Immigrant advocates attack banks for financing private prisons
“Private prison companies and their Wall Street financiers stand to benefit from policies that increase detentions, separate families, and cause irreparable harm to immigrant children," said Ana...
“Private prison companies and their Wall Street financiers stand to benefit from policies that increase detentions, separate families, and cause irreparable harm to immigrant children," said Ana María Archila, Co-Executive Director of the Center for Popular Democracy, in a statement.
Read the full article here.
We’re onto the phony education reformers: Charter school charlatans and faux reformers take it on the chin
2015 will forever be remembered as the year the political establishment was shaken by the populist-driven presidential candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But it should also be...
2015 will forever be remembered as the year the political establishment was shaken by the populist-driven presidential candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But it should also be remembered as the year another established order was forever altered by change, dissent and revelations of its corruption.
For years, an out-of-touch establishment has dominated education policy too. A well-funded elite has labeled public education as generally a failed enterprise and insisted that only a regime of standardized testing and charter schools can make schools and educators more “accountable.” Politicians and pundits across the political spectrum have adopted this narrative of “reform” and now easily slip into the rhetoric that supports it without hesitation.
But in 2013 a grassroots rebellion growing out of inner city neighborhoods from Newark to Chicago and suburban boroughs from Long Island to Denver began to counter the education aristocracy and tell an alternative tale about schools.
The education counter-narrative is that public schools are not as much the perpetrators of failure as they are victims of resource deprivation, inequity in the system and undermining forces driven by corruption and greed. In other words, it wasn’t schools that needed to be made more accountable; it was the failed leadership of those in the business and government establishment that needed more accountability.
The uprising has been steadily growing into an Education Spring unifying diverse factions across the nation in efforts to reverse education policy mandates and bolster public schools instead of punishing them and closing them down.
2015 became the year the uprising reached a level where it forever transformed the hegemonic control the reformers have had on education policy.
Most prominently, No Child Left Behind, the federal law that’s been driving education policy since 2001, was replaced with a new law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, thatreverses many of the edicts of NCLB or leaves them up in the air for states and courts to decide.
Also, comments made by establishment presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will reverberate through the election in 2016. Specifically, at a town hall held in South Carolina, broadcast by C-SPAN, Clinton responded to a question about charter schools by saying, “Most charter schools, I don’t want to say every one, but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids. Or if they do, they don’t keep them.” A week or so later, Clinton transgressed the status quo again by remarking, in a conversation with members of the American Federation of Teachers, “I have for a very long time also been against the idea that you tie teacher evaluation and even teacher pay to test outcomes. There’s no evidence. There’s no evidence.”
Organizations and individuals connected to wealthy donors to the Democratic Partywere appalled, but the truth is out, and skepticism about education policy prescriptions touted as necessary “reforms” to the system has now left the fringe and become mainstream.
The bigger, more important story emerging from 2015 is that the American public is increasingly at odds with a reform movement that seeks to remake schools into an image promoted by wealthy private foundations, influential think tanks and well-financed political operations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council(ALEC).
The evidence against the education establishment’s case piled up as the year rolled on, and the narrative of public education policy will never be the same.
Blows to the Testocracy
Take the issue of standardized testing. The idea that school improvement should be about enforcing uniform measures of test score outcomes across the nation had a particularly bad year in 2015.
As Seattle classroom teacher and public school activist Jesse Hagopian explains in an article for the National Education Association, standardized tests became the focal point of widespread scorn and dissent.
More than 620,000 public school students around the U.S. refused to take standardized exams. Also, numerous states ended high school graduation tests, and dozens of universities and colleges reduced or eliminated test requirements for their admissions process.
The backlash to standardized testing prompted changes in federal policy as well, including the revision of NCLB. As Hagopian writes, “ESSA deposes one of the cruelest aspects of the test-and-punish policy under NCLB: the so-called ‘Adequate Yearly Progress’ annual test score improvement requirement that labeled nearly every American school failing.”
Also, as Hagopian notes, President Obama, acknowledging the growing resistance to testing, “announced in October that ‘unnecessary testing’ is ‘consuming too much instructional time.’ This announcement came as a surprise given Obama’s support for policies like Race to the Top that contributed to the proliferation of high-stakes testing. The reversal of rhetoric was a result of the mass opt-out movement and will surely embolden authentic-assessment activists in the coming year.”
