Quantcast
Channel: ProPublica
Viewing all 7867 articles
Browse latest View live

11 Key Reads on the Economy Ahead of Tonight’s Debate

$
0
0

Oct. 3: This post has been corrected.

With tonight's debate focusing on domestic policy, we've rounded up some of the best coverage of the critical economic issues in the presidential election. (Don't worry; they're not all long reads.)

State of the Economy

Romney Better Off for Not Asking as Economy Improves Since 2009, Bloomberg, September 2012
The Romney campaign often asks the question, are you better off than four years ago? Bloomberg looked at 70 indicators of economic well-being and according to 51 of them — including growth, hiring, housing starts and the stock market — things are indeed better now than when President Obama took office. Of course, the economy was in big trouble four years ago, the recovery isn't exactly rip-roaring, and it isn't often clear what can be attributed to Obama's policies.

Fiscal Cliff

The Fiscal Cliff, In Three and A Half Graphics, NPR Planet Money, September 2012
On New Year's day, spending cuts and tax increases are set to go into effect, unless Congress votes otherwise — what's known as the "fiscal cliff." Leave it to Planet Money to create one of the clearest explanations of the cuts and tax increases: three graphics break it all down.

Debt and Deficits

Obama vs. Boehner: Who Killed the Debt Deal?, The New York Times Magazine, March 2012
Last year, Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner almost hashed out a "grand bargain" to cut the deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. This is the best account of how that deal fell apart — what ultimately put U.S. on the path to the fiscal cliff it faces in January. Short on time? Check out the short video explainer that accompanies the piece.

The Three Best Charts on How Clinton's Surpluses Became Bush and Obama's Deficits, The Washington Post, September 2012
As the national debt hit $16 trillion last month, the Post's Ezra Klein rounded up three charts to explain how that happened. Each chart accounts for how the debt built up slightly differently, but they agree on one thing: "The primary drivers of the debt predate Barack Obama," Klein writes. "The post-9/11 wars and security build-up, the Bush tax cuts, and the 2001 and 2008 recessions simply began before Obama became president."

Financial Reform

Bank Lobby's Onslaught Shifts Debate on Volcker Rule, Bloomberg, March 2012
Though the financial reform bill known as Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, details are still being hashed out — and in cases weakened — amid a flurry of lobbying. (As the New York Times reported, Congress members themselves are still working behind the scenes to influence how the law is enacted). Romney has pledged to repeal Dodd-Frank.

Bailout — for Banks and Homeowners

Bailout Tracker, ProPublica, ongoing
Four years later, how much are taxpayers in the red from bailing out companies during the crisis? We gave the latest tally last month, showing how the government is likely to lose billions on General Motors, and has actually profited from the bank bailouts.

The Great American Foreclosure Story: The Struggle for Justice and a Place to Call Home, ProPublica, April 2012
A deep dive into the causes and consequences of the housing crisis, and how many of Obama's policies have fallen short of expectations. Some pin the failure of those policies on the banks: A recent study says that some of the country's biggest banks failed to help some 800,000 homeowners get loan modifications through a government program. As Businessweek pointed out, Romney's housing plans, while still vague, appear similar to Obama's.

Jobs and Stimulus

Work, Esquire, March 2012
We often hear the numbers, but Esquire showcased the human side of long-term unemployment with this collection of profiles. (Yahoo! also explored the issue using a selection of readers' own stories, in July 2011. They showcased the thousands of submissions on a Tumblr, which is still being updated.)

Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises, The Bay Citizen, August 2011
While President Obama once promised the stimulus and other programs would create five million green jobs over 10 years, the Bay Citizen says the "results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream." In addition to scandals like Solyndra, some clean-tech companies simply didn't produce as many jobs as hoped. SolFocus, featured in this article, employed 90 people, and outsourced the construction of its solar panels to China — another key issue in the campaign. (ProPublica also has a database letting you see how stimulus money has been spent in your community.)

The Safety Net

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend On It, New York Times, February 2012
In 2010, spending on programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid consumed 66 cents of every dollar of revenue, up from 37 cents for every dollar in 2000. This money has increasingly gone to the middle class. This piece provides a good primer on the safety net and its expansion, surveying several sides of the debate — including those who collect benefits while voicing their support for cutting assistance.

'Back At Square One': As States Repurpose Welfare Funds, More Families Fall Through Safety Net, Huffington Post, June 2012
Welfare reforms gave more control over allocation and eligibility requirements to individual states. Many have since used funds to plug budget holes, and some have ended up creating hurdles for the unemployed to find jobs. This piece chronicles one woman's plight in Georgia, where it's particularly difficult to obtain benefits.

Correction: We originally said the government lost billions on General Motors and AIG. While the government is currently $2.6 B in the hole on its AIG investment, it's likely to turn a profit. The GM investment is likely to result in a loss, but they're still recouping funds.


Dark Money Group Told IRS It Wouldn’t Be Political—Then Spent $1 Million on Campaign Ads

$
0
0

A dark money nonprofit group that has run more than $1 million in ads in the Ohio race for U.S. Senate told the IRS last year it did not plan to spend any money to influence elections when it applied for recognition of its tax-exempt status. 

ProPublica first reported on the group, the Government Integrity Fund, after information from television station political ad files became available online (see our Free the Files project), showing extensive spending by the Fund.

The group’s filings with the IRS  illustrate how “social welfare” nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s, are playing an aggressive role in this election, pouring tens of millions of dollars into races around the country, while taking advantage of the donor anonymity their tax status provides.

The Fund applied for IRS recognition last December and received the IRS’ approval less than two months later.

Question 15 on the application asks, “Has the organization spent or does it plan to spend any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization?”

Much hinges on this: Under the tax code, social welfare nonprofits may not have political campaign activity as their primary purpose, though exactly what that means is a subject of much debate.

Fund chairman Tom Norris, who signed the Fund’s application, checked the “No” box on Question 15.

In a statement to ProPublica, the Fund said that “legally, the concept of ‘influencing elections’ has been narrowly defined” and that “throughout its existence, [the Fund] has regularly consulted with experienced tax counsel to ensure it is in full compliance with the federal tax laws.” (See the full statement.) Norris, a Columbus lobbyist, did not respond to calls.

Ads paid for by the Fund, which ran through the summer, praised Republican Josh Mandel and attacked Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. One spot features Mandel telling a veterans group, “I think this campaign is all about the past versus the future.” A voiceover chimes in: “Josh Mandel served our country with two tours in Iraq. Now he’s fighting for taxpayers, fighting for our future.”

There are several reasons groups may prefer answering “No” to Question 15. Those answering “Yes” are instructed to explain in detail and list the amounts to be spent, which can lead to scrutiny that slows down the IRS approval process, tax experts say.

“Checking yes is a yellow flag for the IRS, which likely would cause the IRS to refer the application to an agent for consideration and follow-up questions,” said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert in nonprofit tax law at the University of Notre Dame law school. “There could be donors saying, ‘I’m not comfortable giving to you until I know you are a 501(c)(4) and my identity is protected. So I want that IRS [approval] letter.’”

The Fund’s IRS application did provide other clues about its intentions. In one section of the form, the Fund said its budget for 2011 was $78,000. It then projected a budget of $6.7 million for 2012, an election year, before going back down to $50,000 for 2013, a nonelection year.

Mayer said the IRS typically wouldn’t scrutinize a group’s spending until it files a tax return — and in the case of the Fund, the return covering 2012 could be filed as late as November 2013. If the IRS found that the Fund was improperly taking advantage of its status as a social welfare group, it could impose a fine and make the group operate as a political organization that does have to report donors.

The group’s application for IRS recognition was signed under penalty of perjury, but Mayer said it was rare for the agency to pursue charges against an applicant for lying.

The IRS did not respond to a request for comment.

The Fund’s application for tax-exempt status also sheds a bit more light on who is running the group. It names four men as board members, including Norris. Another of the board members, Jeffrey L. Dean, referred questions to Jonathan Petrea, who was campaign manager and district director for Mandel when he ran for the state legislature.

Petrea told ProPublica he had no official role in the Fund, but helped Norris find potential board members.

“I was just doing a guy a favor by putting him in touch with people who might be interested,” Petrea said.

Norris and the Mandel campaign did not respond to questions about Petrea’s relationship to the Fund or the candidate.

Petrea was also previously Ohio grassroots director for Americans for Prosperity, a conservative 501(c)(4) backed by the Koch brothers, and has recently done work for Energy Citizens, a group advocating oil and gas development. 

The Fund’s ads have been off the air since Sept. 6, according to the Brown campaign. (After that date, certain types of ad spending had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission.)

The group’s attorney, William Todd, said he doesn’t know about its plans “for future education efforts.”


Outside groups are spending hundreds of millions to influence the coming elections. Help unlock outside spending by "freeing" political ad buys from television stations in swing markets.

Gitmo Detainee’s Body Being Held in Secure, Undisclosed Location

$
0
0

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif had been at Guantanamo for nearly 11 years when he died last month, despite being recommended for release many times. But even in death, his travails aren't over. His body hasn't been sent back to his home country of Yemen, and it's no longer at Gitmo.

It's being held in an undisclosed location.

"Mr. Latif's remains are being handled with the utmost care and respect by medical professionals and are being maintained in an appropriate facility designed to best facilitate preservation," said a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale. "His remains are no longer at JTF-Guantanamo Bay."

Lt. Col. Breasseale said the U.S. is responding to Yemen's "wishes that we maintain the remains until a time when they are prepared to receive them."

A Yemeni official said his government "will not accept the remains until we get an official autopsy and an investigation report. We just want to know what happened." The official, who declined to be named, also said that the government was in touch with Latif's family.

The Joint Task Force at Guantanamo says it has conducted an autopsy and opened an investigation into the death, but has not yet announced a cause of death. According to the military's initial statement, Latif was found unconscious in his cell on Sept. 8 and could not be revived by medical staff.

As we laid out in a timeline last week, Latif was never alleged to be a high-level terror suspect. In 2010, he successfully challenged his detention in federal court only to have the decision overturned on appeal. Latif was also recommended for transfer out of Guantanamo by the military several times, beginning as far back as 2004.

Eight other detainees have died in Guantanamo, several by apparent suicide; another Yemeni died in 2009 and according to local news reports, his body was repatriated within days. Breasseale, the Defense spokesman, said that "there have been delays before" in repatriating remains, but would not give further details.

Latif's lawyers say he was mentally unstable, and attempted suicide on several occasions. They have also said that he did not receive adequate medical attention.

Latif's father, Farhan Abdul Latif, gave an interview to the Emerati publication The National last month in which he said, "This case is far from over. We are holding US President Barack Obama responsible for the killing of my beloved son."

Latif's Guantanamo saga began in 2002, when he was among the first detainees to arrive at the prison. He had been captured along the border of Afghanistan by Pakistani police and turned over to the U.S. He said he was traveling to Pakistan in search of medical care; the U.S. says he was going for military training. A federal judge ruled in 2010 that the government could not prove his connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, though that decision was reversed a year later by an appeals court.

One factor complicating a potential release was his Yemeni citizenship. Following the Christmas Day bombing attempt in 2009, a plot that originated in Yemen, the Obama administration announced a moratorium on detainee transfers to the country due to security concerns.

Many of the Yemenis who remain at Guantanamo are in limbo because of that ban. The State Department recently released a list of 55 detainees approved for transfer. By human rights lawyers' counts, at least 26 of those are Yemenis. The government has previously indicated that there is a separate group of 30 Yemenis being held at Guantanamo who the government says may be released if and when the other 26 leave.

Yemen's President, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who took office earlier this year, spoke about Guantanamo in a meeting with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder last week. Lawyers for Yemeni detainees say they have been encouraged by Hadi's apparent commitment to the issue.

Wells Dixon, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who has represented several detainees, says that Yemen could increase pressure on the U.S., as Tunisia, Egypt, and some European nations have done. "With the State Department list, President Hadi needs to ask for the return of those men by name, and needs to do so in the context of the bilateral relationship between Yemen and the U.S.," Dixon said.

No Income? No Problem! How the Gov’t Is Saddling Parents with College Loans They Can’t Afford

$
0
0

This story was co-published with The Chronicle of Higher Education.

More than a decade after Aurora Almendral first set foot on her dream college campus, she and her mother still shoulder the cost of that choice.

Almendral had been accepted to New York University in 1998, but even after adding up scholarships, grants, and the max she could take out in federal student loans, the private university — among nation's costliest — still seemed out of reach. One program filled the gap: Aurora's mother, Gemma Nemenzo, was eligible for a different federal loan meant to help parents finance their children's college costs. Despite her mother's modest income at the time — about $25,000 a year as a freelance writer, she estimates — the government quickly approved her for the loan. There was a simple credit check, but no check of income or whether Nemenzo, a single mom, could afford to repay the loans.

Nemenzo took out $17,000 in federal parent loans for the first two years her daughter attended NYU. But the burden soon became too much. With financial strains mounting, Almendral — who had promised to repay the loans herself —withdrew after her sophomore year. She later finished her degree at the far less expensive Hunter College, part of the public City University of New York, and went on to earn a Fulbright scholarship.

Today, a dozen years on, Nemenzo's debt not only remains, it's also nearly doubled with fees and interest to $33,000. Though Almendral is paying on the loans herself, her mother continues to pay the price for loans she couldn't afford: Falling into delinquency on the loans had damaged her credit, making her ineligible to borrow more when it came time for Aurora's sister to go to college.

Total Disbursements in Millions of Plus Loans

While the number of parents taking out Plus loans has nearly doubled since 2000, loan volume has grown much faster. All values are adjusted for inflation.

Source: U.S. Education Department

Source: U.S. Department of Education

Nemenzo is not alone. As the cost of college has spiraled ever upward and median family income has fallen, the loan program, called Parent Plus, has become indispensable for increasing numbers of parents desperate to make their children's college plans work. Last year the government disbursed $10.6 billion in Parent Plus loans to just under a million families. Even adjusted for inflation, that's $6.3 billion more than it disbursed back in 2000, and to nearly twice as many borrowers.

A joint examination by ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education has found that Plus loans can sometimes hurt the very families they are intended to help: The loans are both remarkably easy to get and nearly impossible to get out from under for families who've overreached. When a parent applies for a Plus loan, the government checks credit history, but it doesn't assess whether the borrower has the ability to repay the loan. It doesn't check income. It doesn't check employment status. It doesn't check how much other debt — like a mortgage, or other student-loan debt — the borrower is already on the hook for.

"Right now, the government runs the program by the seat of its pants," says Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of two authoritative financial-aid websites. "You do have some parents who are borrowing $100,000 or more for their children's college education who are getting in completely over their heads. Those parents are going to default, and their lives are going to be ruined, because they were allowed to borrow far more than is rational."

Much attention has been focused on students burdened with loans throughout their lives. The recent growth in the Plus program highlights another way the societal burden of paying for college has shifted to families. It means some parents are now saddled with children's college debt even as they approach retirement.

Unlike other federal student loans, Plus loans don't have a set cap on borrowing. Parents can take out as much as they need to cover the gap between other financial aid and the full cost of attendance. Colleges, eager to boost enrollment and help families find financing, often steer parents toward the loans, recommending that they take out thousands of dollars with no consideration to whether they can afford it.

When it comes to paying the money back, the government takes a hard line. Plus loans, like all student loans, are all-but-impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. If a borrower is in default, the government can seize tax refunds and garnish wages or Social Security. What is more, repayment options are actually more limited for Parent Plus borrowers compared with other federal loans. Struggling borrowers can put their loans in deferment or forbearance, but except under certain conditions Parent Plus loans aren't eligible for either of the two main income-based repayment programs to help borrowers with federal loans get more affordable monthly payments.

The U.S. Department of Education doesn't know how many parents have defaulted on the loans. It doesn't analyze or publish default rates for the Plus program with the same detail that it does for other federal education loans. It doesn't calculate, for instance, what percentage of borrowers defaulted in the first few years of their repayment period — a figure that the department analyzes for other federal student loans. (Schools with high default rates over time can be penalized and become ineligible for federal aid.) For parent loans, the department has projections only for budgetary — and not accountability — purposes: It estimates that of all Parent Plus loans originated in the 2011 fiscal year, about 9.4 percent will default over the next 20 years.

But according to an outside analysis of federal survey data, many low-income borrowers appear to be overburdening themselves.

Total Recipients of Plus Loans

The number of parents taking out Plus loans has nearly doubled since 2000.

Source: U.S. Education Department

Source: U.S. Department of Education

The analysis, by financial-aid expert Kantrowitz, uses survey data from 2007-08, the latest year for which information is available. Among Parent Plus borrowers in the bottom 10th of income, monthly payments made up 38 percent of their monthly income, on average. (By way of contrast, a federal program aimed at helping struggling graduates keeps monthly payments much lower, to a small share of discretionary income.) The survey data does not reflect the full Plus loan debt for parents who borrowed through the program for more than one child, as many do.

