New Prime Minister of Britain ‘Tomorrow’ and Larry

David Cameron Confirms He Will Resign On Wednesday, Theresa May Next Prime Minister

Zerohedge:With Theresa May the last (wo)man standing, it should not be totally surprising that David Cameron has just confirmed he will officially resign as British prime minister on Wednesday after Prime Minister’s Questions. Early strength in sterling is holding.

David Cameron says he will resign by Wednesday, Theresa May to be next British Prime Minister.

She will be tasked with either triggering the Article 50 process for the UK’s departure from the EU, or trying to undo the entire process.

**** Larry is staying however at 10 Downing Street. Who is Larry?

Larry the cat Larry the Cat gazes through the window. The brown and white tabby is entrusted with the rat-catching portfolio Images from Getty/Guardian

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: “It’s a civil servant’s cat and does not belong to the Camerons – he will be staying.”

Larry, who was rehomed from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in 2011, was said to have a “strong predatory drive” that suggested he would be well suited to the task of rat catching. Guardian 


At least Theresa May is on the right side of a major issues, radical and militant Islam.

Published on Mar 23, 2015

An extensive wish list of counter-extremism measures has been reeled off by the Home Secretary in her last major speech before the start of the general election campaign. From launching an investigation into the use of Sharia law to promoting “British values” through social media, and from an inspection of police responses to honour crimes to stricter English language requirements, Theresa May set out how a Conservative majority government would deal with extremism. The Home Secretary used the speech to warn radical Islamists that the “game is up” and that they are no longer tolerated in Britain, but also called on British Muslims to help tackle extremism.

Regarding the recent vote on Brexit:

Factbox: Theresa May’s plans for a Brexit ministry and who might lead it

MAY’S BREXIT MINISTRY

Reuters: “Nobody should fool themselves this process will be brief or straightforward. Regardless of the time it takes to negotiate an initial deal, it is going to take a period lasting several years to disentangle our laws, rules and processes from the Brussels machinery,” May said on June 30 when she launched her candidacy to be prime minister.

“That means it is going to require significant expertise and a consistent approach. I will therefore create a new government department responsible for conducting Britain’s negotiation with the EU and for supporting the rest of Whitehall in its European work.

“That department will be led by a senior Secretary of State — and I will make sure that the position is taken by a member of parliament who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.”

CANDIDATES TO BE MAY’S BREXIT NEGOTIATOR

DAVID DAVIS

A senior Conservative lawmaker who was beaten by David Cameron in the party’s 2005 leadership election contest, Davis has been in parliament since 1987 and is a former junior Foreign Office minister.

Davis was born in York and grew up in south London. He first worked as an insurance clerk before spending 17 years at global food ingredients provider Tate & Lyle.

He has served as Conservative Party chairman and was also the party’s home affairs spokesman in opposition.

In an article for Conservative grassroots website Conservative Home on Monday, Davis said Britain should take its time before triggering Article 50. The government should first work out its negotiating strategy and begin the formal process of leaving the EU “before or by the beginning of next year”.

“We need to take a brisk but measured approach to Brexit. This would involve concluding consultations and laying out the detailed plans in the next few months,” he said.

LIAM FOX

Fox ran for the Conservative leadership himself before backing May when he was eliminated in the process of winnowing the candidates down to two.

During the leadership contest, Fox said he would trigger Article 50 by the end of this year, with the intention of a full British exit from the EU by Jan. 1, 2019.

Long a figure on the right wing of the Conservative Party, Fox was born and raised in Scotland and attended the local state school before studying medicine at the University of Glasgow.

He worked as a doctor and civilian army medical officer before becoming a Conservative lawmaker in 1992.

Fox was defense secretary from 2010-2011, when he resigned over his relationship with a businessman who acted as his adviser. A government investigation found he had breached the ministerial code by allowing an “inappropriate blurring of lines between official and personal relationships”.

He has also held the posts of junior foreign office minister and Conservative Party chairman.

MICHAEL GOVE

Gove was a leading Brexit campaigner who ran for the party’s leadership but was eliminated in the second round of voting.

He had been expected to support former London mayor Boris Johnson for the leadership but made a surprise announcement hours before Johnson was due to launch his bid that he did not believe Johnson was up to the job and would run himself instead.

Gove was brought up in Scotland and studied at Oxford University before becoming a journalist. He worked at the BBC and the Times newspaper, where he was assistant editor.

He was also chairman of the center-right thinktank Policy Exchange before being elected to parliament in 2005.

Under outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron he has served as Education Secretary and Justice Secretary.

CHRIS GRAYLING

Grayling, currently the leader of Britain’s lower house of parliament, was May’s campaign manager during the leadership contest. A former Justice Secretary and minister in the Work and Pensions department, Grayling has been in parliament since 2001.

