<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.newamerica.net" xmlns:dc="
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Providence Journal</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/167</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Stop Imposing &#039;Captive Speech&#039; on Employees</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/stop_imposing_captive_speech_employees_6338</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees not only the freedom to speak but also the freedom not to listen. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that &amp;quot;no one has a right to press even good ideas on an unwilling recipient.&amp;quot; Nevertheless, American businesses are increasingly violating the First Amendment freedoms of their employees. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; Frito-Lay Inc., one of the world&amp;#39;s largest producers of snack foods, is also one of America&amp;#39;s worst abusers of employees&amp;#39; right not to listen. It routinely not only compels its employees to listen to anti-union diatribes, on company time and property, but also forces&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2007/stop_imposing_captive_speech_employees_6338&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/steven_hill/recent_work">Steven Hill</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/167">Providence Journal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/21">Political Reform Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/civil_liberties">Civil Liberties</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/issues/keywords/unions">Unions</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:03:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6338 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Don&#039;t Throw Baby Bonds Out With Bath</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/dont_throw_baby_bonds_out_bath_6325</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For better or worse, America has a habit of conducting much of our policymaking through the presidential election process. This can be dangerous when meaningful reform efforts get trumped by volatile politics. Sure, we’d like campaign promises to mean something but it’s counter-productive if we let the consideration of good ideas get easily diverted into the gutter.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; A case in point was the recent discussion of Hillary Clinton’s Baby Bond proposal, which was quickly hijacked by partisan politics. That’s a shame because the idea of creating a system of children’s savings accounts has good politics behind it and&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2007/dont_throw_baby_bonds_out_bath_6325&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/reid_cramer/recent_work">Reid Cramer</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/167">Providence Journal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/15">Asset Building Program</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/995">Next Social Contract</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/8">Ownership &amp;amp; Assets</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">6325 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Pluses, Minuses for     Providence -- Trying to be Hip Won&#039;t Save Cities</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2004/pluses_minuses_for_providence_trying_to_be_hip_wont_save_cities</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A half-century ago, many urbanists, including the late Lewis Mumford,
believed that the inexorable shift to the suburbs was transforming cities
into discarded parcels of &quot;a disordered and disintegrating urban mass.&quot; Yet
today, cities seem in many ways not to be disintegrating; rather, they are
widely believed to be enjoying a revival of considerable proportions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Such an assessment may be replacing the excessive pessimism of the 1960s
with an overblown optimism. In reality, thoughout the last 40 years the
suburbs have gained ground on the urban centers on almost every significant
measure, from corporate headquarters to jobs in manufacturing, high
technology, and business services.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So what about the ballyhooed urban&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2004/pluses_minuses_for_providence_trying_to_be_hip_wont_save_cities&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/joel_kotkin/recent_work">Joel Kotkin</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/167">Providence Journal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/26">New America in California</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3001 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Personal Accounts are the only real &#039;Guarantee&#039;</title>
 <link>http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2002/personal_accounts_are_the_only_real_guarantee</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;teaser-content&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No sooner has the ineffective and unlamented &quot;lockbox&quot; gone to its grave than the next Social Security gimmick enters the scene.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Congressional Republicans are promoting legislation to issue certificates to each new retiree to &quot;guarantee&quot; their Social Security benefits would never be cut. Designed to make necessary reforms more palatable, these guarantees are little more than a P.R. stunt and, worse, one that is likely to backfire. Even today, as criticism of guarantee legislation mounts, Republican leaders hope to sneak it through as part of the larger budget bill.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Like the lockbox, the guarantees are unenforceable, do nothing to address Social Security&#039;s&amp;hellip; &lt;a href=&quot;/publications/articles/2002/personal_accounts_are_the_only_real_guarantee&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- /.teaser-content --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/people/andrew_biggs/recent_work">Andrew Biggs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/167">Providence Journal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.newamerica.net/taxonomy/term/22">Retirement Security Program</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Articles</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1734 at http://www.newamerica.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
