August 18, 2016


News and Views


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/18/490498158/justice-department-will-phase-out-its-use-of-private-prisons

Justice Department Will Phase Out Its Use Of Private Prisons
Heard on All Things Considered
CARRIE JOHNSON
August 18, 20161:15 PM ET

Photograph -- The Idaho Correctional Center south of Boise, Idaho, is a contract facility operated by Corrections Corp. of America. The Justice Department says it's phasing out its relationships with private prisons after a recent audit found they have more safety and security problems than ones run by the government. Charlie Litchfield/AP


U.S. Justice Department officials plan to phase out their use of private prisons to house federal inmates, reasoning that the contract facilities offer few benefits for public safety or taxpayers.

In making the decision, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates cited new findings by the Justice Department's inspector general, who concluded earlier this month that a pool of 14 privately contracted prisons reported more incidents of inmate contraband, higher rates of assaults and more uses of force than facilities run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

"They simply do not provide the same level of correctional services, programs and resources; they do not save substantially on costs; and ... they do not maintain the same level of safety and security," Yates wrote in a memo Thursday.

At their peak, contract prisons housed approximately 30,000 federal inmates. By May 2017, that number will have dropped by more than half, to 14,000, Yates wrote. The Bureau of Prisons tends to use contract facilities to confine inmates who require only low security and who tend to be in the country illegally. The U.S. government spent $639 million on those facilities in fiscal year 2014, according to the inspector general report, in payments to three companies: Corrections Corp. of America, GEO Group, and Management and Training Corp.

The Justice Department announcement will not touch the vast majority of prisoners in the country who are incarcerated by state and local authorities. But federal officials hope their decision will be a model across the correctional field.

Last month, the DOJ declined to renew a contract for 1,200 prison beds in a private facility. And it is making changes to a new contract bid to reduce the size of demand there, too.

In a blog post to department employees, the deputy attorney general pointed out that the federal prison population has been dropping overall, to fewer than 195,000 inmates, because of a shift in how low-level, nonviolent drug criminals are treated. Yates did not shut the door on demand for private contract facilities in the future, however, and a new presidential administration could handle the issue differently.

Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, nonetheless said the Justice Department announcement represented a "major milestone in the movement away from mass incarceration."

"It has been a stain on our democracy to permit profit-making entities to be handed the responsibility of making determinations of individual liberty," Mauer said in a prepared statement. "Today's action moves us closer to a moment when government can once again assume this important responsibility."



To me there are certain things that should NOT be for profit enterprises: hospitals of any kind, K-12 schooling, reform schools for children or prisons for adults, churches/religious organizations, housing for the homeless or mentally disturbed, or orphanages for children. Why do I think that? Because from what I have observed, no matter how “inefficient” government-run facilities for the care of people in need may be, private business doesn’t act according to mercy over profit and tend toward inhumane treatment of those who are housed or otherwise served there. I first started thinking about for profit prisons when I read that the worst of George W. Bush’s henchmen, Dick Cheney was a holder of considerable interests in such prisons. How predictable, and unsettling. Not only is big business always greedy, usually corrupt financially and in other ways, and essentially uncontrolled by supervisory bodies, leading to mismanagement that affects the prisoners directly. This NPR article mentions “more incidents of inmate contraband, higher rates of assaults and more uses of force than facilities run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.” Of course I have no government run facilities to compare this to, but the DOJ has stated that it has no advantages whatsoever over government-run facilities, including costs. So, yeah! This is a good decision.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/18/490486309/flying-bum-airship-takes-flight-in-england

'Flying Bum' Airship Takes Flight In England
JASON SLOTKIN
August 18, 2016 3:59 PM ET

Photograph -- The Airlander 10 took its first test flight at Cardington, north of London, marking a return of airships to the historic airfield. Hybrid Air Vehicles
Video – Airlander 10 First Flight


A hybrid airship affectionately dubbed the "The Flying Bum" for its bulbous, multi-chambered design made its maiden flight this week in England.

The Airlander 10 — billed as the world's longest aircraft — took off from Cardington airfield, north of London, on Wednesday evening. During the roughly 15-minute test flight, it reached speeds of 40 mph and heights of 500 feet before landing around dusk.

Two test pilots were at the controls, developer Hybrid Air Vehicles says in a statement.

