38 Triangle area leaders now urge ‘No’ vote on all 6 constitutional amendments
38 Triangle area leaders now urge ‘No’ vote on all 6 constitutional amendments
More than three dozen Triangle area mayors and council members now publicly oppose six constitutional amendments on the ballot Nov. 6. Thirty-eight leaders from Apex, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham...
More than three dozen Triangle area mayors and council members now publicly oppose six constitutional amendments on the ballot Nov. 6. Thirty-eight leaders from Apex, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, Garner, Hillsborough, Holly Springs, Morrisville, Raleigh, Chatham County, Orange County and Wake County governments have signed a letter criticizing the amendments’ “potentially damaging impact.” The letter was released Thursday by Local Progress and Common Cause NC.”
Read the full article here.
Extraordinary organizing effort to assist undocumented immigrants impacted by the #FlintWaterCrisis needs YOUR help
Art Reyes III is Director of Training and Leadership Development at Center for Popular Democracy. He along with the Genesee County Hispanic Latino Collaborative and a powerful group of organizers...
Art Reyes III is Director of Training and Leadership Development at Center for Popular Democracy. He along with the Genesee County Hispanic Latino Collaborative and a powerful group of organizers from around the country are working in Flint to be sure undocumented immigrants in Flint are getting the help they need in the midst of the water crisis there. The need is real. Many undocumented people are not getting the information they need and still more are too afraid of being detained to go to water distribution sites. It’s a legitimate fear as the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is reported to detaining people in grocery stores and other areas around Flint:
Juani Olivares, says there are roughly a thousand undocumented immigrants in Flint – and many have spent years hiding from authorities to avoid deportation.
“Water was being delivered,” she says, “and they (immigrants) were not opening the door. Because that is the one rule. Do not open the door.”
Let’s face it, undocumented immigrants aren’t paranoid: The government really does want to get them.
Juani Oliveras works with the Genesee County Hispanic/Latino Collaborative. She says rumors are flying about sporadic raids at grocery stores.
“That’s another reason why people are not getting the water,” she says.
What’s worse is that many of these folks are still boiling water before drinking it because that’s what they have been told to do in the past when e. colicontaminated the city’s drinking water. In the case of lead contamination, however, it’s exactly the WRONG thing to do because it concentrates the lead even further.
This past Wednesday, Reyes and other organizers held a training for lead canvassers in Flint, setting the stage for what they hope will become regular daily canvasses until the water issue is resolved.
I spoke with Reyes after the organizing meeting to get a better understanding of what they are hoping to accomplish. He told me that there is currently no infrastructure in place to do what needs to be done in the undocumented community so they are literally building it as they go. He told me that there are an estimated 1,000 undocumented people in Flint. The goals of his group are fourfold:
First, they want to educate people about the water situation to ensure they know what precautions to take and what things to avoid (like boiling the water.)
Second, they want to make sure people are getting the water, water filters, and other necessary items that they need to stay healthy. The state has already been neglected this marginalized population and the poisoning of Flint’s drinking water is making things much, much worse.
Third, they are collecting stories from people. Unless the stories of those who are impacted are lifted up and heard, there will be nothing to stop this from happening again.
Fourth, they are trying to create a database of undocumented immigrants so that they can continue to work with them as needed until the crisis is over. This one is very difficult. The idea of getting into any database is, of course, the greatest fear of people here without documentation.
Finally, they are working to build a database of partners and volunteers who can help them with their effort.
How can you help? There are several ways. First, you can donate money. The Genesee County Hispanic Latino Collaborative has set up a fundraising page HERE.
Second, you can volunteer your time and resources to the effort. This will be an ongoing project and they will need assistance for the foreseeable future. Spanish-speaking volunteers are in particularly high demand. They also need things like storage and organizing spaces, trainers, printing, and all of the things that go along with a long-term effort like this. Click HERE to volunteer.
Third, you can donate water.
Finally, educate yourself about the issue. A good starting point is this essay by Art Reyes titled, “I Grew Up in Flint. Here’s Why Governor Snyder Must Resign. “.
One of the groups assisting with this effort is a small non-governmental agency (NGO) called Crossing Water. The group is headed up by social worker Michael Hood who has brought together around 150 social workers from around the country along with several hundred other volunteers and donors. They have already put up several billboards around Flint in both English and Spanish letting people know not to boil the water. They have plans for more billboards, including trailer mounted billboards that they can drive around Flint. They are also using donations to pay for public service announcements on television and radio. They’ve created videos on how to properly install and use water filters and teaching new parents not to use tap water to mix with baby formula. They have recruited plumbers to help replace lead-containing plumbing. This single group is making a huge difference.
