager. The city could end up paying several salaries, since the emergency manager can appoint advisers. But Goldstein, the bankruptcy lawyer, said in an email that he would consider working on Detroit on a pro bono basis. “I strongly believe that restructuring professionals should give something back to the community,” he said, adding, “Detroit’s situation is a noble cause that is deserving of altruism.” Stanton, the Michigan Treasury spokesperson, refused to speculate about whether an emergency manager is in Detroit’s future. State officials are “not waiting with bated breath to send EMs into different local units of government,” he said. What’s more, the purpose of the new law is preventative, he said. “The goal here is not to name emergency managers,” Stanton said. “The goal is to avoid having to name emergency managers.” Indeed, the new law seems to have inspired a fresh sense of urgency in Detroit city hall. A state takeover would be “tragic,” said Council Member Kwame Kenyatta. Local officials are avoiding it “like the plague,” Council Member Tate said. “It would be the end of the democratic process as Detroiters know it,” said Gary Brown, the council president pro tem. “You’d basically have a dictator that’s not accountable to the citizens of the city of Detroit.” “I appreciate people getting their training, but we won’t need them,” Council President Charles Pugh said. “I hope that that training was in vain. I hope that they wasted their time.” But not all city leaders show such confidence in the way the city is currently run. Al Garrett, president of the local division of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said the city council members have a vested interest in avoiding emergency receivership — to protect their own jobs. Garrett expressed frustration with the way local politics works. He strongly opposes an emergency manager takeover — “it’s just a host of bad things,” he said — but he also said the current city leaders aren’t exactly ideal. “There are decisions that are made daily that make no damn sense, that lead to our fiscal crisis,” he said. “Part of what we want to see, when we go to the table, is how are you going to deal with the other issues.” “I’m not willing to voluntarily take a bad deal,” he added, “just to get the city out of receivership.”

Read the full article →

The ROI on CCIM Education

May 12, 2011

CCIMs in small markets and small firms initially may be attracted to the CCIM education program because it’s one more way to distinguish themselves in a limited market. read more

Read the full article →

Dr. Sasha Galbraith: The Wage Gap Plot Thickens

May 9, 2011

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal blatantly states that there is “no male-female wage gap.” Among other things, the author, Carrie Lukas (executive director of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum ), points out that women work an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, versus men, who work 44.4 minutes longer each day. This difference, she says, explains over one third of that wage gap. Really? This just goes to show, statistics can be misleading. While often useful, they are also great at hiding a multitude of evils, as well as giving us nonsense. Take, for example, the fact that rich families spend more on groceries than poor families. So what? I guess then, the extra hours that women put in at home in unpaid family, elder and household care count for nothing in that wage gap. In fact, Lukas cites one group of people — single, childless urban female workers between the ages of 22 and 30 — who earn 8 percent more than similar men. And that’s my point exactly! According to a University of Michigan study of U.S. families, married women with three kids or more logged an average of 28 hours of housework per week. Compare that to the 10 hours per week put in by their spouses. In fact, getting married creates seven hours per week more (unpaid) work for the wife. Fine, you say, most married women with loads of kids don’t work full-time outside the home. True. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , 43 percent of married mothers work full-time outside the home, about half the ratio of married fathers. But among married fathers and mothers who work, women spend twice as much time on housework (two hours per day) than men. Why should we care if people work for no pay? Because ignoring unpaid work distorts our Gross Domestic Product and the assessment of our national living standards. If a mother goes into the paid workforce, she has to arrange for someone to take care of the kids. In some cases, it might be a relative who probably will do this work for free, or it might be a childcare center for which she has to pay. Similarly, the family will probably have to pay someone else to clean the house and cook meals (restaurants and take-out services). While all those paid services count toward the GDP, they also overstate the implied benefits to our standard of living — which is usually assumed to track with the rise of GDP. Why should we care if women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same job? Because women invest their earnings differently than do men. According to a UNICEF report , women spend more money on the education, health and welfare of their families. This, in turn, benefits the economic well-being of the country as a whole. If women were paid the same as men, the U.S. GDP would be 9 percent higher (and Europe’s would increase by 13 percent, according to a UN report ). I’ve often wondered what would happen if all the women in the world decided not to do any of their unpaid work for a day. Oh wait, I think that’s called Mother’s Day. Happy Mother’s Day, ladies. Crossposted from Forbes.com .

