Campaign News

One reality hanging over the presidential election and our politics in general is this: No matter what terrific plan a politician has for creating jobs and boosting wages, it must contend with the Federal Reserve’s ability to unilaterally counteract it. If the Fed decides higher wages risk inflation, they can raise interest rates and deliberately strangle economic growth, reversing the wage effect. Why come up with ways to grow the economy, then, if the Fed will react by intentionally slowing it?

The reason the Fed operates as a wet blanket on the economy has to do with who really controls the institution. If the desires of bankers and the rich outweigh the desires of laborers, then their fear of inflation (which cuts into their profits) will always take precedence over full employment. Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke unwittingly gave a perfect example of that yesterday. Talking about how the Fed could institute “helicopter drops” of money to supplement federal spending and jump-start the economy, he stated from the outset, “no responsible government would ever literally drop money from the sky.” Who sets the boundaries of what’s “responsible” matters a great deal here.

To make the central bank work in the public interest rather than the interests of a select few, you must reform the very structure of the Federal Reserve. That’s the purpose of a new proposal from Andrew Levin, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former advisor to Fed Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen. In conjunction with the activist group Fed Up, which advocates for pro-worker policies at the Fed, Levin has devised a framework to make the central bank a fully public institution, with all the transparency and accountability demanded of other government entities.

It’s such an important idea that Warren Gunnels, policy director for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, talked it up yesterday on a conference call with Levin. While stopping short of endorsing taking the Fed public, Gunnels did say, “Senator Sanders believes we need to made the Fed a more democratic institution, responsive to the concerns of all Americans, not a few billionaires on Wall Street.”

Right now, the Fed is a quasi-public, quasi-private hybrid, taking advantage of that status to maintain high levels of secrecy. Members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, like other federal agencies. But the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks are legally owned by commercial banks in each of those regions. Banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo hold stock in these regional banks, which happen to be one of their primary regulators.

This was how central banks worldwide operated at the time of the Fed’s founding, but that has changed. “Every other central bank around the world is fully public,” Professor Levin said, citing the Bank of Canada’s shift in the 1930s and the Bank of England in the 1940s.

Not only does having private banks own a chunk of the Fed raise questions about regulatory supervision, it implicitly privileges banker concerns over the public at large. This is particularly important because the Fed has failed as an institution consistently over the past decade.

First it failed to identify an $8 trillion housing bubble, along with increases in leverage and derivatives exposure that magnified the housing collapse into a larger crisis. Then, it failed to deploy all its policy tools and allowed a slow recovery to take hold that left millions of workers behind, as growth never caught up to its expectations. British economist Simon Wren-Lewis believes the third big mistake is happening now, through premature interest rate hikes to return to “normal” operations. “Central banks are wasting a huge amount of potential resources” by tightening too quickly, Wren-Lewis says. For everyday Americans, that translates into millions more people out of work than necessary.

So Levin’s plan would cash out the banks’ stock, and begin to remove their influence over the Fed. The board of directors of the regional Fed banks, which currently includes commercial bank executives, would be chosen through a representative process with mandates for diversity (no African-American has ever served as a regional Fed president) and a variety of viewpoints. Nobody affiliated with a financial institution overseen by the Fed could serve on any regional board.

These newly elected boards of directors would choose the regional presidents, which have a say on monetary policy decisions. That selection process would include public hearings and feedback. Under the current system, Fed presidents are re-elected through a pro forma process, with no opportunity for public engagement. Four of the 12 regional presidents were formerly executives at Goldman Sachs, and it’s hard to call that a coincidence.

In addition to breaking the conflict of interest inherent in current Fed governance, making the institution public would subject it to disclosure requirements, Freedom of Information Act requests, and external reviews that all other public agencies must submit to. Levin’s proposal calls for an annual Government Accountability Office review of Fed policies and procedures, and would allow the Fed’s inspector general new authority to investigate the regional banks.