Please do what you can to help with this important outreach effort. There are literally lives on the line, including the lives of babies and children.
Source: Eclecta Blog
Meet The Foreclosed Grandmas Facing Federal Charges For Protesting ‘Too Big To Jail’
Seven women were arraigned Tuesday in Washington, D.C., on federal charges of “unlawful entry” stemming from last month’s homeowner sit-ins at the Department of Justice and a lawfirm called...
Seven women were arraigned Tuesday in Washington, D.C., on federal charges of “unlawful entry” stemming from last month’s homeowner sit-ins at the Department of Justice and a lawfirm called Covington and Burling. Protesters targeted Covington for its revolving-door relationship with a government that’s failed to prosecute Wall Street. When Lanny Breuer stepped down as head of DOJ’s criminal division this winter after Frontline revealed him as the primary culprit in the government’s apparent ‘too big to jail’ approach to foreclosure fraud, Covington provided him a new professional home. It’s also provided a moniker for the group formally charged on Tuesday: the “Covington Seven.”
The women face one of three different legal paths, their attorney Mark Goldstone told ThinkProgress. The charges bear a maximum penalty of six months jail time and/or a $1,250 fine. While a small fine is more likely to be the outcome, Goldstone said, that would come with a conviction on their permanent records. The women might be able to escape conviction provided they are not re-arrested and they do not return to Covington and Burling premises.
After their arraignment, members of the Covington Seven told ThinkProgress why they’d gotten involved.
Sherry Hernandez of Los Angeles told me her Countrywide mortgage ballooned after just four months, with her monthly payments jumping by $800. Her family decided to get a different loan and get out of the suddenly-unaffordable Countrywide mortgage, since they knew they had notarized paperwork showing their loan did not carry penalties for paying it back early. “But they held us to this prepayment penalty we didn’t agree to,” Hernandez said, which “raised our payment trying to get out of the predatory loan by $75,000 more.” Countrywide was the largest subprime lender, and implicated in much of the ugliest financial conduct of the housing bubble and bust. Yet a few years after it was bought by Bank of America, a firm called PennyMac sprang up, run almost entirely by Countrywide alumni. The Hernandezes sued Countrywide successfully, but meanwhile the second loan they’d taken out to replace the predatory one had been sold off…to PennyMac. “PennyMac has foreclosed,” Hernandez said. (PennyMac declined to comment on an individual case, citing privacy laws.)
Asked what she wanted to her message to be on the day she attended the sit-in, Hernandez chuckled. “Oh I have the perfect line. It’s the line they used on us when our hands were cuffed behind our backs, the seven little grandmas: ‘If you don’t arrest them, they’ll just do it again.’”
Deborah Castillo of St. Louis came home from voting on Election Day of 2012 to find an eviction notice on her front door. Castillo, 60, had seemed well positioned for her financial future just a few years earlier, with a good handle on her own mortgage and an investment property nearly paid off. “I had a two-family flat that was $3,000 from being paid for,” Castillo said, “but I had to refinance that in 2005 to help pay for the medical bills for my son, who’s schizophrenic.”
“That was my so-called nest egg, that was our security. And so I had to refinance that, unfortunately with Countrywide.” The same year, Castillo’s daughter contracted bacterial meningitis, and Castillo took 9 months away from her phone company job to care for her daughter. When the balloon payment hit, Castillo couldn’t keep up. Her husband lost his job amid the economic downturn, compounding their struggles. Just a few years on from nearly owning their “nest egg” rental property, Castillo found herself drawing down retirement savings to make ends meet.
And then, in the middle of the loan modification process, US Bank foreclosed on the Castillo family home. “[They] sat on the paperwork,” Castillo told ThinkProgress. The bank refused to accept payments while the modification was pending, yet charged Castillo penalties for missed payments. “Their lack of processing my document on time allowed them to put me in foreclosure,” she said. With eviction pending, Fannie Mae sought and won a $17,000 judgment against Castillo “for being in my home illegally.” (A representative of US Bank officially declined to comment, citing policy against discussing ongoing litigation.)