The data also show that one in five Parent Plus borrowers took out a loan for a student who received a federal Pell Grant — need-based aid that typically corresponds to a household income of $50,000 or less.

When Victoria Stillman's son got in to Berklee College of Music, she couldn't believe how simple the loan process was. Within minutes of completing an application online, she was approved. "The fact that the Plus loan program is willing to provide me with $50,000 a year is nuts," says Stillman, an accountant. "It was the least-involved loan paperwork I ever filled out and required no attachments or proof."

She decided against taking the loan, partly because of the 7.9-percent interest rate. Although it was a fixed rate, she found it too high.

Of course, Parent Plus can be an important financial lifeline — especially for those who can't qualify for loans in the private market. An iffy credit score, high debt-to-income ratio, or lack of a credit history won't necessarily disqualify anyone for a Plus loan. Applicants are approved so long as they don't have an "adverse credit history," such as a recent foreclosure, defaulted loan, or bankruptcy discharge. (As of last fall, the government also began disqualifying prospective borrowers with unpaid debts that were sent to collection agencies or charged off in the last five years.)

The Education Department says its priority is making sure college choice isn't just for the wealthy. Families have to make tough decisions about their own finances, says Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the department. We "want folks to have access to capital to allow them to make smart investments and improve their lives," Hamilton says. In the years after the credit crisis, department officials point out, other means of financing college — such as home-equity loans and private student loans — have become harder for families to get.

The department says it's trying to pressure colleges to contain costs, and working to inform students and families of their financing options. "Our focus is transparency," says Hamilton. "We want to make sure we're arming folks with all the information they need."

Colleges' Tricky Role

Colleges rarely advise families on how much is too much. After a student's own federal borrowing is maxed out, financial-aid offices often recommend large Plus loans for parents.

Using Education Department data, The Chronicle and ProPublica took a closer look at colleges where borrowers took out the highest average Plus loan amounts per year. (See a breakdown of the top schools.) NYU ranked 11th, with an average annual loan of $27,305. The university generally gives students less financial aid than many of its peers. Last year, parents of NYU students borrowed more than $116 million through the Plus program, the second-largest sum taken on for a single university, trailing only Penn State University's $160 million.

"Our first suggestion is the Plus loan," says Randall Deike, vice president for enrollment management at NYU. Yet he has misgivings about the program. "Getting a Plus loan shouldn't be so easy," he says.

David Palmer (Mark Abramson for The Chronicle)

David Palmer is chief executive at the for-profit New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts, where parents who borrowed through the Plus program took out an average of $27,432 in loans last year. (Mark Abramson for The Chronicle)

Among the top 25 institutions with the largest average Plus loans, more than a third focus on the arts. Tenth on the list is New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts, a for-profit acting school. The school's sticker price for the current year adds up to nearly $53,000 for a year's worth of tuition, fees, room, board, and other expenses. Without an endowment, says David Palmer, the conservatory's chief executive, the school can't provide much financial aid — so families are often left to make difficult decisions about how borrowing is too much. Ideally, families would have saved for college, according to Palmer, but often tuition payments come in the form of Plus loans.

"It doesn't make me feel great, truthfully," Palmer says. "But then again, what can I do? We have to pay our bills."

Last year, 150 parents borrowed for their children to attend the institution of 330 undergraduate students. Palmer knows that sometimes families borrow too much, and students have to drop out. "It makes me sick to my stomach," he says. "Because they've got half an education and a mountain of debt."

Still, he says, "I don't know that it's the institution's responsibility to say we'll take a glimpse of what your individual situation is and say maybe this isn't a good idea."

To the dismay of consumer advocates, some universities lay out offers of tens of thousands of dollars in Parent Plus loans directly in the financial-aid packages of prospective students — often in the exact amount needed to cover the gap between other aid and the full cost of attendance. That can make it look like a family won't have to pay anything at all for college, at least until they read the fine print. The offers are often included in financial-aid packages even for families who clearly can't afford it.

"It is deceptive," says Greg Johnson, chief executive of Bottom Line, a college access program in Boston and New York. His organization's counselors have seen firsthand how students and families can get confused: When Agostinha Depina first got her financial aid award letter from New York's St. John's University, her first choice, she was excited. But upon taking a closer look at the package with her counselor at Bottom Line, she realized that a $32,000 gap was being covered by a Parent Plus loan that her parents would struggle to afford.

"It made it seem like they gave me a lot of money," says Depina. In reality, "it was more loans in the financial-aid package than scholarship money." Depina, 19, opted to go to Clark University, where she had a smaller gap that she covered with a one-year outside scholarship. A spokeswoman for St. John's did not respond to requests for comment.

There's considerable debate among financial-aid officials about whether and how to include Plus loans in students' financial-aid award letters. Some universities opt not to package in a loan that families might not qualify for or be able to afford. Instead, they simply provide families with information about the program.

"We inform them about the different options they have, but we wouldn't go in and package in a credit-based loan for any family," says Frank Mullen, director of financial aid at Berklee College of Music. "To put a loan as part of someone's package without knowing whether they'd be approved? I just wouldn't feel comfortable with it."

Others say it isn't so simple. "This is one of those knives that cuts both ways," says Craig Munier, director of scholarships and financial aid at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

"If we leave a huge gap in the financial-aid package, families could reach the wrong conclusion that they cannot afford to send their children to this institution," says Munier, who is also chair-elect of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "The other side," he says, "is we package in a loan they can't afford, and they make a bad judgment and put themselves into debt they can't manage. You can second-guess either decision."

For parents in exceptional circumstances, colleges have some discretion to bypass the Plus application process and give a student the additional amount of federal student loans that would be available in the case of a Plus denial — up to $5,000. Those are judgment calls, says Justin Draeger, president of the aid administrators' group. Cases of a parent who is incarcerated or whose only income is public assistance are more straightforward, but the prospect of evaluating a parent's ability to pay is fraught. Deciding to tell them what they can afford "leaves the schools in sort of a moral dilemma," Draeger says.

But encouraging Plus loans for parents who would struggle to repay them lets colleges shirk their own responsibility to help families with limited means, says Simon Moore, executive director of College Visions, a college-access program based in Rhode Island. "Colleges can say, 'We want to enroll more low-income students,' but don't really need to step up and offer students good aid packages," he says. Plus loans "offer colleges an easy way to opt out."

The Middle Class Struggles to Repay

Some parents who have borrowed through Plus have found themselves working when they could be retired, and contemplating whether to pay off the debt by raiding their retirement nest eggs.

Galen Walter, a pharmacist, has put three sons through college. All told, the family racked up roughly $150,000 in loans, about $70,000, he estimates, in the Parent Plus program.

Average Plus Loan Amount

Even when inflation is taken into account, the average Plus loan has increased by roughly a third, to almost $12,000. All values are adjusted for inflation.

Source: U.S. Education Department

Source: U.S. Department of Education

Walter is 65. His wife is already collecting Social Security. "I could have retired a couple years ago," he says, "but with these loans, I can't afford to stop." His sons want to help with the Plus payments, but none are in the position to do so: One son is making only $24,000. Another is unemployed. The youngest is considering grad school.

Before the downturn, Walter says, he might have been able to sell his house and use the profit to pay off the loans. But given what his house is worth now, selling it wouldn't cover the loan. With his sons in a challenging job market, he thinks he may be repaying the loans for at least a decade.

Many parents are more than willing to take on the burden. Steve Lance, 58, is determined to pay for the education of his two sons, whose time at private universities has left him saddled with $133,000 in Parent Plus loans. (He also says he's committed to paying for his sons' federal and private student loans, which bring the total to $317,000 in debt.)

"The best thing I thought I can do as a parent is support them in having their dreams come true," says Lance, a creative director who writes and speaks on advertising and marketing. "There's no price tag on that." Out of necessity, he has put some loans in deferment.

Often, students and families set their hearts on a specific college and will do whatever it takes to make it work, betting that the rewards will outweigh the financial strain.

That's what happened with J.C., who asked that her name not be used. J.C. took out about $41,000 to help her daughter, an aspiring actress, attend NYU. A high-school valedictorian, her daughter could have gone to a public university in their home state of Texas debt-free, J.C. says. But the opportunities in theater wouldn't have been the same. It had to be NYU.

"The night she got there she said: Mom, this is the air I was meant to breathe," J.C. says of her daughter.

J.C., 58, is divorced and makes about $50,000 a year. She anticipates Plus loan payments between $400 and $500 a month, which she says she can handle. "I'll never retire. I'll work forever, that's OK," she says. Still, the hope is that her daughter makes it to the big time in her acting career: "If she's really, really successful I'll retire sooner rather than later," J.C. says.

Recent Changes to Parent Plus, and Uncertain Results

The Education Department's recent change in how it defines adverse credit history — adding unpaid collections accounts or charged-off debt as grounds for denial — is meant to "prevent people from taking on debt they may not be able to afford while protecting taxpayer dollars," Hamilton, the department spokesman, wrote in an email message.

The change may result in significantly more Parent Plus loan denials, according to Kantrowitz — and some financial-aid officers' recent observations seem to bear that out. But new denials may actually target the wrong people. After all, the tightened underwriting still examines aspects of credit history, not ability to repay.

"It's not going to make much of a difference for people who overborrow. It's not going to prevent people from overborrowing," Kantrowitz says. Instead, the new policy may preclude borrowers who once fell behind on a debt, he says, but now pose little credit risk.

Borrowers who are denied can appeal the decision and still get the loans if they convince the Education Department that they have extenuating circumstances. Or they can reapply with somebody cosigning on the loan.

It's not yet clear how much the change to the credit check will alter the scope of the Parent Plus program. Early tallies for the 2011-12 year show a modest dip in borrowing over the previous year, but the data is incomplete and won't be fully updated for months.

For now, the Parent Plus program is part of a stopgap solution to the complex problem of college affordability. And the factors that drive parents to borrow too much won't be changing anytime soon.

Kantrowitz believes that the student-loan system is in need of much broader solutions. The current federal loan limits for undergraduates are arbitrary, he says, and not based on the type of program or a student's estimated future earnings. More grant money could also help alleviate overborrowing, especially for low-income families.

"We need a complete overhaul of the student-loan system so there's a more rational set of limits" to curb the debt problem, says Kantrowitz. The government can't keep "magically sweeping it under the parent rug."

Podcast: David Simon, A.C. Thompson Talk About Fictionalizing a Real Life Investigation

$
0
0

On Sept. 18, David Simon and his Treme co-creater/executive producer Eric Overmyer joined our A.C. Thompson and New York University's Joe Pichirallo for a conversation about how they turned Thompson's investigative work into a story line for the new season of the HBO show.

We excerpted the talk for this podcast. The group discussed how Simon and Overmyer first met Thompson over dinner, why they modeled a new cast member after Thompson but didn't use his name for the character, how it's difficult to assign motivation to a real-life person and how Thompson helped the creative duo keep the "L. P. Everett" character honest. They also veered off on riffs about "the copy desk nightmare" and their hardcore/metal musical choices.

Free the Files Volunteers Unlock $160 Million in Ad Buys in First Week

$
0
0

In the seven days since we rebooted Free The Files, nearly 350 people have “freed” a political ad contract from the Federal Communications Commission database, unlocking more than $160 million in ad spending by 325 groups in more than 30 swing markets.

Our top contributor alone has freed an astounding 1,300 files. What is becoming of all this ad data? A look at what we’ve learned in the last week:

Dark money groups in New Mexico: ProPublica’s Kim Barker and Justin Elliott dug through TV station files from Albuquerque, N.M., and found that in August dark money groups outspent campaigns in the U.S. senate race there. These social welfare nonprofits, which don’t have to disclose their donors, bought about 56 percent of the ads on the Republican side and 47 percent of the ads on the Democratic side.

Remember Ohio’s Government Integrity Fund? This group, which Justin Elliott started investigating after seeing it in TV station files, has spent more than $1 million on ads in Ohio’s U.S. Senate contest. It turns out that the group explicitly said it would not spend money on elections when it applied for tax-exempt status last December.

Spending leans Republican in Asheville, N.C.: The Carolina Public Press reviewed FCC files for ABC affiliate WLOS in Asheville, N.C., to find 66 percent of all station ads back Republican campaigns.

What we’re missing: The Sunlight Foundation and the Wesleyan Media Project note that the political ad files published online by the FCC don’t account for a significant number of political ads in swing markets (under the rule, only stations in the top 50 markets are required to post ad documents online). People who are willing and able to visit television stations in those markets can sign up with their Political Ad Sleuthproject.

Civil Beat frees the files in Hawaii: In another market not covered by the FCC’s new online publishing rule, Honolulu Civil Beat is visiting stations each week and has tracked a total of $9.6 million in political ad buys, with at least 40 percent of it coming from non-candidate political committees.

The documents are online, but they’re rough – As our volunteers quickly discovered, the FCC’s political ad files are tough to interpret. Though the commission requires stations to maintain an “orderly” file, many of the documents are filed sideways, upside down or at low resolutions. The files include a mix of agreement forms, invoices and actual contracts – sometimes revisions of previous orders – making it difficult to determine actual spending. The FCC doesn’t require stations to report the data in a standard, machine-readable format (though it has said such standardization is a “long-term” goal).  

Free the Files volunteer Joy Piazza, Ph.D., and Columbia Journalism Review's Sasha Chavkin join ProPublica's Justin Elliott and Amanda Zamora for a Google Plus discussion of the Free the Files project:


VOLUNTEER UPDATE

Thanks to all who have volunteered to review files thus far -- with your help, we’ve freed more than 2,500 files in our first week. To show our thanks (and liven our leaderboard), we’re offering Free The Files T-shirts to the top 10 contributors on our leaderboard as of 12 a.m. EST Nov. 7. You will need to provide your name and mailing address in order to receive a shirt. So pick a market and free those files!

We are also looking for market “captains” to spearhead document review and analyze files by market. If you are interested in reporting in a particular area, please contact us at TV.Transparency@propublica.org for details on adopting a market.

MORE FREE THE FILES



Are you reporting on political ad spending found in TV station files? Sign up for our Free the Files Twitter list.

Who Should Ensure Families Only Take On College Debt They Can Afford?

$
0
0

You know that college students often graduate with massive amounts of debt. The lesser-told side of the story: overburdened parents. 

As ProPublica’s Marian Wang and The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Beckie Supiano and Andrea Fuller reported last week, many parents are now taking out what are known as Parent Plus loans – a type of federal loan – to plug the gap between student aid and the soaring cost of attending college. Last year the government disbursed $10.6 billion in Parent Plus loans to just under a million families. That’s $6.3 billion more than in 2000, adjusted for inflation, and to nearly twice as many borrowers.

But no checks are in place to ensure parents only take on debt they can afford. The government doesn’t check applicants’ income, employment status or other debt. Though a bad credit history is grounds for denial, someone could still get a loan with no credit history at all. And there’s no set cap on borrowing.

Which brings up an interesting question: Who should be responsible for ensuring families only take on debt they can handle?

The Education Department says that it wants to make sure that college choice isn’t just for the wealthy. That’s why they make the loans easy to get.

Some schools list the Parent Plus loans in financial aid award letters, along with scholarships and student loans, to show how a student might come up with the money for tuition and other costs. Sometimes colleges suggest Parent Plus loans that add up to tens of thousands of dollars – without regard to whether families can afford it. Others simply provide information about the option.

Families often risk the financial strain, hoping the debt burden will be outweighed by the benefit to their children’s lives and futures. Some parents might also bank on the education boosting their children into a high-paying job, which could help pay off the loans.

“This is one of those knives that cuts both ways,” Craig Munier, director of scholarships and financial aid at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln told ProPublica. “If we leave a huge gap in the financial-aid package, families could reach the wrong conclusion that they cannot afford to send their children to this institution. The other side is we package in a loan they can’t afford, and they make a bad judgment and put themselves into debt they can’t manage. You can second-guess either decision.”

The situation mimics many elements of the sub-prime mortgage crisis: easy access to loans, lenient underwriting, and naïve or reckless borrowing. You can read the full story here.

Some readers have already started to leave their opinions in the comments.

“I have to say I see this as a non-system issue. This has to do with someone who makes $25k a year taking out a $17k loan. I grew up not poor, but at the lower end of middle class. My father worked in construction, which provided a good income, but not steady work. Therefore, you budgeted, first come necessities, then savings, then splurges.”  – Joe P.

“I don’t blame the folks who wind up borrowing Parent Plus money they can’t afford anymore than I blame those who wound up with ARM mortgages they couldn’t pay. Both situations involve emotional decisions, complicated forms and contracts, and very little objective counseling. Here’s the thing you want more than anything and here’s this expert (your government in both cases) saying “YES” you can have it…it’s easy to see how folks are misled.” – Kim Andrews   

What do you think? Should the government create measures to prevent over-borrowing? Should schools counsel people on how much aid is too much? Or should individuals be entirely and solely responsible for their own college loan decisions?

Take our poll, and let us know your thoughts in the comments. 

