The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman (Movie Trailer) - Grassroots Education Movement (GEMNYC)...

Read original...

Parents and teachers on the front lines fighting for Real Education Reform.


A group of parents and educators with Grassroots Education Movement (GEMNYC) are responding to the "Waiting for Superman" film with a film of their own. They are the real reformers. As one patent activist says, "Are you waiting for Superman? YOU are the Real Heroes." This is the trailer. The film is expected to be released in late October.


For more info visit:


The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman


Grassroots Education Movement (GEMNYC)

Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Taxing The Rich Is Uncool And Stupid by Celeste Katz - The Daily Politics - NY Daily News

Read original...

Mayor Bloomberg gave his usual rallying cry not to tax the rich during his Q&A with reporters today -- this time railing against Albany’s plan to tax hedge funders, our Kate Lucadamo reports:

“I think it’s the bet thing that ever happened to Connecticut,” he quipped, stone-faced. “I can’t imagine why every hedge fund wouldn’t pick up and move.”

Bloomberg has warned before that taxing the rich will hurt the local economy, but said the hedge fund industry is particularly vulnerable because “hedge funds are a bunch of desks with terminals on them. They could go anyplace. We’ve lost a lot of business to Connecticut and this would send more of them.”

But he said Gov. Paterson is blaming the Legislature for the tax-the-wealthy proposals, particularly higher taxes for high earners.

“The Governor said to me this morning when I talked to him that he is not in favor of this. The Legislature has insisted on the raising taxes on the wealthy,” said Bloomberg.

He also called the cap on charitable deductions “as crazy as the hedge fund thing.”

(I should note here that NYC gets a bit of an exception on this one.)

With Mayor as Companion, a Senate Run Was a No-Go by Michael Barbaro - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com

Is this woman just naive or ignorant...She wonders why Republican Senate leadership would want her to run for the senate with her non-Republican social views...Well, do you think her boyfriend's BILLIONS have anything to do with it...?? Duh...It's the same reason the NYS Republican senate campaign committee and the Independence Party never objected to Bloomberg's money...And, now she's endorsing former Wall Street hedge fund operator Reshma Saujani against Carolyn Maloney...This after these people nearly imploded our national and the world economy...Have these people ever met a rich person they didn't like..?

Read original...

Blame the mayor –- or at least the tricky nature of two-career couples.

Diana L. Taylor, the former New York state banking superintendent and the companion of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, acknowledged Monday for the first time that she “really wanted” to run for the United States Senate as a Republican this year, but decided against it because of her boyfriend’s day job.

“My significant other is the mayor of New York City, so that would be really complicated,” she told the audience at a fund-raiser for David Malpass, a Republican contender for the Senate seat she coveted.

“So I decided not to run,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that by sitting out the race, she would leave Mr. Bloomberg “running New York City without having to worry about this other thing.”

It was Ms. Taylor’s most detailed -– and her only public -– discussion of her Senate ambitions, which were heavily encouraged by state and national Republican leaders, who are seeking a big-name candidate to challenge the Democratic incumbent, Kirsten E. Gillibrand.

And it was a small but telling glimpse into the relationship between two of New York City’s most high-powered people: Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire media mogul, and Ms. Taylor, a director at Citigroup, the giant bank, the chairwoman of Accion, a leading microfinance lender, and the chairwoman of the Hudson River Park Trust, which oversees the waterfront park on the West Side of Manhattan.

In her remarks, Ms. Taylor said she was surprised by the enthusiasm of national Republican leaders, like Senators Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, who tried to recruit her to run earlier this year. She recalled warning them that “my social outlook is not particularly Republican,” because she “is totally for gun control” and supports abortion rights.

Even though Ms. Taylor and the mayor disagreed on the wisdom of her candidacy, they clearly share a deep skepticism of career politicians. She said she seriously weighed a Senate run because “I was so angry” at events unfolding in Washington, where, she said, lawmakers charged with reforming the nation’s financial system possessed “no understanding” of the markets and “were doing it for political reasons every step of the way.”

She quoted a friend’s description of elected officials in Washington — although it seemed like she was speaking for herself. “Every politician in office today is concerned about three things,” she said. “Number one: getting elected or re-elected. The second thing is making sure that their party is in control. The third thing is so far behind that it doesn’t really matter.”

Her endorsement of Mr. Malpass, a former Treasury official in the Reagan administration and economist at Bear Stearns, is the latest sign of her interest in the political sphere. She recently endorsed a Democratic Congressional candidate in New York, Reshma Saujani, who is challenging Representative Carolyn B. Maloney.

The fund-raiser took place within the wood-paneled confines of the Women’s National Republican Club on West 51st Street in Midtown, where portraits of Ronald Reagan compete for space with those of Barbara Bush. Ms. Taylor praised Mr. Malpass’s long record in government and the private sector as she introduced him.

“We need people like you in the U.S Senate who understand the economy, think about the issues and have done their homework,” she said before an audience of several dozen women, who donated at least $200 a person.

