Campaign News

On Monday, more than 60 organizations associated with the Black Lives Matter movement released a series of policy demands, including free access to higher education, reparations, and an end to capital punishment.

According to the New York Times, these demands come on the heels of the second anniversary of Michael Brown’s death and after both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

“Our grievances and solutions extend beyond the police killing of our people; state violence includes failing schools that criminalize our children, dwindling earning opportunities, wars on our trans and queer family that deny them of their humanity, and so much more,” Montague Simmons of Organization for Black Struggle and the Movement for Black Lives Policy Table, said in a statement. “That’s why we united, with a renewed energy and purpose, to put forth a shared vision of the world we want to live in.”

The plan, titled “A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom and Justice,” offers up six core demands and 40 policy priorities, NBC News noted. They include:

Ending the War on Black People: This includes abolishing the death penalty, mass surveillance in communities of color, the privatization of police, violence against all Blacks (including Black trans, queer and gender nonconforming people) and using a past criminal history as a means to seek a job, housing, license and voting rights.

Reparations: To address the past and current harms that slavery, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration have done to the Black community, BLM is seeking reparations for the wealth extracted from our communities, guaranteed livable income and free access and open admissions to public community colleges, universities, and technical schools, to name a few.

Invest-Divest: Instead of federal, state, and local monies being invested into prisons, police, surveillance, and exploitative corporations, BLM would rather see that invested into long-term safety strategies such as education, local restorative justice services, employment programs, and universal health care.

Economic Justice: This is calling for Black communities to have real collective ownership of wealth in the U.S. This could be achieved with restructuring tax codes, creating federal and state job programs that specifically target the most economically marginalized Black people, breaking up large banks and ensuring better protection for workers.

Community Control: This would include the end of the privatization of education and making sure communities have the power to hire and fire officers, determine disciplinary action, control budgets and policies, and subpoena relevant agency information when needed.

Political Power: To ensure that real democracy can be achieved for all Black people, BLM wants for all political prisoners to be released, eliminating Super Pacs that fund candidates, ensuring election protection, early registration at the age of 16, full access to technology and the internet, and increased funding to HBCU’s.

Marbre Stahly-Butts, who is part of the leadership team of the Movement for Black Lives Policy Table, told the Times that neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump have truly made strides to address these issues in their prospective campaigns.

“On both sides of aisle, the candidates have really failed to address the demands and the concerns of our people. So this was less about this specific political moment and this election, and more about how do we actually start to plant and cultivate the seeds of transformation of this country that go beyond individual candidates,” she said.

This plan also shows a sign of an evolution for the movement, which has been criticized in the past for not having a clear concise platform of how they want to usher in change. And now as the election continues, it’s about using these ideals to further hold the nation’s politicians accountable, Michaela Brown, communications director of Baltimore Bloc, stressed.

“We seek radical transformation, not reactionary reform. As the 2016 election continues, this platform provides us with a way to intervene with an agenda that resists state and corporate power, an opportunity to implement policies that truly value the safety and humanity of black lives, and an overall means to hold elected leaders accountable,” she said in statement.

We hope all these leaders are paying close attention.

By KELLEE TERRELL 

Source

My path as an activist had been fairly conventional. After law school, I represented low-wage Latino workers in Queens who had been victims of wage theft, and I helped write New York City’s groundbreaking paid sick days law. Later, I created a campaign called Fed Up, urging the Federal Reserve to use its economic tools to focus on raising wages and creating jobs, not just minimizing inflation. I didn’t think of myself as a direct beneficiary of these policies: I was an upper-middle class white man with elite degrees, a bright future and financial security. I could focus on empowering others.

Read the full article here.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is taking its time picking a new president, leaving the position vacant for more than four months and leaving the institution without a strong public voice at a time of intense debate over when the central bank should start raising interest rates.

Former president Richard Fisher stepped down March 19, leaving the bank’s first vice president Helen Holcomb to serve as interim president. His exit was long anticipated: he faced mandatory retirement due to his age. The bank formally announced Mr. Fisher’s impending exit in November. Executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles was tapped to find a successor.

Other regional Fed banks, in contrast, have filled their top vacancies more briskly in recent years. For instance, Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser retired March 1 and his replacement, Patrick Harker, was announced the next day.

The duration of the Dallas vacancy has surprised many central bank watchers. Some of them say the bank’s board of directors appears to want a clone of Mr. Fisher—a strong voice on major issues with deep ties to the Lone Star state.

“It’s beyond bizarre” a new president hasn’t been named yet, said Danielle DiMartino Booth, who served as a close adviser to Mr. Fisher when they were both at the bank. Ms. Booth, who left the Dallas Fed in June and is now a strategist with the Liscio Report, said what the bank appears to want is a rare commodity.

“Richard Fisher rose to the status of being a deity in Texas,” Ms. Booth said. “People associate the success of the state” with him, and it is “very difficult” to find a new leader who can maintain that sort of profile, she said.

The Dallas Fed responded to questions about the search process by producing a description of what the bank seeks in a new leader. It said candidates should have “recognized stature” in economics and finance and preferably hold a Ph.D. The “ideal candidate will exhibit a strong combination of economic/market/policy expertise, integrity (and willingness to satisfy financial interest and disclosure requirements), leadership, communication skills, interpersonal skills, and community involvement,” it said.