Castillo is clear-eyed about the culprits in her case. “Something can happen to you in life, no matter what, that can cause you to get into a bind,” Castillo said. “But US Bank, they’re not losing.” Thanks to bailouts, “there was no reason for the banks to settle or work with people, because the government guaranteed that they would win, that they would not be left holding the bag.” And now, with the initial crisis that sparked the government aid to the financial sector, no one in Washington was doubling back to address the paperwork rigmarole that the bailed-out companies used to boot the Castillos from their home. That’s how Castillo ended up getting handcuffed in the Covington and Burling lobby. “We wanted to get someone’s attention. And unfortunately, doing it the legal way through the court is not getting their attention,” she said.
“I worked my ass off to help [President Obama] get elected,” said Castillo, whose volunteer work for the 2008 campaign earned her the photo-op at right. “And now I want him to work his ass off to keep not only me in my home, but everybody else. Because he didn’t get there on his own. I don’t think he’s forgotten, but he needs to put his foot up somebody’s ass and make them remember, we helped put them there.”
Castillo, Hernandez, and the other five, whose stories reflect the same themes of deception and bullying, have to choose how to respond to the unlawful entry charges prior to a July court date. But whichever path each decides to walk, they’ll face more punishment than any of the companies involved in these wrongful foreclosures have faced. “The charges are much harsher for those that sit in front of a doorway than those who steal billions of dollars, force people out of their homes, wreck the economy, and wreck people’s lives,” Goldstone, their lawyer, said. “It demonstrates there’s two systems of justice.”
Source:
Immigrants, unions march on May Day for rights, against Trump
Immigrants, unions march on May Day for rights, against Trump
NEW YORK — Immigrant and union groups will march in cities across the United States on Monday to mark May Day and protest against President Donald Trump's efforts to boost deportations.
...
NEW YORK — Immigrant and union groups will march in cities across the United States on Monday to mark May Day and protest against President Donald Trump's efforts to boost deportations.
Tens of thousands of immigrants and their allies are expected to rally in cities such as New York, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles. Demonstrations also are planned for dozens of smaller cities from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, to Portland, Oregon.
Read full article here.
Avoiding 'Regressive Mistake,' Fed Holds Off on Rate Hike — For Now
Update 3 PM EDT:
In a decision that aligns with progressive demands, the Federal Reserve ...
Update 3 PM EDT:
In a decision that aligns with progressive demands, the Federal Reserve announced on Thursday that it would keep interest rates near zero in light of "recent global economic and financial developments" and in order to "support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability."
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders issued the following statement today after the Federal Reserve announced that it would hold off on raising interest rates:
“It is good news that the Federal Reserve did not raise interest rates today. At a time when real unemployment is over 10 percent, we need to do everything possible to create millions of good-paying jobs and raise the wages of the American people. It is now time for the Fed to act with the same sense of urgency to rebuild the disappearing middle class as it did to bail out Wall Street banks seven years ago.”
The New York Times reports that the Fed’s decision, "widely expected by investors, showed that officials still lacked confidence in the strength of the domestic economy even as the central bank has entered its eighth year of overwhelming efforts to stimulate growth."
Progressives cheered the news, with Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute saying, "Today’s decision by the Federal Reserve to keep short-term rates unchanged is welcome. [...] We hope they continue their pragmatic, data-based approach and allow unemployment to keep moving lower, and only tighten after there is a significant and durable increase in inflation."
He continued: "Tightening before the economy has reached genuine full-employment is not just a mistake, it’s a regressive mistake that would hurt the most vulnerable workers—low-wage earners and workers from communities of color—the most."
However, Reuters reports that "the central bank maintained its bias toward a rate hike sometime this year, while lowering its long-term outlook for the economy."
Which means that pro-worker organizations, which have largely opposed a rate increase that they say would slow the economy and stifle wage growth, will have to keep up the fight.
"We applaud Chair Yellen and the Federal Reserve for resisting the pressure being put on them to intentionally slow down the economy," said Ady Barkan, campaign director for the Fed Up coalition, which rallied outside the Federal Reserve on Thursday.
"Weak wage growth proves that the labor market is still very far from full employment," Barkan continued. "And with inflation still below the Fed’s already low target, there is simply no reason to raise interest rates anytime soon. Across America, working families know that the economy still has not recovered. We hope that the Fed continues to look at the data and refrain from any rate hikes until we reach genuine full employment for all, particularly for the Black and Latino communities who are being left behind in this so-called recovery."