Are you struggling with student debt? Share your story with us. 

Four Ways Ohio and Others Have Toughened Voting Rules

$
0
0

Voter ID laws have received plenty of attention recently, but they're not the only controversial changes to election rules this year. Some states have made changes that critics say could impact individuals' ability to vote. Here are four.

Ohio won't count provisional ballots mistakenly cast in the wrong precinct.

Four years ago in Ohio, there were 200,000 provisional ballots cast among a total 5.7 million votes. This was the most among any state other than California. (Federal law requires states to use provisional ballots when a voter's eligibility is in question or if their registration doesn't reflect a new name or address.)

But Ohio requires county election boards to reject provisional ballots if the ballot doesn't correspond to the voter's assigned precinct — even if it was the poll worker's mistake. (A few other states have similar rules, but Ohio is fighting a lawsuit right now to preserve its approach.)

Such errors are bound to happen since 80 percent of Ohio's polling stations cover multiple precincts. In 2008, Ohio elections officials discarded 14,000 provisional ballots for this very reason. That number accounted for one-third of the total rejected provisional ballots that year.

In June, a group of labor organizations and advocacy groups sued Ohio to block enforcement of this requirement, arguing it could disenfranchise thousands of voters.

Ohio officials have argued the law is justified by the state's interest in "running elections fairly and efficiently."

"The argument is sometimes made that if states are required to count these ballots, more people would deliberately go and vote in the wrong precinct," said Wendy R. Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

During oral arguments before a federal judge earlier this year, a lawyer for Ohio hinted at such a scenario when he challenged the strength of the plaintiffs' evidence. "Something else is going on that may not be poll-worker error," he said, as noted in a footnote to the judge's ruling.

In August, a federal judge ruled against Ohio's approach. The state's interest in fair and efficient elections, wrote U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley for the Southern District of Ohio, "falls short of what is required to justify its inevitable disenfranchisement of thousands of qualified voters in the November 2012 election."

Ohio has appealed the decision, arguing that the rule helps with "counting only valid, legal ballots, in running a smooth election, and in minimizing post-election litigation." Allowing such provisional ballots to count, the state further argued, would make it "more difficult for elections officials to monitor and keep up with the voting process."

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case early last week and is expected to issue a decision soon.

Ohio tried to shorten its early voting period — until a federal court ruled otherwise.

Ohio used to permit in-person early voting for registered voters in the three days prior to Election Day. (More than 30 other states have similar early voting options, mostly for those who can't make it on Election Day.) But last year, the Ohio General Assembly limited the window. Early voting, which began Oct. 2, was scheduled to end 6 p.m. the Friday before Election Day. (Members of the military and overseas voters were exempt from the narrowed time frame.)

Democrats have been proponents of early voting: An estimated 93,000 Ohioans voted early in 2008. A subsequent University of Akron study concluded that early voters were "more likely to be strong Democrats than election-day voters" — including women, older voters and lower-income individuals.

In defending the law, Ohio elections officials argued that administering early voting the weekend before Election Day for all registered voters would interfere with counties' Election Day preparation, and that military voters have a unique need for being exempt.

In July, Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party asked a federal court to block the new rule, arguing that "tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their right to vote during this time period, including Plaintiffs' members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future elections at all."

In August, U.S. District Judge Peter C. Economus in Ohio agreed to block the law, writing that creating two separate early voting deadlines would place more value on one person's vote over another's. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision. County elections officials, as in 2008, will still have discretion over whether to open up early voting to all.

Iowa has hired a criminal agent to investigate voter fraud allegations.

In July, the Associated Press reported that Iowa signed a two-year $280,000 contract with an investigator from the state Division of Criminal Investigation to handle suspected cases of voter fraud. The agent's duties, according to the AP, are "subpoenaing voting records, checking their citizenship status, and interviewing suspects as he builds cases."

Iowa's Secretary of State Matt Schultz has identified more than 1,000 names of potential non-citizens to investigate. (Schultz has not responded to requests for comment.)

The first few cases haven't exactly revealed massive fraud: Two Canadian citizens arrested and charged with felony election misconduct for voting in 2010 and 2011 said they mistakenly believed they could vote in non-presidential elections as legal residents. A third person arrested was a Mexico native whose U.S. citizenship was challenged by the state.

As we've noted before, studies show that voter fraud is actually quite rare.

Other measures taken by Schultz's office — such as allowing anonymous voter fraud online complaints and pursuing non-citizen purging — has prompted legal action from the ACLU.

Texas has notified (living) voters that they are "potentially deceased."

Last year, the Texas Legislature passed a bill to ensure dead people were kept off its voter rolls. States have long been required to maintain clean voter rolls, so such updating isn't new.

But Texas went further, giving the secretary of state authority to conduct voter roll purges using relatively loose criteria like shared names and birthdate.

The result is that live voters have received notice that if they don't respond within 30 days, they're assumed dead and will be removed from the voter rolls.

The state's largest voting district, Harris County, has sent such letters to about 4,000 "potentially deceased" voters.

"Several hundred responded that said, 'Yeah, I'm still alive,'" said Fred King, communications manager for the Harris County Voter Registrar and Tax Office.

Election experts say that's not surprising. "The problem is that there is a much higher incidence of sharing names and birth dates than people realize," said David Becker, director of election initiatives at the Pew Center on the States.

After a lawsuit from four quite live voters, Texas agreed last week to roll back the purge. "Potentially deceased" voters will still be flagged, but will only be removed from the rolls if there's a hard match. (Secretary of State Hope Andrade has said that's just a technical change.)

The purge had also been criticized for being started just months before the election. The new law mandating the controversial letters took effect a year ago in September 2011. Texas didn't start the purge until just this June.

"Most states recognize it's good policy to do this throughout the year rather than right before an election," says Becker of the Pew Center on the States.

So what explains Texas' decision to wait?

"We wanted to run the process with enough time between elections," Texas Secretary of State spokesman Richard Parsons told ProPublica. "Unfortunately repeated election delays, shifting deadlines and uncertainty all caused by ongoing redistricting litigation did not allow for this process to move forward any sooner."


F.A.Q. on U.S. Aid to Egypt: Where Does the Money Go—And Who Decides How It’s Spent?

$
0
0

This article has been updated to reflect new developments. It was first published on Jan. 31, 2011.

The regime change in Egypt — and in particular, the riots outside the American embassy last month — have prompted renewed questions about American aid to the country. (A recent poll found that 42 percent of Americans supported cutting aid to Egypt; 29 percent supported cutting it off altogether.)

We've taken a step back and tried to answer some basic questions, including how much the U.S. is giving Egypt, what's changed since the Arab Spring and who is benefiting from all this aid money.

How much does the U.S. spend on Egypt?

Egypt gets the most U.S. foreign aid of any country except for Israel. (This doesn't include the money spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.) The exact amount varies from year to year and there are many different funding streams, but U.S. foreign assistance to Egypt has averaged about $2 billion a year since 1979, when Egypt struck a peace treaty with Israel following the Camp David accords, according to the Congressional Research Service. That includes military and economic aid, though the latter has declined by more than two-thirds since 1998, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

Let's start with the military aid. How much is it, and what does it buy?

Military aid — which comes through a funding stream known as Foreign Military Financing — has held steady at about $1.3 billion since 1987. American officials have long argued that the money promotes strong ties between the American and Egyptian militaries, which gives the U.S. all kinds of benefits. U.S. Navy warships, for instance, get "expedited processing" when they pass through the Suez Canal.

Here's a 2009 U.S. embassy cable released by WikiLeaks that makes essentially the same point:

President Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the USD 1.3 billion in annual FMF as "untouchable compensation" for making and maintaining peace with Israel. The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace.

The military funding also enables Egypt to purchase U.S.-manufactured military goods and services. But a 2006 report from the Government Accountability Office (PDF) criticized both the State Department and the Defense Department for failing to measure how the funding actually contributes to U.S. goals.

Does this aid require Egypt to meet any specific conditions regarding human rights?

It didn't for a long time. When an exiled Egyptian dissident called on the U.S. to attach conditions to aid to Egypt in 2008, Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., who had recently stepped down as the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, told the Washington Post the idea was "admirable but not realistic." And Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that military aid "should be without conditions" at a Cairo press conference in 2009.

Last December Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, led Congress in adding language to a spending bill to make aid to Egypt conditional on the secretary of state certifying that Egypt is supporting human rights and being a good neighbor. The language requires that Egypt abide by the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, support "the transition to civilian government including holding free and fair elections," and put in place policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law." It sounds pretty tough, but it's not.

So has American aid to Egypt been cut off?

No. Congress threatened to block the aid when Egypt began a crackdown on a number of American pro-democracy groups this winter. A senior Obama administration official said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had no way to certify the bill's conditions were being met.

But in March Clinton waived the certification requirement (yes, she can do that) and approved the aid, despite concerns remaining about Egypt's human rights record. The reason? "A delay or cut in $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt risked breaking existing contracts with American arms manufacturers that could have shut down production lines in the middle of President Obama's re-election campaign," the New York Times reported. Breaking the contracts could have left the Pentagon on the hook for $2 billion.

Oy vey. What kind of arms have we been sending them, anyway?

According to the State Department, the aid has included fighter jets, tanks, armored personnel carriers, attack helicopters, antiaircraft missiles, and surveillance aircraft. In the past, the Egyptian government has bought some of the weaponry on credit.

What about economic aid and efforts to promote democracy?

U.S. economic aid to Egypt has slumped from $815 million in 1998 to about $250 million in 2011.

The various economic aid efforts have had mixed results. The State Department has described the Commodity Import Program, which gave Egypt millions of dollars between 1986 and 2008 to import American goods, as "one of the largest and most popular USAID programs." But an audit of the four-year, $57 million effort to create agricultural jobs and boost rural incomes in 2007 found that the program "has not increased the number of jobs as planned" [PDF]. And an audit of a $151 million program [PDF] to modernize Egypt's real estate finance market in 2009 found that, while the market had improved since the program began, the growth was "not clearly measureable or attributable" to the aid efforts.

The U.S. has also funded programs to promote democracy and good government in Egypt — again with few results. It has sent about $24 million a year between 1999 and 2009 to a variety of NGOs in the country. According to a 2009 inspector general's audit [PDF], the efforts didn't add much due to "a lack of support" from the Egyptian government, which "suspended the activities of many U.S. NGOs because Egyptian officials thought these organizations were too aggressive."

A WikiLeaks cable revealed the Egyptian government had asked USAID to stop financing NGOs that weren't properly registered.

President Obama has promised Egypt $1 billion in aid to support its transition to democracy following the fall of President Hosni Mubarak. But the funding has become a political issue since the attacks on the American embassy in Cairo on Sept. 11. When the Obama administration announced last month that it was sending the Egyptian government $450 million to help forestall a budget crisis, Representative Kay Granger, a Texas Republican and the chairwoman of a subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, said she would block the money because of concerns about Egypt's direction under the Muslim Brotherhood. "I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time," she said in a statement.

Free the Files Teams Up with Huffington Post to Unlock Political Ads in Swing States

$
0
0

In our ever-expanding quest to Free the Files, ProPublica is teaming up with Huffington Post in Denver, Detroit, Miami and Washington, D.C. to unlock political spending in the final stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign.

So far, more than 400 volunteers have freed political ads filed at television stations in 33 swing markets by telling us what would otherwise remain buried: who actually bought the ads and how much they spent. The Federal Communications Commission began posting political ad contracts online in August, but the files aren’t searchable by market or political group, and television stations aren’t required to upload them in a standardized, machine-readable format.

With better access to these files, we’ve been able to uncover spending by dark money nonprofits (which don’t have to disclose their donors) in New Mexico and Ohio Senate contests. In the case of Ohio, the nonprofit told the IRS it wouldn’t spend money to influence elections, but later spent $1 million on ads attacking Sen. Sherrod Brown.

To free the files, volunteers are using this interactive tool to answer four key questions about each ad contract. So far, we’ve logged an estimated $207 million in ad buys across the country — including millions in these Huffington Post local markets.

Denver: As Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were squaring off in the first presidential debate, we were freeing more than $22 million in ad buys from the candidates, parties, super PACs and nonprofits in Denver. So far we show Obama spending at least $6.65 million on ads to Romney’s $1.1 million. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC is also spending big in Denver with $2.1 million in ads logged vs. $729 thousand spent by its nonprofit cousin, Crossroads GPS.  

Washington, D.C.: The D.C.-Hagerstown market captures some of the political ads targeted voters in the neighboring battleground state of Virginia. So far, volunteers have unlocked $21.3 million in ads there, with $7.1 million in ad buys logged for Obama and $3.4 for Romney. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also been active in Washington, with $269,000 spent on ads targeted toward viewers of 60 Minutes and the Washington Redskins.

Detroit: We’ve logged $10.7 million in ads so far in Detroit, with hundreds of thousands bought by congressional candidates and the usual super PAC suspects -- but several smaller PACs are spending big to influence voters around state issues. The People Should Decide, for example, has spent more than $1 million on ads pushing the state to require a public vote before building any new bridges or tunnels to Canada.

Florida: Obama and Romney are in a dead heat in Florida, but we’ve got a long way to go freeing the files in key Florida markets. We’ve logged nearly $22.5 million in ad buys so far in Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa and West Palm Beach. In Miami, we’ve logged $981,000 so far from Obama and $219,000 from Romney, with Restore Our Future (supporting Romney) spending another $149,000. 

The more files we free, the more data we have about who is spending to influence your vote. To volunteer, log in at www.propublica.org/freethefiles and join the Free the Files group on Facebook.

Reporting Recipe: Four Stories You Can Write Using Free the Files

$
0
0

We’ve been writing a lot about the newly available TV station ad files that offer never-before-available details on political spending. And ProPublica readers around the country have been helping sort through the data in our Free the Files app. We thought it would be useful to explain a few ways we and other media have used the files, and how other reporters might do the same.

Show how much dark money is flowing into your area

TV station political files can be used to give readers a granular look at ad spending in a particular market. To get a sense of how big a role groups funded by anonymous money were playing in one important race, Kim Barker and I analyzed all the files from the affiliates of the four major networks in Albuquerque, N.M., which was flooded with outside money over the summer. We found that more than half the money spent on ads on those stations in the U.S. Senate race in August came from dark money groups, underscoring the growing role such organizations are playing this year.

If you want to focus on a particular race, this can require extra reporting. That's because the TV station files for outside groups don't identify which race the group's ads focus on. Some of the bigger groups might be advertising in more than one race -- presidential and senate, for example. You can avoid this problem by just focusing on overall ad spending in a market without distinguishing between races.

It's important to realize that because of gaps in the FCC's rules, you won’t get a comprehensive picture: stations outside the big four affiliates in the top 50 markets don't have to post their political files online until 2014 (Note: The data we have only tracks 33 swing markets). The FCC’s rule also doesn’t cover cable ad spending. But the available files still offer the clearest picture yet of ad spending in a market.

How to do it:

  • Download a spreadsheet of all the all data from the market you want to analyze. You’ll find a link to the spreadsheet at the bottom of the individual market pages. (Here’s Cleveland.)
  • Analyze files marked “contract” or "order" and remember that these are just that: orders for ads, not final invoice amounts. In some cases not all of the ads in an order will run, for example because of changes in programming.
  • Be aware of revisions to orders so you can adjust your calculations accordingly. Files marked “invoice” show the ads that actually ran and how much they cost, but invoices aren’t filed until after ads run. So focusing on contracts is the best way to estimate ongoing spending. Some stations have their own systems with different types of documents, so if you’re confused, call the station.

Shining light on secretive outside groups

Most of the outside spending in federal elections this cycle is by groups run by well-known operatives with close ties to the presidential campaigns or political parties –such as Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action. But there are also a crop of smaller groups, some of which were recently created and about which little is known. Information in the TV stations' political files can help report on such groups.

By law, TV stations must keep on file information identifying the executives or boards of directors of any entity that pays for broadcasts that are a “political matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance.”

Some of these sponsorship identification files are not yet online — though all should be by early next year.

How to do it:

  • If you're looking into a specific group, sometimes the files are online, and if they're not, try calling the station or paying a visit in person. The nonprofit Free Press has compiled a helpful checklist for requesting political files from stations.
  • Look for phone numbers, addresses, and the name of an organizer. I used one of these sponsorship ID forms to report on a dark money group in Ohio, the Government Integrity Fund, which has run more than $1 million in ads in the state’s U.S. Senate race.    

Finding unreported spending and highlighting gaps in campaign finance laws

Analyzing TV ad files can uncover large sums of political spending that may not be disclosed elsewhere. On both the federal and state levels, there are gaps in laws requiring reporting of political spending. Under federal rules, for example, certain groups do not report spending on issue ads if they do not run near an election or convention. Such spending should, however, show up in TV station political files.