“Pressure from parents, students, teachers, school officials, and community leaders began turning the tide against standardized exam overuse and misuse during the 2014-2015 school year,” declares a report from the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest.org).
FairTest’s report highlights “assessment reform victories” in numerous states where officials suspended or significantly revised testing policies and created “alternative systems of assessment and accountability” that “deemphasize standardized tests.”
Think Progress, the action center of the left-leaning Beltway think tank the Center for American Progress, also reports on the overturn of the testocracy in its review: “these education protests got results in 2015.”
Noting the growing opt-out movement in Colorado, New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Wisconsin, the Think Progress writer highlights New York in particular, “where 20 percent of students opted out of tests in 2015. The number of New York students opting out quadrupled from [2014].”
Reform Is Losing the Left
New York in particular provides an example of how education reform may fare in the near future, at least in left-leaning states where leaders have been persuaded by big-money donors to crack down on public schools and educators.
Led by Governor Andrew Cuomo and his former state education chief, now currently acting U.S. Secretary of Education, John King, the Empire State had been a model for reform ideology, being among the first to implement the Common Core and its associated tests and pursuing a harsh new model for evaluating teachers, in which 50 percent of teachers’ performance rating was tied to students’ test scores.
But recently Cuomo made “a complete about face” on education, observes a recent op-ed in a New York press outlet. The writer – Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education, a progressive New York state organization – notes that Cuomo had made his test-based teacher evaluation system the “top legislative priority in 2015″ and had claimed it was ”one of the greatest legacies for me and the state.”
But the evaluation system had angered teachers and parents and helped spur the test boycotts noted above. Seeing his public approval numbers plummeting, Cuomo engineered, according to Easton, a redo on the evaluation system that prompted the state education authority to place a moratorium on test-based teacher evaluations.
Easton believes Cuomo’s actions in New York are likely too little, too late – arguing that he has been “the author of his own demise on education issues.” That may be, but far more likely, other Democratic Party governors are bound to notice how reform policies like those carried out in New York have now lost the left and are rapidly growing out of favor with the public at large.
Of course, in states and districts where test-based teacher evaluations are already established in the policy landscape, teachers will likely feel the effects of these systems for some time. So the fight over teacher evaluations will go state by state in the years ahead.
But as new reports continue to call these flawed and unfair evaluations into question, there will be more examples of these systems being overturned.
Reform Fads Don’t Work
Using test scores to evaluate teachers – one of the pillars of the reform movement – is not the only policy idea going out of favor. Using the scores to evaluate the viability of local schools is running into more opposition as well
In Tennessee, also an early adopter of reform fads, leaders had put into place a system that used student scores on standardized tests to pronounce schools as “failing” and provide the rationale for the state to take over management of the schools by an appointed board. What follows these takeovers, invariably, is that the agency, whose officials are handpicked by conservative lawmakers, transfers the schools to privately operated charter management organizations.
In Tennessee, the state takeover agency is called the Achievement School District, but the model is being adopted under other guises by many other states.
Now Tennessee’s much-lauded takeover program has run into “political trouble” according to a recent article in Education Week.
“Several Democratic state lawmakers,” according to the article, “will propose bills this upcoming legislative session to either shut down the turnaround district, which mostly is based in Memphis, or severely limit its authority to take over schools.”
The legislature’s Black Caucus, the representatives of the communities most often targeted by the takeovers, are helping to lead the pushback.
In Memphis, where the ASD has charterized more than two dozen schools, parents are leading the fight as well. As Chalkbeat Tennessee reports, members of the district’s neighborhood advisory councils have called the takeover process a “scam” and claimed the method for taking over their neighborhood schools “was rigged in favor of pairing struggling schools with charter operators.”
But the trouble with the ASD isn’t purely “political.” The takeover effort is also in trouble because it doesn’t work. The EdWeek article points to a recent Vanderbilt University study that showed district-led turnaround efforts had performed better than the the ASD. The study concluded, “Until the state-run district can begin to show academic progress, it shouldn’t be allowed to take over more schools.”
These events and others prove 2015 marks the year that standardized testing – and all its associated uses for unfairly judging teachers and schools – has now become a policy pariah. So what will reformers rally around now?
A Year of Charter School Scandals
For sure, charter schools provided reform fans with some cause to celebrate in 2015, as more than 500 new public charter schools opened during the school year, enrolling nearly 3 million students nationwide, according to charter industry reports.