The Levin proposal too often makes concessions to preserving central bank “independence,” like preserving the regional structure and giving Fed officials nonrenewable seven-year terms, which seems a little arbitrary. This impulse also led Democrats to reject Sen. Rand Paul’s legislation to audit the Fed earlier this year. The rhetoric of Federal Reserve “independence” conceals an institutional capture that allows it to ignore workers’ needs in favor of the wealthy. And its persistent failures and banker influence weaken the case for that independence.

Nevertheless, the heart of the proposal is to return democracy to the Fed, so the institution will edge away from its commitment to capital over labor. “The fundamental piece is that the Fed must be a public institution,” said Ady Barkan of the Fed Up Coalition.

Liberals too often ignore the Fed and the role it plays in the economy, but that’s starting to change. An obscure piece of the Federal Reserve Act statute identified by then-House staffer Matt Stoller led to a remarkable cut of billions of dollars in subsidies to big banks last year, under a Republican-majority Congress. Now the Fed Up coalition is not only rolling out this reform plan, but pushing the presidential candidates to answer whether the Fed should deliberately slow down the economy, make sure their institution looks like the general public, and reduce the power of private banks on its operations. (Bernie Sanders laid out his views on Fed reform in the New York Times last December, some of which intersect with the Fed Up proposal. Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ Policy Director, would only say that the Fed Up plan “deserves serious consideration.”)

A public, inclusive debate over Fed transparency and accountability is critical, given the importance of this institution to the economy. “These reforms would put the Fed on a path to serving the public for the next 100 years,” said Professor Levin. And that has to mean all the public, through democratic principles, not just the executives at our biggest banks.

By  David Dayen

Source

Don’t look for a tax reform roll-out as soon as Congress comes back despite the aggressive timetable laid out by White House legislative director Marc Short. Part of the reason is that it probably won’t be ready yet. But it also has to wait until after the GOP congress passes a budget resolution, people close to the matter tell MM.

Because if Republicans lay out their tax reform plan beforehand, Democrats could use the budget vote-a-rama process in the Senate to try and attack individual pieces of the plan.

Read the full article here.

As more retailers declare nationwide reforms to their scheduling practices – from ending on-call scheduling to providing greater advance notice – there is increased industry interest in understanding the impact of difficult work schedules on employees. Leading-edge employers are also starting to quantify the down-stream effects of ever-changing work schedules and excessive reliance on part-time staff, including higher turnover, chronic absenteeism, lower productivity, and unsatisfactory customer service.  Many industry leaders now recognize that predictable, stable and flexible work schedules are not just good for employees, but are essential to meeting operational, sales and growth objectives.

At the Next:Economy summit, the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fair Workweek Initiative will unveil the High Road Workweek Partnership, a groundbreaking approach to the future of work, which meaningfully incorporates employee voice and scheduling equity values into scheduling technologies and management practices.

Achieving a High Road Workweek involves three key components:

A Partnership of Core Stakeholders: With a 360 degree view from engaging diverse stakeholders, employers can assess the impact of their current scheduling practices and envision a sustainable workweek;

The High Road Workweek Pledge: Translates core business principles into specific scheduling practices that encompass: Predictability and Stability, Adequate Hours, and Employee Input and Flexibility, and Equal Opportunity and Mobility; and

Measurable Implementation and Assessment: Innovative scheduling technologies, guidance for managers, and clear metrics will facilitate implementation of the pledge, while ongoing feedback from employees and a research-based assessment will ensure that new policies deliver the intended outcomes.

The High Road Workweek Partnership delivers lasting scheduling solutions and provides a framework for employers who want to be strongly positioned in the global economy, leveraging the latest technologies and integrating corporate social responsibility into workforce management to create meaningful employment.