Michigan Campaign Finance Network executive director Rich Robinson for years has physically collected political ad files from TV stations. By comparing spending in the ad files to spending reported under the state’s campaign finance laws, Robinson found that from “2000 through 2010, $20.8 million, or 49.5 percent of all spending in Michigan Supreme Court election campaigns, was not reported to the State.” (The full report with other findings is here.)

Now that such files are being posted online, reporters elsewhere should be able to conduct similar analyses by comparing spending in TV political files to spending reported to FEC and the states. Are political campaigns and outside groups complying with state campaign finance laws? Do state laws require disclosure of all political spending, or are there significant gaps in the laws?

Robinson tells ProPublica: “For my money its the only way to get a sense of the spending. It’s part of creating a record of the extent of the failure of campaign finance disclosure.”

Resources:

Show how ad rates can vary — and how it affects campaigns

TV station political files can help cast light on a previously opaque part of elections: how stations sometimes charge drastically different rates for the same ad slots. The Stamford Advocate pulled station files and found that, in Connecticut’s U.S. Senate race, Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy paid $900 for a spot on the evening news on a Hartford TV station while Republican Linda McMahon paid $40 for a similar spot. Why? Because McMahon’s campaign had ordered the ads in some cases “as early as the end of April” before rates rose.

There also can be large discrepancies between rates paid by candidates and outside groups because stations by law must offer candidates low rates. The Wall Street Journal found, for example, that the Obama campaign paid $2,000 to run a spot during "Dancing with the Stars" on the ABC affiliate in Cincinnati while the Republican National Committee paid $6,500 for a spot on the same program. (This dynamic has helped Obama because a bigger proportion of money on the Democratic side has gone directly to the president’s campaign.)

A word of caution here: stations offer different classes of ads at different rates, so it’s worth checking files closely and calling stations to verify your analysis of rates.


Outside groups are spending hundreds of millions to influence the coming elections. Help unlock outside spending by "freeing" political ad buys from television stations in swing markets.

What a Failed Vegas Sex Pill and The Meningitis Outbreak Have In Common

$
0
0

Imagine my surprise when I heard about Vegas Mixx, the latest club drug being promoted in Las Vegas. Marketing materials described it as a combination of Valium, to relax the mind, and Viagra, to stimulate the, well, you know. Vegas Mixx promised to make users perform “Like a Porn Star.”


I’m no medical expert, but this didn’t sound like a good idea. Valium, a controlled substance, can have serious side effects. And Viagra, well, warnings about erections lasting longer than four hours should give anyone pause.

Was it legal? When I was a reporter at the Las Vegas Sun, the guys running the local compounding pharmacy that made Vegas Mixx had no problem telling me they were just trying to make a buck. They claimed it was legal. And indeed, the pharmacy never was disciplined by the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy. They only stopped producing the drug because it wasn’t profitable.

Vegas Mixx turned out to be a bust. But it highlighted an evolution in the drug compounding industry, which has come under intense scrutiny after steroids produced by a Massachusetts company were linked to 12 fungal meningitis deaths and 137 infections in 10 states. The New England Compounding Center, which made the injectable steroids linked to the outbreak, acted more like a drug manufacturer than a traditional compounding pharmacy, said David Miller, executive vice president and CEO of the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacies.

Compounding pharmacies typically provide custom-made drugs based on individual physician prescriptions tailored to specific patients, who, for example, might be allergic to a mass-produced product. In contrast, the compounding pharmacy that made Vegas Mixx was making and marketing a drug combo before a doctor had prescribed it. The New England Compounding Center shipped more than 17,000 doses of steroid injections to 23 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Those steroid doses, and other concoctions by compounding pharmacies, are exempt from traditional review and approvalby the Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with assuring the efficacy, purity and safety of manufactured drug compounds and strict adherence to sanitary manufacturing standards.

An FDA official said in an email that state pharmacy boards are the front lines of enforcing the activities of compounding pharmacies. The FDA can step in, but there have been conflicting court rulings about how federal law applies to compounding pharmacies, the FDA official said. That means compounding pharmacies operating as manufacturers are below the radar of FDA oversight, Miller said, potentially putting patients at risk.

(Have you or a loved one been a victim of harm while undergoing medical care? Please complete the ProPublica Patient Harm Questionnaire.)

This could have been prevented. More than a decade ago, David Kessler, former FDA commissioner, issued a warning about the future of compounded drugs at a Congressional hearing prior to passage of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. He said that ambiguity in the law could allow for “large scale manufacturing under the guise of pharmacy compounding,” leading to a “shadow industry” of unapproved generic drugs.

Provisions in the act designed to clarify FDA oversight of compounding pharmacies — including restrictions on their ability to advertise drugs — were later struck down by courts. Still, the FDA says it can act in some circumstances, such as when a drug is contaminated or mislabeled.

Miller said he believes only a few rogue compounding pharmacies are operating outside traditional boundaries. The New England Compounding Center “appears to have been acting as a manufacturer without being registered as a manufacturer with the (Food and Drug Administration), or registering with the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy as a manufacturer,” he said.

“Something does need to change. That’s something our association is grappling with right now,” he said. In the wake of the outbreak, officials from the academy are in contact with congressional staffers to discuss how to increase oversight without stifling traditional pharmacy practices, Miller added.

Other cases have raised alarms. In 2007, a Portland Tribune investigation revealed patient deaths that were linked to a bad batch of drugs, used to treat back pain, from a Texas compounding pharmacy. A pharmacist who consults with the advocacy group Public Citizen called the compounding pharmacy industry a “shadow drug industry,” in an interview with the newspaper.

And this week the Tennessee attorney general filed a complaint against HRC Medical Center, a hormone replacement therapy company that used a compounding pharmacy to produce the testosterone pellets for women. In the past year, I interviewed several women who were treated at HRC facilities, and they complained of testosterone treatments that led to excess facial hair, uncontrollable rage and genital growth. One doctor who reviewed an HRC patient’s medical records on behalf of ProPublica said her testosterone levels were more than four times normal – into the range of a man.

It's unknown whether the alleged problems at HRC Medical were caused by the providers, by the pharmacy, or both. Officials from HRC Medical did not return calls for comment. But according to the attorney general’s complaint, the hormone pellets the compounding pharmacy supplied to HRC Medical could trigger an unpredictable release of hormones in the blood stream due to their unproven method of manufacturing. The pharmacy's production standards, material handling practices and operating procedures were not FDA approved, the complaint stated.

Miller said responsibility for the fungal meningitis outbreak goes beyond the compounding pharmacy involved and regulatory gaps. Doctors and medical providers purchased the drugs and should also be held accountable for the patient harm, he said.

“What due diligence did those facilities do to assure the drugs they were purchasing were appropriate, safe and effective?” he asked.

Sagar Atre of ProPublica contributed reporting to this story. 

Still Classified: Terror Suspects’ Own Accounts of Their Abuse

$
0
0

This post has been updated. It was originally published on Oct. 9, 2012.

In a motion unsealed last week, the government proposed new ground rules for classified information in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others charged with planning the 9/11 attacks.

The new order says the accused can't talk about their "observations and experiences" of being held by the CIA, including "the enhanced interrogation techniques that were applied to the Accused" — that is, waterboarding and other abuse.

As we reported earlier this year, the government maintains that many details of the CIA's detention program are still classified, despite widespread disclosures and an official acknowledgement by President George W. Bush in 2006. "Due to these individuals' exposure to classified sources, methods, or activities of the United States," an order filed in April read, anything the men say is "presumed to contain information classified as TOP SECRET / SCI."

That sentence would have required defense attorneys to get the approval of a security officer to disclose even mundane information such as a date of birth, if it came from the defendant.

The new protective order — which is pending a judge's approval — eliminates the line that all statements by the accused are presumed classified. In proposing the change, the government wrote it intended to "alleviate defense concerns" about the burden that presumptive classification added to their interactions with their clients. The government's new motion says that attorneys would only need a review of information "they know or have a reason to know is classified."

According to statements provided by a Pentagon spokesman, prosecution lawyers want proceedings to "be as open as possible, while fulfilling our legal obligation to protect classified information and personal privacy." They said it would be decided on a "case-by-case basis" whether this "narrower presumption" of classification would be applied to other military commission trials.

But when it comes to the CIA's detention program, the new order is more explicit than the old, stating that "the term 'information' shall include without limitation observations and experiences of the Accused."

The American Civil Liberties Union, news organizations, and James Connell, a lawyer representing one of the defendants, have challenged the government's authority to declare something presumptively classified, and to extend classification to a detainee's own statements. The ACLU filed a motion this spring arguing that the government forcibly "exposed" the detainees to this classified information, and that therefore the detainees couldn't be bound to a non-disclosure agreement.

The group also argues that because the CIA program is now outlawed and has been so widely discussed, there is no compelling national security need to keep the details secret. The ACLU and media groups oppose the 40-second delay the government has imposed on broadcasting case proceedings. The government says the delay simply allows the commission to censor classified information. (That's how the arraignments proceeded in May.)

The defense lawyer Connell said that in terms of the attorney-client relationship, the new proposal was an "important start." But as far as public access goes, the ACLU's lead lawyer on the case, Hina Shamsi, says that the new order "makes explicit what the government is seeking to do — prevent the public from hearing from the defendant's own mouths their experiences of CIA torture."

The prosecution said the more detailed language about the CIA program in the new order is intended to make it "clear that the obligation to protect all classified information remains."

The judge presiding over the military commission, Army Col. James Pohl, would have to accept the government's proposal for it to go into effect in the case. Pohl approved a similar protective order last year in the case of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, who was allegedly behind the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. (That order has also been challenged by news organizations).

Hearings on the public access issue and Connell's opposition to presumptive classification are scheduled for next week. Originally intended for August, they were postponed due to Hurricane Isaac.

Inside the Janesville Data

$
0
0

This story’s analysis of the effects of job-retraining in Janesville, Wis., is the first in the United States that has examined this question using data since the recent recession made jobs harder to find.  It is patterned after a few older studies elsewhere that used similar methods to identify dislocated workers who went back to school, examine how much they were working and earning afterwards, and compare them with a group of dislocated workers who had not been retrained. The analysis was performed in collaboration with two labor economists, Kevin Hollenbeck, a senior economist at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich., and Laura Dresser, associate director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

We focused on students who retrained at Blackhawk Technical College, a two-year, state-supported institution that attracts the vast majority of laid-off workers in south central Wisconsin who go back to school. Several kinds of raw data went into the analysis. The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development provided two datasets. First, to identify people who were unemployed, we used the department’s records of unemployment claims from the summer of 2008 to the fall of 2011, for residents of Rock County, WI (Janesville is the county seat) and neighboring Green County. Most of Blackhawk’s students come from those counties, and we wanted to be able to compare the students to other jobless people in the same places. The second dataset from the department contained Unemployment Insurance wage records, a kind of data kept by every state of each employee’s wages that all employers are required to report. The records show quarterly earnings--in other words, what the employee is paid over three months. We used wage records for the same two counties. We also used information from Blackhawk, provided by Michael Gagner, the college’s director of institutional effectiveness.  The Blackhawk records consisted of all students who enrolled in credit programs between the summer of 2008, when large number of jobs began to disappear from Janesville, and the summer of 2010. We stopped with 2010 so that the students in our analysis would have had time to finish their schooling and look for a job. The student records contained basic demographics, such as age, sex, race and ethnicity, as well as academic information, including whether they needed remedial work, the academic program they pursued, and whether they graduated.

None of the records identified individuals by name. All three datasets – the unemployment claims, wage records, and college records – originally contained Social Security numbers. We used these to link the datasets. This linking was performed by Matias Scaglione, a labor economist in the Department of Workforce Development’s Office of Economic Advisers, who then removed Social Security numbers. We identified Blackhawk’s dislocated workers primarily by identifying students who had received unemployment benefits at some point during the period we examined. We identified others from a questionnaire that Blackhawk gives all new students that asks, among other things, their employment status. Students who answered that they were “unemployed” or “dislocated” were included in the analysis. By comparing Social Security numbers, we made certain that no student was counted more than once.

Once we had identified the dislocated workers who were retrained, we did several kinds of analysis. We created a pre-recession (and pre-layoff) period of 2007 and compared that with a “post” period of the final year for which we had information.  In this way, we compared how many had any wages—that is, were working for pay—before and after they retrained. We could not identify whether people had full-time or part-time jobs, so we divided them into “consistent workers,” who had some earnings each quarter of the year; “intermittent workers,” who had at least one quarter with earnings and one with no earnings; and people who had no reported earnings. The data contained earnings only from Wisconsin, not from any other state, but other information suggests that relatively few people in the area have jobs elsewhere. We also compared their “pre” wages with those afterwards. And we compared all these results with those from the group of unemployed people in Rock and Green counties who had not gone to the college. We also compared the academic performance of the college’s dislocated workers with that of other students on campus at the same time. The analysis could not fully control for potential differences in “quality” between the dislocated workers who were retrained and the other group of unemployed people, in large part because there was no way to gauge the education levels of the group that did not undergo retraining.

Amy Goldstein is a staff writer on leave from the Washington Post, focusing on Janesville, Wis., as a microcosm of the effects of vanished jobs on people and the places where they live. The Joyce Foundation, Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, and ProPublica have provided support. She can be reached at goldsteina@washpost.com.

Rare Agreement: Obama, Romney, Ryan All Endorse Retraining for Jobless—But Are They Right?

$
0
0

In February 2008, six days before he would win the Wisconsin presidential primary, Barack Obama traveled to a General Motors plant in Janesville, Wis., for a major economic address. Janesville is a community of 63,000 on a bend in the Rock River near the Illinois line, three-fourths of the way up Interstate 90 from Chicago to Madison. On the sides of downtown buildings, pastel murals by area artists show scenes from the city’s past, hinting at its muscular civic spirit and outsized role in U.S. industry. “History. Vision. Sweat.” is lettered across one mural’s bottom edge. The small city has been catapulted into public view as the hometown of this year’s Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan. But long before, it was the home of Parker Pen. And for nearly a century, the soul of the local economy had been the Janesville Assembly Plant, where GM had started out making tractors and, in 1923, begun to build cars. The oldest operating automotive facility in the United States, it was even four years ago a storied site for a campaign speech.

“Through hard times and good, great challenges and great change,” the Illinois senator intoned, “the promise of Janesville has been the promise of America.” The day before, the General Motors Company had announced for 2007 the largest annual loss ever recorded by an automaker. Rumors of closing were filtering through the plant. But on this clear, 17-degree Wisconsin morning, Obama sounded confident. From a podium with a plaque that said, “People working together,” he spoke of a clean-energy economy and a growing middle class, of prosperity as a tide lifting every boat. “I believe that, if our government is there to support you…,” he told the workers gathered around him near the medium-duty truck line on the second floor, “this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

Ten months later, two days before Christmas and four weeks before Obama’s inauguration, the Janesville Assembly Plant shut down. Its nearly 3,000 employees who lost jobs that year were among more than 5,000 casualties of mass layoffs that cascaded through town, washing away jobs at companies that supplied parts and services to GM, and then hitting businesses unrelated to the auto industry that could not withstand the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Beyond these mass layoffs were jobs scattered at restaurants and stores, nail salons and daycare centers that folded under the weight of the sinking local economy. Unlike in Flint, Mich.; Erie, Pa.; or other neon names of the nation’s Rust Belt, the sudden evaporation of work was stunning and alien to Janesville. Four years later, in the midst of another election season, this proud manufacturing town has become a proving ground for a significant question as jobs, or their scarcity, are a fulcrum for Obama’s chances of a second term, and Ryan’s and Mitt Romney’s chances at a first: When the economy has knocked so many people out of the middle class, can job-retraining bring them back?

The idea of teaching laid-off workers new skills for new kinds of jobs is a rare economic policy on which the major political parties agree. Retraining has emerged as a mantra for the Obama White House, and two-year colleges its antidote of choice. Four years to the day after he spoke in Janesville, the president announced his 2013 budget at a community college in Washington’s Virginia suburbs. And at the first presidential debate this fall, he reprised the theme: “When it comes to community colleges,” he said, “we are seeing great work done out there all over the country because we have the opportunity to train people for jobs that exist right now.”

Sharing the Denver stage with the president that night, Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, made much the same point. Federal money must, he said, “go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them.” This enthusiasm for retraining is matched by his running mate, Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the chief architect of a conservative vision for the nation’s fiscal future. Ryan grew up in Janesville and has represented it in Congress for 14 years.

When I saw Ryan last fall at a “listening session” with constituents, 10 months before he would become part of the GOP ticket, he told me that helping people get better job skills was an important government role. The point has now become part of his stump speech, and it was on his mind when he was back in Janesville near the end of August, standing in shirtsleeves and khakis near center court of the gym in the high school he graduated from a quarter-century ago. “You know, we’ve been hit pretty hard here,” he told his relatives and neighbors and a couple-thousand others who squeezed onto risers for a rally just before their local star left for the Republican National Convention. “You know, we used to always say, ‘As GM goes, so goes Janesville.’ . . .But we are a hardy people, and we will recover from this. I’ve got a lot of friends who lost their job at the plant. One of my buddies, he went to Blackhawk Tech. Afterwards, he got an HVAC contracting degree. And now . . . he’s got a great career, and he’s happy . . . That’s the kind of thing we need to do: Pick ourselves up, help people who need, give them the job-training skills they [have to] have.”

