“Neoliberalism” isn’t an empty epithet. It’s a real, powerful set of ideas.
“Neoliberalism” isn’t an empty epithet. It’s a real, powerful set of ideas.
It’s hard to think of a term that causes more confusion, yet is more frequently used in political debate, than “neoliberalism.” It’s one thing to argue that the term should be discouraged or...
It’s hard to think of a term that causes more confusion, yet is more frequently used in political debate, than “neoliberalism.” It’s one thing to argue that the term should be discouraged or retired from public discussions, because it generates heat instead of light, but it is another to say that it doesn’t have any meaning or use. Jonathan Chait makes the second case in New York magazine.
Read the full article here.
Activists went all out to save Obamacare. Now they’re fighting for opioid recovery funds.
Activists went all out to save Obamacare. Now they’re fighting for opioid recovery funds.
It’s Phil Krauss’ first time protesting on Capitol Hill. He’s an advocate who kicked heroin three years ago when he was 32 years old. He’s new to organizing but he’s surrounded by veterans, many...
It’s Phil Krauss’ first time protesting on Capitol Hill. He’s an advocate who kicked heroin three years ago when he was 32 years old. He’s new to organizing but he’s surrounded by veterans, many who were just at the Russell Senate Office Building two months ago trying to save the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Read the full article here.
Report: Black Unemployment in Bay Area More Than Three Times the Average
SF Examiner - March 6, 2014, by Chris Roberts - After 200 unanswered job applications, Ebony Eisler finally landed a $15 an hour position as a medical assistant in Mission Bay. But since she's a...
SF Examiner - March 6, 2014, by Chris Roberts - After 200 unanswered job applications, Ebony Eisler finally landed a $15 an hour position as a medical assistant in Mission Bay. But since she's a temp worker, she earns less than her co-workers, who make $20 to $25 per hour for the same work.
Still, as a black woman in San Francisco, she is fortunate. The unemployment rate for black people in the Bay Area is 19 percent, according to 2013 U.S. Census Bureau data crunched by the Economic Policy Institute.
Blacks are unemployed at more than three times the rate of workers of other races, according to this data. The Bay Area finished 2013 with a 6 percent total unemployment rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In San Francisco, unemployment has dropped rapidly since Mayor Ed Lee took office in January 2011, when the jobless rate was 9.5 percent. The most recent figures from the state Employment Development Department — which does not publish jobless rates by race — pegged The City's unemployment rate at 3.8 percent, by far the rosiest employment figures since the first dot-com boom at the turn of the millennium.
The wide gulf in the jobless rate between ethnic groups living in the same city belies the idea that The City and state have fully recovered from the Great Recession, according to advocates with the leftist Center for Popular Democracy.
The group released the unemployment figures by ethnicity Thursday as part of a national campaign to convince the Federal Reserve Bank to keep interest rates low in order for the economic recovery to trickle down to all workers.
So far, "the recovery is based on white America alone," said Eisler, 36, a Bayview resident who holds an associates degree and a certified nursing assistant license. Her current job, the best she could find, does not cover her $1,800 a month rent, she said.
Statewide, the jobless rate for black people is 14 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute, compared to 6.1 percent for whites, 8.5 percent for Latinos and 5.9 percent for Asians.
Source
Jersey City May Require Paid Sick Leave
The New York Times - September 3, 2013, by Katie Zernike - Calling it a matter of “basic human dignity,” the mayor of Jersey City wants to require all but the smallest businesses to provide...
The New York Times - September 3, 2013, by Katie Zernike - Calling it a matter of “basic human dignity,” the mayor of Jersey City wants to require all but the smallest businesses to provide their employees paid sick days.
The bill would make the city, which is New Jersey’s second largest, the first in the state and one of the few nationwide to require paid sick leave. It is modeled on similar laws enacted in several cities over the last several years.
But it would go further than most, requiring any business with 10 or more employees to provide up to five paid sick days each year. Companies with fewer employees would have to provide five unpaid sick days.
In contrast, a bill passed by the New York City Council this year — after a veto by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — will require employers with 20 or more employees to provide paid sick leave when it takes effect next year; the following year, it will extend to workplaces with 15 or more employees. The city exempted manufacturers, as does a state law in Connecticut that requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide paid sick leave.
The policy proposed by Mayor Steven Fulop in Jersey City would not include that exemption. As in other cities, workers would earn a day of sick time for each 30 days worked.
Mr. Fulop, who worked in his parents’ deli in Newark when he was growing up, said he had fashioned his proposal so as not to hurt the businesses, like bodegas or start-ups, that struggle most.
“But once you get to a point that you have a stable work force, with 10 or more people,” he said, “it’s a reasonable thing to say they shouldn’t be at risk for losing their jobs or penalized if unfortunately they get sick or a loved one does.”
As financial firms have moved across the Hudson River, Jersey City has become more affluent; Mr. Fulop, 36, first moved there to work for Goldman Sachs. But he said the policy was aimed particularly at helping lower-wage workers.