Combining lighter-than-air and powered flight, the Airlander 10 is designed to be "low noise, low pollution" and capable of remaining aloft for up to five days, Hybrid Air Vehicles says. Technical specifications put the ship's maximum altitude at 16,000 feet and cruising speed at just over 90 mph.

The company says its airship has a range of potential uses, from "communication and survey roles, as well as cargo carrying and tourist passenger flights."

Measuring 302 feet in length, the Airlander 10, is 50 feet longer than a Boeing 747, as The Huffington Post reports.

"It's a great British innovation," Hybrid Air Vehicles CEO Stephen McGlennan was quoted as saying by The Associated Press. "It's a combination of an aircraft that has parts of normal fixed-wing aircraft, it's got helicopter, it's got airship."


View image on Twitter
Follow
Olly Mann @OllyMann
The Flying Bum has emerged from its hangar. Dunno if I'd feel exhilarated, or terrified, flying in it. #Airlander10
8:36 AM - 8 Aug 2016


Yet, it's the resemblance to a derriere that draws the eye.

All kidding aside, the Airlander 10 is a resuscitation of sorts for lighter-than-air travel. A previous version had been developed for U.S. military surveillance, but was scrapped due to budgetary reasons, IHS Jane's 360 reports. The company also has a larger — and perhaps curvier? — airship in the works.

Moreover, the Airlander 10 marks a return of airships to Cardington airfield, the British home of lighter-than-air travel in the technology's heyday, before such deadly incidents as the Hindenburg crash in 1937 ended that era.

Unlike those airships, which mostly used hydrogen, the Airlander 10 uses helium, which is non-flammable.

A test flight of the Airlander 10 had been planned for this past Sunday but was postponed because of a technical issue, The Associated Press reports, adding that more test flights are planned for the near future.



"It's a combination of an aircraft that has parts of normal fixed-wing aircraft, it's got helicopter, it's got airship." …. Unlike those airships, which mostly used hydrogen, the Airlander 10 uses helium, which is non-flammable.”


The “Airlander 10 First Flight” video is interesting, but turn the volume down on your speakers before you hit the start button. It makes an earsplitting noise. I certainly wouldn’t want to ride on that! Fascinatingly the article describes it as “low noise.” I would like to see how the helicopter mechanism affects or improves the flight. The fixed wing portion surely uses fossil fuel, so it isn’t completely free of CO2 issues. I hate to say it, but it seems to me to be like the unfortunate white lab rat whose photo was in the news, which had (gasp!) a human ear growing out of its’ side. Just because we CAN do something isn’t necessarily a good reason to do it.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-shishmaref-alaska-vote-mainland-move/

Climate change prompts Shishmaref, Alaska, to vote for mainland move
AP August 18, 2016, 9:30 AM

27 Photos -- The village of Shishmaref, Alaska, which sits upon the Chukchi sea, is seen on July 9, 2015. ANDREW BURTON/GETTY IMAGES
27 PHOTOS -- Stunning photos of climate change


ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Residents of a tiny island village in Alaska that has been ravaged by erosion blamed on climate change have voted to move to the mainland, but there likely isn’t enough money for the impoverished community of just 600 people to follow through on the decision.

The Inupiat Eskimo village of Shishmaref, which sits just north of the Bering Strait, has been identified as one of Alaska’s most eroded communities.

Officials held a special election Tuesday asking residents if they should develop a new community at a nearby mainland location or stay put with added environmental protections. Unofficial ballot returns show 89 voted for the move, while 78 opted to stay. A city clerk said the count does not include absentee or special needs ballots.

Either option comes with a daunting price tag. A 2004 Army Corps of Engineers study put the cost of relocating to the mainland at $180 million. Staying in place would cost $110 million.

The village has been exploring relocation since the mid-1970s. It also voted to move in 2002, but money also was an issue then.

Tuesday’s vote likely amounts to an advisory opinion. A feasibility study released in February looked at all potential options. It suggested the vote would allow agencies that may provide funding to move forward with further research on how best to save the community.

Shishmaref Mayor Howard Weyiouanna Sr. told The Associated Press last month that some sort of solution must be found.

“Doing nothing is not an option,” he said.



Global warming isn’t a theory anymore. This is the second story of rising water in the news over the last year or so. The other is at Norfolk and Cape Canaveral and of course NYC.




