Campaign News

Trib Total Media - October 1, 2014, by Megan Harris - Three groups with union affiliations on Wednesday pointed to the criminal case against ousted PA Cyber Charter School founder Nick Trombetta as an example why the state's nearly 180 charter schools need better oversight and stronger accountability.

The Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education, and Action United of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh issued a report that alleges Pennsylvania charter schools defrauded taxpayers out of more than $30 million. That figure is an aggregate of cases brought by whistleblowers and media exposés, according to the authors.

Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools executive director Robert Fayfich said in a prepared statement that “the report draws sweeping conclusions about the entire charter sector based on only 11 cited incidents in the course of almost 20 years, while ignoring numerous alleged and actual fraud and fiscal mismanagement in (traditional) districts over that same time period.”

Trombetta, who investigators allege illegally funneled $1 million from school coffers and deferred taxes on an additional $8 million in personal income, pleaded not guilty to 11 counts of mail fraud, bribery, tax conspiracy and filing false tax returns last year. Hearings are ongoing.

Fayfich said, “Fraud and fiscal mismanagement are wrong and cannot be tolerated, but to highlight them in one sector and ignore them in another indicates a motivation to target one type of public school for a political agenda.”

The groups' report urges state officials to temporarily suspend the approval process for new charter schools, investigate existing ones, and shift from standard audits to forensic audits.

School districts paid more than $853 million in tax dollars to charters serving 128,712 students in 2013-14. Almost 4,000 Pittsburgh students attended 33 charter schools the same year.

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari said Wednesday that he doesn’t see much inflationary pressure building, arguing that means the central banks has the “luxury” of keeping rates low to help boost continued job growth.

The comments came at a meeting between Kashkari and black community activists in Minneapolis, Minn. to discuss economic disparities between black and white communities. “When I look at the data, I don’t see much inflationary pressure, so we have the luxury of taking time to let the economy keep creating jobs,” Kashkari said to the group. “Everybody at the Fed wants the job market to keep healing and we would love to see more people getting back to work.”

Kashkari isn’t a member this year of Fed’s interest-rate setting committee, which has kept rates near zero since the financial crisis. Since raising its benchmark federal-funds rate to between 0.5% and 0.25% at the end of 2015, the central banks has held rates steady. Its next meeting is Sept. 20-21.

The event was organized by Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, part of the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up coalition, which advocates for keeping interest rates low to help boost employment in low-income communities.

An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.

By SHAYNDI RAICE

Source

Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Biden, is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and author of the new book 'The Reconnection Agenda: Reuniting Growth and Prosperity.'

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gestures during a speech at a Chicago Freedom Movement rally at Soldier Field in Chicago on July 10, 1966. (Afro American Newspapers/Gado/Getty Images)

When the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis, supporting striking sanitation workers. By that time in his crusade for racial justice, he had elevated full employment to a key plank in his platform. The full name of the March on Washington was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. A common placard held up that day read, “Civil Rights Plus Full Employment Equals Freedom,” a powerful economic equation indeed.

In my experience, too few people remember this aspect of King’s movement, instead emphasizing his stirring spiritual commitment to racial inclusion. But King was of course thoroughly versed in the reality of the institutional barriers blocking blacks and his unique genius was to combine deep spiritual awareness with an equally deep understanding of the role of power in economic outcomes. That’s one reason he was in Memphis, supporting the union.

In 1967, King called for “a radical redistribution of economic and political power.” He particularly understood the power, for better or worse, of American institutions, most notably of course, the institution of racism, which so successfully blocked African Americans from decent homes, jobs, schools and opportunities.

But countervailing institutions existed within his vision as well, including the church and the union, and, if it could be forced to live up to its promise, the government. Even the institutions of the consumer economy and the job market could, with the right force and strategy, including boycotts that flexed black consumer muscle and equal opportunity laws, be nudged in the direction of racial justice.

To some readers, this “institutional” framework may be confusing. What do I mean by referencing the consumer or job markets or racism or unions, as “institutions”? This certainly doesn’t square with the classic economic explanation of how the economy works: profit-maximizing individuals achieving optimal social welfare by each individual pursuing their goals.

The institutional framework, with its emphasis on historical, legal and cultural practices (norms) embedded in economic systems, stands in stark contrast to the market forces framework. Surely no one could question whether the legal system or the housing market black people faced in King’s time, not to mention our own, promoted objective, blind justice. Discrimination in schools, the economy, and almost every other walk of life could not and cannot possibly be viewed as a fair or merit-based system.

Honoring King’s vision and legacy thus requires not simply remembering his most well-known dream: a racially inclusive society very different from the one that existed in his, or sadly, our own time. It requires recognizing the need to redistribute the power from the oppressive, exclusionary institutions, many of the same ones — housing, schools, criminal justice, the economy — he fought for until the day he was taken from us.