Before joining the Dallas Fed, Mr. Fisher was a wealthy hedge-fund operator and diplomat. He was known for a brash public style as president. He made his case against the Fed’s easy money policies in speeches invoking high and pop culture, warning repeatedly about frothy financial markets and arguing in vain for higher interest rates.

His predecessor Robert McTeer, operating under the nickname of the “Lonesome Dove,” was known for opposing rate rises—sometimes via haiku.

The Dallas Fed has “a tradition of having an outspoken leader,” said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of American Merrill Lynch.

Those with knowledge of the process say the Dallas Fed is seeking a replacement who will carry on that tradition.

Heidrick & Struggles didn’t respond to questions about the search process.

The Dallas Fed president is chosen by the bank’s board of directors, subject to approval by the Federal Reserve’s Washington-based board of governors. The Dallas board members drawn from the financial industry are prohibited by law from participating in the search. The other Dallas board members who are involved declined to comment.

In recent years, regional Fed bank presidents have tended to be insiders. For example, San Francisco Fed President John Williams was previously the bank’s research director. Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester was previously research director at the Philadelphia Fed. Mr. Harker served on the Philadelphia Fed’s board before taking the top job. Now, only current Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart had no formal connection to the central bank before joining. Mr. Fisher was the rare bird who came in cold.

“Recent history has shown that the regional banks conduct a thorough and broad review of candidates that almost exclusively ends with the insider being selected,” said Aaron Klein, director of the financial regulatory reform initiative with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Mr. Harris said central bank insiders, shaped by a Fed culture that often rewards a gray public persona, tend to lack the dramatic flair of the past two Dallas Fed chiefs.

Some critics from labor unions and local community groups say they are disappointed by the lack of openness surrounding the selection process given that the regional Fed bank presidents are government officials who participate in important central bank policy decisions.

“We are very disappointed in what we’ve run into” trying to have a voice in the process, said Mark York, secretary-treasurer of the Dallas AFL-CIO. He said a letter from the union and other local groups asked for names under consideration to be made public in a bid to allow the public to weigh in, among other requests.

That said, not all think the bright light of transparency is a cure all. Lou Crandall, chief economist for Wrightson ICAP, said wanting to know more about the process is a “fair point.” But he warned “you don’t want a lot of public jockeying over this.”

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Las escuelas independientes (charter) han proliferado en las últimas dos décadas con repetidas promesas de mejorar la calidad de la educación. Su ascenso ha sido tan rápido que hoy en día, el número de alumnos matriculados en muchas escuelas públicas está disminuyendo vertiginosamente, y se tiene previsto que en la próxima década algunos distritos pierdan hasta un tercio de sus estudiantes con relación a principios de siglo. Muchos distritos afectados por esta tendencia se están viendo forzados a despedir maestros, enfermeros y otro personal importante que apoya a los alumnos que quedan en las escuelas públicas.

La ley federal Every Student Succeeds, promulgada a fines del año pasado, no hará sino acelerar esta tendencia. Se proyecta que la ley aumentará al doble el gasto en escuelas charter durante la próxima década.

Sin embargo, a pesar de la explosión en ese sector, la supervisión se ha quedado atrás y, hoy en día, hay cada vez más motivos de preocupación. En un estado tras otro, las investigaciones han revelado mala administración, abusos y fraude descarado en las escuelas charter, incluso en aquellas elogiadas por sus buenos resultados. Una encuesta reciente de escuelas charter en todo el país realizada por el Center for Popular Democracy, descubrió que han despilfarrado la asombrosa cantidad de $216 millones desde 1994.

La ciudad de Nueva York no ha sido inmune al problema. En la extensa red de KIPP, por ejemplo, la escuela pagó casi $70,000 para llevar al personal en viajes de varios días al Caribe para fines presuntamente educativos, pero se detectaron pocas actividades de desarrollo profesional durante la estadía, según descubrió una auditoría en el año 2006.

En 2010, Joel Klein, secretario del Departamento de Educación, ordenó que la East New York Preparatory Charter School cerrara sus puertas después de que se reveló que la fundadora y directora de la escuela se había nombrado superintendente y se había dado un aumento de $60,000.

Muchas otras escuelas charter en toda la ciudad enfrentan preguntas sobre gastos cuestionables. El informe del CPD descubrió que muchas escuelas en la ciudad no documentaban sus gastos, no divulgaban casos de conflicto de intereses ni usaban licitaciones competitivas para asegurarse de comprar productos y servicios al mejor precio.

No se puede permitir que continúe esta situación, particularmente porque se tiene previsto que las escuelas charter aumenten exponencialmente en años próximos. El informe del CPD recomienda varias maneras de asegurar que los gastos de dichas escuelas se mantengan en regla, lo que incluye auditorías para detectar y evitar el fraude, y mecanismos para aumentar la transparencia de quienes operan escuelas charter.

Los encargados de dictar la política deben redoblar sus esfuerzos para promulgar medidas de supervisión incluso más estrictas y asegurar que todas las escuelas charter gasten su dinero sensatamente. A no ser que vigilemos este sector más estrechamente, en años próximos podrían desaparecer millones, perjudicando así a estudiantes y padres de familia en toda la ciudad.

By Kyle Serrette  

Source