Department Of Community And Economic Development: Fill & Download for Free

Cambridge City Councilor, Leland Cheung. Leland's academic and professional experience make him well-positioned to lead Cambridge in its effort to be innovative in addition to attracting and maintaining entreprenuerial talent in the fields of education, technology and urban development. What makes him promising and up-and-coming?Academic accolades[1]:He graduated undergrad from Stanford University with a BS and BA in Physics and Economics, respectively.He earned an MS in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from Stanford in 2001.He earned an MBA in Entrepreneurship & Innovation from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 2010.Also in 2010, he earned an MPA in International Policy from .Professional accolades[2]:From 2000 to 2005, he was the Chief Information Officer at Space Adventures, the only company to have successfully launched private space explorers into space.From 2005 to 2008, he was a Senior Associate at Masthead Venture Partners, an early stage venture investor in digital media, advertising, internet, IT, etc.In 2009, he was a Summer Fellow at the U.S. Department of Energy.Starting in 2010, he has been a City Councilor in Cambridge, MA.Political accolades[3]:As Chair of the Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee, Leland supports local businesses and entrepreneurs to continue to make Cambridge a hub of innovation and promote a climate where businesses thrive.As Chair of the University Relations Committee, Leland strives to connect colleges, universities and the community together. Cambridge is home to many students who play a key role in making Cambridge a vibrant and exciting place to live. He strongly believes their role in the community is essential to its continued growth.Furthering his commitment to public service, Leland serves on the Policy Committee on Personnel and Labor Relations for the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and he also served as a mentor in Big Brothers Big Sisters of Massachusetts Bay.Personal accolades:He is the son of two immigrants, who were an engineer and a homemaker, respectively. His father emigrated from China and his mother emigrated from Canada to pursue opportunities in America.The guy commutes around Cambridge on a handmade electric scooter!For more info about Leland, see his bio from Cambridge's website[3] below:Leland Cheung is currently serving his second term on the Cambridge City Council, where he has been a strong leader in economic development, community building, and regional cooperation. In addition to being the youngest member of the Cambridge City Council, Cheung is the first currently enrolled student to be elected to the Council, as well as the first Asian American.Currently, Cheung is the chair of the Cable TV, Telecommunications & Public Utilities Committee and the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee.The son of immigrants, Cheung developed a deep appreciation for American values and the importance community participation. Guided by these principles, he ran for office on the platform of strengthening the community and creating opportunities for the next generation. Cheung carries out these beliefs as he advocates for job growth, government transparency and affordable housing across Cambridge each and every day.Cheung was first elected in 2009 while pursuing a Masters in Public Administration at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and an MBA at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Prior to returning to graduate school, Cheung earned a BS in Physics, BA in Economics and MS in Aerospace Engineering from Stanford University. Following graduation, Cheung worked as a Senior Associate at Masthead Partners, a Cambridge-based venture capital firm focusing on digital media, mobile, and internet infrastructure.Outside of work, Cheung has served as the Executive Vice President of The National Association of Asian American Professionals (NAAP), a non-profit that cultivates, empowers, and promotes Asian American leaders, and as a mentor at Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Massachusetts Bay.In 2009, Cheung worked as a Summer Fellow at the Department of Energy's newest agency, ARPA-E. Chartered by President Obama as the 'Venture Capital arm' of the DOE, ARPA-E was charged with making high-risk, high-reward investments with the potential to radically transform how America generates, delivers, and consumes energy. Cheung is also a Truman Partner and 2012 Eisenhower Fellow.Additionally, Cheung is a member of Governor Deval Patrick’s Asian American Commission, Massachusetts State Chair for the Democratic Municipal Organization, Massachusetts Democratic State Committee member, member of the Policy Committee on Personnel and Labor Relations for the Massachusetts Municipal Organization, Steering Committee member on Community and Economic Development for the National League of Cities, connector for the Boston World Partnerships, member of the Leadership Committee on Expanding Democracy for the Young Elected Officials Network, and Massachusetts Technology Collaborative board member, a quasi-public agency that supports economic development in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Cheung can be seen commuting around Cambridge on a handmade electric scooter.[1][2] Leland Cheung on LinkedIn[3] Leland's Bio[4] Leland Cheung's Biography

A2AThe Climate Change and Sustainability Studies course at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai is an interdisciplinary course dealing with climate issues both at local and global sense with perspective of ecological and the economic and socio-political etc. Team is lead by TJ or Dr.T. Jayaraman - former dean of Habitat studies is an authority in climate studiesThe issues of economic development, poverty, human development and equity also coveredThere are lot of field studies and interaction with practitioners, grass-roots workers and activists from communities and movements and also covers climate change mitigation and adaptation. The programme would specifically involve teaching and inter-disciplinary dissertation work in areas including climate policy, energy and energy policy including renewables, water and water policy and governance, natural resource economics and economics of climate change, governance issues including natural resources and local and global environmental governance, sustainability issues in industry, etc.Future job prospects: development organisations, industries, government agencies, departments and projects, academia, and other civil society and community based organisations.