As a recent report from a consulting group that works with the charter industry found, 2015 was a year in which charter schools reached impressive new benchmarks. These schools are now the most rapidly growing form of schools in America, with enrollments expanding by an average of 12 to 13 percent annually over the past 10 years. Charters now educate one in 16 children nationally and, in a number of big cities, now rival traditional school districts as the major provider of public education. Three of the nation’s five largest cities enroll more than 20 percentof their students in charter schools.
What’s growing particularly rapidly are large charter school chains, which have expanded at roughly twice the pace of the charter industry overall, increasing their student enrollments by 25 percent annually.
But charter school expansions come with a significant negative to the reform movement. As the numbers and influence of these schools grow, so do the scandals associated with them and so do the divisive fights in communities where these schools are proliferating.
The scandals and malfeasance associated with charter schools rose to levels in 2015 beyond what emerged in 2014.
Early in the year, a report from the Center for Popular Democracy looked at charter school finances in Illinois and found “$13.1 million in fraud by charter school officials … Because of the lack of transparency and necessary oversight, total fraud is estimated at $27.7 million in 2014 alone.”
One example the CPD report cited was of a charter operator in Chicago who used charter school funds amounting to more than $250,000 to purchase personal items from luxury department stores, including $2,000 on hair care and cosmetic products and $5,800 for jewelry.
In April, another report from the Center for Popular Democracy, along with the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS), uncovered over $200 million in “alleged and confirmed financial fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement” committed by charter schools around the country.
Authors of the report called $200-plus million the “tip of the iceberg,” because much of the fraud “will go undetected because the federal government, the states, and local charter authorizers lack the oversight necessary to detect the fraud.”
Then, in October, the Center for Media and Democracy published a new reportrevealing that the federal government has spent over $3.7 billion in taxpayer money on charter schools with virtually no accountability for the funds.
According to the report, the federal government, state governments and charter authorizers have generally not provided the public with ready information about how federal funds for charters have been spent. Attempts to trace federal grant money to recipients are apt to encounter “substantial obstruction” from states reluctant to reveal how charter money is spent and how state government handles charter oversight.
The report contends, “Unlike truly public schools, which have to account for prospective and past spending in public budgets provided to democratically elected school boards, charter spending is largely a black hole.”
In Michigan, for instance, where four out of five charters are run by for-profit management companies, CMD found “ghost schools“ that had received millions in federal funding but either never opened or were quickly closed with no account for the money. Some charter operators in the state have been accused, and convicted, of crimes, including felony fraud and tax evasion. But most often, no perpetrators of the malfeasance are brought to justice.
Interspersed among these massive reports are news stories from local press outlets, too numerous to count, about charter school frauds, financial and academic, that boggle the mind in their outrageousness.
In May, an Ohio paper began its news story about Ohio charter schools, “No sector – not local governments, school districts, court systems, public universities or hospitals – misspends tax dollars like charter schools in Ohio.” Reporter Doug Livingston wrote, “State auditors have uncovered $27.3 million improperly spent by charter schools, many run by for-profit companies, enrolling thousands of children and producing academic results that rival the worst in the nation.”
Charter school malfeasance in the Buckeye State has gotten so bad it’s even drawn the attention of FBI investigators.
More recently, Florida press outlets reported the state has given about $70 million to charter schools that later closed and returned virtually none of the money to taxpayers. While the state is able to recover computers and other equipment these schools purchased with taxpayer money, the far more substantial costs for purchasing and improving property and making lease payments stays in private pockets after the schools close.
Why Charter Schools Won’t Save Reform
Scandals will continue to dog charter schools because of the way they are organized and operated. As a recent policy brief from the National Education Policy Center explains, the very structure of the charter school business introduces new actors into public education who skim money from the system without returning any benefit to students and taxpayers.
In one of the more bizarre schemes the authors examine, charter operators use third-party corporations to purchase buildings and land from the public school district itself, so taxpayer dollars are used to purchase property from the public. Thus, the public ends up paying twice for the school, and the property becomes an asset of a private corporation.
In other examples, charter operators will set up leasing agreements and lucrative management fees between multiple entities that end up extracting resources that might otherwise be dedicated to direct services for children.
