Campaign News

The chants of vocal activists echoed through the hallways of Senate office buildings Wednesday, as hundreds staged sit-ins to protest the Republican health care plan that's already on shaky ground.

Clashing with the shouting was the sound of two-way radios from a larger-than-normal police presence to arrest those refusing to heed warnings to stop.

Read the full article here.

New York Daily News - June 27, 2013, by Tina Moore & Erin Durkin - The City Council overrode Mayor Bloomberg’s veto Thursday and made New York the largest city in the country to require paid sick leave for workers.

The council also approved the city's new $70 billion budget, held Madison Square Garden at a 10-year operating permit and abolished a ban on brunch before noon at outdoor cafes.

The veto override came after a protracted battle over the paid sick-leave legislation that was first proposed in 2009.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn brought the bill to the floor for a vote in May under intense pressure from political opponents and labor unions. Bloomberg then vetoed the measure, saying it would damage businesses.

The legislation forces tens of thousands of city businesses with at least 20 employees to offer five paid sick days a year beginning in April 2014.

The following year, the mandate would extend to businesses with at least 15 workers.

One million workers eventually will be covered by the bill, which also prevents companies from firing employees for taking unpaid sick days.

Before the vote, bill sponsor Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan) led a rally on City Hall’s steps in support of the override, boasting that “nobody will be fired if they are ill."

Union Local 32BJ President Hector Figueroa said New York started a movement that would sweep across the country.

“We are going to take this legislation now to other states and other cities,” he said. “People don’t need to be worried anymore about losing their job because they have to take care of a loved one.”

The $70 billion budget passed by the Council does not include tax increases and provides $58 million for the New York City Housing Authority to avoid most of 500 threatened layoffs.

The plan also saves 20 fire companies that Bloomberg’s budget had proposed shutting, keeps city pools open and restores $144 million for thousands of child care and after-school seats that were at risk.

The Council also voted to give Madison Square Garden a 10-year permit to continue operating at its current location over Pennsylvania Station.

The Garden had requested permission to operate at the site in perpetuity. Last month, the city planning commission approved a 15-year extension.

But Quinn said finding a new home for the arena was the only way to build a new Penn Station and called for a commission to find a new location in Manhattan. A representative for the Garden declined to comment.

The council also voted to abolish a law that prevented cafes from serving brunch outdoors before noon, changing the start time to the a.m.

The old restriction was “silly and it’s outdated and deserves to be changed,” Councilman Dan Garodnick (D-Manhattan) said. “We have found that that rule is not really serving anybody. It is a burden on small business and it is an obstacle to the many brunch loving New Yorkers out there.”

Source

UPDATE: At 3:45 p.m., at a meeting of the rules committee of the DNC, the votes were secured for a full-convention floor vote on the abolition of superdelegates in the Democratic Party. The final tally of supporters was 58, over the 25 percent threshold needed for a minority report and a vote on the floor of the convention this week.

A campaign to end the superdelegate system in the Democratic nominating process has gathered more than 50 cosponsors for a formal amendment — enough to clear threshold needed for “minority report” and floor vote at the convention.

On July 23, DNC Rules Committee members are set to join groups advocating for an end to the superdelegate system in a joint news conference before the rules committee meeting convenes in Philadelphia.

Rules committee member Aaron Regunberg is the amendment’s chief sponsor.

Groups presenting signatures supporting the rules change include: MoveOn.org, Demand Progress, Daily Kos, Social Security Works, Democracy for America, New Democrat Network, National Nurses United, The Other 98%, Courage Campaign, Progressive Kick, Credo, PCCC, Progressive Democrats of America, Center for Popular Democracy, Social Security Works and Reform the DNC.

These groups gathered more than 500,000 signatures from people supporting the campaign.

 “This is a historic moment for the Democratic Party,” said Regunberg, a Rhode Island state representative. “Saturday we vote on whether to end the undemocratic superdelegate system. It’s time to restore democracy in the Democratic Party.”