Before becoming a lawmaker he worked in television production and marketing.

Last month he told Reuters he expected Britain to have informal talks with the EU about its future relationship before triggering Article 50, which he said should only be done when Britain is ready.

CANDIDATES TO BE MAY’S FINANCE MINISTER

PHILIP HAMMOND

Currently Foreign Secretary, Hammond campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU. A lawmaker since 1997, he is also a former defense minister and minister for transport.

While the Conservatives were in opposition, he was a junior spokesman for the party on finance.

Before entering parliament he had a career in business including working for companies in manufacturing, consultancy, property, construction, and oil and gas.

Last week Hammond said the government was not yet in a position to begin substantive negotiations and therefore should not begin the process by triggering Article 50.

He also said the economic and fiscal impact of Brexit in the short term would reduce government revenues, making it harder to significantly boost funding for trade negotiation resources.

SAJID JAVID

A lawmaker since 2010, Javid has been Business Secretary since last May’s election. He also previously served in two junior minister roles at the Treasury.

The son of a bus driver, Javid had been promised the role of finance minister by leadership candidate Stephen Crabb, who pulled out after the first round of voting. Both have working-class roots, leading them to be dubbed the “blue collar ticket” by some newspapers.

Before joining parliament he worked at Chase Manhattan Bank in New York and then at Deutsche Bank, where he focused on helping raise investment in developing countries.

Javid, who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU, has said securing access to the bloc’s single market should be the top goal in Brexit negotiations.

He has said he would lead a series of trade missions this year, and last week began preliminary talks with India on an eventual bilateral trade deal.

GEORGE OSBORNE

It is not certain May will replace Osborne, the current finance minister, immediately. One possibility is that he stays on in the short-term while the dust settles, and continues to represent Britain at upcoming international gatherings such as this month’s G20 finance minister meeting in China.

 

 

Merkel of Germany Admits Terrorists Among Refugees

Can she be impeached? Do they do that in Germany? Is Merkel concerned about the security of her citizens and country at all? She and Barack Obama have the same attitude…a free for all for migrants…

‘Terrorists’ smuggled into Europe with refugees, Merkel says

Reuters: Militant groups smuggled some of their members into Europe in the wave of migrants who have fled from Syria, German Chancellor Angela said on Monday.

“In part, the refugee flow was even used to smuggle terrorists,” Merkel told a rally of her Christian Democrats in eastern Germany.

More than 1 million migrants arrived in Germany last year, many of them Syrians.

***** Sure wish the study below polled the thoughts of Americans, but then the political elitist class in Washington DC would spin the results anyway….right? We are all citizens of the world now….

Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs

Sharp ideological divides across EU on views about minorities, diversity and national identity

PewResearch: The recent surge of refugees into Europe has featured prominently in the anti-immigrant rhetoric of right-wing parties across the Continent and in the heated debate over the UK’s decision to exit the European Union. At the same time, attacks in Paris and Brussels have fueled public fears about terrorism. As a new Pew Research Center survey illustrates, the refugee crisis and the threat of terrorism are very much related to one another in the minds of many Europeans. In eight of the 10 European nations surveyed, half or more believe incoming refugees increase the likelihood of terrorism in their country.

Many Europeans concerned with security, economic repercussions of refugee crisis

But terrorism is not the only concern people have about refugees. Many are also worried that they will be an economic burden. Half or more in five nations say refugees will take away jobs and social benefits. Hungarians, Poles, Greeks, Italians and French identify this as their greatest concern. Sweden and Germany are the only countries where at least half say refugees make their nation stronger because of their work and talents. Fears linking refugees and crime are much less pervasive, although nearly half in Italy and Sweden say refugees are more to blame for crime than other groups.

Views of Muslims more negative in eastern and southern Europe

Most of the recent refugees to Europe are arriving from majority-Muslim nations, such as Syria and Iraq. Among Europeans, perceptions of refugees are influenced in part by negative attitudes toward Muslims already living in Europe. In Hungary, Italy, Poland and Greece, more than six-in-ten say they have an unfavorable opinion of the Muslims in their country – an opinion shared by at least one-in-four in each nation polled.

Most Europeans say Muslims in their country want to be distinctFor some Europeans, negative attitudes toward Muslims are tied to a belief that Muslims do not wish to participate in the broader society. In every country polled, the dominant view is that Muslims want to be distinct from the rest of society rather than adopt the nation’s customs and way of life. Six-in-ten or more hold this view in Greece, Hungary, Spain, Italy and Germany. Notably, the percentage saying that Muslims want to remain distinct has actually declined since 2005 in four out of five countries where trend data are available. The biggest drop has been in Germany, where the share of the public expressing this view has declined from 88% to 61%.