She added, “The thing that struck me about David was, I was hearing from him all the things I would want to do in the Senate.”

Mr. Malpass is promoting himself as a political outsider and fiscal conservative (not unlike Mr. Bloomberg, or, for that matter, Ms. Taylor). In his remarks, Mr. Malpass railed against what he said was excessive spending, unbridled deficits and unnecessary taxes imposed by lawmakers in Washington.

At times, the fund-raiser seemed like the Taylor-Malpass show. When Mr. Malpass was asked about his stance supporting abortion rights, and how it would play with national Republicans, Ms. Taylor politely interrupted with a brief summary of her own experience with the party’s leaders.

Ms. Taylor said she was “really surprised” at how welcoming they were to her liberal social views. The Republican officials with whom she met, she said, acknowledged that the party’s candidates in New York would hold different views from those in more conservative sections of the country.

At another point, Mr. Malpass asked Ms. Taylor to weigh in when he was asked how Hispanic voters were reacting to President Obama’s health care overhaul.

Ms. Taylor observed that Hispanic voters were more conservative than many political observers realized. “At this point,” she said, “they are leaving the Democratic Party in droves.”

Taxing Wall Street Would Ease Budget Cuts by Brad Lander and Melissa Mark-Viverito - Gotham Gazette Commentary

Read original...

This year's budget for New York City is among the most challenging we have seen in recent years, including nearly $2 billion in painful cuts to schools, day care, senior centers, libraries, firehouses, food programs, jobs program and other essential services.

Even as working New Yorkers are bracing themselves for these cuts, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his administration have refused to consider taking a more balanced approach by enacting new revenue-generating options that would reduce cuts by asking Wall Street and the wealthiest city residents to put in their fair share. The current economic crisis has only made already longstanding inequities in our city much worse. In taking revenue options completely off the table, the administration is failing to demonstrate the leadership that the majority of New Yorkers needs in order to bring more fairness to the current budget and to secure a stable future for all residents of our city.

With an even bleaker outlook for next year, the city simply cannot wait any longer to ask the wealthiest for their fair share. This coming year, thousands of low and moderate-income families could find themselves hit by budget cuts on multiple levels and across generations -- in just one low-income area in Brooklyn, two child-care centers, a senior center, a health clinic and a public pool are all on the chopping block. Meanwhile, the safety and quality of life of our communities as a whole could be compromised by the closure of fire companies, the reduction of public health services and decreased maintenance in our parks.

How many more cuts can our families and neighborhoods endure?

What New Yorkers Say

This spring, almost 2,000 New Yorkers responded to our online survey about the city's budget and to consider revenue generating options. An overwhelming 89.4 percent said that the city should protect vital services by asking more from those who can afford to pay. Instead of solely slashing services, survey respondents preferred closing a tax loophole for hedge-fund managers and asking for just a bit more from our wealthiest citizens (Read more about the survey results here).

In spite of the financial crisis, Wall Street just had a record year, with $61 billion in profits, largely due to a taxpayer-funded bailout. Yet private equity and hedge fund managers enjoy a loophole that makes the vast majority of their income exempt from the New York City unincorporated business tax (which any other partnership or sole proprietor business is subject to). Closing the city’s "carried interest" loophole would generate $100 million to $200 million for New York City, desperately needed funding that could help restore some of our drastic cuts.

This issue has gotten the attention of Congress. The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would begin to close the federal loophole, and the Senate may be looking to do the same. Sen. Charles Schumer -- a strong supporter of Wall Street and its role in the city and state’s economy -- has come out in favor of the House's proposed change and has rejected claims that it will create adverse effects for our city’s financial sector.

Survey respondents also favor restructuring the city's personal income tax to make it fairer, and ask for a modest increase on our wealthiest residents. Right now, when all state and local taxes are considered, the wealthiest 1 percent of New Yorkers actually has a lower tax rate than the middle class, the working class or the poor.

We propose adding two additional tax brackets for high-income earners -- one for joint-filers earning income over $250,000 (to be taxed at 1.2 percent) and another for those earning income over $500,000 (to be taxed at 1.8 percent). For a household earning $500,000, this would mean just $1,000 more per year. By putting these reforms in place, the city can generate over $1 billion in new revenues, while reducing the tax burden on families earning under $40,000 (who are already exempt from federal taxes).

The working families of this city have already been asked to make enormous sacrifices in recent years, in part as a result of a regressive sales tax, property tax and water rate increases. Now they will continue to make more sacrifices as they see the erosion of the services that so many of them depend on.

It is time to ask hedge fund managers, Wall Street executives and the wealthiest New Yorkers to share in the sacrifices that we are all making in these difficult times and to put in their fair share.

Unfortunately, Bloomberg has refused to have any discussion of revenue generating options. The mayor's "dead on arrival" response to approaches supported by most New Yorkers is disappointing and short-sighted.