"The super delegate system undermines the promise of one person one vote that is bedrock of democracy,” added Deborah Burger, co-president of National Nurses United and a rules committee member. “It was created to block the nomination of candidates who would challenge a political system that has for far too long been dominated by corporate interests and a wealthy elite. Ending this undemocratic selection process would be a strong step forward to making the Democratic Party more responsive to those thirsting for real change and a healthier America."

Read on for additional comments on the "End Superdelegates" drive from those who supported Hillary Clinton and those who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, former DNC staffer, who supported Hillary Clinton during the primary: “There are many reasons to end the practice of superdelegates in the Democratic Party. To me the most important is that it is discordant with broader and vital efforts by Democrats to modernize and improve our democracy. If we want the voice of everyday people to be louder and more consequential in our nation’s politics, it must also be so in our party.”

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who supported Bernie Sanders during the primary: "In my view, both as a superdelegate and a former DNC official, the nominee of our party should be decided by who earns the most votes —not party insiders, unelected officials, or the federal lobbyists that have been given a vote in our nominating process. The current system stands against grassroots activists and the will of the voters. We’ve seen a historic number of new voters and activists join our political process in the past year, many of whom are rightly upset at how rigged the political system can seem at times. If we want to strengthen our democracy and our party, we must end the superdelegate process.”

Joe Trippi, former Howard Dean campaign manager, who supported Hillary Clinton during the primary: “Of all the ideas to reform and improve the nominating process of the Democratic Party the core goal has to be to empower voices from the bottom up. The top down idea of superdelegates is obsolete and is a good place to start."

Chuy Garcia, Cook County commissioner and rules committee member, who supported Bernie Sanders during the primary: “I'm proud of the progress this year by the Democratic Party on issues critical to the historically disenfranchised. But we still have further to go to achieve political parity within the party. The superdelegate system gives disproportionate power to party insiders over rank and file voters. The will of the people is best expressed through elected, pledged delegates. It's time to reform the superdelegate system!”

Christine Pelosi, political strategist, who supported Hillary Clinton during the primary: “Let's show America that as the Democratic Party, we believe in democracy and that leaders should never trump the will of the voters.”

Nina Turner, former Ohio state senator, who supported Bernie Sanders during the primary: "The 2016 presidential election cycle is a piercing reminder of what happens when absolute power runs amok. If we were not aware before, we are certainly aware now that the ‘superdelegate’ model within the Democratic Party is on its face undemocratic. It must be reformed to conform in tangible ways to the expressed values of equity, diversity and fairness enshrined in our party's principles."

By Lisa Neff

Source

USA Today - March 17, 2015, by Mark Weisbrot - Should the Federal Reserve raise interest rates in order to create more unemployment and keep wages from rising? If the question were asked that way, the vast majority of Americans would say, "No!"

It is not posed in this manner, even though economists — including Fed economists — and many journalists who write for the business press know that this is exactly what the Fed will be doing when it raises interest rates.

Of course, the justification is that we "need" to do this in order to keep inflation from rising to harmful levels. But the Consumer Price Index is actually down slightly for the year ending in January; in other words, inflation is in negative territory. Why should anyone want to increase unemployment just to keep inflation down?

OUR VIEW: Why it's good news if Fed loses 'patience'

When the Fed increases unemployment, it increases it twice as much for African Americans as for everyone else. And higher unemployment also reduces wage growth much more for African-American workers and lower-wage workers. Across the board, more unemployment translates very directly into more income inequality.

This is no time to be increasing unemployment and inequality, and pushing down wages. Median household income in the U.S. is still down about 3% since the recession ended in mid-2009. For the vast majority of the workforce, wages have stagnated or declined since 1979. Meanwhile, in the first three years of the current economic recovery, the top 1% of Americans received 91% of all income gains.

Fortunately, for probably the first time in the Fed's century of existence, there is a grass-roots movement to hold America's central bank accountable to the voters, citizens and working people of this country. A coalition led by the Center for Popular Democracy is "Fed Up" and trying to make sure that the Fed doesn't cut off wage growth before it even gets rolling.

If America is to shed the title of "Land of Inequality," this is how it is going to happen: by more people becoming aware of how the Fed's monetary policy affects them and demanding that it change.

Source