While most Europeans think the recent surge of refugees could lead to more terrorism, there is less alarm that Muslims already living on the Continent might sympathize with extremists. The percentage of the public saying that most or many Muslims in their country support groups like ISIS is less than half in every nation polled. Still, 46% of Italians, 37% of Hungarians, 35% of Poles and 30% of Greeks think Muslims in their countries are favorably inclined toward such extremist groups. On these and other questions included on the poll, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Poland often stand out for expressing greater concern and more negative views about refugees and minority groups.

Those on ideological right more unfavorable toward Muslims in most countriesAcross the EU nations surveyed, the refugee crisis has brought into sharp relief deep ideological divides over views of minorities and diversity. On nearly all of the questions analyzed in this report, people on the ideological right express more concerns about refugees, more negative attitudes toward minorities and less enthusiasm for a diverse society.

Partisan divides in France, UK on refugees in their countryFor example, negative opinions about Muslims are much more common among respondents who place themselves on the right of the ideological spectrum. In Greece, 81% of those on the right express an unfavorable view of Muslims, compared with 50% of those on the left. Significant right-left gaps in attitudes toward Muslims are also found in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, France and the United Kingdom.

Similarly, supporters of far-right political parties hold much more negative attitudes toward refugees and Muslims and are much more skeptical about the benefits of a diverse society. For instance, fears that the surge of refugees will lead to more terrorism and harm the economy are considerably more widespread among supporters of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the UK and the National Front in France.

Ideology is not the only dividing line in European attitudes, however. On many questions, education and age also matter, with older people and less-educated individuals expressing more negative opinions about refugees and minorities.

These are among the key findings from a new survey by Pew Research Center, conducted in 10 European Union nations and the United States among 11,494 respondents from April 4 to May 12, 2016, before the Brexit referendum in the UK and terrorist attacks at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport, both of which took place in late June. The survey includes countries that account for 80% of the EU-28 population and 82% of the EU’s gross domestic product.

Along with worries about refugees and minorities, the survey finds mixed views regarding the overall value of cultural diversity. When asked whether having an increasing number of people of many different races, ethnic groups and nationalities in their country makes their society a better place to live, a worse place or does not make much difference either way, over half of Greeks and Italians and about four-in-ten Hungarians and Poles say growing diversity makes things worse.

Relatively few Europeans believe diversity has a positive impact on their countries. At 36%, Sweden registers the highest percentage that believes an increasingly diverse society makes their country a better place to live. In many countries, the prevailing view is that diversity makes no difference in the quality of life.

Negative attitudes toward minorities common in many nations

Muslims are not the only minority group viewed unfavorably by substantial percentages of Europeans. In fact, overall, attitudes toward Roma are more negative than attitudes toward Muslims. Across the 10 nations polled, a median of 48% express an unfavorable opinion of Roma in their country. Fully 82% hold this view in Italy, while six-in-ten or more say the same in Greece, Hungary and France. Negative views of Roma have gone up since 2015 in Spain (+14 percentage points), the UK (+8) and Germany (+6). Greeks have also become increasingly unfavorable (+14 points) since 2014, the last time Greece was included in the survey.

Negative opinions about Roma, Muslims in several European nations

Negative ratings for Muslims have also increased over the past 12 months in the UK (+9 percentage points), Spain (+8) and Italy (+8), and are up 12 points in Greece since 2014. In France – where coordinated terrorist attacks by ISIS at the Bataclan concert hall and elsewhere in Paris in November left 130 people dead – unfavorable opinions are up slightly since last year (+5 points).

Negative attitudes toward Jews are much less common. A median of only 16% have an unfavorable opinion of Jews in their country. Still, a majority of Greeks give Jews in their country a negative rating, and one-in-five or more express this view in Hungary, Poland, Italy and Spain. Unfavorable attitudes toward Jews have been relatively stable since 2015.

Language, customs and tradition seen as central to national identity

Language crucial to national identityOpinions vary about the key components of national identity, but European publics clearly agree that language is fundamental. Across the 10 EU countries surveyed, a median of 97% think that being able to speak the national language is important for truly being able to identify with their nationality. A median of 77% say this is very important. Majorities believe it is very important in every nation polled.

There is also a strong cultural component to national identity. A median of 86% believe sharing national customs and traditions is important, with 48% saying this is very important. Fully 68% in Hungary say sharing national customs and traditions is very important for being truly Hungarian, and 66% express similar sentiments in Greece. In contrast, fewer than four-in-ten consider sharing these traditions and customs very important in the Netherlands (37%), Germany (29%) and Sweden (26%).