These arrangements, and many others documented in the brief, constitute a rapidly expanding parallel school system in America, populated with enterprises and individuals who work in secret to suck money out of public education.
Meanwhile, charter expansions continue to be met with increased community resistance wherever they roll out.
In Nashville, Tennessee, Jefferson County, Colorado, and across South Florida, every new charter school expansion is now met with fierce opposition from the community.
As the Los Angles Times reported in September, a plan devised in secret by a billionaire and his foundation would pay for the capital costs and lobbying to force through a plan to convert as many as half of the city’s schools into charters. The community has responded with outrage.
In what is likely to be an important legal precedent, the supreme court of the state of Washington found that charter schools are unconstitutional because they aren’t truly public schools.
Now calls for charter school moratoriums are becoming practically ubiquitous in state legislatures and local district school boards.
The mounting controversy surrounding charter schools is a strong indicator that if education reform proponents collect all their policy eggs in the basket of “school choice,” they are missing the main reasons why their movement is spurring increased resistance.
What Reform Fans Don’t Get
Indeed, resistance to the education reform agenda is not as much a rejection of its various policy features as it is a rejection of the philosophy that drives it.
This philosophy puts little stock in democratic governance of schools, believing instead that really smart people, armed with the right data and algorithms, are what it takes to determine education policy from New York to Nevada.
This core philosophy makes infinite sense to folks with backgrounds in law, business management, finance, or economics, but tends to rub educators and parents the wrong way because of its failure to acknowledge that teaching and learning are primarily relationship-driven endeavors and not technical pursuits.
To teachers, it makes about as much sense to base their actions exclusively on a data set or a marketing principle as it would for husbands and wives to conduct their marriages on that basis or for parents to raise their children that way. Sure, knowing some objective “things” about how students are doing is important, but there’s way more important stuff to attend to.
And parents will grow ever more skeptical of the false promise of “school choice” because it doesn’t deliver what they really want: the guarantee of good neighborhood schools that are free and equitable to all children.
But too few reformers get this. Instead, what we can expect in 2016 is for the current education establishment to use the considerable financial resources at its disposal to mount yet more marketing and public relations efforts, while the pushback from grassroots public education advocates will grow even stronger, and political leaders will be increasingly pressured to decide where they stand.
Source: Salon
After minimum wage changes, Bay Area workers push for ‘fair’ scheduling
After minimum wage changes, Bay Area workers push for ‘fair’ scheduling
As cities all over the state have raised their minimum wages in recent years, labor advocates in the Bay Area are turning to what they see as another piece of the puzzle for improving workers’...
As cities all over the state have raised their minimum wages in recent years, labor advocates in the Bay Area are turning to what they see as another piece of the puzzle for improving workers’ lives: scheduling.
From ensuring workers get the full-time hours they desire, to preventing retaliation against them for turning down last-minute schedule changes, several initiatives are aimed at making employees’ schedules more stable and reducing underemployment.
“Now, it’s about getting fair wages and fair hours,” said Jennifer Lin, deputy director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE).
Business interests have railed against the idea of regulating scheduling across diverse sectors, and warn of unintended consequences that could actually hurt workers looking for additional hours and flexibility in their schedules.
Angie Manetti, director of government affairs for the California Retailers Association, said that has already happened in San Francisco since that city’s Retail Workers Bill of Rights was passed last year. Managers now choose to leave shifts unfilled to avoid penalty pay from scheduling workers on short notice, leaving heavier workloads on the employees who are working, she said.
San Jose’s Opportunity to Work initiative, an ordinance on the ballot Nov. 8, would require businesses there to offer extra hours to part-time employees before hiring more workers.
The initiative would apply to businesses with 35 or more employees but exclude government jobs and allow companies to apply for a “hardship” exemption.
Dilsa Gonzalez, a San Jose resident who has held a variety of positions in the fast food sector there, hopes the measure will support people like her. Gonzalez works 16 hours per week, but she would like to work 40. When she asks supervisors for additional hours, they tell her there is no work available.
“But then they hire other people,” Gonzalez said through a translator. She tries other means of making money, including recycling or helping her husband, a mechanic, work. But in San Jose, it’s “hard to survive with just a few hours of work,” she said.
“There is a crisis of underemployment in Silicon Valley,” said Ben Field, executive officer of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council, which gathered the required signatures to place the measure on the ballot. “It’s symptomatic of a problem across the country in which more and more wage earners are dependent on part-time work as a main source of income.”
