Campaign News

According to Licata, progressives must develop the ability to “see the small things that generate the big things,” linking voter concerns about global threats like climate change to concrete and achievable steps that city government can take to address local manifestations of the larger problem.

As the 2016 primary season draws to an end and Bernie Sanders backers look beyond next month’s Democratic convention in Philadelphia, many who have “felt the Bern” have their eye on local politics.

Hundreds, if not thousands, will be heeding the call of Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a Sanders’ endorser and convention delegate. “We need people running for school boards,” Ellison told the New York Times in May. “We need people running for City Council. We need people running for state legislatures. We need people running for zoning boards, for park boards, to really take this sort of message that Bernie carried and carry it in their own local communities.”

Fortunately for those seeking relevant political advice, former Seattle City Councilor Nick Licata has just published a handbook called Becoming A Citizen Activist: Stories, Strategies, & Advice For Changing Our World (Sasquatch Books, 2016). His book draws on 17 years of experience as a progressive elected official and varied campus and community organizing work before that.

Like Sanders, Licata was a sixties radical. He belonged to Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at Bowling Green State University and first learned retail politics at the dormitory level when he ran successfully for student government president.

Like some Sanders supporters who may become candidates in the near future, Licata had an unconventional resume when he first sought public office. He had lived in a well-known Seattle commune for 20 years and founded two alternative publishing ventures, the People’s Yellow Pages and the Seattle Sun. A Democrat with Green Party sympathies, he defeated a candidate who was backed by the mainstream media and out-spent him two to one.

“In the previous 128 city council elections, only two candidates had won when both daily newspapers endorsed their opponent,” Licata reports, so “the odds didn’t look good.” Fortunately, his message that the city should invest more resources “in all neighborhoods and not concentrate them in just a few” resonated with an electoral coalition of “young renters” and “older home-owners.” Licata’s own track record of neighborhood activism gave him the necessary name recognition and grassroots street cred to win.

Becoming A Citizen Activist is full of useful tips about how activists and allied politicians can collaborate on issue-oriented campaigns. His book makes clear that “going local” is different from backing a presidential campaign focused on national and international questions. According to Licata, progressives must develop the ability to “see the small things that generate the big things,” linking voter concerns about global threats like climate change to concrete and achievable steps that city government can take to address local manifestations of the larger problem.

He describes how Seattle’s four years of skirmishing over plastic bag regulation originated in one neighborhood’s opposition to a new waste transfer station. What might have been just another exercise in NIMBYism evolved into a city-wide push for waste reduction at its source, plus much greater recycling. A plastic bag fee, imposed by the city council, was overturned after a plastic bag industry-funded referendum campaign, but the city’s ban on Styrofoam containers survived. In 2011, the city council passed a broad ban on single-use plastic bags, which the industry opted not to challenge either in court or at the polls.

Licata’s other examples of progressive policy initiatives include raising local labor standards, strengthening civilian oversight of the police, providing greater protection for undocumented immigrants, decriminalizing marijuana possession and using cultural programs to foster a sense of community.

Several of his most interesting case studies reveal the tendency of legislators—even liberal-minded ones—to be overly timid and skeptical about policy initiatives that push the envelope. In 2011, for example, Licata tried to lower the expectations of constituents who met with him about a paid sick leave mandate opposed by local employers.

“I cautioned that it was not likely that we’d see it anytime soon,” he admits in the book. Yet, less than nine months later, he was “shown to be wrong.” Not only was there sufficient public support, but “well-organized advocacy groups” marshaled “a wealth of data to prove that the sky wouldn’t fall if paid sick leave passed.”

Several years later, when some Seattle fast food workers staged union-backed job actions to highlight their minimum wage demand, it was the same story:

Politicians like me were sympathetic but also felt that fifteen dollars was way too big a lift. In my own case, I thought there were more readily achievable goals—like fighting wage theft. I found myself initially offering cautious verbal support and not much more.

What made Seattle’s “Fight for 15” winnable was grassroots organizing by local labor organizations and left-wing activists, who were able to inject the issue into the 2013 mayoral race between incumbent Mike McGinn and his challenger, state senator Ed Murray. Shortly before the election, Murray endorsed a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour while McGinn insisted that Washington state should take action instead of the city.

Key socialist presence

That year, it also made a big difference to have an energetic and charismatic socialist candidate running for city council under the “Fight for 15” banner. Kshama Sawant took on Richard Conlin, “a well-liked liberal politician” who cast the city council’s lone vote against paid sick leave and opposed raising the minimum wage without further study. According to Licata, Conlin, like McGinn, was defeated due to the votes of “many disaffected Democrats who wanted more aggressive council members willing to speak out on issues.”