What does honoring that vision mean today?

Although I certainly don’t advocate giving up on President-elect Donald Trump’s administration before it has started, all signs suggest that it and the Republican-led Congress will hurt, not help, the economically less advantaged. Republican budgets threaten to undermine the safety net, Trump’s proposed tax policy squanders fiscal resources on tax cuts for the rich, undermining opportunities for those stuck in places without adequate educational or employment opportunities. There’s talk among Republicans of trying to get more states to pass “right to work” laws that undermine unions and cut workers’ pay. Listening to Ben Carson’s hearing for secretary of housing and urban development quickly disabuses one of hope that he’ll tackle the legacy of segregated housing that remains a serious problem. As far as reforming the institutionalized racism the remains embedded in our criminal justice and policing systems, again, it’s awfully hard to be hopeful.

There are, however, many levels of institutional norms, laws and practices. The Fight for Fifteen has been immensely successful in raising minimum wages at the state and sub-state levels. I can’t prove this, but I’d bet that without Black Lives Matter, there would be no “blistering report” from the Justice Department on the racial practices of the Chicago Police Department. The activist group “Fed Up” has had great success elevating the issue of economic justice as regards Federal Reserve policy, a policy area that even liberal presidents have avoided getting into.

As I recently wrote regarding “ban the box,” a policy designed to give job-seekers with criminal records a fairer shot at employment:

Nineteen states and over 100 cities and counties have already taken similar action for government employees, and seven states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island) plus Washington, DC and 26 cities and counties have extended ban the box policies to cover private employers.  Some private businesses, including Walmart, Koch Industries, Target, Starbucks, Home Depot, and Bed, Bath & Beyond, have also adopted these policies on their own.

This last part about the private businesses is instructive. The Selma bus boycott was, of course, in no small part an economic action: Black people would not pay for discrimination. Regarding full employment, King realized that at high levels of unemployment, it’s costless to discriminate against a significant swath of potential workers. But when the job market tightens up, discriminating against a needed worker means leaving profit on the table.

Especially in the age of Trump, when so many Americans feel as if representative democracy is seriously on the ropes, it seems a no-brainer to channel King and once again tap the power of boycotts and leaning on businesses to do the right thing. It makes no sense at all to cede this field to Trump as he nonsensically claims (and gets) credit for job creation that already was happening.

My intuition is that many businesses, as in the ban-the-box example, would be willing to help push back on the institutional injustices that persist. Higher and more equal pay scales, implementation of the updated, higher overtime threshold that was wrongly blocked by a Texas judge (in fact, many businesses, to their credit, have gone ahead with this change), not blocking collective bargaining if their workers want to exercise that right, flexible scheduling policies that help parents balance work and family — there’s no reason for progressives not to fight for these ideas at the sub-national level and the private sector.

Although these sub-national fights are more likely where the action is for the next few years, meaningful action is developing at the national level as well. King would have easily recognized the Trump phenomenon as the work of exclusive institutions once again grabbing the power and would have organized accordingly and effectively. As we speak, many of us are trying to block the repeal of health-care reform in this spirit. The Indivisible Movement and the Women’s March would also have been highly familiar to Dr. King.

But on whatever level or in whatever sector the fight takes place, as we celebrate King’s indelible contributions, let us recall his understanding of power, the institutions that power supported and his admonitions to us not to rest until much more of that power lies in the hands of those who still command far too little of it.

By Jared Bernstein

Source

Progress Illinois - May 27, 2014, by Ellyn Fortino - A proposal to hike Chicago's minimum wage to $15 an hour would not only be a boon for many low-wage workers but also the city's economy, according to a new report by the Center for Popular Democracy.

"Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would promote economic stability among Chicago workers, economic vitality in their neighborhoods and economic growth throughout this city," said Connie Razza, director of strategic research at the center, which works both locally and nationally to build "the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda."

The new report comes ahead of Wednesday's Chicago City Council meeting, during which aldermen with the Progressive Reform Caucus plan to introduce an ordinance for a citywide hourly minimum wage of $15 an hour. The ordinance was developed with members of Raise Chicago, a coalition of community and labor groups advocating for a higher hourly wage floor in the city. Chicago's current minimum wage is $8.25 an hour, the same as the base hourly wage in Illinois and $1 more than the federal level. 

Under the proposed ordinance, large companies in Chicago making at least $50 million annually would have one year to phase in a $15 minimum hourly wage, including for workers at their subsidiaries and franchise locations, according to Raise Chicago. Small and mid-sized businesses would have slightly more than five years to boost their employees' wages to $15 an hour.