Matthew Mahood, CEO of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, counters that the San Jose ordinance would “pit workers against each other” for full-time hours rather than creating more jobs and that the ordinance is too far-reaching.
Meanwhile, in the East Bay city of Emeryville, the City Council passed its “Fair Work Week Initiative” last week.
The initiative requires retail and fast food establishments that have more than 56 employees globally to:
• provide employee schedules two weeks in advance of their shifts;
• allow employees to decline schedule changes that happen within seven days of the changed shift;
• offer extra hours to part-time employees before bringing on new ones;
• provide employees with extra pay for taking on shifts on short notice, known as “predictability pay.”
The initiative also would require employers to allow employees to deny back-to-back closing and opening shifts and to request alternate work schedules without retaliation.
Emeryville has often been a trendsetter when it comes to passing worker protection legislation, EBASE’s Lin said. That includes the $14.44-per-hour minimum wage it established last year that at the time was the highest in the nation. She hopes to push the effort throughout the East Bay in the near future.
Moriah Larkins, an Oakland resident who has worked in retail in Emeryville for five years, is among those who say the unpredictability of retail scheduling has made life difficult. As a single mother, Larkins said, taking on last-minute shifts was difficult because child care is not easy to schedule, but she also often did not get scheduled as many hours as she wanted to pay her bills.
She now works at Home Depot, where her schedule is more secure, allowing her to plan better for her family and financially, she said. Home Depot store manager Lionel Stevens said at the City Council meeting that it issues schedules three weeks in advance, and has an open-door policy for employees who need flexibility.
A study commissioned by Emeryville indicates that relatively few workers believe work scheduling has a negative effect on their life. According to the study, 87 percent of employees said they have influence in creating their schedules, and 76 percent said their schedule has never changed with less than 24 hours of notice.
A separate study led by the backers of the Fair Work Week initiative, EBASE, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and the Center for Public Democracy found different results: that more workers — roughly two-thirds — get their schedule less than a week in advance and want to work more hours.
Many workers believe an ordinance is needed to close any loopholes for businesses who are not scheduling fairly.
Kelby Peeler, a Union City resident who worked at Barnes and Noble for seven years, said he would often be scheduled 30 hours one week and 10 the next, making it impossible to plan financially, and he often lost sleep with late-night closing shifts paired with opening shifts the next day.
“There are definitely good actors — it’s not like every store is having these problems,” Peeler said. “But you can’t have your schedule based on the whim of a manager.”
By ANNIE SCIACCA
Source
Wall Street Journal: Citigroup Pact Has Detailed Plan for $2.5 Billion in Relief to Consumers
Wall Street Journal - July 14, 2014, by Alan Zibel - Citigroup’s $7 billion settlement with the Justice Department over the sale of flawed mortgage securities includes an agreement by the bank to...
Wall Street Journal - July 14, 2014, by Alan Zibel - Citigroup’s $7 billion settlement with the Justice Department over the sale of flawed mortgage securities includes an agreement by the bank to provide $820 million worth of loan forgiveness and other assistance, plus nearly $300 million in refinancing. The money is also earmarked to help with down payments, donations to community groups and financing for rental housing.
These requirements, outlined in a 15-page appendix to the agreement, provide more specificity for consumer assistance than a $25 billion 2012 state/federal settlement with Citigroup and four other banks over mortgage-servicing problems. They also are more detailed than a November 2013 settlement with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. over similar flawed mortgage securities sold to investors.
At a press conference in Washington on Monday, Associate Attorney General Tony West said the department aimed to improve on previous settlements by establishing an “an innovative consumer relief menu—one that not only includes the principal reductions and loan modifications we’ve built into previous resolutions, but also new, consumer-friendly measures.”
The Citigroup settlement, unlike previous pacts, directs the bank to provide half of its loan assistance to particularly hard-hit parts of the country. It also mandates that borrowers whose loan balances are cut won’t remain “underwater” —or owe more on their homes than their properties are worth.
The J.P. Morgan settlement addresses similar issues, but in a less targeted way. It gave the bank a bonus for providing aid to hard-hit areas, but set no specific requirement. In addition, the J.P. Morgan settlement encourages loan write-downs but does not specify how much of a borrower’s debt must be forgiven. The Citigroup settlement contains $180 million in financing for affordable rental housing—a provision not included in other settlements.