Earlier...
Progressives are cautioning the U.S. Federal Reserve against slowing the economy by raising interest rates "prematurely"—a decision the Fed will announce Thursday.
The U.S. central bank will issue its highly anticipated short-term interest rate decision following a two-day policy meeting, with a 2 pm news conference led by Fed Chair Janet Yellen.
As CBS Moneywatch notes, "[t]he decision affects everything from the returns people get on their bank deposits to how much consumers and employers pay for credit cards, mortgages, small business loans, and student debt." That's because a higher rate makes it more expensive for individuals and businesses to borrow, with rising bank lending rates shrinking the nation's money supply and pushing up rates for mortgages, credit cards, and other loans.
Just before the announcement, the advocates, economists, and workers of the Fed Up coalition will be joined by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) at a rally outside the Fed, calling on the central bank to keep interest rates low to allow for more jobs and higher wages.
"The point of raising rates is to rein in an overheating economy that is threatening to push inflation outside the Fed’s comfort zone," explained Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday. "But inflation has been running below the Fed’s target for years—and its recent moves have been down, not up."
Furthermore, wrote economist Joseph Stiglitz at the Guardian earlier this month: "If the Fed focuses excessively on inflation, it worsens inequality, which in turn worsens overall economic performance. Wages falter during recessions; if the Fed then raises interest rates every time there is a sign of wage growth, workers’ share will be ratcheted down—never recovering what was lost in the downturn."
Progressive activists opposed to an interest rate hike overwhelmed the Fed's public comment system on Monday in a last-minute effort to sway the central bank. Raising the rate, they said, would be catastrophic for working families, particularly in communities of color that are still struggling. The Fed Up campaign, which includes groups like the Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, and CREDO Action, say the central bank "privileges the voices and needs of corporate elites rather than those of America's working families."
"A higher interest rate means that fewer jobs will be created, and that the wages of workers at the bottom will remain too low to live on," wrote Rod Adams, a member of Neighborhoods Organizing for Change in Minneapolis, in an op-ed published Wednesdayat Common Dreams. "That’s because when the Fed raises rates, they are deliberately trying to slow down the economy. They’re saying that there are too many jobs and wages are too high. They’re saying that the economy is exactly where it should be, that people like me are exactly where we should be."
However, at this point, "many observers believe the Fed will not raise rates this week," analyst Richard Eskow wrote on Wednesday.
"The Fed is really the central bank of the world. If the Fed raise rates a little bit, it will have an impact all over the world, particularly in emerging markets," billionaire private equity professional David Rubenstein told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday.
"I think the Fed is sensitive to that," Rubenstein said, "and I think therefore the Fed is likely to wait for another month or two to get additional data and probably telegraph a little bit better than it has now that it's about ready to do it at a particular time."
Meanwhile, global markets are fluctuating wildly in anticipation of Yellen's announcement and subsequent news conference.
But as Eskow noted, Thursday's real surprise "is that there’s any question at all what [the Fed] will do. That suggests that our economic debate is not yet grounded in economic reality, at least as most Americans experience it."
While the Guardian is providing live updates on the Fed's decision, others are making comment under hashtags that reflect the unbalanced economic recovery:
Source: CommonDreams
Should Chicago Spend Money on a Police Academy?
Should Chicago Spend Money on a Police Academy?
Chicago spends 39 percent of its municipal budget on policing, while New York spends just eight percent and Los Angeles spends 26 percent, says the Center for Popular Democracy. This means the...
Chicago spends 39 percent of its municipal budget on policing, while New York spends just eight percent and Los Angeles spends 26 percent, says the Center for Popular Democracy. This means the city has less funds for things like schools and social services.
Read the full article here.
Activists Call on Fed Chief to Focus on Struggles of Citizens
The China Post - November 16, 2014 - In a rarity for a U.S. central bank chief, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen met Friday with activist groups calling for a...
The China Post - November 16, 2014 - In a rarity for a U.S. central bank chief, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen met Friday with activist groups calling for a fairer economic recovery and a more transparent Fed.
About 20 representatives of community and labor organizations met with Yellen for an hour in the meeting room of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee, the activists said.
The groups were banded together as “Fed Up: The National Campaign for a Strong Economy,” lobbying Yellen and her team to orient Fed policy to boost employment and wages.