Blackhawk Tech as the New Plant Gate

This unlikely bipartisanship fits with an abiding cultural belief, since America’s founding, of this as a land that offers its people a chance at personal reinvention. And it keeps faith with a deep-etched understanding in the United States of education as the key to upward mobility. But does job retraining actually work? The answer, especially in the context of the recent recession, has not been well understood. Janesville is a singularly useful place to look for clues. The reason? Since General Motors set off the cascade that knocked thousands of people out of work, it is a community that, in many ways, has been doing everything right.

Blackhawk Technical College, which Ryan talked up, is a small two-year college in Janesville that is exactly the kind of place federal officials and other policy specialists have in mind to help unemployed people get back to work. Celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, Blackhawk Tech is part of a network of 16 such colleges in Wisconsin that was the first system of state-supported trade schools in the United States, created to transform farm boys into labor for the early 20th Century’s industrial boom. It is like a community college but, instead of preparing some students to go on to universities, it offers only vocational programs, teaching its students to be welders, IT specialists, and medical lab technicians, and to go into advanced manufacturing – precisely the skills that Obama has been touting for retraining programs. As the president and others urge two-year colleges to become partners with local businesses, to try to navigate laid-off workers into fields in which jobs are most likely to exist, Blackhawk already has been doing that for years.

In the months after the big layoffs, the school had the largest surge in students in the Wisconsin technical colleges’ history. State senator Tim Cullen, running in 2010 for his old seat in the Wisconsin legislature that he had vacated years earlier, realized that, with GM’s gates padlocked, he could no longer spend the final weeks of his campaign as he always had, shaking hands with plant workers at shift changes; he considered where he could now find masses of voters – and drove to the college. “I realized the new plant gate,” he told me, “is Blackhawk Tech.”

In contrast to some two-year colleges around the country, which tend to treat older, dislocated workers as afterthoughts, Blackhawk was welcoming and nimble. Trying to allay the anxiety of workers coming back to school, the college held a community picnic for families with games for the children and a chance for the adults to talk with deans and instructors over hamburgers and hot dogs. It added 88 class sections, hired extra instructors, borrowed financial aid officers from other schools and, when it ran out of classrooms, added Saturday sessions. Most remarkable, the college managed to extract from Congress a $2 million earmark specifically to train some of its dislocated workers.

But even under such favorable circumstances, I wondered, how easily can a vocational college teach laid-off people a new identity, as well as new skills? What does it take for a campus to absorb droves of worried, angry factory workers who were out of school, in most cases, for a few decades and may not have liked school as kids? Most fundamentally, does retraining succeed in an environment in which work remains scarce—at least in places like Janesville, where, despite intense economic development efforts the past few years, the number of jobs remains about as low as at any time since the recent recession began?

These were questions that drew me to Wisconsin a year before a native son would bound onto the Republican presidential ticket. They led me to the kitchen tables and back decks of people struggling to regain their footing, to Blackhawk’s classrooms and counselors’ offices, to the United Auto Workers hall and the local job-placement agency. Finally, they led me into a Wisconsin agency, two blocks from the state capitol in Madison, in a quest for unemployment claims and wage records to bore into the most central question of all: How are laid-off people who went to Blackhawk to retrain faring at finding new work? What kind of pay are they getting?

In the end, I found certain successes. But from the many people I’ve met and from an analysis of the state records, most of what I discovered was sobering. It suggests that, even if the U.S. economy as a whole is gradually reviving, the bruises to individual workers and individual communities can be deeper than job training can readily heal. “Retraining, yes,” Chris Pody, who directs Blackhawk’s Career Center, which helps students choose what to study and learn how best to look for jobs, told me the first time we met. “But the question has been – and hasn’t been answered – for what?”

Bob Borremans runs the Rock County Job Center in Janesville, which is the county seat. The warren of offices and cubicles that occupies a former K-Mart is part of the Southwest Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, a regional funnel for the federal job-hunting and job-training money that flows through every state and into communities around the country. With a white beard and a sly sense of humor, Borremans has a doctorate and the kind of independence of thought that can come with being within sight of retirement. For nearly two decades, he was a senior administrator at Blackhawk and, in his job now, has been instrumental in virtually every initiative in the past few years to try to bring jobs and assistance to town. “Looking back on it, we may have trained too many people, because there weren’t enough jobs,” Borremans told me one day. “People are experiencing a double whammy. They lost their jobs. They went to school to get skills, and they still can’t get jobs.”

‘Great Training Robbery’ or Path to the Future

Whether job retraining can be counted on to lift shell-shocked, displaced workers back into the middle class is a question that matters beyond one small college in one small Wisconsin city. It matters because of the central place of jobs in this year’s elections, as our economy remains wobbly and our politics polarized – perhaps nowhere more so than in Wisconsin where a bold conservative, Scott Walker, this spring became the first governor in U.S. history to withstand a recall election. And it matters because of how many Americans have been out of work for a long time. Even as the nation’s overall unemployment rate has fallen lately, the proportion of laid-off workers unable to find a job for six months or longer remains stuck at 40 percent – far higher than at any other time since World War II, when the government began keeping track. All told, 5 million Americans fit this definition of the “long-term unemployed.” The recent recession stole the greatest number of U.S. jobs – more than 2 million – from manufacturing, the kind of often-well-paid work that is most of what Janesville has lost.

Of these lingering casualties of the recession, many are embracing the bipartisan portrayal of retraining as a path out of unemployment. Neither the government nor policy researchers nor education associations keep tabs on how many laid-off people have enrolled in community or technical colleges. But recent surveys suggest that, three years after the recession’s official end, about one-third of those who became unemployed have pursued some form of retraining—at two-year colleges and elsewhere—in hopes of a new job.

This is not exactly a new idea. Federal support for job training was a tenet of the War on Poverty of the 1960s. And in the early 1980s, the Job Training Partnership Act became the first federal training program to expand from helping the underclass to helping people of any class who were out of a job. Debate used to swirl in academic and policy circles over whether training really helps laid-off people find work. In 1970, the sociologist Ivar Berg argued in his classic book, “Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery,” that it did not. Today, amid the upbeat political rhetoric, that side of the debate has virtually disappeared. And it has disappeared even though the evidence of whether job training helps dislocated workers is at best murky.

The recent research literature on the effects of sending the unemployed back to school is thin and mixed. Some studies have found that retraining translates into somewhat better pay and greater chances of a job, mostly if laid-off people prepare to enter certain technical and health care fields. On the other hand, the biggest study of the largest federal source of training subsidies for dislocated workers, the Workforce Investment Act, found a few years ago that the unemployed WIA participants who retrained were, for a while, worse off than similar people who hadn’t gone back to school. Although they caught up after a few years, they never pulled far ahead, according to the study commissioned by the U.S. Labor Department and carried out by academic researchers. In any case, no studies had looked at this question using data since the recession began. That is the black hole I wanted to try, in a modest way, to fill in.

The state of Wisconsin didn’t make it easy. The agency in Madison, the Department of Workforce Development, keeps the two main ingredients I needed: records of unemployment claims, to show who had lost jobs, and the kind of wage records kept by every state of every worker’s earnings for every quarter of the year. I asked for these records for Janesville and nearby communities from which Blackhawk Technical College draws most of its students.

At first, I was quoted a huge price for the data. But as luck would have it, an enterprising economic analyst inside the agency already had asked for the very records I wanted; we became allies, and because the agency couldn’t charge one of its own employees, the price tag for me went away. But other roadblocks proved formidable. After a few months, we were told we could have the data, but more delays ensued. There was a mysteriously frozen computer account, a mysteriously disappearing memo of understanding between two parts of the agency, repeated rounds of legal reviews, and on and on. Through this all, I was checking for advice with the few researchers around the country who do this kind of work, and they had their own tales of having tried—and often failed—to pry loose the same kinds of records from other states. The study of WIA, for instance, was designed to include data from all 50 states, but just a dozen agreed to participate. So the surprise, it turned out, was not that getting the records from Wisconsin was hard. It was that we got them in the end.

I then carried out an analysis with a lot of help from two good labor economists: Kevin Hollenbeck, senior economist at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich., and Laura Dresser, associate director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Blackhawk helped, too, providing records of their students and academic information about them. And what we discovered did not resemble the upbeat rhetoric about retraining spoken by the president – or by Romney and Ryan.

We found that 1,740 dislocated workers had started classes at Blackhawk between the summers of 2008 and 2010, after the plant closed. Getting a job after retraining, we found, has been quite a problem. Of these people, 541 earned at least some money in every season. Another 532 were working more sporadically. The rest – nearly 40 percent – didn’t earn anything at all. Then, we looked at wages. Compared with before the recession, the earnings of those with at least some work dropped, on average, by 36 percent.

The Bright Side of Lower Pay

Mike Vaughn (Amy Goldstein)

Mike Vaughn has learned first-hand that a new job does not necessarily bring back old pay. A plain-spoken man of 44 with close-cropped dark hair and an earnest manner, he was the chief union officer at Lear Seating, a factory with nearly 800 people whose work was to make seats for General Motors, delivered three hours before they were bolted into the SUVs and trucks that the Janesville plant produced in its final years. The day GM closed, Lear shut down, too.

Vaughn’s grandfather Tom worked at General Motors for 30 ½ years. His father, Dave, started in 1967 as a spot welder and retired nearly four decades later. They also held offices in United Auto Workers local #95, making Vaughn part of one of only two families in town with three generations on the local’s executive committee. GM wasn’t hiring when Mike Vaughn came along, so, after a brief try at college and a stint as a hospital cook, he took a job at Lear. He worked there for 18 years. He met his wife, Barb, there. With three years less seniority than him, she lost her job, bolting a hinge to the back of the seat frame, when GM and Lear let go one shift the July before they shut down for good. As the unit chairman, Vaughn stayed on until April 2009, as a score of maintenance workers took the factory apart. It meant that, by the time it was his last day, he had really gone through four last days with round after round of layoffs over 16 months, answering scared workers’ questions each time, as best he could. “I told them...they had to remember that we’d been very proud people, hard-working people, and you have to make the best of what comes next and start formulating your plan.” From Christmas 2008 until that April, he told me, “I watched every day as the plant was dismantled, piece by piece, assembly line by assembly line, and at one point the whole plant was just empty, which was kind of how I felt.”

Throughout those months, his wife had enrolled at Blackhawk. He watched her study hard enough to get “A’s” — and he formulated his own plan. The work for which his union role had best suited him, he decided, would be in human resources management. He looked for a job through the spring and summer and, when none came, turned to his backup idea. Blackhawk, as it happened, was starting a new human resources program. The fall of 2009, he became one of its first students—just 14 of them, almost all dislocated workers, like him. Employment law. Payroll systems. Health and safety. Leadership. “At first, it was scary, intimidating,” he recalls. But he had a knack he’d lacked after high school, he realized, for classroom learning.

And he was lucky in another way. Because some of Lear’s jobs had gone out of the country, Vaughn qualified for a generous form of federal training help through the Trade Adjustment Act. In fiscal 2010—the year he started back at school—TAA gave out $575 million nationwide that helped nearly 10,000 dislocated workers, including 544 at Blackhawk, paying for tuition, books, gas, day care and other support, while they collected unemployment benefits.

The cool May 2011 night that Vaughn took his last exam, 26 months after he’d left the empty Lear factory, he walked from the classroom building to his white Chevy truck, the backpack over his shoulder light, with just a few sheets he’d used to finish studying. “I had a feeling of pride. I had done it. I had pulled 21 A’s, an A minus, and a B.”

Within weeks, he was working the overnight shift in the human resources department at the Janesville plant of Seneca Foods Corp., a manufacturer of canned and frozen vegetables. “I have to think I’m one of the best-case scenarios,” he told me, “I love what I’m doing now. . .I’m working in my field. I’m working in town.”

There is a catch. His new salary is about half of the “high two-figures” he earned at Lear. His wife works with people with developmental disabilities and is now studying towards a bachelor’s degree. Together, their income is slightly more than what one of them earned before. “The old times. . .it’s not that I don’t think of them,” Vaughn says. “But I don’t sit and dwell on the negatives of the fact that I make less money . . . You accept them and move on.”

The drop in pay that we found among Blackhawk’s retrainees mirrors what has been happening around the country. According to a recent study for the Brookings Institution, dislocated workers laid off in the U.S. between 2007 and 2010 can expect to lose at least $220,000 in lifetime earnings, compared with with what they would have been paid if their job had survived.

Perplexing Puzzle: Why the Retrained Fare Worse

What is more surprising — because no one else has looked at this question lately anywhere in the country — is that the laid-off people around Janesville who went to Blackhawk are faring worse than their laid-off neighbors who did not. We discovered this striking fact by comparing the dislocated workers who retrained with a larger group of about 28,000 residents, from the two counties where most Blackhawk students live, who had collected unemployment benefits recently and not gone to the college.

Workers Who Retrained Less Likely to Have Found a Job So Far

 

 2007
 Year ending June 2011

So Far, Retrained Workers Have Been Less Likely to Find Consistent Work

 

 Went to Blackhawk
 Did not retrain.Year ending 2011

Laid-Off Workers who Retrained are Earning Less Money than Those who Didn't Go Back to School

 

 2007
 Year ending June 2011Median Quarterly Earnings

Of People Who Found Consistent Work, Those Who Didn't Retrain Did Better in Absolute and Relative Terms

 

 2007
 Year ending June 2011Median Quarterly Earnings

For one thing, the people who didn’t retrain are working more. About half of them had wages every season of the year, compared with about one in three who went to Blackhawk. An even bigger gap exists in how much those who have jobs are earning. Before the recession, we found, the two groups – the dislocated workers who went to school and the ones who didn’t – were, on average, getting paid about the same. Afterwards, the ones who didn’t retrain are earning more. Their pay has fallen by just 8 percent – about one-fourth the size of the pay drop among the people who went to school. This startled us so much that we dug deeper. We looked at only people working the most. We factored out a few hundred who were still in school. And we looked at just the dislocated workers who had graduated from Blackhawk, rather than dropping out. No matter how we looked at it, those who had retrained were worse off, at least for now, than those who had not.

Taken together, what we discovered—that laid-off people who retrained at this small Wisconsin college are not faring very well, that they are faring worse, in fact, than their laid-off neighbors who didn’t go back to school – raises more questions than it answers. What is going on?

One possibility is that the laid-off people best able to get another job did, while those who were less desirable to employers went to Blackhawk. Or it could be that the advantages from retraining are just slow to materialize; in other words, people such as Mike Vaughn, who go from senior positions to entry-level jobs, might need years to catch back up. Another possibility is that people who didn’t invest a year or two in education snapped up jobs that were gone by the time those who went to Blackhawk began searching for work.

At least part of the answer, though, is the stark reality that, at least in places like Janesville, work is still very hard to find. “It isn’t that training is good. It isn’t that training is bad,” Dresser, the University of Wisconsin labor economist, mused one day during one of our many phone chats. “If you don’t have enough jobs….you cannot train your way to victory.”Perhaps no one in town has as clear a view of these complexities as Sharon Kennedy. A smart, energetic woman in her 60s with a blond bob and a quick smile, she is Blackhawk’s chief academic officer – “vice president of learning” is her title. “I kind of came to the conclusion,” she confided to me over dinner one spring night, that turning former factory workers into college graduates with good jobs is “harder than many people think. Because of the people. Because of the lack of jobs. Because of the tension between business and education. We have probably as good a relationship with business as anybody, and it still isn’t easy.”

Even at a school like Blackhawk Tech and in a city like Janesville, which have been trying like hell.

The Glory and Pain of 90 Years With GM

On the way into town from the Interstate along Racine Avenue, two small American flags flutter from each median streetlight. On the right is pretty Palmer Park, one of 64 big patches of green that give Janesville its nickname, “Wisconsin’s Park Place.” And a few blocks before South Main Street, the Italian House -- “Home of the Famous Gondola and Pasta” and voted the best Italian restaurant last year by readers of the Janesville Gazette – does a brisk business for dinner and lunch. For all the economic hardship that has arrived since 2008, Janesville is resilient. When the middle class falls out of the middle class, it does not look like places worn out by ingrained poverty. Still, if you look closely, the pain is there.

In the months after so many jobs went away, boats for sale became common sights in driveways. Payday loan places have cropped up along Milton Avenue, a commercial spine that runs north from downtown. At Rivers Edge Bowl, co-owner Chris Jones, whose family has run bowling alleys in town since the 1950s, told me that lanes are uncharacteristically open now most nights since fewer people can afford to be in leagues. In December 2009—a year after General Motors closed—United Auto Workers local #95 could not, for the first time in a quarter century, support its tradition of buying and bagging food for needy families over the holidays. The public school system has taken over the food drive.