“This settlement is far more nuanced than previous settlements with respect to consumer relief,” said Andrew Jakabovics, senior director for policy development and research Enterprise Community Partners, a large affordable-housing nonprofit group. The pact, he said, “reflects many of the best practices we’ve seen develop with respect to creating sustainable loan modifications.”
A Justice Department official said the consumer-assistance portion of the Citigroup settlement reflects refinements to the government’s thinking after previous settlements. In addition, the official said the smaller size of Citigroup’s mortgage-lending portfolio caused the government to consider additional avenues for relief because the bank had fewer loans to modify.
There has been tension between the Obama administration and liberal activist groups over efforts to resolve cases related to banks’ mortgage-crisis conduct.
Consumer groups have been unhappy with previous settlements of mortgage-related cases. For example, the 2012 mortgage-servicing settlement allowed banks to receive credit for short sales, in which a bank agrees to allow the sale of a property with a mortgage worth more than the home’s value, and for granting “deeds in lieu of foreclosure,” where a homeowner voluntary surrenders the home.
Some activists are still skeptical of the government’s settlements with the financial industry. Kevin Whelan, national campaign director for the Home Defenders League, an activist group representing homeowners, said there’s been no noticeable impact from last fall’s J.P. Morgan settlement.
“We haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve done anything at all,” Mr. Whelan said.
No statistics on the J.P. Morgan settlement have been released. A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman declined comment.
Joseph Smith, a former North Carolina banking regulator, is serving as the independent monitor overseeing the J.P. Morgan settlement and is expected to release a report on its progress in the coming weeks.
Thomas Perrelli, a former Justice Department official who helped broker the 2012 mortgage settlement, will serve as the monitor of the Citigroup agreement. Mr. Perrelli is now at the law firm Jenner & Block in Washington.
Source
FL-Sen: Nelson (D) Refuses To Let Trump Privatize Air Traffic Control, PCCC Pushes Dems To Join Him
FL-Sen: Nelson (D) Refuses To Let Trump Privatize Air Traffic Control, PCCC Pushes Dems To Join Him
Here’s another big fight to get ready for:
"President Donald Trump threw his weight behind a proposal to privatize the nation’s air traffic control system on Monday, and...
Here’s another big fight to get ready for:
"President Donald Trump threw his weight behind a proposal to privatize the nation’s air traffic control system on Monday, and a White House adviser called the multibillion dollar effort “low-hanging fruit” that can get through Congress quickly.
Florida Sen. Bill Nelson doesn’t see it that way."
Read the full article here.
By The People: Promoting Democratic Participation Through Comprehensive Voter Registration
America suffers from disturbingly low voter registration and turnout rates. Almost 50 million eligible people were not even registered to vote in the 2012 election, and another 12 million had...
America suffers from disturbingly low voter registration and turnout rates. Almost 50 million eligible people were not even registered to vote in the 2012 election, and another 12 million had problems with their registration that kept them from voting. What’s more, many of these millions were low-income, youth, and people of color, all of whom are less likely to be registered. In order to strengthen our democracy, the United States must take dramatic and innovative steps to remedy our anemic voter turnout and registration.
“By the People: Promoting Democratic Participation through Comprehensive Voter Registration,” identifies Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) as the critical transformative policy that can result in the registration of millions of new voters. By shifting the responsibility of voter registration from the individual to the government, AVR ensures a more robust democracy. Automatic Voter Registration should be part of a suite of reforms including pre-registration of 16- and 17- year olds, portable registration, and other policies that make election administration more efficient.
Download the full report here
Hundreds march on Capitol Hill to call for a DACA replacement
The Trump administration's decision to end the DACA program means thousands of undocumented individuals are on the verge of being deported, despite having lived in the US for years. On Wednesday,...
The Trump administration's decision to end the DACA program means thousands of undocumented individuals are on the verge of being deported, despite having lived in the US for years. On Wednesday, protesters took to DC to call for the DREAM Act, which would build on DACA, creating a multi-phase process that would lead to permanent residency.
Read the full article here.
Grupos cívicos en EE.UU. piden investigar los incidentes del 1 de mayo
Grupos cívicos en EE.UU. piden investigar los incidentes del 1 de mayo
Los grupos, encabezados por el "Center for Popular Democracy", pidieron al gobierno y a grupos pro derechos civiles que investiguen de forma transparente el comportamiento de agentes de la Policía...