In addition to Yellen, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer and board members Lael Brainard and Jerome Powell participated in the meeting.
“We had a very good conversation,” said Ady Barkan, representing the Center for Popular Democracy.
The activists presented their views about conditions in the economy to the Fed officials and “they listened very carefully,” Barkan said.
Yellen “asked people questions about their personal experiences in the economy,” he added.
The coalition gave the Fed officials a list of six proposals to make the central bank more transparent and democratic.
“The economy is not working for the vast majority of people,” Barkan said.
“The Federal Reserve has huge influence over the number of people who have jobs, over our wages ... and yet we don't have discussion and engagement over what Fed policy should be.”
Wearing T-shirts emblazoned with “What recovery?” the activists criticized the Fed's isolation from the general public.
“Our wages are on a flat line for 30 years,” said Anthony Newby, director of Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, which wants the Fed to give interest-free loans to cities so they can create jobs in infrastructure projects.
With two regional Fed bank presidents preparing to step down — Charles Plosser for the Philadelphia Fed and Richard Fisher at the Dallas Fed — the coalition is pressing for a transparent process for selecting their successors.
The Philadelphia Fed said on its website Friday that the executive search firm it hired has set up an email address to receive inquiries in the interest of helping the bank “in a broad search for its next president.”
“Philadelphia has hovered around eight percent unemployment for all of 2014; in the black community it's over 14 percent,” said Kati Sipp, head of Pennsylvania Working Families and a “Fed Up” activist.
“We want the Fed to spend some time in the neighborhoods where regular working people live.”
Source
Donald Trump isn't crazy to attack the Fed
Donald Trump isn't crazy to attack the Fed
Today, as the Federal Reserve meets to set monetary policy, it will also be bracing for another round of attacks from Donald Trump. In one of the many twists of this strange election season, Trump...
Today, as the Federal Reserve meets to set monetary policy, it will also be bracing for another round of attacks from Donald Trump. In one of the many twists of this strange election season, Trump has gone straight after Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen, saying she should be “ashamed” of keeping interest rates low, and accusing the Fed of creating a “false economy” and doing “political things.” If the Fed declines to raise rates today, as is expected, he will likely attack the central bank yet again.
The implication of Trump’s attacks is that the Fed is just another institution rigged against Trump: that Yellen is keeping rates artificially low to help the economy, which helps the Democrats look better and thus helps his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Economists, and a lot of political observers, have been horrified by Trump’s direct attacks: What seems normal for the pugnacious outsider candidate is a major violation of American political norms. Politicians aren’t supposed to push the Fed one way or the other; it's a point of pride for the Fed, and for the nation overall, that the central bank sets policy independent of political pressure. Economists credit central bank independence as one of the great economic success stories of the 20th century, paving the way for lower inflation and stronger growth.
But how far off is he, really? It's true that the Republican nominee is violating tradition: critiquing individual policy decisions shows that he doesn't respect the line between politics and monetary policy. And there’s an implicit threat that could genuinely damage the Fed’s autonomy: He’s signaling that Fed leaders would be on notice in a Trump administration, and could pay a price for making decisions he didn't like.
But the line between politics and the Fed is far blurrier than the conventional wisdom would have it—and politicians before Trump have crossed it in much more serious ways. Moreover, buried within Trump’s comments is a kernel of truth: The Federal Reserve is, by definition, not independent. Unlike the Supreme Court, the central bank is a creation of Congress and is accountable to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. It can be changed—or abolished—by Congress as well. And to pretend it's not—to treat the Fed as an entity totally removed from American politics—also leaves us powerless to talk about the ways it might be improved.
It's important to point out that Trump's immediate accusations are almost certainly wrong: Economists across the political spectrum reject Trump’s claims that Yellen is declining to raise interest rates to improve Clinton’s election odds. Yellen, who has also firmly rejected Trump’s claims, does not set monetary policy alone; it’s set by the 12 members of the Federal Open Markets Committee. (Currently, it has just ten members.) That means no individual member, or even small group of members, can tip the scales to benefit a certain candidate. And any collusion would also be difficult to hide: Transcripts of FOMC meetings are released publicly (though on a five-year delay), and Yellen testifies before Congress four times a year.
“The fact that I don’t happen to agree with the conduct of policy doesn’t mean that they are being political,” said Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia Business School and former top economist to President George W. Bush, who believes rates should rise faster. “I think that’s very unfortunate.”