This reversal of fortune is unlike anything in Janesville’s history as a place that, if not affluent, has prided itself on being comfortable – and innovative – for a long time. A decade before the Civil War, it was the site of Wisconsin’s first state fair, to showcase new farming techniques. Two years after the war ended, the state’s first organization to promote women’s suffrage formed in Janesville. It was where George Parker, in 1888, founded Parker Pen. Down through the decades, the executives of its corporate headquarters, on the corner of East Court Street and Parker Drive, provided a major source of local philanthropy until the company was bought out, and, eventually, the vestigial Janesville workforce of 140 was laid off a week after New Year’s of 2010.

All that was eclipsed by General Motors. In 1918, GM’s founder, W.C. Durant, eager to branch into mechanized farm equipment, summoned a gifted local businessman, Joseph A. Craig, general manager of the Janesville Machine Company, to Detroit to try to hire him. By the end of the meeting, Craig had persuaded Durant to take over his Janesville factory and merge it with the Samson Tractor Co., of California, which GM already owned. Durant had such faith in Janesville that, in February, 1919, he sent a check for what was then a fortune -- $100,000 – to the Janesville Improvement Association to help build housing for the workers who would be needed as the company grew. “I am pleased to say,” Durant wrote in a letter with the check, “that in my entire experience, I have never seen in a city of modest size a better spirit or a more commendable accomplishment. I predict for Janesville a splendid future.”The tractor business faltered, and on Valentine’s Day 1923, GM’s Janesville plant turned out its first car there—a Chevrolet. The plant grew to 4.8 million square feet with 7,100 workers at its peak in the late 1970s. Families pulled in relatives, one generation to the next, because of pay and benefits so generous they stoked resentments around town. The plant had survived the Great Depression, although it closed in 1932 for two years and sent a few hundred workers to build cars at the Chicago World’s Fair. The plant was one of the sites of the 1937 General Motors “sit-down strike,” an important moment in U.S labor history. During World War II, it was part of the home front, producing more than 16 million artillery shells. And during Vietnam, it added a shift to produce pick-ups for the military, with paint mixers making special colors for the Army, Navy and Air Force. In 1967, General Motors’ produced its 100,000,000th U.S.-made vehicle, a blue Caprice coupe assembled in Janesville. The company’s choice of Janesville for that milestone reflected the plant’s reputation for a top-flight workforce. On a cool spring morning, when I ran into Mike Vaughn’s father, Dave, the vice president of what remains of the UAW local, he was wearing a green, zippered fleece with a patch on the sleeve. “JD Power Highest Initial Quality. SUV 2004.” He told me that he has in his closet sweatshirts and jackets with patches for other awards. “Every time we won one,” he recalled, “the company took orders from the workers for sizes.”

Today, the plant is a carcass behind chain link, weeds growing up through the cracks in its vast parking lots. Technically, it is “on standby,” not permanently closed. Yet the revival of GM’s fortunes lately has not helped the people of Janesville. The plant already had shut months before the Obama administration rescued the company so that it could restructure. By a year ago, when the company negotiated a new labor contract with the United Auto Workers, it agreed to reopen the only other U.S. plant that it had placed on standby, a facility in Spring Hill, TN, built in 1990. The Janesville plant, many decades older, remained closed.

Even though it is antiquated, even though nearly four years have gone by since its last vehicle—a black Tahoe LTZ, raffled off for charity to a GM retiree—came off the assembly line, rumors occasionally circulate that it might reopen, bringing back jobs to GM and the companies that collapsed along with it. Rachel Jorgenson, one of Blackhawk’s small crew of counselors, still hears such talk. “I want to slap people,” she says. “It’s the oldest plant in the company. They are not going to reopen the plant. I’m thinking, you need to move forward.”But the people who turned to Blackhawk have, after all, been trying to move forward. Why aren’t more of them succeeding?

To Hell — and Back — With Jeremy Kath

The main campus of Blackhawk Technical College is a single, sprawling building of beige brick that sits along County Road G, surrounded by cornfields, a few miles south of downtown. This is where Kennedy arrived as the chief academic officer, the college’s second-in-command, in the winter of 2008, months before the mass layoffs began. What she and the college have been through has led her to pursue her own research on assembly line workers, in Janesville and other Midwestern communities, who have lost jobs and gone to school. A central reason retraining is so difficult, she has come to believe, is the complicated transition from a factory culture to college life.

At Blackhawk, this culture clash has shown up in small ways: Guys arriving a half-hour early with the thermoses they used to bring to work, to shoot the breeze as they did before their shifts. And in bigger ways—students, upset with a grade, who complain to deans, expecting them to respond like the union shop stewards who always advocated for them. The laid-off workers formed study groups, telephone trees and Facebook pages to coax each other along. The student government suddenly had members with gray hair. But old workplace rivalries and cliques also resurfaced. “That is the stuff,” Kennedy told me. “Businesses don’t understand how hard it is to bring them a good workforce.”

“You have people coming in who are devastated,” said Jorgenson. She cried along with a woman who’d had to train workers from Mexico to take over the job she was losing that was moving out of the country. “It’s like a death,” she said.

Jeremy Kath (Amy Goldstein)

In the spring of 2010, a six-foot-two 36-year-old named Jeremy Kath came to see Pody, who runs the college’s career center. He was almost in tears. It had been more than a year since he’d taken a buyout, rather than face the likelihood of losing his job of a dozen years at a Chrysler plant not far over the Illinois line. He’d been trying to start a restaurant when his wife, whom he’d met at 16 and married at 20, told him she was leaving. She was working as a registered nurse and better able to keep up their house payments, so he was living in his parents’ basement, debating whether to use government retraining money he knew he could get. “Here I am in the beginning of a divorce I didn’t want,” he recalled admitting to Pody. “I didn’t want to go to school. I never liked school. I didn’t think I had any intelligence at all. . .This is a big shit sandwich, and I have to take a bite out of it.”

Pody told him something she had become practiced at saying: “I have a feeling you are smarter than you think. You are going to be okay.” They talked about Blackhawk’s business management program—maybe to lead him to run a restaurant, after all. He took the COMPASS test, a check the college requires of all new students to gauge their proficiency at reading, writing and math. To get into business management, he needed a math score of at least 43; he got a 76—and a 99 each for reading and writing.

Many of the people who’d lost jobs arrived on campus with a single-minded desperation to find something—anything—that would pay them the most money in the least time, whether the field suited them or not. Back on the assembly line, “they were working all day and not talking to anybody,” Kennedy said, “and now they want to be a nurse? That’s all about communication.” Complicating matters, at Blackhawk, as at two-year colleges around the country, nursing, which pays well, is so popular a field of study that it takes two or three years to get into required courses—longer than someone without a job often can afford to wait.

Blackhawk’s counselors all have stories of students who chose a program for the potential pay down the road—only to reappear after a few weeks of classes for advice on finding a more appropriate direction. Those, that is, who got in to see a counselor. The college hired one mental health counselor temporarily. For academic advising, it has three counselors at its main campus, plus Jorgenson at a small satellite in a town called Monroe, 40 miles to the west. Of the laid-off people who arrived from 2008 to 2010, Kennedy estimated, perhaps 10 percent to 15 percent saw a counselor one-on-one. “We had group orientations with 200 people in them,” she said. “We had no capacity to serve these people.”

Of all the strains on the college as laid-off workers rushed in, the one that surprised Blackhawk’s staff the most was that so many were unable to use a computer—didn’t know how to turn one on. There were students, Pody said, who dropped out within days of realizing they could not submit hand-written class papers. “I didn’t want anything to do with that Devil machine,” recalled Kath, whose ex-wife had always done anything that required a computer at home. Before starting classes, he bought a laptop but had still never sent an email. In one of its many adaptations, Blackhawk started a sort of computer boot camp.

Kath is to graduate next spring. Between classes, he calls his eight-year-old daughter Dayle. “Did you work on your spelling? Did you work on your math book?” he asked her one afternoon. He wants Dayle to see her father graduate. He’s had a plan to go in with a friend who has an Italian beef shop but is no longer sure that will work out. So far, he’s found only an unpaid internship at a company that makes bottles for Coca Cola. Still, his grades have been so good that he will get his associates’ degree with honors. “I’m tickled pink,” he said.

Fighting the Failure to Graduate

When Kath gets his degree, he will become, like Mike Vaughn, part of a minority. Just one-third of the dislocated workers who enrolled at Blackhawk managed to graduate, our analysis found. Low as that is, it happens to be exactly the rate at which students graduate from community colleges nationwide, according to recent estimates. And that is another reason that retraining laid-off people doesn’t always work.

People who graduated were no more likely to be working, we found, than those who did not – probably because of a quirk in which some dislocated workers who had been in school left if they were fortunate enough to find a job. Still, completing an academic program is widely recognized to be useful, and Kennedy is mindful of the pressure on two-year colleges around the country to graduate more of their students. And try as Blackhawk has, she thinks that such recommendations, issued lately by various think tanks and advocacy groups, “are not appropriate for the student population we have. I’m sorry, I would love to have better graduation rates,” she told me, “but look at who the students are. We get some very smart students – but they have not been academically successful in the past…We have a lot of first generation students who reluctantly come.”

Of the 1,740 dislocated workers we looked at, one in three needed to take remedial classes before they were allowed to start an academic program, compared with one in five of their classmates who hadn’t lost a job. The main reason? They hadn’t been in a classroom for a long time. The average age of the dislocated workers, we found, was 36, more than a dozen years older than the other students on campus at the time.

These differences – in age, readiness for college, sheer desperation for a job – were the reason behind the most unusual, ambitious step that Blackhawk took on behalf of some of the laid-off people who were arriving in droves. With help from Wisconsin’s senior senator, Herb Kohl, a Democrat, the college won the $2 million federal earmark from Congress to create a program called Career and Technical Education (CATE) to heap extra help on a small batch of its dislocated workers.

It started in early 2010 with just 125 students, who were divided into two groups. Some were ready for college. The others read, wrote or did math the way 6th to 9th graders should. Each group was steered into just a few kinds of training that, in the judgment of college officials and Borreman’s Job Center, were the most promising fields for finding a job. The ready-for-college students had a choice between IT and clinical lab technology. The unready students got more: a semester of extra class time, special tutors, 20 hours on campus each week—“a lot of handholding,” Kennedy said. After that, they got 10 weeks of training – enough for a certificate but not a degree -- to work as a nursing assistant or welder, or in business.

Such concentrated efforts, Kennedy believes, are what it will take for colleges such as Blackhawk to improve graduation rates. But it’s expensive. “I don’t know if we ever can bring something like CATE to scale,” she said. The possibility seems especially remote now because Blackhawk, like many two-year colleges, is financially distressed. It still has nearly as many students as it did just after the layoffs, and its budget has been shrinking. Last year, Gov. Walker persuaded the Wisconsin legislature to cut the state’s share of technical colleges’ funding by 30 percent, and to forbid local governments, which contribute a larger share, to increase their tax levies for the colleges. As a result, Blackhawk has eliminated programs in aviation mechanics and supervisory management, and cut nine members of its staff.

'The Best-Trained Unemployed Person in the Area'

Even among the people who got into CATE and others trained in those fields that Janesville’s job-training experts think are best, some people still aren’t finding work. Graduates in a few areas, such as clinical lab technology and welding, are getting jobs, colleges administrators told me. Not everyone is so fortunate. We compared all the unemployed students—the CATE people and everyone else -- who had studied in these promising areas with the unemployed students who had studied something else. Of the people who had trained for the promising fields, slightly less than two-thirds earned some pay in the year that ended last summer, while the rest were not working – exactly the same as proportions as everyone else.

“So much depends on who is hiring and when,” Kennedy said. “I don’t know how many IT positions were vacant” exactly when the first CATE graduates were ready for a job.

Richell McWilliams (Amy Goldstein)

Gauging when a field will ripen can be tricky. Consider Richell McWilliams, 49, a red-haired mother of five who had been making nearly $100,000 a year at General Motors as a journeyman electrician--one of the plant’s elite skilled trades. “I’m like the best-trained unemployed person in the area,” she told me. As a young woman, she had graduated from Blackhawk with an electronic technology degree. Later, she was an assistant instructor there and taught some apprenticeship classes at the GM plant. When the plant was closing, she qualified for an $80,000 buyout. She accepted a job as a temporary instructor at another technical college, in Madison, where she taught five classes for $5,000 apiece. But a year later, when that job ended, she said, “I was behind everybody else, because if there were a couple jobs out there, those people had gotten them.”

As she worried about what to do next, McWilliams read about sustainability and green jobs and the Obama administration’s eagerness to create them. “That would be the next thing that would take off,” she remembers thinking. “I’ll be ready when the jobs come.” McWilliams was so motivated that, when she found that no nearby university offered a degree in renewable energy, she pieced together one, taking courses on-line and at several area schools, including Blackhawk. After that, she took short “training modules,” to qualify her to go into different kinds of companies and teach environmentally sound practices. As she and I spent an afternoon chatting on her back deck, she showed me a blue plastic ring binder with her renewable energy diploma and all the training certificates she has racked up since she was laid off – 37 of them.

McWilliams knows first-hand that green jobs are not arriving as fast as the White House would like. She scours job listings but hasn’t found much to apply for. “There is nothing in the area,” she says, “that is paying like comparable or even half wages to what I was earning.”

She works a day now and then under a grant Blackhawk has, to train local companies in environmentally sound practices. In the meantime, she and her family have been living on the $45,000 a year her husband is paid as maintenance crew leader at the Rock County jail—and about $100,000 in savings they’ve gone through. “President Obama had indicated there would be all kind of those jobs,” McWilliams says, “but I am still waiting on that.”

Taking a Shine to SHINE Medical

As dislocated workers such as McWilliams strive to become workers again, perhaps the single thing that makes their struggle most poignant is how hard Janesville has been trying to bring jobs to town. And as the White House and policy specialists elsewhere nudge two-year colleges to step up their game, to work in lockstep with local business to turn out people with skills in demand for the jobs that exist, Blackhawk is a real role model.

A month before the General Motors plant’s final day, Rock County’s economic development leaders formed a broad alliance called CORD (Collaborative Organizations Responding to Dislocation.) Blackhawk was part of it. In March 2009, a month before Mike Vaughn’s final day at Lear, CORD brought in representatives of seven agencies each from the federal government and the state for a brainstorming workshop. In July, 2010, Ed Montgomery, at the time the head of the White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers, traveled to Janesville to talk about rebuilding the local economy. CORD also brought consultants from the University of Michigan’s Community Economic Adjustment Program, who have helped dozens of places around the country devise recovery strategies after their economies have been knocked askew. “There have been few examples of community collaboration,” the Michigan consultants wrote, “like the one occurring in Rock County as a result of the massive automotive manufacturing dislocations in the city of Janesville.”

Long before it became politically fashionable – and economically urgent -- Wisconsin has required each of its technical colleges to keep a business advisory committee for each of its academic programs; Blackhawks’ advisors meet three or four times a year. Last December, Blackhawk convened a business-education seminar. CEOs and human resource managers from local companies, such as United Alloy, Inc., a custom metal fabricator in town, sat with college administrators and instructors for blunt talk about what kind of skills they want when they hire.

Blackhawk’s focus reaches beyond companies that already exist. “What’s really good in a small town,” Kennedy said, “is the economic development people call you and say, ‘Sharon, we’ve got someone who is interested. This is their field, what do you have for them, and can you get back to me in 72 hours?’ And we do.” Blackhawk has been involved in Janesville’s courtship of a manufacturer of medical isotopes, called SHINE Medical Technologies, a start-up based in Madison. The planned facility would offer more than 100 jobs but not until 2015 at the earliest, and it faces regulatory hurdles. Still, the college already has developed a proposed curriculum for general education and manufacturing courses and Lakeshore Techical College, in the northeast part of the state, would create a nuclear-science curriculum. After a story appeared in the Janesville Gazette about this possibility, Kennedy said, “Our switchboard was lit up.”

Despite Blackhawk’s sturdy relationship with local businesses, companies are not always willing to participate. More than a year ago, Blackhawk’s president, Tom Eckert, announced a public-private partnership to turn an empty factory in town into a state-of-the art facility to teach advanced manufacturing. The idea fits with a federal program to invest in new manufacturing technologies as a way of improving the country’s global competitiveness. The National Science Foundation offers colleges grants for such projects, but they require private investments from local businesses up front. “Tom has been meeting with a bunch of CEOs,” Kennedy said. “They are very reluctant to do it. No one wants to go first. . . We have been talking about this for a year. You get people’s expectations up.” This summer, Eckert announced that the college would postpone the project and consider whether it might be less expensive at another site.

The Hurdle of the Long Commute

Innovative efforts, in other words, are not the same as results. Rock County became Wisconsin’s first to certify empty sites as “shovel ready” property that could attract new employers. So far, the three shovel-ready office parks are largely empty.