Read the full article →

Andy Kroll: How the McEconomy Bombed the American Worker: The Hollowing Out of the Middle Class

May 9, 2011

Crossposted with TomDispatch.com Think of it as a parable for these grim economic times. On April 19th, McDonald’s launched its first-ever national hiring day, signing up 62,000 new workers at stores throughout the country. For some context, that’s more jobs created by one company in a single day than the net job creation of the entire U.S. economy in 2009. And if that boggles the mind, consider how many workers applied to local McDonald’s franchises that day and left empty-handed: 938,000 of them. With a 6.2% acceptance rate in its spring hiring blitz, McDonald’s was more selective than the Princeton, Stanford, or Yale University admission offices. It shouldn’t be surprising that a million souls flocked to McDonald’s hoping for a steady paycheck, when nearly 14 million Americans are out of work and nearly a million more are too discouraged even to look for a job. At this point, it apparently made no difference to them that the fast-food industry pays some of the lowest wages around: on average, $8.89 an hour, or barely half the $15.95 hourly average across all American industries. On an annual basis, the average fast-food worker takes home $20,800, less than half the national average of $43,400. McDonald’s appears to pay even worse, at least with its newest hires. In the press release for its national hiring day, the multibillion-dollar company said it would spend $518 million on the newest round of hires, or $8,354 a head. Hence the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “McJob” as “a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement.” Of course, if you read only the headlines, you might think that the jobs picture was improving. The economy added 1.3 million private-sector jobs between February 2010 and January 2011, and the headline unemployment rate edged downward , from 9.8% to 8.8%, between November of last year and March. It inched upward in April, to 9%, but tempering that increase was the news that the economy added 244,000 jobs last month ( not including those 62,000 McJobs ), beating economists’ expectations. Under this somewhat sunnier news, however, runs a far darker undercurrent. Yes, jobs are being created, but what kinds of jobs paying what kinds of wages?

Read the full article →

June Carbone: Opt-in Movement Great for Upper-Middle Class Moms. But the Rest Need Options, Too

May 9, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . On Mother’s Day, the Washington Post published an article, ” Movement to keep moms working is remaking the workplace “. The article celebrates women who are part of the “opt-in movement,” in which “many mothers are willing to give up income if that means taking control of their schedules, and, perhaps most important, doing meaningful, challenging work in their chosen professions rather than what they see as the less interesting work of the often-stigmatized ‘mommy track.’” For many women, however, giving up income for flexible work hours is not an option. Instead, the real need to keep moms working is not simply for upper-middle class, well-educated moms, but for mothers with less education, fewer opportunities, and less supportive communities. Those with the most education are the most likely to be labor force participants and the least likely to be unemployed. They are also the least likely to quit work after having a child. Consider the following statistics from 2009: For women age 25 and over with less than a high school diploma, 34 percent were labor force participants; high school diploma, no college, 53 percent; some college, but no degree, 62 percent; associate degree, 72 percent; and bachelor’s degree or higher, 73 percent. The Washington Post article is representative of much of the work in this area: while the headline would lead one to believe the story would focus on all working mothers, the article is really about a select group of women who are highly educated professionals. The news media show a disproportionate interest in professional women who leave the workforce to become full-time mothers. This article adds a new twist on the old story; it focuses on women who leave, but then re-enter on terms that respect their goals for work-family balance. More generally, issues of work-family balance are often addressed only in terms of the interests of those same women. (Men are less likely to leave the workplace.) The most frequently mentioned proposals — creating more and better part-time work, shorter work hours, and greater workplace flexibility — are proposals that are most useful for those who are financially able to trade off money for family time. As is perhaps too obvious to mention, most women are not professionals; they are not lawyers, executives, professors, or others with advanced degrees. The median weekly wage for women in 2009 was $657 . The most common profession for women is as secretaries or administrative assistants, followed by registered nurses, elementary and middle school teachers, and cashiers. Of course all women and men, including high-paid professionals, benefit from improved recognition of the need to balance their work and family demands and from new strategies designed to facilitate this balance. Yet our focus, along with out policy proposals, should be on those who have fewer options and resources, not just those with the most. Indeed, what flexibility means for low-wage working women is profoundly different from that available to women in higher paying jobs. First, they can little afford to trade off income for family time. Second, they are subject to both “schedule rigidity and schedule instability,” according to a 2011 report from the Center on WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law. They must be at work during their scheduled hours, but those hours may change on a weekly basis. Arranging for child or elder care thus becomes even more difficult with schedules subject to constant change. In fact, women with less than a high school diploma are the least likely to report having a flexible work arrangement. The economic case for flexibility and accommodation in work scheduling for hourly and low-wage employees is strong. Many employers, ranging from Kraft Foods to the US government, are already implementing some form of workplace flexibility for hourly workers. More employers should. Evidence about practices that include flexible work schedules and more employee control over formal scheduling as well as unscheduled absences for family reasons shows that both employers and employees benefit. Developing compressed work weeks, promoting job-sharing, requiring employees to be present only during core times of the day or week, and establishing clear policies on family leave time with adequate back-up support are all potential strategies that can provide any employee, ranging from receptionists to cashiers, with a more family-friendly workplace. Attention to the needs of lower wage women must also go beyond reforming the workplace to include policies such as paid family leave and restructured school days.