“Employers of our country’s hourly workforce are at a crossroads. The worrisome scheduling trends that have come to public attention are persistent and challenging issues that affect both workers and the longevity of a company’s success. Through a meaningful collaboration with employees, a commitment to core scheduling principles, and an innovative use of workforce management metrics, any business is capable of implementing a high road workweek,” says Carrie Gleason, Director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy.  

Professor Susan Lambert of the University of Chicago, a key architect in developing the framework for scheduling stability, says, “While this year marks tremendous progress in employers recognizing the costs that lean staffing and unpredictable scheduling has for both workers and business, employers will need to implement new metrics for their managers and find ways to incorporate more employee input to ensure these commitments to reform become consistent scheduling improvements. The High Road Workweek Partnership presents an innovative approach to helping employers implement measurable standards for fair work schedules across their operations.”

# # # 

www.populardemocracy.org  The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.

 www.fairworkweek.org The Fair Workweek Initiative, anchored by the Center for Popular Democracy and CPD Action, is driving the growing momentum to restore a workweek that enables working families to thrive. We are committed to elevating the voices of working people to ensure they can shape the solutions that work for their families – whether through improved industry practices or new workplace protections.​

Ocho años atrás, a raíz de ataques contra la comunidad local de inmigrantes y el fracaso de la legislatura estatal en expandir el acceso a licencias de conducir, la ciudad de New Haven creó el primer programa municipal del país que otorga un documento de identificación.

Poco a poco, otras ciudades siguieron el ejemplo de New Haven y reconocieron los grandes beneficios que otorga una identificación municipal, no solo para los residentes que no pueden obtener acceso a otros tipos de identificación emitida por el gobierno, sino por el bien de la vida política y económica en general.

Al principio, la adopción de programas de identificación municipal fue un proceso lento, pero se ha acelerado significativamente en el año 2015, impulsada en gran parte por el lanzamiento de la identificación municipal de la ciudad de Nueva York. El IDNYC , aprobado por el Concejo Municipal el año pasado y estrenado a inicios de este año por el alcalde Bill de Blasio, es ahora el más extenso programa de identificación municipal en el país, con más de 350,000 inscritos.

Sin la correcta identificación, una persona tal vez no pueda abrir una cuenta bancaria o cobrar un cheque, recibir atención médica en un hospital, inscribir a su hijo en la escuela, solicitar beneficios públicos, presentar una queja ante el departamento de policía, sacar libros de la biblioteca, votar en las elecciones o siquiera recoger un paquete de la oficina de correos. Con una simple medida, la identificación municipal elimina todas esas barreras.

Si bien las comunidades inmigrantes han sido una fuerza influyente al solicitar que las ciudades adopten programas de identificación municipal, los beneficiarios no se limitarán a las comunidades de inmigrantes.

La identificación municipal es una medida política de gran impacto, precisamente por su potencial de adaptarse a un amplio espectro de situaciones de la vida real. Una docena de ciudades tienen programas nuevos, y hay campañas a su favor en otras tantas. Estos programas tienen el propósito de reducir la falta de acceso a servicios municipales para jóvenes, personas sin hogar, ancianos, ex convictos y personas trasgénero.

Las ciudades también se están dando cuenta de que, para que sus programas de identificación local tengan éxito, deben ser atractivos para todos, incluso residentes que ya tienen otras formas de identificación. El uso de estos documentos de identificación otorga beneficios en negocios e instituciones culturales locales. De esta manera, las ciudades atraen una amplia gama de participantes, lo que le da mayor legitimidad a dicho documento en la comunidad.

Mientras continúe la lucha por la reforma a nivel federal, la identificación municipal es algo que los gobiernos locales pueden hacer para incluir y empoderar a los inmigrantes en su comunidad.

Programas como estos envían un mensaje de inclusión y bienvenida no solo dentro de los linderos de la ciudad donde existen, sino también externamente, hacia el resto del país y Washington DC, donde millones de vidas están en la cuerda floja, pendientes de un debate paralizado.

Source: El Diario