The first phase of the proposed ordinance, which would apply to larger firms, would increase the wages for 22 percent of Chicago workers, or 229,000 people, according to the report. Phase one would generate nearly $1.5 billion in new gross wages annually, or $1.1 billion after deductions. During the first stage of the proposed ordinance, the higher employee wages would mean an estimated $616 million in new economic activity across the region, leading to the creation of 5,350 new jobs, the report showed. A $15 hourly wage for workers employed by large businesses in the city would also provide approximately $45 million in new sales tax revenue.

Increased wages for workers could also lower employee turnover costs for businesses, according to the report. Requiring Chicago employers with annual gross revenues of $50 million or greater to pay their workers at least $15 an hour would reduce labor turnover in the workforce by as much as 80 percent per year.

However, larger firms covered under the proposed ordinance could see their overall employer costs increase by up to 4 percent, according to the report's estimations. As a result, affected firms may raise consumer prices by about 2 percent. Such a price hike would translate into an $0.08 increase for a $4 hamburger, the report noted.

Ald. Roderick Sawyer (6th), who intends to co-sponsor the ordinance, said he expects about 10 out of the 50 Chicago aldermen to initially sign on to the legislation.

"The push then would be to get others to join with us in this cause, because it's important," the alderman said. "We should have talked about this many, many years ago, and had (the minimum wage) kept up with inflation, we might not be having this conversation right now. ... I'm hoping that our colleagues will see that this is not a job killer."

Sawyer said there is no specific date planned for when the proposal could go up for a full city council vote.

It is the alderman's hope that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's recently-formed minimum wage task force will consider the $15 minimum wage proposal. Emanuel has asked members on the diverse committee, chaired by Ald. Will Burns (4th) and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law's President John Bouman, to craft a plan to increase the wages for hourly minimum wage and tipped workers in the city. 

"I understand the interest in forming this committee," Sawyer said. "I don't think it's necessary because a proposed ordinance is ready to be submitted tomorrow. But now that the committee has been talked about, this [$15 minimum wage ordinance] is the first thing they can look at."

Sawyer and other backers of a $15 minimum wage are "open to listening to any and all suggestions" about the proposed ordinance, the alderman said. Sawyer also noted that Chicagoans are in favor of a $15 minimum wage.

During the March primary election, Chicago voters overwhelming supported a non-binding ballot referendum to increase the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour for employees of companies with annual revenues over $50 million. The referendum appeared on the ballot in 103 city precincts, garnering support from 87 percent of voters.

Katelyn Johnson, executive director of Action Now, which is involved with the Raise Chicago campaign, said the city's strong public support of a $15 minimum wage is not surprising. 

"We know that people in this city are struggling," she stressed. "The current minimum wage in Illinois is only $8.25 an hour, and that's so low that the workers, and certainly those who are supporting families, simply cannot survive, oftentimes working two or three jobs just to make ends meet and make other major personal sacrifices for themselves and their families.

"The $15 an hour wage will correct that," Johnson added. "It will provide a path out of poverty for families and allow (workers) to meet their families' basic needs so they no longer have to rely on food stamps or other public assistance. And in addition, it will stimulate the city's economy."

A total of 900,000 people work in Chicago, and 329,000 of them make less than $15 an hour, according to the report. Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately represented among low-wage workers in the city. 

Blacks and Latinos make up 23.6 percent and 26.8 percent of the share of all Chicago workers, respectively. However, 28 percent of low-wage earners in the city are black and 42.4 percent are Latino. Low-wage workers who live in the city are concentrated in the Chicago neighborhoods of Austin, Avondale, Bridgeport and McKinley Park, among other areas. 

"This geographic concentration of residents earning low wages means that an increase in the minimum wage will offer larger benefits to certain neighborhoods, while also stimulating the citywide economy," the report reads.

Meanwhile, Chicago aldermen are up for re-election next year, and Sawyer said those who co-sponsor the $15 minimum wage ordinance might see more support from voters at the polls.

"I think in my community, (supporting a $15 an hour minimum wage) plays better. People that try to live off of minimum wage understand that it needs to be raised, so those [aldermen] that have people that can understand that will obviously fare better," Sawyer said. "Maybe some in more affluent wards, it many not play as well, but even those there can understand the economic impact."

People who "have more disposable income, they spend it," the alderman continued. "And if you have more disposable income and you spend it, that means the money is circulating in those individual communities. Sales taxes are paid. That means we can get more revenue to do things: Pay down debt, infrastructure improvements, capital improvements."

Over the next few months, Raise Chicago members and others plan to take part in a number of activities to build community support for a $15 Chicago minimum wage and "put pressure on elected officials to carry out the will of the people," Johnson said. 

When asked if Chicagoans can expect to see more public protests concerning the minimum wage, Johnson said, "We'll see."

Be sure to check back with Progress Illinois for our coverage of Wednesday's Chicago City Council meeting.

Source