Read the full article →

Video: Sylla Says Another Market `Flash Crash’ Can Be Expected

May 6, 2011

May 6 (Bloomberg) — Richard Sylla, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, talks about the financial market “flash crash” that occurred one year ago today and the likelihood of a similar episode. Sylla speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Televsion’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Global Warming Causing Food Prices To Rise

May 5, 2011

Over the last few decades, global warming has hindered the world’s food production causing prices to rise, new research reveals. The study, which NewScientist says is the first “to demonstrate a link between global crop yields and climate change,” not only tracks the link between rising temperatures and its effect on food production, but highlights the importance of finding new ways to adapt farming methods to the changing climate. From The Guardian : The drop in the productivity of crop plants around the world was not caused by changes in rainfall but was because higher temperatures can cause dehydration, prevent pollination and lead to slowed photosynthesis. According to David Lobell, a Stanford University scientist and an author of the report, “This is tens of billions of dollars a year in lost productivity because of warming,” The Washington Post reports. To conduct the study, Lobell and his colleagues gathered data dating from 1980 to 2008 for growing regions around the world, including their temperature, rain fall, and crop production. Then, they compared annual yields of four staple crops — corn, wheat, rice and soy beans — from every country in the world to what production would have been given precipitation and temperature remained the same since 1980, calculating the predictions with statistical models. Corn yields were 5.5 percent lower than the predictions showed they would have been if the environmental factors remained constant, and wheat yields were 3.8 percent lower. Wheat production in Russia showed the biggest drop, with yields 15 percent lower than what they could’ve been. Soy beans and rice were relatively unaffected due to being grown in areas not experiencing as much warming and thriving in higher temperatures, respectively. “Agriculture as it exists today evolved over 11,000 years of reasonably stable climate, but that climate system is no more,” Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, told The Guardian . Not everyone agrees with the findings. Ken Cassman, a professor of systems agronomy at the University of Nebraska, told The Washington Post , “It’s not clear how well these analyses are capturing how well farmers can respond, and have been responding, to changing temperatures.” Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado told NewScientist that the results were undermined by using a purely statistical model. Food prices have reached a record high this year , fueling unrest in regions like North Africa and the Middle East. A recent study presented at 2010′s UN climate summit in Cancun predicted that global warming could double grain prices by 2050 and leave millions more malnourished. This latest research, “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980,” was published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Science .