Los grupos, encabezados por el "Center for Popular Democracy", pidieron al gobierno y a grupos pro derechos civiles que investiguen de forma transparente el comportamiento de agentes de la Policía.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
Labor Advocates Ready To Push For Paid Sick Leave, Pay Equity In Maryland
Workers issues aren't just something highlighted on Labor Day. In fact, next year's session of the Maryland General Assembly will likely be full of them.
Labor...
Workers issues aren't just something highlighted on Labor Day. In fact, next year's session of the Maryland General Assembly will likely be full of them.
Labor advocates have been rallying around the "Fair Work Week" bill, which would make employers post schedules for workers at least three weeks in advance. Supporters says workers at bars, restaurants, and in the hospitality industry are especially susceptible to sudden schedule changes.
But that will be far from the only bill to help workers that lawmakers will debate next year in Annapolis, according to Montgomery County Del. David Moon.
"We also hope to see paid sick leave, which has been a top priority for a lot of justice advocates, move in the next session. Women's pay equity has been another top priority that didn't move in the last legislative session. And lastly collective bargaining rights at community colleges has been a topic," he says.
Since state lawmakers adjourned for the year in April, the Montgomery County Council enacted a paid sick leave law at the local level, but it doesn't take affect until next year.
Most employers in Maryland's most populous jurisdiction will have to offer workers one-hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The most those workers can accrue is one week of paid sick leave per year.
Source: WAMU 88.5
The Actions of the Federal Reserve Bank Have Created an Economy That Hurts Workers And Has Devastated The Black Community
Atlanta Black Star - March 4, 2015, by Nick Chiles - The actions of the Federal Reserve have typically been undertaken to benefit banks and the financial services sector collectively known as Wall...
Atlanta Black Star - March 4, 2015, by Nick Chiles - The actions of the Federal Reserve have typically been undertaken to benefit banks and the financial services sector collectively known as Wall Street, but a new report by the Center for Popular Democracy reveals that the Fed’s traditional policies substantially contribute to the dire economic conditions of African-Americans across the country.
While there have been many reports showing how badly African-Americans suffered from the Great Recession and how middle and low-income Americans have not benefitted from the so-called economic recovery, which was really just a recovery for Wall Street, this report is one of the first to link the fortunes of specific groups like African-Americans to the actions of the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank, remains a shadowy presence to most rank-and-file Americans, who would hardly think of the Federal Reserve when assigning blame for their financial struggles.
The intentions of the Center for Popular Democracy, with assistance from the Economic Policy Institute, are clear just by reading the name of its report—”Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserve’s Full-Employment Mandate.”
In the explanation for the report’s rather trite title, the primary author, Connie M. Razza of the Center for Popular Democracy, said Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard refers to African-American communities because “hundreds of U.S. cities have streets named for Martin Luther King Jr., often located in persistently lower-income Black neighborhoods.”
The report’s premise is that the Fed’s goal of keeping the national employment rate at about 5.2 percent—which the Fed considers “full employment” because it allows for movement in the job market—is actually devastating to the African-American community. The reason: When the national unemployment rate stays in the vicinity of 5.2 percent, the African-American unemployment rate is typically about 11 percent.
But because the Fed is dominated by the interests of Wall Street, the impact of its policies on Main Street or on African-Americans is not ever truly considered.
“Although the Great Recession officially ended nearly six years ago, the American economy is still far from healthy,” the report states. “Wall Street has had a robust recovery. Large corporations are making record profits. But the labor market remains weak.”
As Razza points out, the policy decisions of the Federal Reserve directly affect Main Street and MLK Blvd. The Fed’s primary job is keeping inflation stable, regulating the financial system, and ensuring full employment. But corporate and finance executives generally want to limit wage growth so that they maximize their future profits.
“But most people in America earn their living from wages, not capital income, and it is in their interest to see full employment whereby wages grow faster than prices in order to lift working and middle-class families’ living standards,” Razza writes.
Typically the Feds resolve this dilemma in favor of Wall Street, by intentionally limiting wage growth and keeping unemployment excessively high.
“The Fed’s policy choices over the past 35 years have led to increased inequality, stagnant or falling wages and an American Dream that is inaccessible to tens of millions of families—particularly Black families,” the report says.