Once elected, Sawant was quick to utilize what Licata calls “the unique means that public officials have to help mobilize the public”: holding public hearings, forming issue-oriented or constituency-based task forces and commissions and backing ballot measures like the threatened popular referendum on “15 Now” that kept Mayor Murray and his allies from weakening minimum wage legislation more than they did in 2014.   

Yet when Sawant—a generation younger than Licata—first ran against his longtime colleague, Richard Conlin, the council’s most left-leaning member didn’t support her. In Becoming a Citizen Activist, Licata now acknowledges Sawant’s unusual strengths as a radical politician, including her social media savvy, “dedicated following” and ability to project “a message that resonated with the public.” Her tweets, blogging and website use “helped her obtain 80 percent citywide name recognition after a year on the council, far surpassing all the other council members,” Licata reports.

According to the author, local pollsters surveying the relative popularity of city councilors prior to Seattle’s 2015 election found that Sawant’s “numbers were higher than all the others but mine, and I beat her by only one point.” These results might explain why Mayor Murray and the Seattle business community failed to unseat their Socialist Alternative critic when she ran for re-election last year, with Licata’s backing this time. (Licata himself chose to retire from the city council.)

New Forms of Organization

Readers interested in further detail about their over-lapping council careers will have to wait for American Socialist, a political memoir by Sawant (to be published by Verso next year) or Jonathan Rosenblum’s forthcoming book for Beacon Press about labor and politics in Seattle. Rosenblum worked on Sawant’s re-election campaign which, in his view, demonstrated  “the indispensability of organization” and an “independent political base.”

Unlike Licata’s own more typical electoral efforts in the past, Sawant’s “campaign strategies and tactics were not directed by a single candidate or campaign manager.” Instead, Rosenblum points out, they were “developed through collective, thoughtful discussions” among Socialist Alternative members who live in Seattle and “are connected to a broader base of union and community activists.”

One limitation of Licata’s book is the absence of any discussion about fielding slates of progressive candidates who are committed to a common platform that includes rejection of corporate contributions. To his credit, Licata did play a major role in creating the multi-city network of progressive elected officials known as Local Progress. In the Bay Area, this group includes Richmond, Calif., city councilor (and former mayor) Gayle McLaughlin, whose Richmond Progressive Alliance only runs candidates who spurn business donations.

Nationally, about 400 mayors, city councilors, county supervisors and school board members use Local Progress as a “think tank” and clearing house for alternative public policies. Assisted by the Center for Popular Democracy in New York, the group distributes a 60-page handbook for improving labor and environmental standards, housing and education programs, public safety, and municipal election practices. At annual conferences—like its national meeting in Pittsburgh on July 8-9—local victories of the sort Licata describes in his book are dissected and their lessons disseminated.

Local Progress leaders believe that neither street politics nor electoral victories alone will make a sufficient dent in the status quo. As Licata told his fellow “electeds” when they met in New York two years ago, municipal government changes for the better only when progressives have “an outside and inside game…people on the inside and people protesting on the outside to provide insiders with backbone.” Licata’s new book provides many useful examples of that necessary synergy.

By STEVE EARLY

Source

Eric S. Rosengren, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, has been famous as an inflation dove – until now.

Being a dove means he almost always favors smaller and fewer interest rate increases by the Fed, in the hope that more money from the spigot will lead to more jobs and wage increases for workers. Rosengren and Janet Yellen, the Fed chair, have led the dove charge in recent years.

But on Wednesday, Rosengren dissented when the central bank postponed a rate hike at least until December. That surprised his fellow dovish liberals because, to oversimplify, lower rates tend to help workers, while higher rates, making money harder for borrowers to get, can protect accumulated wealth by warding off inflation.

The pro-hike dissent was his first in almost 10 years as a Fed governor; he has certainly opposed rate hikes and urged faster cuts, sometimes with formal dissents.

The move ignited debate not along the usual lines of doves and hawks – those who favor rate hikes to control inflation even before it appears – but between doves and doves, in much the same way that, for example, foreign trade deals divide liberal Democrats.

All of this might seem like an esoteric spat to Joe Grabasandwich, as my old politics professor used to say. But it lies at the heart of how the central bank can prod the economy to help more people, sooner. And it matters especially in Connecticut, where growth is slow even in good times, making rate hikes hurt worse than elsewhere.

On Friday, Rosengren explained his dissent in a public statement in which he said the economy is stronger than many people think.

"By 2019, I expect the unemployment rate to have declined below 4.5 percent," Rosengren said in the statement. "While I have a long track record of advocating for policy that supports robust labor market conditions, that is below the rate that I believe is sustainable in the long run."

What Rosengren is saying is that a 4.5 percent unemployment rate is so low that it would heat up the economy to the point of inflation above 2 percent, and that's the big no-no the Fed is trying to prevent – a clear charge to anyone who remembers the nightmare of the 1970s.