Read the full article →

Optimism In Decline: Hope For 20-Somethings Hits Historic Low

May 4, 2011

NEW YORK — Noelle Aldrich never planned on moving back in with her parents after graduating from college. Aldrich will graduate from Oklahoma Baptist University next Friday. Once the ceremony is over and her mother and sister board a plane home to Claremont, N.H., she and her father will make the return trip by car, with all of her belongings nestled in the backseat. Aldrich, 21, considers herself to be a consummate planner. Possibly more unnerving than anything else, she says, is the lack of knowing what comes next. “It’s going to take me years to ever make what my dad makes now,” said Aldrich, who wants to work as an elementary school teacher, but has yet to find a job. “Eventually I hope I’ll get there.” Aldrich is hardly the only 20-something questioning whether or not she’ll be able to build a better life than her parents. For nearly three decades, pollsters have been asking, Will today’s youth have a better life than their parents’ generation? According to a recent Gallup poll , for the first time in the history, a majority of Americans now believe that today’s youth will unlikely achieve the same standard of living as their parents. Since 1983, polling organizations have posed the same question : “In America, each generation has tried to have a better life than their parents, with a better living standard, better homes, a better education, and so on. How likely do you think it is that today’s youth will have a better life than their parents — very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely?” In Gallup’s April poll, only 44 percent answered in the affirmative . The survey broke down respondents according to age. While 57 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds thought today’s youth would have a better future than their parents, optimism waned as respondents got older. For instance, only 37 percent of those 65 and older shared the same sense of possibility. Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old president of Our Time , a national membership organization for Americans under 30 which has about 300,000 members and grows by 2,000 members each week, sees a different story in the results. He thinks that many members of his generation still believe in the social and upward mobility associated with the American Dream. “Something that is unique and that we’re still trying to figure out is in light of war, in light of a terrible recession and in light of staggering student loan debt, is why we still have this lingering sense of optimism that things will get better,” Segal said. Still, Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, doesn’t see 57 percent as a reason to be overly sanguine. “You’d hope, as a country that believes in the American Dream, that those numbers for young people would really be a lot higher,” said Sum. “We don’t want them walking around with a rain cloud over their head, but when this many don’t think they can meet mom and dad’s standard of living, we should be concerned.” Sum referenced a poll released in April by AP-Viacom of Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, which indicated that young people are skeptical about the notion that life would necessarily improve with each generation. It reported that four in 10 predicted it would be difficult to raise a family and afford the lifestyle they desired. But the same poll also found that in the face of such odds, 90 percent anticipated finding careers that would bring them happiness. For the time being, Aldrich, who owes about $50,000 in student loans, is doing her best to remain positive. She is willing to relocate to whichever state will offer her a teaching job and has a color-coded map of cities where she either knows people or states that offer loan forgiveness for individuals that elect low-paying professions. While neither of her parents went to college, her family as always viewed higher education as a ticket to a better life. Her father works as a safety director at a custom cabinetry business; her mother is a receptionist at the same company. “It’s not that I don’t think my parents led a great life, but they’ve always instilled in me the notion that I should have bigger and better things than they had,” said Aldrich, adding that “it’s not about extra comforts. I just want financial security.”

Read the full article →

Mark Zupan: CEOs Do Make Better Decisions When Their Interests Align With the Stockholders