POLITICS

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/dnc-sanders-clinton-strategy-state-227037

In private call, DNC flexes unity with Clinton camp and Sanders team
By Daniel Strauss
08/15/16 09:35 PM EDT

Photograph -- 160815_donna_brazile_getty_1160.jpg, Cybersecurity firm doing entire restructuring of DNC management systems, By DANIEL STRAUSS


The man who led Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign vowed Monday night during a conference call with DNC officials that Sanders was committed to traveling the country to campaign for Hillary Clinton and down-ballot Democratic candidates.

“This is not going to be an easy task and it’s going to take all of us rowing together,” Jeff Weaver said.

The private conference call – which included top Democratic National Committee officials including chief of staff Brandon Davis and state party leaders – was led by DNC interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who had met with Weaver and Sanders’ top campaign adviser Mark Longabaugh earlier in the day. According to DNC officials, the three discussed Sanders’ schedule as well as voter mobilization among former Sanders supporters.

Brazile told those on the conference call that Weaver had agreed to help her “through this election process and beyond.”

The call focused on a 50-state strategy for the November election to be implemented soon by members of Clinton’s campaign and Sanders’ former presidential team.

The close interactions between the interim DNC chairwoman and the Sanders campaign is in stark contrast to earlier in the presidential cycle when the campaign criticized now-former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz as unfairly partial to Clinton.

“I know that sometimes in primaries there can be sharp elbows, and I hope I haven’t bumped into too many of you,” Weaver said on the call. “But as we go forward into the general election, I’m very happy to be working with members of the Clinton team in trying to get the secretary elected.”

Weaver noted that Sanders’ organization Our Revolution has raised nearly $300,000 for liberal Democratic down-ballot and congressional candidates.

Brazile thanked Weaver and the Sanders team for their leadership and organizing ability for up and down the ballot. The team has been “tremendous in reaching out, helping out, filling gaps,” she said.

Throughout the call, Brazile made a point of stressing her plans to strengthen Democratic state parties and down-ballot Democratic candidates. She said she’d begun fundraising for the DNC to help implement the 50-state strategy and that after Labor Day there would be another update with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Marlon Marshall, the Clinton campaign’s director of states, and Brazile highlighted red states around the country where they thought Democrats could make immediate inroads, including Georgia and North Carolina.

“We’re continuing to look at places where we can expand opportunities to vote,” Marshall said. “We’re working to expand early vote sites in some of these places like Florida and North Carolina. And we're starting our heavy push of recruitment of lawyers” to be at polling locations in battleground states.

Brazile stressed that the 50-state strategy will be key in down-ballot races.

“Those races are so important, the sheriff races — we want to try to put Democrats in those races,” Brazile said. “We know what's coming up in 2020. We know what's coming up in 2018. I believe in the 50-state strategy.”




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/16/working-families-party-a-sanders-ally-will-endorse-clinton/

Working Families Party, a Sanders ally, will endorse Clinton
By David Weigel
August 16 at 10:17 AM

Photograph -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders greet supporters at a rally where Sanders endorsed Clinton in Portsmouth, N.H., last month. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Related: [The Sanders campaign is officially over. Now his supporters wonder: What’s next?]
Video -- 23 things Clinton says she’ll do for the U.S. economy Play Video4:48
Photograph -- Speaking in Warren, Mich., on Aug. 11, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton outlined her vision for the U.S. economy. (The Washington Post)
Photograph -- [Here’s what Bernie Sanders’s Hillary Clinton endorsement is really about]
Video -- Biden plays up Scranton roots while courting working class voters Play Video 3:10


The Working Families Party* will endorse Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, the latest show of support from a progressive group that had worked to defeat the Democratic nominee in the primaries.

"We were pretty enthusiastic for Bernie; he told the truth, and we liked it," said Dan Cantor, the national director of the WFP, referring to Clinton's primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "We’re now shifting, obviously. There’s a pretty important election coming up. There’s overwhelming support for Clinton. And we're going to continue the political revolution in every district we can."

The WFP, founded in New York in 1998, has grown into an independent political force with chapters in 12 states, advocating for progressive policy goals like a $15 minimum wage and pushing to elect its allies in primaries. Most of its gains have come in state legislative and municipal races, but in December 2015, 87 percent of its membership and most of its board (composed of two members from each state and some additional leaders) voted overwhelmingly to back Sanders for president.