In January, St. Mary’s Janesville Hospital opened, prompting the single largest hiring burst of the past few years. According to Joan Neeno, a spokewoman for the hospital, 13,000 applications arrived for 350 openings. Some people applied for every job available. Because it is new, Neeno says, “We needed people who could hit the ground running. We couldn’t really bring people up to speed and train them as their first job.” So of the 350 hires, the human resource director there knows of just three—two in the medical lab and an engineer who became a nurse—who had been laid off and retrained at Blackhawk. Even though the human resource director sits on the college’s governing board.

The county’s economic development director, James Otterstein, thinks the people coming out of Blackhawk, and others in town who still need work, must consider longer commutes. If jobs are still not coming back in Janesville, signs of economic life, he believes, are stirring within an hour’s drive in Madison and in Illinois and Iowa. The Chrysler plant in Belvidere, Ill., downsizing when Kath left, recently announced it was hiring 1,800 workers to build a new compact car.

Jeremy Torpy, an extroverted 40-year-old, thought hard about one of those Chrysler jobs. He had always liked computers. When he started at Blackhawk the fall of 2008—weeks after he lost his GM job of 13 years—he looked at the college’s charts of likely salaries in various fields and decided to learn to become an IT network specialist. He studied programming and routers, ports and protocols. Afterwards, he bounced through a couple of jobs, including one giving computer advice by telephone on a customer service line. He disliked it so much he quit. He thought he was going to get hired as an IT network administrator in an organic foods company in northern Wisconsin – a job with health benefits, free bread and milk, and even a masseuse who comes in once a week. His interview was on February 10, 2010 – a lucky day, he thought, because February 10, 1997, was his GM anniversary. He thought he had a great interview — but didn’t get the job. So he has been working at Woodman’s Market, first bagging groceries and now wrapping ground beef and slicing deli meats.

When he heard that Chrysler was hiring, he applied. He took a drug test, drove to Chicago for a physical and got a notice to report at 6 one February morning for new employee orientation. And the more he thought about it, the less sense it all made—driving two hours a day roundtrip to go back into an auto plant, making—when he figured in the gas—not much more than half what he had been paid at GM. At Woodman’s, he’s gotten a raise, so he makes $13.50 an hour, a little more than than his pay 15 years ago, before General Motors, as an assistant manager at Happy Joe’s Pizza and Ice Cream Parlor. But after 15 months at Woodman’s, he will get good health insurance. In the meantime, he keeps looking for another job. This summer, he found an IT internship. On his laptop, he keeps careful track of each application, and each job he doesn’t get, using the Excel skills that he learned at Blackhawk.

Of Magic and Magicians

When Obama and Romney and Ryan talk of job retraining as a salve for unemployment, they do not mention people like Jeremy Torpy, who hasn’t been able to translate what he studied into relevant work. Or Richell McWilliams, who aimed for a kind of job that hasn’t yet arrived. Or Mike Vaughn, who has a new job he loves at half his old pay. They do not mention the two-thirds of community college students who never finish. Or that it can take heroic, expensive efforts for a college to help people who arrive on campus grieving lost jobs and shattered lives, panicky to regain their old pay however they can, rusty at writing and math, having no idea how to send an email or use Word.

Across the ideological spectrum, in other words, the politics of job retraining are easier than the reality of job retraining, as I found it in Janesville.

So what then?

At the moment, alongside the political fervor for retraining is a quiet acknowledgement that, at the very least, it must be done better. And that means that the link between two-year colleges and actual jobs must become even tighter. There are competing visions for how to accomplish this. One camp favors programs—the best known of them called Georgia Works—that put unemployed people into real but sometimes-unpaid jobs for a few months while they get trained. The idea is that, once in a workplace, these people are more likely to keep working.

Others, such as a group called Jobs for the Future, urge colleges to employ “real-time intelligence,” using data-mining and other technologies to keep track of online job ads—to tailor their training programs continually to the shifting demands of the labor market.The uncomfortable reality is that more tightly targeted training may not be enough. Obama speaks often of a mismatch between the skills that companies need and would-be workers possess. This idea of a “skills gap” holds out the hope that, if unemployed people simply study the right things, they will flow into the workforce. Not everyone agrees. Anthony Carnevale, the director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce, says the skills mismatch, while real, is not the whole story. At the moment, he points out, the country has 3 million to 4 million job openings. It has more than 20 million people who could use a job, considering people who are unemployed, holding part-time jobs because that’s all they could find, or so discouraged that they’ve stopped hunting for work.

“Training doesn’t create jobs,” Carnevale told me. “Jobs create training. And people get that backwards all the time. In the real world, down at the ground level, if there’s no demand for magic, there’s no demand for magicians.”

The last time the United States was enjoying a truly magical economy was at the end of the 1990s, in the final years of the Bill Clinton Administration, when forces converged – briefly – to produce the lowest unemployment rates in a generation (under 4 percent). Readily available money, moderate oil prices, and the rapid commercialization of the Internet fed a broad-based boom. Employers scrambled to find workers, settling, in some cases, for people whom they wouldn’t have considered just a few years earlier — and to whom they provided expensive training. In April 2000, 64.7 percent of the American population above the age of 16 was employed, the highest ratio since at least 1948.

The best solution, in other words, is to find the macro-level economic alchemy that will generate jobs – even in places such as Janesville, which has lost so many. And 4 1/2 years after Obama spoke inside the hulking Janesville Assembly Plant (he has never come back to town, since it closed), their competing philosophies for how to restore robust economic growth are a main cleavage point between Democrats and Republicans as the presidential campaigns lean into their final weeks. Obama still speaks optimistically of the economic approach embodied by the stimulus plan he pushed through Congress the winter he took office, weeks after the Janesville Assembly Plant shut down. His opponents put their faith in the free market. “That means get the government out of the way, unleash entrepreneurs,” Ryan, Janesville native son, said in a campaign speech in Roanoke, VA, in August.

For the moment, neither view has yet altered the world of Sharon Kennedy, who is proud of the work that Blackhawk is doing, but knows how hard it really is. Or the world of Bob Borremans, at the Job Center inside the old K-Mart, whose staff is, nearly four years after so many jobs at General Motors and elsewhere in town went away, still seeing new clients who want government money to go back to school—more often now, people who’ve run through their unemployment benefits. “We’ve probably had $9 million to $10 million in training [subsidies] in this county the past couple years,” Borremans told me one day. “It’s very frustrating, because you find people who took the advice you gave them, and now you are in a situation where I don’t know if their life is necessarily better.”

And as they tussle over how to create jobs, neither Democrats nor Republicans have an incentive to acknowledge the real possibility that job retraining – neatly as it fits within our cultural beliefs – may not always be able to lead laid-off Americans everywhere back to their old pay. Or back to work at all.

Amy Goldstein is a staff writer on leave from the Washington Post, focusing on Janesville, Wis., as a microcosm of the effects of vanished jobs on people and the places where they live. The Joyce Foundation, Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, and ProPublica have provided support. She can be reached at goldsteina@washpost.com.


Dealing With Student Debt: Join Our Google Plus Chat

$
0
0

Students aren’t the only ones graduating with massive debt – parents are increasingly overburdened, too. As ProPublica’s Marian Wang and The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Beckie Supiano and Andrea Fuller explained last week, more parents are now approaching retirement saddled with debt from Parent Plus loans – a growing federal program that doesn’t verify whether applicants can afford to repay the loans.


The fact that more parents are taking on the debt burden for their children’s college education is symptomatic of the ballooning cost of higher education. And the systemic shift in financial aid brings up some important questions: Who should be responsible for ensuring families only assume loans they can afford? As college costs continue to rise, will we eventually hit a financial aid ceiling? Do families really need to pay the price for an elite, private institution?

Friday at 2 p.m. ET, join ProPublica’s Marian Wang the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Beckie Supiano and financial aid expert Mark Kantrowitz for a Google Plus hangout on these issues.

Want to join? RSVP below. All you need is a gmail address (and, of course, an active Google Plus account). We’re particularly interested in involving folks who work in financial aid at a higher education institution, as well as parents and students who want to learn more. If that’s you, RSVP!


We’ll accommodate as many guests as we can.
 

Is BofA’s Foreclosure Review Really Independent? You Be the Judge

$
0
0

Late last year, the country's bank regulators launched a massive program to evaluate millions of foreclosure cases and compensate homeowners who fell victim to the banks' flawed or illegal practices. Regulators dubbed it the "Independent Foreclosure Review" to emphasize that the banks would not be making key decisions about loans they had made or serviced.

But a raft of evidence — internal Bank of America memos and emails obtained by ProPublica, interviews with two bank staff members who have worked on the review, and little-noticed documents released late last year by a federal banking regulator — throw the independence of the review into serious doubt. Together, they indicate that Bank of America — the financial giant with the largest number of homeowners eligible for the program — is performing much of the work itself.

The ultimate decision as to whether and how much a homeowner will be compensated is not made by Bank of America, the evidence shows, but is based largely on work that the bank itself performs. One current employee called that crucial judgment "only a matter of double checking" the bank's work.

Moreover, the bank gets a chance to challenge that key decision before it becomes final — an opportunity not given to homeowners.

Bank of America strongly objects to ProPublica's analysis. It insists that the independence of the review has never been compromised. It maintains that its role "has been and remains gathering documents." While it may discover "an error" in the course of that work, the bank says that an independent review conducted by an outside firm "is the sole and final basis" for determining whether homeowners have been harmed and how much compensation they merit.

A bank spokesman questioned ProPublica's fairness, writing that "there are no facts to support your claim. Yet it seems you have made a decision to move forward with a story based on speculation and a preconceived notion of this issue."

Bank of America's regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), also maintained that the review was independent. After seeing the internal bank documents obtained by ProPublica, the OCC investigated, officials said. The OCC concluded that the documents, which include a memo sent by Bank of America executives to the hundreds of bank employees working on the Independent Foreclosure Review, are "incomplete and inaccurate," said Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision Morris Morgan.

But the documents and interviews tell a sharply different story, and the stakes are high. The maximum cash compensation a homeowner can win through the foreclosure review is $125,000. Regulators set different amounts for the various errors and abuses homeowners endured, and those distinctions can result in widely differing payments — for instance $15,000 instead of $125,000 for homeowners who suffered very similar abuses.

ProPublica provided the internal Bank of America documents to Sen. Robert Menendez, who chaired a congressional hearing overseeing the foreclosure reviews. He said, "Congress was led to believe that the consultants would be analyzing homeowner foreclosures completely independently of the Wall Street banks, but these memos raise serious questions as to whether that's true. If banks are trying to skew the results in their favor, regulators should stop that immediately."

The senator also said that regulators "should ensure that homeowners have the same opportunities banks do to influence and contest the findings of the foreclosure reviews."

The Document Trail

Federal regulators designed the program to work like this: Each of the big banks would hire an "independent consultant" to conduct reviews of the bank's foreclosure cases. To ensure that these consultants really were independent, the regulators had to approve them. In September 2011, Bank of America hired Promontory Financial Group to be its independent consultant.

Two months later, the OCC released the contract between Bank of America and Promontory. The 118-page document received little notice, but it clearly spells out that Promontory will make its decision only after reviewing the bank's own analysis of each homeowner's claim.

When a homeowner sends in a complaint about the way Bank of America handled his or her foreclosure, the contract states, the bank "will process the complaint and provide the complaint, supporting resolution documentation, report of its findings, and proposed resolution to Promontory for independent review and decision concerning the complaint at issue." Promontory, the contract continues, will then review the "complaints and claims, together with [Bank of America's] recommended resolution and supporting documentation, and provide a decision on the complaint."

Job ads posted in the fall of 2011 for "Foreclosure File Reviewer" positions at Bank of America reflect this scope of work. Among the job duties listed in one ad were "Complete Claim Review and perform Harm Evaluation according to Promontory/OCC definitions"; "If there was financial injury, determine the amount"; and "Perform final determination of Harm." The ads were posted by staffing companies, but the bank confirmed to ProPublica it was the ultimate employer.

An internal bank document created to train employees on their role in the reviews also describes a "claim review" process at the bank. Employees would be running tests on the files to see if there was "harm done to the customer as a result of faulty servicing."

Seven months after the review program had been underway, regulators released their plan for how homeowners would be compensated for abuses and errors. The bank's role then changed, the internal documents say.

A June 2012 internal memo from Bank of America executives to its employees working on the review says the bank will perform all analyses except the final determination of how much, if any, compensation the homeowner deserved.

The OCC has specified eight tests to evaluate whether a homeowner was harmed by a bank, ranging from wrongly rejecting attempts to win loan modifications to charging bogus fees. Bank of America would perform seven of these tests, the memo states, but the final test — the decision of what compensation the homeowner would receive — would be performed by Promontory.

The bank executives wrote that moving the final test over to Promontory would make the entire process more efficient. Bank of America would be able to devote more resources to its seven tests and especially "the highly complex and time consuming" test of whether the homeowner was correctly reviewed for a loan modification. The division of labor — with Bank of America analyzing the files for problems and Promontory deciding on the appropriate compensation based on those problems — meant that homeowners who qualified for compensation would get their checks sooner, they wrote.

The executives hailed the move as bolstering the integrity of the reviews. The change "ensures that harm and financial injury determinations are made solely by the Independent Consultant, further underscoring our commitment to the independence of the [Independent Foreclosure Review]."

Employees who have worked on Bank of America's foreclosure review told ProPublica the memo reflects what they've been hired to do: analyze homeowners' claims, not merely fetch documents for Promontory to analyze. Following a procedure set out by Promontory, they perform tests to see if the bank properly handled the loan. Their work, Bank of America training materials and managers told them, is crucial to the final decision of how much if any compensation homeowners will receive.

As for Promontory's role in making the final determination, a Bank of America employee said the widespread understanding among bank staff working on the review was that "it's only a matter of double-checking."

Bank of America appears to have far more employees working on the review than does Promontory. The bank's employees number about 1,750 according to a spokesman, while Promontory's contract for the review estimates it will need 469. Promontory declined to say how many staff are currently working on the review. Its contract estimated that roughly 290,000 files would need to be reviewed over about a year.

OCC deputy comptroller Morris said banks might have more staff for the reviews than the consultants because gathering all necessary documents can be time consuming.

The Bank of America memo also announced another change: the creation of a de facto appeals procedure for the bank. Designed in part "as a response" to Promontory deciding homeowner compensation, the bank would be adding an "Additional Information" unit, the executives wrote. The unit's job, an employee said, is to respond when Promontory finds that a homeowner deserves compensation by producing any evidence that the bank didn't commit the abuse or error.

In contrast, homeowners who file a complaint will have no opportunity to appeal the determination of whether they deserve compensation or not.

ProPublica asked Bank of America and Promontory to provide any additional internal documents that would shed more light on the roles played by the bank and Promontory. They declined to make any available.

The Bank Responds

Bank of America, Promontory, and the OCC all hotly disputed the idea that the bank's analysis plays any role in the final, all-important compensation decision. But their accounts changed over time, and sometimes contradicted each other as to why and whether Bank of America was analyzing the files rather than merely gathering documents and handing them over to Promontory.

Promontory spokeswoman Debra Cope said Bank of America's employees "are responsible only for the clerical work of assembling the documents and files." Promontory employees analyze the material assembled by Bank of America "independently with no involvement from [Bank of America]," she said. "We perform all the tests."

Initially, the OCC claimed Bank of America's reviews were mainly only for its own use. Morgan, the OCC official, said Bank of America "is free to do its own internal analysis of foreclosure files, but that has nothing to do with the Independent Foreclosure Review."

He went on to explain that the two main reasons a bank might run the tests on its own were to help it gather all necessary documents for the consultant's review and "to learn from and address errors it may have made."

Later, the OCC acknowledged that the results of the bank's own reviews are in fact communicated to the independent consultant. "The independent consultant may review the servicer's...findings, but will conduct its own review and draw its own conclusions," said OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard.

Frahm, the Bank of America spokesman, said, the internal memo gave the wrong impression because it was intended only for bank employees. "Clearly, if this was something to be released externally, there would have been more context setting and even different word choice to ensure greater clarity."

He strenuously objected to the idea that Bank of America employees conduct any analysis of the files at all. "Bank of America employees conduct no file reviews, they only gather documents necessary to stage files for Promontory," he said.

He later acknowledged that as "part of this file staging process, the bank does inform Promontory if it appears an error was made," but that Promontory "performs their own analysis on each file and Promontory's analysis is the sole and final basis for outcomes."

With regard to the bank having a chance to contest the consultant's final determination of compensation, the Bank of America spokesman said the "Additional Information" unit's job is "to ensure all facts and documents were considered in the finding of financial injury and provided to Promontory for consideration."