May 4, 2011

In a recent book and accompanying op-eds, Roger Martin, the dean of the University of Toronto’s Rottman School of Business argues that a much-cited article written by two of our Simon School’s former faculty members, Mike Jensen and Bill Meckling, “fixed” (in a bad way) the financial game and thereby led to a greater likelihood of economic bubbles and crashes. The Jensen-Meckling article , published in 1976, spelled out the problem of imperfect monitoring in the corporate arena and the resultant agency costs. It noted that manager-agents should have sufficient “skin in the game” to ensure that they more appropriately represent stockholder-principal interests. It is such “skin in the game”, in the form of option and stock grants, which Martin holds responsible for recent major economic downturns because it has incentivized managers to focus too much on the “expectations market” at the expense of the “real market”. In an op-ed in the Toronto Globe and Mail , Martin states “historically, professional managers played entirely within a single market; they were in charge of performance in the real market and were paid for performance in that real market. That is, they were in charge of earning real profits for their company and they were typically paid a base salary and bonus for meeting real market performance targets.” Martin misses the point that performance and profits in the so-called “real market” that managers should focus on doesn’t just involve today’s “reality” but it also involves future “realities”. Stockholder-principals care not just about how the company is doing today. The value of their assets also hinges critically on how the company will do in the future and the price of a stock is precisely the measure of expected real performance and profits in the future. Thus, to argue that managers shouldn’t also be rewarded on the expectations of future real performance and profits and that only today’s reality should matter is, simply put, ludicrous. It’s akin to arguing that the only realities we should care about in terms of our homes and cars are the real values they deliver to us in the present and not at all the real, expected values they will provide us in the future. Now, admittedly, expectations do not always prove to be accurate. The business world involves having to make a lot of educated guesses about the future and basing one’s operating decisions in the present on those risky, educated guesses. Bad guesses generally lead to adverse consequences for stockholders-principals and their manager-agents, especially when those agents own a piece of the assets. Think about the over $1 billion in personal holdings that former CEO of Lehman, Dick Fuld, saw evaporate when the firm he was the lead decision-maker for tanked. Underlying Martin’s argument is also the assumption that implicitly accuses savvy investors of being subject to potential manipulation by flash-in-the-pan managers. He ignores the possibility that a CEO might greatly enhance their reputations by evaluating growth opportunities prudently, making investments only when they appear good bets and, for sensible competitive reasons, revealing little private information about the strategies underlying those bets. Apparently, Martin believes investors and analysts are incapable of differentiating between prudent allocators of capital and those who regularly promise more than they deliver. Jensen and Meckling had more respect for analysts. Like Lou Gerstner, they too would argue that the market is a “brutally honest” measure of performance. Investors quickly learn to discount the projections of those who think they can manipulate expectations. If anything, the recent economic downturn has taught us how much we have yet to learn from Jensen and Meckling’s seminal paper. In particular, much greater attention is now starting to be given to exactly how manager-agents should be compensated through ownership stakes. If the managers take risks on behalf of stockholders, risks that affect a company’s performance over a multi-year time horizon, to what extent should their compensation be immediate (stock that can be sold or options that may be exercised right away) versus involve a longer vesting period so that managers better take into account the longer-run risks associated with their corporate decision making? More broadly, think about all the reasons why we ended up in the recent economic mess precisely because relevant agents didn’t have sufficient skin in the game. In addition to the bankers who created and sold mortgage-backed securities but who didn’t have vested interests in how their actions would affect their firms’ longer-run performance, there were: homeowners who could get mortgages without having to put any money down; policymakers who promoted low interest rates and encouraged greater home-ownership through funding for vehicles such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but have remained largely immune from the repercussions of their actions; and rating agencies who are legally precluded from having a direct interest in the assets whose credit-worthiness they evaluate for others. Jensen and Meckling’s fundamental point is that agents make more appropriate decisions on behalf of the stockholders they represent when their own interests align with those of stockholders. Anyone who would like to argue the validity of this point would be just as hard pressed to explain why we are more likely to wash a car and change its oil when we own the vehicle than when we rent it.

Read the full article →

Dorie Clark: How to Change Anything

May 4, 2011

I ran across VitalSmarts — a corporate training and research behemoth — when I was teaching a course on social marketing at Tufts University. Their book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything quickly made it onto my syllabus, as they detailed innovative strategies from across the globe that had successfully reduced HIV transmission in Thailand and reformed gang members in San Francisco. Now they’ve turned their sights inward — after all, if we can reform society, shouldn’t we be able to change ourselves? In the recently-released Change Anything: The New Science of Personal Success , Kerry Patterson and his compatriots have created a roadmap for individuals to gain mastery over their weight, their careers, their exercise habits, their interpersonal relationships, and more. This is a book you can put to immediate use at work. My top five takeaways: 1. Identify Crucial Moments Sometimes you’ll finish a day and feel completely unproductive. You know you worked 8 or 9 or 10 hours — but what did you actually accomplish? Patterson and company encourage us to identify specific “crucial moments” where we may have gotten derailed. Perhaps it’s our obsessive e-mail checking (which can quickly lead to putting out random fires) or getting too caught up chasing an article citation online (when we could have simply asked a colleague). Noticing these moments is key to controlling them in the future. 2. Find the Right Team . Some people truly want you to succeed, giving you sage advice and encouraging your efforts. And others may be dragging you down the path of extended coffeebreaks and carping about the boss (see my recent BNET article Are Your Friends at Work Holding You Back? ). It can be a challenge, but you’ve got to cut the naysayers out of your life. We respond to our environment, and you don’t want them polluting yours. 3. Structure Your Life to Succeed . We like to think success is a matter of willpower — but more often than not, it’s actually a matter of structure. I always thought it was a good idea to bike more, but I’d usually be in a rush … and I wasn’t sure if my tires were pumped … and I wasn’t sure where I’d put my helmet … so I’d invariably take my car, instead. All that changed when I moved to Boston years ago for graduate school, and parking rates close to school hovered between $20-$30. Thanks to the structural incentive, I quickly became a bicycling convert. 4. Proximity is Your Friend . Studies have shown that — despite the much-vaunted interconnectedness of the Internet — distance and proximity matter to us greatly. Scientists are more likely to collaborate with peers who work on the same floor; you’re more likely to work out if your exercise equipment is in your bedroom (as compared to the basement); and you’ll eat more Tootsie rolls if they’re on your desk instead of in the break room. So think carefully about the workplace behaviors you want to encourage, make them proximate, and watch yourself succeed. Having a professional journal on your nightstand instead of Sports Illustrated could make all the difference. 5. Don’t Accept Lame Feedback . I wish I’d had Change Anything a decade ago, when I worked as a reporter. It seemed like my editor disliked me more and more each week, because I clearly wasn’t writing articles the way she liked them. Her profound advice to me? “Make it different!” Sadly, my mind-reading skills were lacking, so she continued to harrumph and redline every piece. Patterson and friends urge us to insist on specifics, because that’s the only way we’ll get better. We should ask for particular, recent examples until we identify the “vital behaviors” that are sought. What are your top workplace success strategies? Dorie Clark is a strategy consultant who has worked with clients including Google, Yale University, and the National Park Service. Listen to her podcasts or follow her on Twitter.