According to Cantor, 60 percent of members were needed to make the move to Clinton, and 68 percent did so. Most of the holdouts preferred that the WFP make no endorsement; few members, he said, wanted the WFP to get behind the Green Party.

"We’re all about building progressive infrastructure," Cantor said. "You don’t do that by running another progressive candidate when there's so much on the line."

The decision echoes the one that New York's WFP made in 2014, when the author and law professor Zephyr Teachout ran for governor. In New York's fusion system, Teachout and Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) were both able to seek the nominations of the Democratic Party and the WFP. At its state convention, WFP members were acutely aware that Teachout was an underdog and that she would remain on the ballot, splitting votes, if she won their nomination and Cuomo was chosen again by the Democrats.

Cuomo narrowly won the WFP's support, promising to deliver on a few key issues — and promptly disappointing. That disappointment fed into the WFP's first-ever presidential endorsement. WFP leadership, like leaders of many progressive groups, now say the Sanders campaign achieved major gains that will make the Democrats more open and electable.

"We’re extremely proud and happy with what Sanders accomplished," Cantor said. "He’s endorsed Clinton for a reason: She was running to deliver on a progressive platform. We hold the same view as the senator. Some people disagree, sure, but the overwhelming majority of our members understand we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can work to elect her, and we can hold her accountable."

That message will be shared with every supporter of the party in a statement Tuesday explaining the decision. In part, it reads that a President Clinton will "be only be as good as we — social movements, unions, progressive activists, citizens and soon-to-be citizens — make her" and that the WFP will continue to make bigger changes "than what the Democratic Party or modern capitalism" currently allow.

"History is clear on this," reads the statement. "LBJ’s achievements on civil rights and the safety net expansion were unimaginable without the civil rights movement; FDR’s New Deal would have been impossible without the mobilization of millions of unemployed and industrial workers. It's up to us to set the stage for the future we want to see."

The WFP's decision comes after some of Sanders's most prominent endorsers got behind Clinton. The Communications Workers of America, the largest pro-Sanders union, endorsed Clinton; MoveOn, which backed Sanders in January, said after the final primaries that Clinton was the Democratic nominee and deserved progressive support.

In current polling, Clinton claims support from more than 90 percent of self-identified Democrats; she does slightly worse among Sanders supporters, many of whom identified as independents.

At a rally for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Aug. 15, Vice President Joe Biden talked about his personal connections to Scranton, Pa., to make the case that Clinton understands people with "grit and courage." (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

6 Comments

David Weigel is a national political correspondent covering the 2016 election and ideological movements. Follow @daveweigel



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party

Working Families Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Working Families Party (WFP) is a minor political party in the United States, founded in New York in 1998. There are active chapters in New York, Connecticut, Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington D.C., Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Nevada, and Illinois.[2]

New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of advocacy groups such as Citizen Action of New York and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.[3] The party's main concerns are jobs, healthcare, raising the minimum wage, universal paid sick days, the student debt crisis, higher taxes on the rich, public education, and energy and environmental reform. It has usually cross-endorsed progressive Democratic or Republican candidates through fusion voting, but will occasionally run its own candidates.

Ideology[edit]
WFP follows the ideals of progressive politics,[4] describing itself as a "grass roots independent political organization".[5] Right-wing writer Seth Lipsky of the New York Post describes WFP as "quasi-Marxist"[6] and some publications refer to WFP as the Tea Party of the Left.[7][8][9][10]

Electoral strategy[edit]
Like other minor parties in the state, the WFP benefits from New York's electoral fusion laws that allow the party to support another party's candidate when they feel it aligns with their platform. This allows sympathetic voters to support a minor party without feeling like they are "wasting" their vote. Usually, the WFP endorses the Democratic Party candidate, but it has occasionally endorsed moderate Republican Party candidates as a strategy for spurring bi-partisan action on its policy priorities. The support of the WFP is sometimes quite important in Democratic primaries.[citation needed]

In some cases, the WFP has put forward its own candidates. In the chaotic situation following the assassination of New York City councilman James E. Davis by political rival Othniel Askew, the slain councilman's brother Geoffrey Davis was chosen to succeed him in the Democratic primary. As it became clear that Geoffrey Davis lacked his late brother's political experience, fellow Democrat Letitia James decided to challenge him in the general election on the WFP ticket and won Brooklyn's 35th City Council district as the first third-party candidate elected there in 30 years.