There is less agreement about the need to be born in a given country. Still, a median of 58% say it is important for someone to be born in a country to be truly considered a national of that country; a third think this is very important. Religion is generally seen as less central to national identity. However, it is an essential factor to many in Greece, where 54% say it is very important to be Christian to be truly Greek.

To further explore this topic, we constructed an index based on the four questions we asked regarding national identity (importance of speaking the national language, sharing customs, being native born and being Christian). The results highlight the extent to which exclusionary views vary across the EU. By far, restrictive views are most common in Hungary, Greece, Poland and Italy; they are least common in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands.

Views about  national identity vary across Europe

More to the study here.

Hillary, Greece Bailout, Son in Law

  

Clinton Son-in-Law’s Firm Is Said to Close Greece Hedge Fund

Clinton sought secret info on EU bailout plans as son-in-law’s doomed hedge fund gambled on Greece

FNC: Hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky had friends in high places when he bet big on a Greek economic recovery, but even the keen interest of his mother-in-law, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wasn’t enough to spare him and his investors from financial tragedy.

In 2012, Mezvinski, the husband of Chelsea Clinton, created a $325 million basket of offshore funds under the Eaglevale Partners banner through a special arrangement with investment bank Goldman Sachs. The funds have lost tens of millions of dollars predicting that bailouts of the Greek banking system would pump up the value of the country’s distressed bonds. One fund, exclusively dedicated to Greek debt, suffered near-total losses.

Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 to run for president. But newly released emails from 2012 show that she and Clinton Foundation consultant, Sidney Blumenthal, shared classified information about how German leadership viewed the prospects for a Greek bailout. Clinton also shared “protected” State Department information about Greek bonds with her husband at the same time that her son-in-law aimed his hedge fund at Greece.

That America’s top diplomat kept a sharp eye on intelligence assessing the chances of a bailout of the Greek central bank is not a problem. However, sharing such sensitive information with friends and family would have been highly improper. Federal regulations prohibit the use of nonpublic information to further private interests or the interests of others. The mere perception of a conflict of interest is unacceptable.

Through its press representative, Eaglevale declined to comment for this story. Clinton’s campaign press office did not respond to a request for comment.

A former Goldman Sachs broker himself, Mezvinsky formed Eaglevale Management with two ex-Goldman Sachs partners in October 2011. As a “global macro” firm, Eaglevale’s strategy is to seek profit opportunities in politically volatile situations. Mezvinsky set up several funds in the Cayman Islands, a secretive tax haven, with Goldman Sachs serving as Eaglevale’s prime broker and banker. The giant brokerage firm has a checkered history of manipulating the value of Greek debt to the detriment of Greece.

The same month that Eaglevale incorporated its offshore arm, Gary Gensler, the head of the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which polices hedge funds, emailed Clinton that a bailout by the European Central Bank could “turn market sentiment” in favor of Greek bonds.

Gensler had previously worked as co-head of finance at Goldman Sachs; he is now the financial director of Clinton’s election campaign. Goldman Sachs has donated up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and $860,000 to Hillary Clinton’s political campaigns. Shortly after Clinton resigned, Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 in speaking fees.

Clinton’s deputy in charge of economic policy was Robert Hormats, a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs. Hormats and Clinton shared an extensive email trail about the possibility of bailing out Greece, including classified materials, and internal state department memos about the debt from the U.S. ambassador to Greece.

Again, monitoring Greece was part of Clinton’s job description, but, ethically, that does not mean that a family member should make bets that depend upon the actions of another family member—leaving aside the question of whether “insider” information was divulged to Mezvinsky by Blumenthal or his parents-in-law.

During 2011, Secretary of State Clinton lobbied the leaders of European governments to bail out the Greek financial system. She advocated imposing austerity measures on Greece—raising taxes, cutting public employee salaries and eliminating social welfare programs—to make the investors holding the debt happy.

Driven by investor’s belief that Greece would be bailed out, the speculative value of its debt climbed into the stratosphere in late 2011 and early 2012. The bonds gradually sank to 2008 levels by the end of the year, with temporary spikes, as investors alternately gained and loss confidence in the prospect of a bailout. In other words, there were multiple opportunities for Greek-bond hedge funds to buy cheap and sell dear.

At a February 2012 summit meeting about the Eurozone debt crisis in Munich, Clinton urged leaders of the European Union to commit to a Greek bailout.

In April, Eaglevale booked $19 million from a dozen investors. California’s public employee pension fund, CalPERS, reportedly invested $13 million. Goldman Sach’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, jumped in with his own money, as did Chelsea Clinton’s former boss, Marc Lasry, who specializes in buying distressed debt.

In May, Blumenthal, emailed two “confidential” memos about the Greek debt situation to Clinton. Hormats was included in the email loop.