A real example of political interference with monetary policy occurred in the early 1970s. Taped recordings of Richard Nixon provide clear evidence that Nixon pressured then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns to adopt expansionary monetary policies to improve his reelection chances. For instance, before Burns was confirmed by Congress, Nixon told him: “I know there’s the myth of the autonomous Fed ... and when you go up for confirmation some senator may ask you about your friendship with the president. Appearances are going to be important, so you can call [Nixon economic advisor John] Ehrlichman to get messages to me, and he’ll call you.” Nixon met with Burns frequently and tacitly pressured the chairman to keep policy loose. The FOMC transcripts indicate that many Fed members had doubts about the policy decisions but voted for them anyways.
Trump’s criticism of the Fed on the campaign trail doesn’t approach Nixon’s actual interference in monetary policy from the White house. But it does raise the broader question of what constitutes "political interference" in the Fed, and what constitutes legitimate criticism. One key distinction: Nixon used his presidential powers to influence Burns, while Trump currently has no such power over Yellen. But Trump, if elected, will also nominate the next Fed chair. That inherently means his criticisms of the central bank veer closer to political interference than critiques from academics like Hubbard.
“The line is blurry,” said Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who has worked at the Fed intermittently for the past 30 years.
On substance, what constitutes a "political" attack versus a policy criticism isn't immediately clear: Trump’s comments on the Fed often are substantive, such as when he said the Fed’s policy has created “a big, fat, ugly bubble.” But given his penchant for changing positions on the institution—he first said he’d retain Yellen before saying he’d replace her, for instance—many economists have concluded that Trump’s motives are concerned more with his own advantage than any serious policy beliefs.
To some experts, the threat posed by "political" attacks on the Fed has always been overblown. “I don’t get as worked up as some people to do about what politicians say,” Gagnon said. “They are allowed to have their opinions. If they think the Fed should do something differently, they can say it.”
The long tradition of deference to the Fed’s policy independence can even pose a risk: It creates an environment in which any critique of the Fed is seen as out of line, including the idea of reforming how it works. "The Federal Reserve is a crucial public agency, so there are lots of important questions—including the selection of its leaders, the determination of their priorities, and the specific strategy that they're following—that should all be open to public discourse," said Andrew Levin, an economist at Dartmouth who spent two decades working at the Fed, including as a top advisor to Yellen and her predecessor, Ben Bernanke.
Levin has been part of a movement that has put a few cracks in the protective shield around the Fed this year. Earlier this year, he published a set of recommendations for reforming the Fed in conjunction with the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign; the goal is to make the Fed's board members—currently 83 percent white, nearly three-quarters male and nearly 40 percent from financial institutions —more representative of the American public. Although it hasn’t received as much attention as Trump’s attacks on the Fed, Hillary Clinton also quietly criticized the central bank when her campaign said she supported such reforms.
To Ady Barkan, the head of the Fed Up campaign, these efforts do not constitute an unacceptable interference with the Fed’s independence, and neither do Trump’s comments. The Fed’s independence, he said, comes from its structure; its leaders are appointed, not elected, for long terms, which inherently insulates the central bank from political pressure. The Fed must still be accountable to the public though, and one way policymakers fulfill that responsibility is through public comments. For that reason, Barkan added, monetary policy decisions “are appropriate topics for political debate.”
“The main thing about Trump’s comments is that they show real ignorance about how the Fed works,” he said. “I don’t object to the idea that Trump or Hillary would object to what the Fed is doing.”
By Danny Vinik
Source
D-FW activists travel to annual Fed summit in Jackson Hole, Wyo., to spread their message
Lemlem Berhe is one of a handful of activists from the Dallas-Fort Worth area visiting Jackson Hole, Wyo., in hopes of getting their message heard. That message: Raising interest rates now would...
Lemlem Berhe is one of a handful of activists from the Dallas-Fort Worth area visiting Jackson Hole, Wyo., in hopes of getting their message heard. That message: Raising interest rates now would stunt wage growth and hurt working families and communities of color.
“Fed officials think the economy has recovered enough to raise interest rates, slowing down job and business growth, but working families like mine in Dallas know otherwise,” Berhe said. “That’s why we’re in Wyoming this week, to ask them to prioritize job growth and higher wages.”