Some of the party's endorsed candidates include Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, Chicago Mayoral Democratic Candidate Jesús "Chuy" García, US Senators Chris Murphy (CT) and Jeff Merkley (OR), New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and New York City Public Advocate Letitia James.

In 2006, the party began ballot access drives in California,[11] Delaware, Massachusetts,[12] Oregon, and South Carolina.[13] In 2010 Oregon joined South Carolina and New York as states that allow fusion voting.

In 2015, NY WFP ran 111 of its candidates, winning 71 local offices.[14]

In 2015, the WFP endorsed Bernie Sanders in his campaign for U.S. President, its first national endorsement.[15]

Platform

The WFP was launched with the agenda of well-paying jobs, affordable housing, accessible health care, better public schools and more investment in public services.

In 2004 in New York and 2014 in Connecticut, the WFP saw the enactment of one of its highest legislative priorities, an increase in the state minimum wage, which it had supported since its inception.

Paid sick days were enacted statewide in Connecticut in 2011, and city-wide in both New York City and Portland, Oregon in 2013.

Another major platform of the WFP is to defeat the "Rockefeller drug laws" in New York State, remnant from when Nelson Rockefeller was Governor. The WFP contributed largely to the victory of David Soares to Albany County District Attorney whose platform was based on reforming drug policy, while generally taking a less punitive approach to criminal justice.

Campaigns[edit]

1990s[edit]

In the 1998 election for governor of New York, the party cross-endorsed the Democratic Party candidate, Peter Vallone. Because he received more than 50,000 votes on the WFP line, the party gained an automatic ballot line for the succeeding four years.[16]

2000s[edit]

2000

Patricia Eddington of the WFP was elected to the New York State Assembly. In the 2002 election, the Liberal Party, running Andrew Cuomo (who had withdrawn from the Democratic primary), and the Green Party, running academic Stanley Aronowitz, failed to reach that threshold and lost the ballot lines they had previously won. This left the WFP as the only left-progressive minor party with a ballot line. This situation will[needs update] continue until at least 2011 following the party's cross-endorsement of Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 election, in which he received more than 155,000 votes on the Working Families Party line, more than three times the required 50,000.

2006

In South Carolina, WFP cross-endorsed Democratic party congressional nominees Randy Maatta, (District 1) and Lee Ballenger, (District 3).[17] In the SC State House elections, the WFP cross-endorsed Democratic Party candidates Anton Gunn (Kershaw, Richland), Eugene Platt (Charleston).[18] In New York, the WFP cross-endorsed the statewide Democratic Party slate.

In Massachusetts, Rand Wilson won enough votes in the general election for State Auditor to guarantee the Working Families Party ballot access in the following election. Wilson garnered 19% of the vote in the head to head race against Democratic incumbent Joe DeNucci, allowing ballot access in 2008. However the ballot initiative, "question 2", that would allow candidates to be nominated by more than one party failed. The WFP in Massachusetts dubbed the question 2 campaign, "Spinach for Democracy."

2007

The WFP elected two party members to the city council of Hartford, Connecticut.[19]

2008

The South Carolina Working Families Party convention endorsed five candidates for state and local office.[20] One candidate, Eugene Platt, running for SC State House District 115, was also nominated by the South Carolina Green Party.[21] The nomination of Michael Cone for the US Senate race, opposing incumbent Lindsey Graham, marked the first time the party nominated anyone for statewide office.[22] Cone was defeated by Horry County Republican Committee member Bob Conley in the Democratic Primary.

The Connecticut WFP helped elect congressman Jim Himes, defeating long-term Republican congressman Chris Shays.

The WFP endorsed Barack Obama for U.S. President on all their state lines.

2009

The WFP endorsed several candidates for local offices, Bill Thompson for New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio for Public Advocate, and Corey Ellis for Albany mayor. Ellis did very well in the Albany mayoral election, 2009, coming in second ahead of the Republican candidate. The WFP also backed eight new members of the city council, including Brad Lander and Jumaane Williams, who helped create the New York City Council Progressive Caucus.