The first memo, Blumenthal told Clinton, is “based on conversations with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble and those close to him … the information comes from an extremely sensitive source and should be handled with care. This information must not be shared with anyone associated with the German government.”

The unnamed spy reported that in secret meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Schauble had searched for a politically acceptable way to bail out the Greek debt in order to avoid collapsing the economies of Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland.

The second memo was classified and blacked out by State Department censors when Clinton’s emails were released. No doubt, it was informative.

In June, Clinton’s deputy, Jake Sullivan emailed her “a depressing snapshot” of reports that Greek banks were failing and that Merkel was against a Greek bailout. The next day, he reported “re: Greece” that Ambassador Dan Smith “just spoke to the Central Bank Governor and assessed that the economic situation was “ok for now” provided that “small depositors put money back into the banks.”

A few days later, Clinton asked Sullivan for a confidential state department report, “Solidarity Bonds Greece Revised.” He sent it to her adding, “If you like, send it on [to] WJC,” presumably a reference to William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton ordered an aide, “Pls print two copies” of the Greek bond report. The report was blacked out as a “protected” document when the emails were made public.

Did Mezvinsky benefit from his family connection?

The emails show that Clinton did at least one official favor for her son-in-law. In August 2012, she forwarded Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides an email from Mezvinsky lobbying on behalf of his former Goldman Sachs colleague, Harry Siklas.

Siklas and Goldman Sachs were invested in a deep sea mining venture called Neptune Minerals. Siklas asked Mezvinsky to broker a talk with Clinton about “current legal issues and regulations” on deep sea mining. Clinton ordered Nides to “follow up on this request.”

Nides replied, “I’ll get on it.”

Nearly 1 Million Immigrants Ignoring Deportation

It is quite interesting that the Obama administration can release proven known terrorists from the Guantanamo Detention Center to either home countries or any other country that the administration colludes with to accept them.

We have a former detainee that was released to Uruguay that has fled alleged to Brazil.

 MiamiHerald

But…..this policy does not seem to apply to the Department of Homeland Security or ICE.

Specifically, the law states:

On being notified by the [DHS Secretary] that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the [DHS Secretary] asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the [DHS Secretary] notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien. (8 U.S.C. § 1253(d); Emphasis added.)

Nearly 1 million immigrants — including more than 170K convicts — ignoring deportation

WashingtonTimes: Nearly 1 million immigrants are ignoring deportation orders to remain in the U.S. — including more than 170,000 convicted criminals, according to a new report Thursday that suggests the government’s deportation efforts are still falling short.

Only a small fraction of the immigrants are even being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), meaning most of them remain free on the streets, where they can commit crimes and continue living in the shadows, according to the study by Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“The fact that almost 10 percent of the illegal resident population has already been ordered removed and is still here illustrates just how dysfunctional our immigration enforcement system is. It also should be of great concern that 20 percent of them are conviction criminals, and that most of these are at large in our communities,” Ms. Vaughan said.

She said the 925,193 aliens who were still here despite a deportation order break down into three categories. In some cases their home countries refuse to take them back, and U.S. officials feel constrained by law to release them; other times they are released by sanctuary cities, who help thwart deportations; and still others abscond on their own.

Mexicans account for the most aliens, with nearly 200,000 ignoring deportation orders. About a third of those are convicted criminals, Ms. Vaughan said. El Salvador accounts for more than 150,000 of the aliens, but just 10,000 of them are convicted criminals.

Perhaps most troubling is that the population is steadily growing, with the Obama administration tracking down fewer than 10,000 fugitives a year on the streets. Even when criminals snagged by checking local prisons and jails are included, the number of those deported from the interior of the U.S. is far less than 100,000.

But some 179,040 new criminal aliens were given final orders or removal in 2015 yet remained in the country, Ms. Vaughan said, citing data obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related reading: 121 Criminals Charged with Murder Following Release from Custody Pending Deportation Jun 15, 2015 Grassley, Sessions Call for Multi-Department Response to Failed Removals

Related reading: The law requires the State Department to impose visa sanctions on countries that won’t take their own citizens back, a requirement Secretaries Clinton and Kerry have simply ignored. NRO

Univ. of Phoenix, Obama’s Post Presidency Career?

Okay, let the investigations begin…..the collusion, the government subsidies and partners….hummm

Bid to buy for-profit college by former Obama insiders raises questions

‘There is at least a taste of unseemliness involved in this,’ a former top education official said.