As part of the national FedUp Coalition, local members of the Texas Organizing Project and the Workers Defense Project are in Wyoming for the Federal Reserve’s annual summit, where the world’s most powerful central bankers discuss economic policies that affect people everywhere. The top U.S. banker — Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen — is not attending the event, which began Thursday and ends Sunday.
This is the first time anyone from either group has traveled to the Fed’s annual summit in Jackson Hole.
This year’s Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium comes as the Fed faces a difficult decision on when to start raising interest rates, rising debates on income inequality and wages, and worries about slowing Asian economies, most notably in China.
With the U.S. unemployment rate at 5.3 percent in July, some say it’s time to raise interest rates, which have been near zero for nearly seven years. Recently, some economists and one Fed banker have called for a delay given concerns about slower global economies.
On Friday, the organizing groups in Jackson Hole held a public demonstration and teach-ins on topics such as full employment and the selection process for regional bank presidents, with renowned Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz. Today, he wrote an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times about why the Fed should not raise interest rates.
In addition, the Texas Organizing Project also made a second request in a video posted to its Facebook page and in a tweet to meet with Robert Steven Kaplan, the newly named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, soon after he starts his new job on Sept. 8. Kaplan is attending the summit.
Kaplan will replace Richard Fisher, who retired in March after a decade leading the Dallas Fed. Last week, immediately after the regional bank named Kaplan, the Texas Organizing Project suggested he meet with some of its members in Dallas once he arrives.
Earlier this year, the group and the FedUp Coalition asked to meet with Dallas Fed board members to seek more openness and participation in the search process for Fisher’s replacement. Their request was denied, but a meeting was arranged with two bank officials. I wrote about it.
FedUp claims that full employment is when the nation’s unemployment rate is 4 percent or lower. If that was the case this year, the Dallas economy would be $19.9 billion stronger at $476.8 billion, it would have 204,300 more workers employed, which would mean 162,500 fewer people would live in poverty.
In addition to Berhe, two other Texas Organizing Project representatives in Jackson Hole are from Dallas: member Nayeli Ruiz, 21, and community organizer Kenia Castro.
The Austin-based Workers Defense Project has two D-FW representatives in Jackson Hole: AdanArostegui andElliott Navarro.
“We believe that our members should be involved and learn what the Fed does,” said Diana Ramirez, a community organizer for the Workers Defense Project in Dallas. “No one really knows.”
Source: Dallas Morning News
Fed’s Mester Calls Case for Gradual Rate Increases ‘Compelling’
Fed’s Mester Calls Case for Gradual Rate Increases ‘Compelling’
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland President Loretta Mester said there’s a “compelling” case for gradually raising interest rates, with the U.S. economy approaching the central bank’s targets on...
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland President Loretta Mester said there’s a “compelling” case for gradually raising interest rates, with the U.S. economy approaching the central bank’s targets on employment and inflation.
“Policy has to be forward-looking,” Mester told reporters Thursday following a speech in Lexington, Kentucky. “If you have a forecast and inflation is moving up to your target and you’re at full employment, then it seems like a gradual increase from a very low interest rate is pretty compelling to me. Pre-emptiveness is important.”
She declined to say precisely when she believed rate increases would be necessary.
The policy-making Federal Open Market Committee will meet Sept. 20-21 to decide whether to lift the target range for its benchmark rate. Fed Chair Janet Yellen said last week the case for an increase had “strengthened in recent months.”
Investors see a roughly one-in-four probability that the Fed will act later this month, based on pricing in federal futures funds contracts.
Too Low for Too Long
Mester, who votes this year on the FOMC, said the Fed must take seriously the risk to financial stability caused by keeping rates low for too long, although she said she didn’t think the central bank was currently “behind the curve.” Nor did she see signs of financial instability already in the economy.
In her speech, Mester rejected the argument made to a number of Fed officials last week by a coalition of community activists that continued low interest rates are needed to extend the benefits of economic recovery to disadvantaged minorities.
“I do not believe that at this point in the business cycle, the current very low level of interest rates is an effective solution to these longer-run issues,” she said.
Eleven Fed governors and regional presidents, including Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer, met with organizers from the Center for Popular Democracy’s “Fed Up” campaign on the sidelines of the annual policy retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, hosted by the Kansas City Fed.
The U.S. central bank has kept rates on hold through five meetings this year following a rate hike in December that was the first in nearly a decade.
By Christopher Condon
Source
2 days ago
2 days ago