Two candidates for the Board of Education in Bridgeport, Connecticut were also WFP-supported and are now[needs update] members of the board.[23]

2010s[edit]

2010

Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic nominee for Governor of New York, accepted the Working Families Party cross-endorsement. Cuomo ran with the WFP's endorsement, because the WFP accepted his policy positions.

In the same year, the Connecticut WFP endorsed Dannel Malloy for governor. He received 26,308 votes as a Working Families candidate, putting him ahead of his Republican opponent, and securing ballot access for the party in that state.[24]

2011

In Connecticut, the WFP won all three minority seats on the city council of Hartford, completely eliminating Republican representation. As of 2016, the WFP continues to hold all minority seats on the Hartford City Council.[25]

2012

In Connecticut, the WFP backed Chris Murphy's successful race against billionaire Linda McMahon for the US Senate seat that was vacated by Joe Lieberman, supported SEIU/CCAG[26] leader and organizer Christopher Donovan for Connecticut's 5th Congressional seat,[27] as well as defeated a ballot initiative in Bridgeport, Connecticut that would have abolished the elected board of education. In Oregon, the WFP backed Jeff Reardon for state house, a challenger who defeated Democrat Mike Schaufler in the Primary. The party opposed Schaufler's conservative record on taxes, healthcare and the environment.

2013

In November 2013 the Party endorsed the successful New York City candidates Bill de Blasio for Mayor, Letitia James for Public Advocate, and Scott Stringer for Comptroller, as well as a dozen WFP-backed candidates to the City Council, dramatically growing the Progressive Caucus. The Working Families ballot line contributed 42,640 votes to de Blasio's total of 795,679 votes, and 53,821 to James's total of 814,879 votes.

2014

After considering Zephyr Teachout, the party re-endorsed Cuomo for New York Governor despite some dissatisfaction and frustration with his first term. However, Cuomo resisted the party's influence and sabotaged the party electorally.[28] In 2010 more than 150,000 of his votes came on the WFP line.[29] As of November 7, 2014, 120,425[30] votes came on the WFP line for Cuomo, less than in 2010 likely due to "dissatisfaction and frustration" dropping the party from Fourth to Fifth, behind the Conservative Party and the Green Party.

2015
In February, Edwin Gomes was elected to District 23 of the Connecticut State Senate in a special election. He became the first candidate in the nation to win a state legislative office running solely as a nominee for the Working Families Party.[31] Gomes defeated Richard DeJesus (D), Quentin Dreher (R), and the non-affiliated Charles Hare and Kenneth H. Moales, Jr. in the special election on February 24. However, Senator Gomes previously served the district as State Senator as a Democrat and caucuses with the Democrats upon assuming office.

2016
In the fall of 2015, the Working Families Party conducted a combined membership-drive and open poll among its enrolled members on whom to endorse for President in 2016; the result being Bernie Sanders.[32] Official numbers were not disclosed but party spokesman and co-founder Dan Cantor said the results were "overwhelmingly" in favor of Sanders, with some sources stating it was a 87 to 12 to 1 percent vote with Sanders over Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley respectively.[33]

Leadership[edit]

The state directors of the WFP are Bill Lipton (NY),[34] Lindsay Farrell (CT),[35] Kati Sipp (PA),[36] Karly Edwards (OR),[37] Charly Carter (MD),[38] Delvone Michael (DC),[39] Marina Dimitrijevic (WI),[40] and Chris Torres (RI).[41] WFP's national director is Dan Cantor.[42]

Reception[edit]

Some left-wing commentators have criticized the WFP for being insufficiently committed to progressive principles. Following the 2010 New York State gubernatorial election, Billy Wharton argued that Andrew Cuomo obtained significant concessions from the WFP by initially refusing their endorsement (and thus jeopardizing their ballot access).[43] Likewise, the editor of the World Socialist Web Site has called the WFP an "opportunist" party for its close work with the Democrats.[44]

In August 2009, the publication City Hall News raised questions as to whether the WFP pays rent erratically.[45] Political parties are required to pay rent in order to ensure that no party is getting an unfair monetary advantage over others, and the parties are required to report all money paid out for expenditures.