Barack Obama and Marty Nesbitt
Longtime Obama friend Marty Nesbitt’s private equity firm Vistria Group has mounted a charm offensive on Capitol Hill to talk up the proposed sale of the for-profit University of Phoenix. | Getty

Politico: As the Obama administration cracks down on for-profit colleges, three former officials working on behalf of an investment firm run by President Barack Obama’s best friend have staged a behind-the-scenes campaign to get the Education Department to green-light a purchase of the biggest for-profit of them all — the University of Phoenix.

The investors include a private equity firm founded and run by longtime Obama friend Marty Nesbitt and former Deputy Education Secretary Tony Miller. The firm, Chicago-based Vistria Group, has mounted a charm offensive on Capitol Hill to talk up the proposed sale of the troubled for-profit education giant, which receives more than $2 billion a year in taxpayer money but is under investigation by three state attorneys general and the FTC.

What stands out about the proposed deal is that several key players are either close to top administration officials, including the president himself, or are former administration insiders — especially Miller, who was part of the effort to more tightly regulate for-profit colleges at the very agency now charged with approving the ownership change. For-profit college officials have likened those rules to a war on the industry, and blame the administration for contributing to their declining enrollments and share prices.

The proposed sale carries high stakes for taxpayers, students and investors: The University of Phoenix’s financial stability may depend on the $1.1 billion acquisition. If the company were to fail, more than 160,000 students could be displaced and the government would be on the hook for hundreds of millions in student loans.

But the investors’ effort to seek Education Department approval of the school’s ownership change also raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.

“There is at least a taste of unseemliness involved in this,” said Mark Schneider, a former top education official under President George W. Bush. “They regulate it. They drive the price down. …They are buying it for pennies on the dollar.”

Vistria Group said it isn’t seeking special treatment. “We expect the Department to evaluate this proposed transaction on the merits,” the company said in a statement.

Vistria is part of a consortium of investors involved in the proposed acquisition, which has already won over shareholders of the school’s parent company, Apollo Education Group. But now the investors need the Education Department and the school’s accreditors to sign off on the ownership change to keep the federal money flowing — most of it in the form of student loans and Pell Grants.

Related reading: Apollo Education

Related reading: Vistria Money

With those decisions looming, Miller and at least one other former Obama insider have met with staff to Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), looking to reassure some of the loudest critics of for-profit colleges in the president’s own party, several Senate aides confirmed to POLITICO. Those lawmakers have pushed Obama’s Education Department to be even tougher on for-profit colleges.

Miller has also met with staff members working for other committee members, including Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), as well as with Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate education committee. Nesbitt was not part of those Capitol Hill meetings, according to the aides.

The investors’ pitch is that they will turn around the beleaguered education company company and boost student outcomes. In announcing the sale, Miller said in a statement that the investors are committed to running the University of Phoenix “in a manner consistent with the highest ethical standards.”

But the specter of former insiders pushing the sale of a company in an industry that has long been in the administration’s crosshairs is not lost on critics. For seven years, the Obama administration has waged a crackdown on poor quality and predatory practices at many for-profit colleges, with the president himself excoriating some schools for “making out like a bandit” with federal money, but saddling students with big debts and leaving them unprepared for good jobs. He did not name the schools.

“It’s ironic that a former senior official at the Department of Education — an agency that has intentionally targeted and sought to dismantle the for-profit college industry — would now take the reins at the country’s largest for-profit college,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican who leads the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s higher education subcommittee.

“Mr. Miller will soon learn firsthand how the harmful regulations he helped develop will limit the choices of students and create burdensome red tape for his institution,” she added.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — a longtime defender of the University of Phoenix — told POLITICO he blames the administration’s hard-charging regulatory approach for helping to drive down the company’s stock price and contributing to its decision to sell.

“I know it was the attacks that drove the stock price down,” McCain said. “It’s very clear.”

The sale price, which shareholders approved last month after initially balking at a lower price, is considered a bargain by some industry observers. The day Obama was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2009, the company’s stock closed at $86.54 per share. Today, it’s trading at around $9, although a recovering economy, unfavorable media coverage and the for-profit industry’s general slump have also contributed to that drop.

Some Senate Democrats said they are also uneasy with the investors’ plan to take the university private, which means it would no longer have to publicly disclose information such as executive compensation, lawsuits or when it’s a target of investigations. Those details are useful to prospective students, they say, at a time when the school faces inquiries from both state and federal authorities.

“Essentially, a company that receives more than $2 billion annually from federal taxpayers — nearly 80 percent of its revenue — is going dark, and it’s happening at a time when the University of Phoenix has come under increased scrutiny from state and federal regulators,” Durbin wrote in a March letter to the Education Department.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the university’s “questionable track record is already a point of concern, and there are many questions as to whether the sale of its parent company is in the best interests of both students and taxpayers.”

Who’s who

Several players in the deal have close ties to the Obama administration they’re now attempting to influence.