Taking the medicine of a one-quarter of 1 percent rate increase now, immediately, will, in his view, allow for relatively low rates over the long haul. That's part of the so-called soft landing from an expansion that is so hard to achieve.

Not so fast, left-leaning economists say. Or rather, not so slow. In the big picture, economist Jared Bernstein said, workers only see wage increases when the unemployment rate is at or near full employment – as we saw in the Sept. 15 Census report. The report showed a robust 5.2 percent 2015 jump in the income of households at the middle of the scale.

Did Eric Rosengren, of all people, turn his back on this?

"I've always considered him sympathetic to my view, which is that the last thing you'd want to do is tap the brakes and slow down job growth at a time when the economy is finally starting to...help people who have been left behind," said Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and author of a new book, "The Reconnection Agenda: Reuniting Growth and Prosperity."

Bernstein, a former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden, doesn't believe Rosengren is suddenly looking out for capital at the expense of labor. Rather, the issue comes down to the murky relationship between inflation and unemployment.

The financial media widely reported Rosengren's 4.5 percent jobless figure Friday. But in itself, it's not news, considering the rate is now 4.9 percent. The real news, Bernstein said, is that Rosengren thinks he can tell when too hot is too hot, without data.

Rosengren, in a visit to New Britain in April, explained that the "natural" or "full" rate of employment, the level that delivers the maximum benefits to the economy without accelerating inflation, will be reached when the jobless rate is 4.7 percent.

The trouble with that view, Bernstein said, is that "it is widely understood by people who look very closely at this question that we cannot reliably estimate that rate within 2 points one way or another."

There are too many variables in play, such as productivity and distribution of income, so, why risk punishing workers by applying certainty to a mystery?

Rosengren explained, in his statement Friday: "My goal is to achieve a long and durable recovery – a sustainable expansion...I believe a significant overshoot of the full employment level could shorten, rather than lengthen, the duration of this recovery."

As I noted when Rosengren visited in April, his view of the economy, literally, from his downtown Boston office, is full of cranes in the torrid market of a red-hot city. Is that coloring his fear of inflation? Maybe.

No one thinks another quarter-point increase in the Fed's overnight borrowing rate, after last December's uptick, will make a big difference by itself. But the signal the Fed sends can and does move markets and the economy.

"If we want this recovery to reach down and help people it has yet to reach, that's inconsistent with even a small rate increase," Bernstein said. "Where's the inflation?"

"It's gradually coming up," Rosengren told a Quincy, Mass. audience on Sept. 9.

That's the $15 trillion debate as the U.S. economy either is, or is not, nearing its speed limit.

By Dan Haar

Source

One of the paradoxes at the center of the struggle for immigrant rights in the United States is that while immigration law and policy is made at the national level, most of the impacts of those laws occur at the local level. Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, negotiate and renegotiate a statutory framework that includes some and excludes others, and design and redesign a police apparatus to enforce the framework. Meanwhile, in towns and cities across the country, immigrants and the neighborhoods they are part of experience firsthand the difficult realities of trying to live, work, take care of a family, and participate in community within a set of legal structures that do not always protect their basic rights and freedoms.

In the face of uncertain and incomplete federal immigration reform efforts, cities, counties and states are increasingly looking for ways to address immigration policy issues locally. This is the context in which the idea for municipal identification cards has arisen. Municipal ID cards can help individuals deal with the ongoing struggle to integrate and participate in civic life. 

Download the full report here.

The ability to provide proof of identity is a basic necessity that many Americans take for granted. Access to widely accepted forms of ID such as passports, drivers licenses and social security cards is a privilege that attends other privileges—privileges of race, of class and of citizenship. But, increasingly, identification requirements gate-keep almost every aspect of daily life. Without the right form of ID you may not be able to open a bank account or even cash a check, see a doctor at a hospital, register your child for school, apply for public benefits, file a complaint with the police department, borrow a book from a library, vote in an election, or even collect a package from the post office. Ironically, the very people who are most in need of such basic services are also those who have the most difficulty obtaining the proof of identity that will allow them to access those services. In addition to serving practical urgencies, identification cards also have a symbolic importance as a sign of membership in the community. Cities that offer ID to their residents  regardless of immigration status are making a powerful statement of welcome and inclusion.

Ten cities have already enacted municipal ID card programs: New Haven, CT; San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Richmond, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Asbury Park, NJ; Mercer County, NJ; Trenton, NJ; Princeton, NJ; and Washington, D.C.   Campaigns are underway in several other jurisdictions as well, including Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY.

A sex assault survivor who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake inside an elevator Friday — after announcing he would vote in favor of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh — said that the likely pivotal moment “was all kind of a blur.”

Read the full article here.