As detailed in the report, the last eight years have been catastrophic for the nation’s African-American community in virtually every financial indicator studied by economists:
* In January 2015, the national African-American unemployment rate was 10.3 percent, more than twice the current white unemployment rate and higher than the 10.0 percent U.S. unemployment rate reached in October 2010, at the height of the recession.
* The contraction in public-sector jobs—which are disproportionately held by Black people and women—has meant that the African-American workforce has been disproportionately impacted by the recession. In 2011, the number of African-Americans who were unemployed and had most recently been employed in state or local government was higher than their share in the decline of state and local government job loss, suggesting that they were disproportionately laid off and faced more barriers to finding work after losing their public-sector jobs, according to the report. The loss of public-sector jobs also has potential implications for wage inequality since African-Americans and women who are employed in public service have historically suffered significantly less wage inequality than their peers in the private sector.
* Wages have been stagnant or falling for the vast majority of workers since 2000, the report states. While at the median, wages for white workers have risen only 2.5 percent in 14 years, African-American workers have seen a wage cut of 3.1 percent over the same period. In fact, in two-thirds of the states for which data are available, the median real wages of African-American workers declined between 2000 and 2014. The fastest declines were in Michigan (down 15.8 percent), Ohio (down 13.7 percent) and South Carolina (down 11.6 percent).
* Between 1989 and 2001—a period of comparatively robust job growth and a tight labor market during the late 1990s—the wealth gap between whites and African-Americans narrowed. In 2001, Black households had roughly 16 percent the wealth of white households, compared with 6 percent in 1989. By 2013, median African-American household wealth was only 8 percent that of whites.
The report states that the wealth disparity began growing during the housing boom, precisely because of the racist practices of American banks. Between 2004 and 2007, at the height of the boom, white household wealth increased 23 percent, while African-American household wealth actually declined by 24 percent.
“The convergence of wage stagnation and banks’ preying on African-American communities with risky mortgage products (which banks backed with overvaluations of collateral property), led to African-American borrowers being more likely to receive subprime loans than white borrowers,” the report says. “These loans were frequently made as second mortgages, drawing down equity that homeowners had built up. Discriminatory subprime lending practices drained wealth from African-American homeowners before the recession and certainly made Black wealth significantly more vulnerable during the housing crisis.”
One of the most telling statistics in the report is the detailing of the jobs that the economy has regained during the recovery. If the public needed a clear indication of why so many people are still struggling though Wall Street is back, here it is:
While lower-wage industries accounted for 22 percent of job losses during the recession, they account for 44 percent of employment growth over the past four years. That means lower-wage industries today employ 1.85 million more workers than at the start of the recession.
Mid-wage industries accounted for 37 percent of job losses, but 26 percent of recent employment growth. There are now 958,000 fewer jobs in mid-wage industries than at the start of the recession.
Higher-wage industries accounted for 41 percent of job losses, but 30 percent of recent employment growth. There are now 976,000 fewer jobs in higher-wage industries than at the start of the recession.
And here’s another startling fact showing how much America’s economy has been tilted in favor of corporate America and against workers for a generation. Between 1948 and 1973, the hourly compensation of a typical worker in America grew in tandem with productivity. But since 1973, productivity grew 74.4 percent while the hourly compensation of a typical worker grew just 9.2 percent.
“This divergence between pay and productivity growth has meant that workers are not fully benefiting from productivity improvements,” the report says. “The economy—specifically, employers—can afford much higher pay, but is not providing it.”
So what should the Fed do to help Main Street and MLK Blvd. begin to enjoy the economic “recovery?” The report suggests a change in the structure of the Federal Reserve System so that fewer representatives from the financial industry and corporate America are appointed to the Fed’s governing board and more regular people are added. This would make the Fed more sensitive to the needs of Main Street and MLK Blvd., so that “the voices of consumers and working families can be heard.”
The Center for Popular Democracy suggests that the Fed keep interest rates low “so that the numbers of job openings and job seekers are balanced and everybody who wants to can find a good job.”
In addition, it wants the Feds to provide low- and zero-interest loans so that cities and states can invest in public works projects like renewable energy generation, public transit and affordable housing that will create good new jobs.
The Fed should study the harmful effects of inequality, according to the Center, and examine how policies like raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing a fair work week can strengthen the economy and expand the middle class.
Source
7 days ago
7 days ago