160628_tony_miller_ap_1160.jpg
Former Deputy Education Secretary Tony Miller was part of the effort to more tightly regulate for-profit colleges at the very agency now charged with approving the ownership change. | AP Photo

 

 

First among them is Miller— the former No. 2 in Obama’s Education Department until he left in 2013 and who is now a partner and chief operating officer of Vistria Group. He would become chairman of the university’s parent company if the sale goes through.

Miller, who spent more than four years as a top Education Department official, represented the administration during nearly a dozen meetings with for-profit education companies — including the very company his firm is now seeking to buy, department records show. The meetings centered on controversial “gainful employment” proposals to cut off financial aid from programs where students leave with high debt and poor job prospects.

Other players in the Capitol Hill effort include Jonathan Samuels, who was responsible for pushing Obama’s agenda through Congress during his nearly six years working in legislative affairs at the White House. Samuels, who now works for Vistria Group, has joined Miller in at least some of his meetings on the Hill, according to a Senate aide. Vistria has also enlisted former White House Deputy Communications Director Amy Brundage, who is working at the Washington public affairs firm SKDKnickerbocker.

“The irony is not lost on us,” said one Republican congressional aide, who asked for anonymity to speak freely. “It’s quite rich, when you have former Obama administration officials who used to denigrate for-profit education now profiting off it.”

Nesbitt, meanwhile, is a co-founder and co-CEO of Vistria Group and widely considered the president’s closest friend. He is Obama’s frequent golf and basketball partner, while his wife, Anita Blanchard, is an obstetrician who delivered Malia and Sasha Obama. Nesbitt acted as treasurer for both of the president’s campaigns and heads the Obama Foundation, which is planning his presidential library.

Nesbitt is also a former business associate of Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker; he set up Vistria Group in 2013, more than a year after the sale of The Parking Spot, an airport parking company he started with Pritzker’s backing. One of Vistria’s investors has been a charitable foundation called The Pritzker Traubert Foundation, started by Pritzker, federal tax records show. Pritzker resigned from her position at the foundation when she became a cabinet member in 2013. A Commerce Department official said she has not been involved with discussions about the University of Phoenix sale.

Nesbitt, Miller, Samuels and Brundage all declined to comment to POLITICO about the nature of Vistria’s meetings with lawmakers or whether they had reached out to Education Department officials to discuss the potential sale. At the request of the company’s public relations firm, reporters submitted written questions about the meetings, allegations of possible conflicts of interest and how the company plans to turn around the University of Phoenix. Vistria responded with a four-sentence statement.

“We believe that the University of Phoenix, with our support, is poised to be a leader serving the adult learner, by graduating students with the knowledge and skills that employers value, at a cost to the student that ensures a compelling return on her or his educational investment,” the statement said.

“We believe that high-quality outcomes, whether from nonprofit or for-profit institutions, is what is needed in the sector and what matters most. We expect the Department to evaluate this proposed transaction on the merits. The parties have engaged in the formal acquisition review process through regular order.”

The Education Department also declined to answer POLITICO’s questions about whether Nesbitt, Miller or Samuels had discussed the proposed sale with department officials. It refused to provide a copy of the paperwork the investors submitted to kick off the regulatory approval process.

Vistria is one of three investment groups involved in the deal — the others are Wall Street giant Apollo Global Management (no connection to Apollo Education) and Najafi Companies. A spokeswoman for a firm representing Apollo Education declined to say how much each investor had agreed to contribute. But in addition to capital, Vistria brings Obama administration connections that could help pave the way for a smooth approval process and working relationship with government regulators afterward.

It’s quite common for for-profit education companies to hire people who were former regulators, accreditors, politicians or established higher education officials, said Kevin Kinser, an education professor at the State University of New York at Albany who has studied for-profit colleges.

Kinser said it gives the schools a “sense of legitimacy” and understanding of how systems work “for them to do what they need to do.”

Durbin, a reliable Obama ally in the Senate, said he’s not close enough to Nesbitt to know why he got involved with the acquisition.

“He’s an investor, and I’ll just say he thinks this is a good investment,” Durbin said. “I hope that Marty will bring to this endeavor a sense of reform and will create a new for-profit school that truly does serve its students.”

The holding company set up by the investors to buy the University of Phoenix has also paid $80,000 to lobbyists. The lobbying team includes Marc Lampkin — a longtime counsel to former House Speaker John Boehner — at the high-powered D.C. firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

Trace Urdan, a for-profit college analyst who heard Miller describe Vistria’s plans at a recent conference, said Miller appeared “quite earnest.” Miller emphasized that the prospective owners plan to use data to monitor student performance and to make improvements, Urdan said.