We can achieve a balanced approach here. There will have to be some difficult decisions and even many painful cuts. But if we adopt a fair-share approach that balances cuts with modest revenue increases from those who can most afford it, we can make sure our neighborhoods and our city remains strong and vibrant through these tough times and move together toward better times ahead.

City Council members Brad Lander of Brooklyn and Melissa Mark-Viverito of Manhattan chair the council's progressive caucus.

Attack of the Hedge-Fund Managers by Maisie McAdoo - New York Teacher

Read original...

Why do they care about schools? It’s all about money

Who paid for the recent mass mailing of the glossy flier attacking the UFT? In two words: hedge funds.
In the corner of the back page of the flier is the note “Paid for by Education Reform Now” and a Manhattan return address.
Education Reform Now is an arm of Democrats for Education Reform, started by former Daily News education reporter Joe Williams and boasting a board of major hedge-fund managers. Education Reform Now also promotes charter schools, mayoral control of schools and school choice (including vouchers for private and parochial schools) in New York, Michigan, Rhode Island and several other states.
But what they have is a business plan, not an education plan.

Who’s who?

John Petry, a partner at Gotham Capital Management, chairs the board of Education Reform Now. Petry’s Gotham Capital LLC, founded in 1985 with $7 million from junk-bond king Michael Milken, is a privately owned hedge fund that manages investments for wealthy clients, investing in equities as well as spin-offs, restructuring and takeovers.
The other board members are Sidney Hawkins Gargiulo of Hawkshaw Capital, founded in 2002 by a former Lehman Brothers analyst; John Sabat of SAC Capital, a Stamford, Conn.-based private investment firm; and Brian Zied of Maverick Capital, a Dallas-based investment advisor managing hedge funds and private investment funds.
Tracing their philanthropic interests leads quickly to New York City’s charter schools. Petry and Gotham Capital founder Joel Greenblatt fund Eva Moskowitz’s Harlem Success Charter Network and paid her $371,000 salary in her startup year. Goldblatt is chairman of Harlem Success’ board as well as chair of two of her individual schools. Petry sits on the boards of the Harlem Success Charter Network plus two schools. SAC Capital’s Sabat is a board member of two Harlem Success schools, Hawkshaw’s Gargiulo is a member of another, and Maverick Capital founder Steve Galbraith chairs yet another.
Education Reform Now spearheaded a $2 million media campaign this spring to try to lift the New York State charter cap without reforms. Its chapter in Milwaukee is lobbying for a mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee schools and for the survival of that city’s school voucher program. And the group recently campaigned for a slate of school board candidates in Buffalo pushing a charter school agenda.

The money trail

The latest public filing available for Education Reform Now shows it received contributions and grants of $1.3 million in 2008, up from $173,500 the year before. (Without doubt, the level of donations has skyrocketed since then.) The filing does not list the group’s benefactors, but one is the Robertson Foundation, the private foundation of Julian Robertson, the founder of the Tiger Management hedge fund.
The Robertson Foundation, which has assets in excess of $1 billion, gave away $71 million in 2008, including $250,000 to Education Reform Now, $1 million to the Achievement First charter network, $2 million to KIPP charters, $3 million to the New York City Center for Charter School Excellence, $7.1 million to Teach for America and $200,000 to the New Teacher Project, along with large grants to conservative churches.
In the process, hedge fund executives have become, in the words of The New York Times, “perhaps the first significant political counterweight” to teacher unions.

Why do they care?

Hedge funds follow different investment strategies, but one thing that unites them is the absence of virtually any public information about them. Hedge funds are open only to select investors who can put up sizeable funds, and they are exempt from many financial regulations. The latest best guess is that they manage more than $2 trillion in assets exclusively for wealthy investors.
What gets hedge fund managers involved in charter schools and school reform? “Charter schools appeal to the maverick instincts of many who run hedge funds,” speculates one blog post on The New York Times website.
By tapping into this instinct, Williams has helped make charters the “hot cause,” in his words, for hedge funds. He has harnessed their anti-regulatory instincts to oppose teacher unions and advocate for private management of public schools.
The hedge funds are perverting charter schools for the purpose of attempting to privatize public education. There is already close to $2 billion in public funds in the charter school system in New York State, and the hedge funds are angling to control a chunk of that money.

The political agenda

Democrats for Education Reform is part of a Wall Street effort to influence the Democratic Party. Williams and his colleagues see trade unions, a traditional backbone of the party and defender of workers’ rights, as bureaucratic stumbling blocks to the privatizing reforms they advocate.
What’s wrong with the picture is that it excludes most teachers’ views about how to fix public schools.
Comments on the petition website of Education Reform Now didn’t exactly parrot its suggested message. One person replied, “Workers organize themselves to protect themselves from folks like you. Playing politics with teachers is what hurts the kids, not seniority.” And another: “Please, even I know it takes years to become a good teacher. Removing experienced teachers so that you can save inexpensive teachers is not going to help.”
Maybe Education Reform Now could direct some hedge fund money to prevent layoffs instead of exploiting teachers’ fears about losing their jobs to further its own political agenda.