Have you noticed that the strongest voice for war in Western countries is their media? A famous American publisher, William Randolph Hearst, told his journalists to furnish the reporting and “I’ll furnish the war”. He boasted, on the front pages of his many newspapers, that he had started the Spanish-American war.I don’t know why this is, but it’s obvious that they’re always trying to encourage war against other countries and often tell big lies as part of their campaigns. One of those sort-of lies is the cost of wars because, if people found out the real cost of wars they would not be so enthusiastic about them–especially when their drinking water is undrinkable, their schools are closing , their bridges are collapsing and their wages are falling.So…it’s best to make war spending costs (always called ‘defense’ of course–never ‘money for attacking small helpless countries,’ which is its real purpose) seem small. Which of these ways of telling the truth seems smaller to you?“In fiscal year 2015, US military spending reached $571 billion, 3.5% of GDP”.In fisc”al year 2015, US military spending reached $571 billion, 54% percent of federal discretionary spending”.That’s just the beginning, according to defense analyst Robert Higgs, at The Independent Review. Here’s what he found when spending was much lower: “Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. After all, the homeland is what most of us want the government to defend in the first place.“Other agencies also spend money in pursuit of homeland security. The Justice Department, for example, includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program. The Department of the Treasury claims to have “worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.”“Much, if not all, of the budget for the Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to abate perceived threats. About $5 billion of annual U.S. foreign aid currently takes the form of “foreign military financing,” and even funds placed under the rubric of economic development may serve defense-related purposes indirectly. Money is fungible, and the receipt of foreign assistance for economic-development projects allows allied governments to divert other funds to police, intelligence, and military purposes.“Two big budget items represent the current cost of defense goods and services obtained in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is authorized to spend about $124 billion in the current fiscal year, falls in this category. Likewise, a great deal of the government’s interest expense on publicly held debt represents the current cost of defense outlays financed in the past by borrowing from the public.“To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2009, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $636.5 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.7 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $51.7 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $36.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $95.5 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $54.9 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2009 total by nearly half again, to $901.5 billion.“Finding out how much of the government’s net interest payments on the publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spending—military, veterans, and international affairs—to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 67.6 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2009. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $126.3 billion.“Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.“In similar analyses I conducted previously for fiscal 2002 and for fiscal 2006, total defense-related spending was even greater relative to Pentagon spending alone – it was 73 percent greater in fiscal 2002 and 87 percent greater in fiscal 2006. In fiscal 2009, the ratio was held down in large part by the reduced cost of servicing the government’s debt, owing to the extremely low interest rates that prevailed on government securities. This situation cannot last much longer. As interest rates on the Treasury’s securities rise, so will the government’s cost of servicing the debt attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays.“For fiscal 2010, which is still in progress, the president’s budget estimates that the Pentagon’s spending will run more than $50 billion above the previous year’s total. Any supplemental appropriations made before September 30 will push the total for fiscal 2010 even farther above the trillion-dollar mark.“Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. After all, the homeland is what most of us want the government to defend in the first place. Other agencies also spend money in pursuit of homeland security. The Justice Department, for example, includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program. The Department of the Treasury claims to have “worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.” Much, if not all, of the budget for the Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to abate perceived threats. About $5 billion of annual U.S. foreign aid currently takes the form of “foreign military financing,” and even funds placed under the rubric of economic development may serve defense-related purposes indirectly. Money is fungible, and the receipt of foreign assistance for economic-development projects allows allied governments to divert other funds to police, intelligence, and military purposes.“Two big budget items represent the current cost of defense goods and services obtained in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is authorized to spend about $124 billion in the current fiscal year, falls in this category. Likewise, a great deal of the government’s interest expense on publicly held debt represents the current cost of defense outlays financed in the past by borrowing from the public. To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2009, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $636.5 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.7 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $51.7 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $36.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $95.5 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $54.9 billion.“A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2009 total by nearly half again, to $901.5 billion. Finding out how much of the government’s net interest payments on the publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spending—military, veterans, and international affairs—to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 67.6 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2009. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $126.3 billion.“Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone. In similar analyses I conducted previously for fiscal 2002 and for fiscal 2006, total defense-related spending was even greater relative to Pentagon spending alone – it was 73 percent greater in fiscal 2002 and 87 percent greater in fiscal 2006. In fiscal 2009, the ratio was held down in large part by the reduced cost of servicing the government’s debt, owing to the extremely low interest rates that prevailed on government securities. This situation cannot last much longer. As interest rates on the Treasury’s securities rise, so will the government’s cost of servicing the debt attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays. For fiscal 2010, which is still in progress, the president’s budget estimates that the Pentagon’s spending will run more than $50 billion above the previous year’s total. Any supplemental appropriations made before September 30 will push the total for fiscal 2010 even farther above the trillion-dollar mark”.Boston University Professor Neta Crawford has even worse news, “Over the next several decades, assuming no more military spending on these wars, but also no additional tax increases or spending cuts, cumulative interest costs on borrowing to pay for the wars will ultimately rise to dwarf the $1.5 trillion of direct military spending from 2001-2013,” Crawford writes. “Thus, although military spending may not continue to rise over the next 40 years, interest costs will surpass total war costs unless Congress devises another plan to pay for the wars.”3.5% of GDP sounds better, doesn’t it? Now we can go back to sleep.