“He thinks the size of the university is a real strength to be exploited and the implication is there is a lot of data, so you can analyze the data and figure out what works and doesn’t work,” Urdan said.

The potential sale offers a potential lifeline for the university. But there’s pressure to get the government’s approval quickly since the parent company has warned in regulatory filings that if the sale isn’t completed by October, its worsening financials might sink the deal. Either way, the company says that a further decline in its stock price could lead to regulatory problems that “severely stress” its liquidity.

If the company were to fail, either before or after the proposed sale, current students would be entitled to have their loans forgiven. Taxpayers have already spent more than $90 million on student loan forgiveness resulting from last year’s collapse of the Corinthian Colleges chain.

The Phoenix juggernaut

Founded in 1976, with a class of just eight students, the University of Phoenix became a pioneer in the burgeoning field of career education for adults ― providing flexibility for busy working adults looking for vocational education, especially after the advent of online programs in the late 1980s.

But as the school grew larger, hitting more than half a million students in 2010, critics say it lost its way in terms of the quality of its programs, high costs and aggressive recruiting tactics.

In recent years, scrutiny from state and federal authorities, a flurry of negative media stories and an improving economy combined to send enrollment plunging by more than two-thirds. In April, the university announced it would lay off 470 employees, or nearly 8 percent of its workforce.

The university currently faces investigation by the attorneys general of California, Massachusetts and Florida, according to regulatory filings. Its parent company disclosed last year that the FTC had requested information on a “broad spectrum” of its business practices, including “marketing, recruiting, enrollment, financial aid, tuition and fees, academic programs, academic advising, student retention, billing and debt collection, complaints, accreditation, training, military recruitment, and other compliance matters.”

Early in the Obama administration, in 2009, the Justice Department announced the University of Phoenix had agreed to pay $78.5 million to settle allegations the school had been fraudulently collecting taxpayer money. Two former recruiters had alleged the school created fake employee personnel files to hide the fact it was illegally giving recruiters gifts and free trips based on the number of students they brought in. The university did not acknowledge any wrongdoing in the settlement.

Last fall, the Pentagon took the unusual step of temporarily prohibiting the University of Phoenix from recruiting on military bases. The alleged violations included the misuse of military seals and trademarks, and conducting activities on military bases without proper permission. The ban was reversed three months later.

Many of the university’s students struggle with debt: Data released by the Obama administration’s College Scorecard last year shows that a majority of students who took out federal loans to attend the University of Phoenix did not end up making even a dollar’s worth of progress in paying down their debt after five years ― a sign their debts may not be manageable.

Yet the school continues to be popular, especially with veterans. Last year, about 45,000 GI Bill recipients enrolled at the University of Phoenix, at a cost of $290 million to taxpayers.

The university’s parent company is also seeing big international growth: Its global division serves more than 150,000 learners worldwide, with online and campus-based programs in countries such as Australia, India, Mexico and Chile, according to a company filing. While the international schools are a small share of total revenue, the footprint of its global division has been expanding.

‘Black box’ approval process

The process by which the Education Department will make a decision on the ownership change — and who will make that decision — has been shrouded in secrecy, say some for-profit college critics.

Bob Shireman, a former Obama Education Department official who was one of the architects of the for-profit college crackdown, called the approval process for college ownership changes a “black box.”

While the White House keeps logs to document who comes and goes to speak to executive branch officials, no one knows who is lobbying the Education Department on the sale, said Ben Miller, a former Obama Education Department staffer who is now senior director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress.

Asked about its decision-making process, a department official said the approval of the ownership change will be handled by the Office of Federal Student Aid, the department’s business operations arm, “in consultation with a variety of other offices,” which they declined to name.

“As we have said in the past, what’s good for students is at the heart of our review of this sale,” Dorie Nolt, the department’s press secretary, said in a statement. “We will work with Apollo to ensure that the new owner is focused on improving student outcomes.”

Shireman and Ben Miller say they want the department to use its leverage to impose conditions on the approval of the ownership change, such as requiring the university to rely less heavily on federal Pell Grants and other taxpayer programs, and to seek out more students who are willing or able to pay out of pocket.

Even if those conditions happen, Durbin said he’s skeptical the investors can pull off a turnaround, which he said previous owners failed to accomplish.

“I have met with the Apollo [Education Group] people over the years,” Durbin said. “Every meeting was preceded by ‘we’re different,’ and then it would turn out … they weren’t so different.”

Miller insists this ownership team will turn things around. In a letter to The Wall Street Journal in February, he said his company is committed to making the University of Phoenix “the most trusted provider of career-relevant higher education for working adults in the country.”

The new owners will prevail on the merits, he said.

“Success in today’s environment,” he wrote, “isn’t predicated on special treatment from regulators or legislators.”