The OCC said it was wrong to characterize the unit's work as an appeals opportunity for the bank. "[A]ll servicers have some form of additional information teams responsible for locating and providing all necessary information and documents to independent consultants so they can effectively conduct their reviews," said Hubbard. As for homeowners having no chance to contest the review's conclusions, he said homeowners who don't agree with the outcome of the reviews can still sue the bank, since they don't waive any legal rights by accepting whatever compensation is offered.

Government's Biggest Effort

Regulators created the Independent Foreclosure Review in the wake of the fall 2010 robo-signing scandal, in which it was revealed that banks had filed false affidavits in thousands of foreclosure cases. The foreclosure review would cover a range of bank errors and abuses, including botched handling of loan modifications and charging bogus fees. The program currently covers homeowners whose loans were serviced by fourteen U.S. banks and who were in foreclosure at any point during 2009 or 2010. At the end of 2011, about 4.4 million letters were mailed to potentially eligible homeowners inviting them to request a review.

The review is the government's largest effort to compensate victims of the crisis. The separate $25 billion legal settlement reached earlier this year between the federal government, state attorneys general, and five big banks included about $1.5 billion in payments to homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure, but those payments, likely in the range of $1,500 to $2,000, will be the same for all homeowners who make a claim regardless of the circumstances.

In response to criticism that the payments were too small, federal officials pointed to the Independent Foreclosure Review as the best place for the victims of the worst abuses to be compensated. For example, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said at a February press conference announcing the settlement that the small payments were "always designed to sit in parallel" to the foreclosure review, where "a homeowner can come in, have their claims reviewed at the cost of the banks, and full compensation is made for the wrong at the cost of the banks."

But relatively few homeowners have chosen to participate in the Independent Foreclosure Review. As of late September, about 240,000 claims had been sent in, a response rate of about 5.5 percent, according to the OCC. Consumer advocates and the Government Accountability Office have faulted the "Request for Review" letters that regulators sent to homeowners as being confusing and difficult to understand.

From the launch of the Independent Foreclosure Review, critics, other bank regulators among them, have questioned its independence. In a new book, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Sheila Bair writes that she doubted the consultants could truly be independent, because they relied on the banks for a large amount of business: "Why would they conduct a thorough review that could end up costing the banks a lot of money to compensate past victims?"

Promontory has worked previously for Bank of America, but the number and nature of engagements are secret. In the company's contract with Bank of America for the foreclosure review, for instance, there's a page and a half of redacted text under the heading, "Promontory's Past Work with [Bank of America Corporation]." Promontory's spokeswoman said she couldn't comment on confidential client work. An article in The New York Times last year detailed one engagement: Promontory consulted on Bank of America's turnaround plan to cut jobs and costs called "Project New BAC."

Shown the internal Bank of America documents, Bair said they make it seem like her fears have been realized. "This raises new issues of whether the independent consultants are really doing the work or whether they're relying on the banks to do it. It's disheartening."

Paul Ryan Reading Guide: The Best Reporting on the VP Candidate

$
0
0

Editor's note: This post was first published Aug. 11, 2012. It was corrected Aug. 12 and updated with new material Aug. 15 and Oct. 11. 

We’ve had several days to get to know Rep. Paul Ryan on the campaign trail, which means we’ve also had more time to review Ryan’s voting record. We’ve compiled a few more stories below -- please keep your suggestions coming in the comments or tag them on Twitter with #RyanReads.  

Paul Ryan’s voting record: Big-spending conservatism, Politico, August 2012
Politico scrubs Ryan’s voting record to see how his votes line up with his budget-cutting ways and finds that while he generally takes the party line, he has backed big-ticket legislation including the $700 billion TARP bailout, the 2003 Medicare prescription drug package and Alaska’s notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Ryan’s non-budget votes, Washington Post, August 2012
Most of the focus on Ryan has been on the congressman’s much-debated budget. But Washington Post’s Wonkblog tallies at least 71 bills or amendments that Ryan has sponsored in his Congressional career. An overview of legislation Ryan has sponsored on issues such as Social Security, health care, and presidential veto powers as well as Ryan’s complete voting record from Project Vote Smart.

What is Paul Ryan worth?, Huffington Post, August 2012
Paul Ryan’s average net worth has grown since he was elected, from $382,865 in 1999 to $4.9 million in 2011, according to calculations by The Huffington Post’s Paul Blumenthal. But that growth had little to do with his political influence and more to do with his marriage to wealthy  Washington lobbyist Janna Little.

Background

Want help going beyond the horse race? We're gathering the best stories out there on Congressman Paul Ryan, his positions, and his background. Have other stories to share? 

Fussbudget, The New Yorker, August 2012
This sweeping profile is a great introduction to Paul Ryan and his politics. Starting in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, it lays out the evolution of Ryan’s economic beliefs, and his rise through the G.O.P – from his early affinity to Ayn Rand to failed attempts at privatizing Social Security, to his Path to Prosperity budget plan, which would make radical changes in Medicaid and other social programs. The article also looks at the ways that federal-funded projects have helped Ryan’s hometown--and notes that Ryan’s plan “would drastically reduce the parts of the budget” that are funding exactly these kinds of projects.

Ryan shines as GOP seeks vision, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 2009
A broad look at Ryan from his home-state paper at a time when Ryan’s national profile was on the rise. Ryan discusses, among other things, how having gay friends led him to break with his party on a gay rights bill in Congress and his “real passion” -- bowhunting.

The Legendary Paul Ryan, New York Magazine, April 2012
A look at how the Republican party rallied around Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity,” putting the newcomer’s fiscal agenda at the center of the 2012 presidential campaign well before voters had even chosen Romney as their Republican nominee.

On the paradox of Paul Ryan, The American Conservative, April 2012
What does Mitt Romney gain from Paul Ryan? Romney may be betting on a boost from conservatives who view Ryan as a hero for his aggressive stance on entitlements and federal spending, but as W. James Antle III points out, that may not be enough to win over grassroots conservatives. Antle writes that despite his anti-entitlements campaign, Ryan’s voting record “more closely resembles that of the Republicans who have lost to Tea Party primary challengers than that of a ruthless government-cutter.”

Man with a Plan, Weekly Standard, July 2012
The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes wrote a favorable profileof Ryan in July in the midst of veep buzz. The piece traces his entire career with a particular focus on how, in recent years, Ryan became “the intellectual leader of the Republican party.”

How Important is Altas Shrugged author Ayn Rand to Paul’s political philosophy?  The Atlas Society, April  2012
In a 2005 speech to the Atlas Society, Paul said, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand...you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism.” According to the excerpts and audio of his speech posted on the society’s website, he also said that Rand was “required reading” for his interns and staff.  But recently, Ryan has said while he had read Rand’s novels when he was young, his supposed obsession with her was “an urban legend.” "I reject her philosophy," Ryan told Robert Costa at National Review in April. "It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview.”

Policy

A Closer Look at Ryan’s Budget Roadmaps, The New York Times, August 2012
As part of an in-depth look at Ryan’s polarizing House Republican budget plan, the New York Times highlights two studies of how the plan would affect Americans.  One, a long-term analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of some of Ryan's suggested changes to Medicare and Medicaid, found that, “Under the proposal, most elderly people who would be entitled to premium support payments would pay more for their health carethan they would pay under the current Medicare system.The other, a study by the Tax Policy Centerof the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, found that “the tax cuts in Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget plan would result in huge benefits for high-income peopleand very modest—or no— benefits for low income working households.”

What's Paul Ryan's foreign policy?  Foreign Policy, April 2012
While Ryan has a limited record on international affairs, he has spoken about everything from how to handle China (less hawkishly than Romney)  to getting cosier with rising powers India and Brazil. Foreign Policy’s helpful overview says the overall picture that emerges is “a bit of a Rorschach test.”  Ryan says the U.S. should stay deeply engaged-- "America is the greatest force for human freedom the world has ever seen” -- while he has also called for cutting funding for U.S. international aid.

Where the Candidates Stand on Medicare and Medicaid, ProPublica, September 2012

Paul Ryan supports major Medicare reforms that “almost precisely” mirror Romney’s, including the creation of a private marketplace where seniors would use federal vouchers to purchase health insurance – a change that would start in 2023. He also wants to repeal Obamacare (an idea not well received at his September speech to the AARP convention).

Obama, Romney, Ryan All Endorse Retraining for Jobless – But Are They Right?, ProPublica, October 2012 

Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin is a case study for a jobs strategy all candidates, including Ryan, endorse – retraining programs for the “long-term unemployed.” However, the government hasn’t collected comprehensive data on these programs since the recession. And when we did it, we found that the realities of retraining may not be as rosy as the politics. 

Ryan’s personal finances and connections

Ryan is wealthy--but not by Romney standards. The congressman reported 2011 assets valued at between $2.4 and $9.3 million, according to an Associated Press report looking at his recently filed financial disclosure form. The money is spread in small chunks over various stock investments and in business interests in Wisconsin and his wife’s home state of Oklahoma. You can browse his assets here(.pdf). Ryan also filed an amendmentto his disclosure noting that his wife's mother died in 2010 and the family gained interest in a trust worth between $1 and $5 million.

Paul Ryan’s Shrewd Budget Payday, Daily Beast, June 2011
The website takes a closer look at mining, mineral, and energy holdings owned by Ryan -- primarily in his wife’s home state of Oklahoma -- and how they would be positively affected by Ryan’s proposed tax policies. A Ryan spokesman told the Daily Beast: “These are properties that Congressman Ryan married into. It’s not something he has a lot of control over.” The piece also reports that relatives of Ryan have received federal farming subsidies.

Paul Ryan has got plenty of friends on K Street, Politico, August 2012
A brief look at the friends Ryan his wife Janna have made on K Street in their years in Washington, among them former Ohio congressman Mike Oxley (of Sarbanes-Oxley fame), who is now a lobbyist for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Janna Ryan, a tax attorney, herself worked as a lobbyist for PriceWaterhouseCooper, the article reports.  

Ryan’s Unlikely Alliance with Organized Labor  Mother Jones, May 2011
Ryan’s family construction business relies on union labor. “I grew up in organized labor,” Ryan told the Milwaukee Magazine in 2005. “I have a lot of constituents who are in organized labor. I really do not have this ‘us against them’ mentality.” As a congressman, Paul has worked closely with local union leaders and fought to protect the wages of construction workers. While many of his policy plans are directly opposed to what unions want, some unions have continued to support him. Over the course of his career, the Carpenters & Joiners Union has given him $57,500---only slightly less than he has received from Koch Industries, according to The Center for Responsive Politics.

Correction: This post originally said that the Mother Jones article was published in November 2012. It was actually published in May 2011.

Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting?

$
0
0

Are Big Bird’s 15 minutes up yet? Last week, Mitt Romney pulled public broadcasting into the presidential campaign when he said he would “stop the subsidy” to PBS, despite his love for the furry yellow Muppet.

The remark launched endless Internet memes, fueled late night television jokes and spawned a satirical Obama campaign ad (which the Sesame Workshop, a private, non-partisan charitable organization, has requested the campaign pull). Given the recent flurry of attention, we thought it would be helpful to examine how much federal funding actually affects public broadcasting.

How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting?

It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

This amounts to roughly .012 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget – or about $1.35 per person per year. (Some global perspective: elsewhere in the world, Canada spends $22.48 per citizen, Japan $58.86 per citizen, the United Kingdom $80.36 per citizen, and Denmark, $101 per citizen.)

This sounds like a drop in the bucket. Why would Romney focus on such a small figure?

Because Romney’s approach is to target every government program he thinks is “not essential.” The candidate’s current spending plan not only calls for eliminating Obamacare and privatizing Amtrak, but deep reductions in subsidies to CPB and cultural agencies such as the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities – expenditures he says are “things the American people can’t afford.”

Public broadcasting also happens to be a popular target among conservatives, who’ve long portrayed it as an example of wasteful government spending (in the mid-90s, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed pulling federal funding from the CPB altogether).

Romney’s no exception on the campaign trail. As ABC News’ The Note reports, last week’s debate wasn’t the first time Romney has suggested Sesame Street seek outside advertisers to earn its keep. At a campaign stop last December, Romney told voters, “we’re not going to kill Big Bird, but Big Bird’s going to have to have advertisements, all right?”

How crucial is federal funding to public broadcasting?

Sesame Workshop’s executive vice president told CNN last week that the company receives “very, very little funding from PBS.” Indeed, the nonprofit generated nearly two-thirds of its $133 million revenue in 2010 from royalties and product licensing alone, according to its website. Its executives are also handsomely compensated: former CEO and president Gary Knell (who now runs NPR) earned $718,456 in executive pay plus $270,000 in bonuses in 2010. So, as the Washington Post points out, Big Bird doesn’t exactly depend on the federal government for survival.

PBS draws roughly 15 percent of its revenue from the CPB. NPR’s revenue mostly comes from member station dues and fees, with 2 percent coming from CPB-issued grants. Member stations, in turn, receive about 11 percent in federal grants. According to this CPB report, most revenue to both public radio and television (about 59 percent) consists of donations from individuals, corporate underwriters and private grants, followed by state and local support (roughly 20 percent).

But from a leverage standpoint, PBS says it’s pretty important. Each federal dollar local stations receive generates roughly six dollars from local sources as a type of bargaining chip, according to a coalition of public broadcasting stations, producers and viewers.

Are there downsides to scaling back federal funding?

Yes. While shows like “Sesame Street” may remain safe under Romney’s plan, its viewers in remote areas wouldn’t fare as well. Public television and radio stations in poor, rural areas depend the most on federal support to survive. So while large public television markets producing more than $10 million in annual revenue require just 10 percent of federal funds to get by, its counterparts in small towns like Bethel, Ala., or Odessa, Texas, may very well need up to four times that much to operate.

How many markets could be at risk today?

A CPB-commissioned study released earlier this year estimated 54 public television stations (31 in rural areas) in 19 states at “high risk” of going dark if stripped of federal funding. The study also found 76 public radio stations (47 in rural areas) in 38 states at “high risk” of going silent without federal funding.

Aren’t there other sources of news, culture and entertainment over the airwaves?

Yes, but public broadcasting has a specific mission of bringing a distinct brand of educational and cultural programming – free of commercial trappings – to a broad swath of the American public.

In establishing the CPB 45 years ago, Congress envisioned a broadcasting service that would encourage development of programming to address “the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities,” and which could be made “available to all citizens of the United States.”

In some areas of the country, public broadcasting still remains the only option, commercial or otherwise: at least 10 public radio stations around the country offer the only broadcast service, radio or television included, to their community.

Have there been prior attempts to defund public broadcasting?

Yes. In 2010, a flap over the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams (now a Fox News contributor) for comments he made about Muslims heightened the cries to cut NPR off from federal grants. Last year, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to block NPR from receiving such grants.

Today, conservatives also argue that the smorgasbord of media offerings renders the form of public television obsolete. As the National Review recently put it, “If PBS doesn’t do it, 10 million others will.” Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, arguethat the right to watch commercial-free TV “does not strike me as a basic human right” and that if “private funders feel it’s important for South Dakotans to watch Big Bird, they can make that happen with their own tax-deductible contributions.”

Can public broadcasting turn to alternate forms of funding?

Yes, but with varying degrees of success. In recent years, budget cuts have forced states to decrease funding for public broadcasting, the New York Times reported early this year. CPB also notes that revenue from individual donations went from $373 million in 1999 to $349 million in 2005.

CPB claims private advertising isn’t a solution — and at least one independent analysis estimated it could even lead to net losses by raising operating costs and diminishing support from corporate underwriters or private foundations. According to the report, “a shift to a commercial advertising model would lead to a chase for ratings and move public broadcasters off their fundamental role in lifting the educational and informational boat for all Americans.”

What’s the Obama administration’s stance?

In 2010, the president’s bipartisan deficit budget commission proposed cutting funding to CPB to reduce the federal deficit. But the campaign was quick to seize on the issue with its Big Bird ad. First lady Michelle Obama followed suit, telling Virginia voters this week, “We all know good and well that cutting Sesame Street is no way to balance a budget.”

The candidates aside, what does the public think?

A March 2011 poll shows that more than two-thirds of the public opposes eliminating government funding for public broadcasting. A more recent poll indicates that 55 percent of voters oppose such cuts to public television.

MuckReads Podcast: Pawns in the War on Drugs

$
0
0

In the government's war on drugs, confidential informants are the foot soldiers — an inexpensive (and often unregulated) way to outsource the work of undercover cops. But when first-time offenders, even juveniles, are recruited for these high-risk operations, reporter Sarah Stillman found the consequences sometimes proved fatal.

She joins ProPublica managing editor Steve Engelberg in the podcast studio this week to discuss how she began this in-depth investigation, how the potentially lethal risks of working as a C.I. are often incommensurate to the charges these young informants are facing, and how people across the country have reacted to her story.

You can read Stillman's report, "The Throwaways," on the New Yorker's website and listen to this podcast on iTunes and Stitcher. Have suggestions for our next MuckReads podcast? Tweet a link with the hashtag #MuckReads or email muckreads@propublica.org.

Viewing all 7867 articles
Browse latest View live