Read the full article →

10 States Launch Investigation Into For-Profit Colleges

May 3, 2011

Top prosecutors in 10 states have convened a joint investigation into potential violations of consumer protection laws by for-profit colleges, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (D), who is leading the multi-state effort, said in an interview with The Huffington Post. The combined investigation only began within the past two months, but it comes after several state attorneys general launched individual probes of deceptive recruiting practices and possible misrepresentations to recruits regarding federal financial aid dollars. The multi-state probe is the latest sign that rapidly rising enrollments and an increased reliance on federal student aid dollars by for-profit colleges are attracting greater scrutiny of the industry. The for-profit higher education industry, which includes a vast swath of colleges ranging from the more than 400,000-student University of Phoenix to small mom-and-pop beauty schools, is facing intense scrutiny from the federal government due to growing federal student loan default rates at many schools. Although only about 10 percent of college students nationwide attend such for-profit institutions, the schools account for nearly half of all student loan defaults, leaving the government to pick up the tab. “A lot of people who are in Washington right now want to run around talking about fiscal responsibility,” said Conway, who issued subpoenas to six for-profit schools in Kentucky last year, seeking information on job placement claims made to prospective students and management of financial aid dollars. “Well, making certain that $25 billion in federal education dollars doled out is being spend in a way that appropriately trains people and prepares them for job opportunities that are out there … That, to me, is a fiscal responsibility issue.” Conway confirmed that 10 states so far have signed on to the multi-state working group. He declined to name the other states, but representatives for Attorneys General Tom Miller of Iowa (D), Lisa Madigan of Illinois (D) and Pam Bondi of Florida (R) confirmed that they are participating in the investigation. A spokesman for the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, Bob Cohen, said in a statement that the organization’s schools are “committed to putting students first” and enforcing existing federal and state laws. “We support a dialogue with the attorneys general that is based on hard facts, on principles fairly applied to all, and is not a product of ideology, innuendo or anecdote,” the statement said. “We firmly believe such a conversation will demonstrate that there is no systemic, sector-wide issue here.” At this point, Conway said, the primary goal is to share information and compare notes about violations of consumer protection statutes. But he said it is possible that the participating states could outline a joint agreement to require such schools to adhere to certain industrywide standards. “There need to be guidelines for information on cost and student loan debt provided to the students before they sign up, and we need to make sure that these schools reform the way they target and recruit potential students,” Conway said. He said the investigation so far involves civil violations, not criminal activity. But he did not rule out a criminal prosecution if investigators discover more information. There are precedents for multi-state settlements with state attorneys general, most notably in litigation against tobacco companies and in an agreement reached with state attorneys general and social networking sites meant to protect children against sexual predators. In 2008, 11 states reached an $8 billion settlement with Countrywide Financial to settle predatory lending allegations. And state attorneys general and the Obama administration are negotiating with the nation’s five largest mortgage companies to settle accusations of improper foreclosures and violations of consumer protection laws. “If you’ve got a school negotiating with 10 attorneys general, they snap to much faster than if they’re dealing with just one,” Conway said. Conway noted that unlike the tobacco industry, which was concentrated in a few major corporations, there are many smaller, independently-owned colleges throughout the country. The Department of Education has stepped up its scrutiny of for-profit colleges in the past year, proposing stronger federal regulations regarding bonuses or raises given to recruiters based on enrollment numbers . The department has also drafted rules regarding student loan accountability, which could cut off funding to programs with a track record of enrollees failing to pay back student loans and facing high debt loads. The industry has mounted an aggressive, multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign against the student loan regulations, saying they unfairly target for-profit colleges and would restrict college access to low-income students who attend such schools in large numbers. The multi-state investigation comes as the Department of Justice is also stepping up its involvement in litigation against for-profit colleges. This week, Education Management Corp. of Pittsburgh, the second-largest publicly traded college corporation, acknowledged that the U.S. Attorney of Western Pennsylvania had intervened in a civil case that had been brought against the company. Other states have also gotten intervened as parties in the case against Education Management Corp., which owns schools ranging from The Art Institutes to Argosy University. In a filing with the Securities Exchange Commission, the corporation noted, “The case alleges that the company’s compensation plans for admission representatives violated the Higher Education Act.” The company said it plans to “vigorously defend itself.”