In the same month, various media raised questions about the relationship between the WFP, a non-profit political party, and a for-profit private company called Data and Field Services (DFS).[46][47][48] An editorial in The New York Times questioned whether DFS may be charging select clients below market rates for political services.[49][50] In August 2010, the federal investigation into the party ended with no charges being filed, and no charges being referred to other law enforcement agencies.[51]

In 2011 Connecticut WFP director Jon Green received a $10,000 fine for failing to wear his badge identifying him as a lobbyist while performing lobbying efforts.[52][53]



EXCERPT -- “In August 2009, the publication City Hall News raised questions as to whether the WFP pays rent erratically.[45] Political parties are required to pay rent in order to ensure that no party is getting an unfair monetary advantage over others, and the parties are required to report all money paid out for expenditures.”


A definition for this use of the word “rent” which parties are “required” to pay is a foreign idea to me. So what is the meaning of “Rent” in a political sense?? To whom is this money paid, under what law or regulation, and at what level of government?? See some related, similar, but not really fully accurate definitions below, according to the context of its’ use above. I found no complete definition that really fits the paragraph above. I want someone to tell me EXACTLY what it does mean, how it is distinguishable from GRAFT, and if legal, who does this “rent” go to??

After ten minutes of searching with various phrases I found the following. It is clearly the kind of thing that, to me, SOUNDS illegal, because it is underhanded and corrupt. See “Rent seeking behavior” for what seems to me to be most applicable definition.

“The expenditure of resources in order to bring about an uncompensated transfer of goods or services from another person or persons to one's self as the result of a “favorable” decision on some public policy.”

I think the reason I didn’t find this sooner is that it is a “shorthand” term that the parties to dishonest and corrupt dealings understand perfectly, but if the general public were aware that the concept was the basis of “getting government business” done, they would “vote the rascals out!” It really sounds like the more common term, “graft,” and it reminds me of the term found among many men called “getting lucky!” In other words, it’s amoral and disgusting.

This all has a distinctly unethical sound to it in my view, since office holders are supposed to “serve the people” while in office without getting a “kickback.” Alas, the term “statesman” applies to very, very few these days. The “economic rent” definition below sounds more like the quasi-ethical reasons businessmen have for raising their prices again, like the recent case with the pharmaceutical company’s hiking the price of epi-pens to people with potentially lethal allergy reactions without changing the pens at all. It’s extortion.

Business, and certainly politics, needs to be much better and more stringently controlled in what they are allowed to do. As for the political prevalence of agreements with lobbyists in exchange for favorable bills or rules, that comes into the focus of the press and other media every now and then with great public ire, but it has never totally made illegal. It’s “business as usual.” One of the things that I have noticed is the often very great increase in the net worth of political figures after they have been in office for a few years, and that isn’t simply due to their salaries, I feel sure. See the interesting articles below on rent and rent seeking.


From Wikipedia, “Graft (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft_(politics)
Wikipedia

“Graft, a form of political corruption, is the unscrupulous use of a politician's authority for personal gain. The term has its origins in the medical procedure whereby tissue is removed from one location and attached to another for which it was not originally intended.”

Interesting.


http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/rent-seeking_behavior

“Rent-seeking behavior”

“The expenditure of resources in order to bring about an uncompensated transfer of goods or services from another person or persons to one's self as the result of a “favorable” decision on some public policy.

The term seems to have been coined (or at least popularized in contemporary political economy) by the economist Gordon Tullock. Examples of rent-seeking behavior would include all of the various ways by which individuals or groups lobby government for taxing, spending and regulatory policies that confer financial benefits or other special advantages upon them at the expense of the taxpayers or of consumers or of other groups or individuals with which the beneficiaries may be in economic competition.”


See also: rent (meaning 2), captured agency, subsidy, protectionism, pork-barrel legislation, bureaucratic politics, oligarchy

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/rent#m2

Rent

The price paid (per unit of time) for the temporary use of a durable good (especially land and/or buildings) that the user does not own.

Abbreviated expression for the specialized economists' term economic rent, which refers to the amount of any payment to the owner of a factor of production (land, labor or capital) that is above and beyond the minimum payment that would have been necessary to motivate that owner not to transfer it to some other use. Thus the economic rent in a sales transaction would be the difference between the payment actually received and the second-best price the owner could otherwise be getting for using that factor of production in some other application.

See also: rent-seeking behavior, land, labor, capital, factors of production