Read the full article →

Summer 2011 To Be Worst For Teen Jobs

May 2, 2011

A record-low one in four U.S. teenagers will land a summer job in the coming months as a result of a still-poor job market and lost federal funding, according to a report issued on Monday. As a consequence, urban studies experts said cities like Chicago—where summer unemployment among African-Americans aged 16 to 19 years approaches 90 percent—could experience a rise in street violence. “Both national and local leadership continue to ignore the plight of youth who are most at risk for potential violence as a result of being left on the streets in the summer months when crime is at its most explosive,” Chicago Urban League President Andrea Zopp said in a statement. The summer employment rate among U.S. teen-agers this year was projected at between 25 percent and 27 percent, based on an analysis of four decades of employment trends by Andrew Sum of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. That would be a post-World War Two low, while as recently as 2006 the teen summer employment rate was 37 percent. U.S. economic growth has been sluggish since the recession ended in June 2009, with job growth lagging the recovery and unemployment still at a lofty 8.8 percent. The long-term impact of higher summer joblessness among young people is a less-experienced work force and increased government spending due to lower lifetime earnings, reduced tax revenues and higher prison costs, experts said. In Chicago alone, nearly 700 children were hit by gunfire last year, with 66 deaths, though the city’s overall murder rate declined, said Jack Wuest, executive director of the Alternative Schools Network which commissioned the report. “We cannot continue to ignore the correlation between youth violence and teen employment,” Wuest said. “We know if our teens are in school or at a job they are not on the streets.” Federal stimulus dollars directed to cities and applied to summer jobs programs have run out and the funding was not renewed by Congress, meaning 18,000 more Illinois teen-agers will be jobless this summer, according to the report. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

FTC Said To Be Making Google ‘The Next Microsoft’

May 2, 2011

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has reportedly begun to prepare an investigation of Google, according to Bloomberg . The Mountain View web giant has come under scrutiny for its domination of the online search industry. Bloomberg reports that the FTC has allegedly started to tell high-tech companies to get information ready for upcoming inquiry, said “three people familiar with the matter.” Discomfort over Google’s control over search flared following the company’s acquiring ITA Software, a travel data powerhouse. The company outbid other travel sites, who opposed the acquisition . Part of the conditions of the deal, as outlined by the Justice Department mandated that Google must make travel data available to rivals as well as allow the government to look into whether its behavior is unfair. Google already faces antitrust investigations in the European Union . Regulators in South Korea have also been asked to look into the company’s behavior. Officials in Ohio and Wisconsin are considering launching a query for the same reasons, as well. “It could be ‘Google as the next Microsoft,’” Eleanor Fox, a law professor at New York University, told Bloomberg. Microsoft, which itself came under antitrust scrutiny over a decade ago, lodged an official antitrust complaint with the EU. “We have to be careful about letting the current players manipulate the market in such a way that it does tip prematurely [in their favor] and that it hurts rivals,” said FTC commissioner Thomas Rosch in March. “For example, Google is trying to do it though its search methods.” Though Google rules online search and advertising, creating a successful case against the company will hinge upon the determination that the company has used its power to unjustly keep rivals from being able to compete. The senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights is scheduled to examine Google for its search dominance in the next session of Congress.

Read the full article →