“It’s an opportunity to make sure that employers who move here are conscious of this basic dignity for working families,” Mr. Fulop said.
The mayor, who was sworn in on July 1, will propose the bill to the City Council next week; its chances are considered good, given that the majority of the members are aligned with him.
A coalition of community and union groups is pushing the bill as a matter of good public health: food service workers who can stay home are less likely to spread germs, as are sick children whose parents can stay home with them, thanks to the bill.
“We think that people understand that it’s important for workers not to have to choose between taking care of their loved ones and a day’s pay,” said Kevin Brown, a vice president of a local service workers union.
In other cities that have debated paid sick leave, opponents have argued that it is too expensive, particularly for small businesses. While Portland, Ore.; Washington; and San Francisco have all passed paid sick-leave policies, about a half-dozen states have passed laws prohibiting municipalities from doing so. But studies have shown that most employers ultimately support the policy, and report that it has not made them less profitable.
Source
Longtime legal residents aim for citizenship
Longtime legal residents aim for citizenship
Somos was one of 14 organizations nationwide to win the nonpartisan grant from Cities for Citizenship, a national initiative aimed at increasing citizenship among eligible U.S. permanent residents...
Somos was one of 14 organizations nationwide to win the nonpartisan grant from Cities for Citizenship, a national initiative aimed at increasing citizenship among eligible U.S. permanent residents and encouraging cities to invest in citizenship programs. The organization site says it is chaired by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, with support from the Center for Popular Democracy and the National Partnership for New Americans. Citi Community Development is the founding corporate partner.
Read the full article here.
The DNC Is Voting On Whether To Keep Superdelegates. Get Ready For Controversy
The DNC Is Voting On Whether To Keep Superdelegates. Get Ready For Controversy
PHILADELPHIA — Democrats are about to have a delegate fight of their own. Following the Republican’ controversy over bound and unbound delegates, the Democratic National Convention is about to go...
PHILADELPHIA — Democrats are about to have a delegate fight of their own. Following the Republican’ controversy over bound and unbound delegates, the Democratic National Convention is about to go headlong into a conflict over superdelegates in its rules committee this weekend.
The DNC’s rules committee is expected to convene Saturday morning, where groups are planning to gather outside the city’s convention center and urge the party to end the superdelegate system.
According to a media advisory, the pre-vote press conference with rules committee members includes a formal petition delivery of more than 500,000 signatures collected by Democratic-leaning groups working to end the use of superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention.
A superdelegate is a party official or elected official who is free to cast a vote for any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party’s national convention, regardless of whom the voters of their state prefer. This is in contrast to a “pledged delegate” who must cast their ballot in accordance to the winner of their state party’s primary.
DNC rules committee members are expected at the press conference and include Aaron Regunberg, the amendment’s chief sponsor. Groups presenting the signatures will include: MoveOn.org, Demand Progress, Daily Kos, Social Security Works, Democracy for America, New Democrat Network, National Nurses United, The Other 98%, Courage Campaign, Progressive Kick, Credo, PCCC, Progressive Democrats of America, Center for Popular Democracy, Social Security Works, and Reform the DNC.
“This is a historic moment for the Democratic Party,” said Aaron Regunberg, Rhode Island state representative and rules committee member. “Saturday we vote on whether to end the undemocratic superdelegate system. It’s time to restore democracy in the Democratic Party.”
Supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders became frustrated with the superdelegate system, as they saw it as a way that damaged the Vermont senator’s candidacy during the party’s primary against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
“The super delegate system undermines the promise of one person one vote that is bedrock of democracy,” added Deborah Burger, RN, co-president of National Nurses United and rules committee member. “It was created to block the nomination of candidates who would challenge a political system that has for far too long been dominated by corporate interests and a wealthy elite. Ending this undemocratic selection process would be a strong step forward to making the Democratic Party more responsive to those thirsting for real change and a healthier America.”
By KERRY PICKET
Source
CPD's Josie Duffy on Why NY Needs the Scaffold Law
NY1 - August 28, 2014 - CPD's Josie Duffy joins Liz Benjamin on NY1 to discuss why workers need the Scaffold Law.
...
NY1 - August 28, 2014 - CPD's Josie Duffy joins Liz Benjamin on NY1 to discuss why workers need the Scaffold Law.
Texas Cities Exploring Creative Ways to Protect Residents from Deportation
Texas Cities Exploring Creative Ways to Protect Residents from Deportation
Sarah Johnson, director for Local Progress — a national network of elected officials — says she is seeing momentum for these kind of policies. “There is an interest from all of our members in...
Sarah Johnson, director for Local Progress — a national network of elected officials — says she is seeing momentum for these kind of policies. “There is an interest from all of our members in Texas and in other states across the country in really pursuing the strongest possible policies to protect immigrants at this time,” Johnson says.
Read the full article here.
New York Immigrant Family Unity Project - The Report
The New York Immigrant Family Unity Project:
Good for Families, Good for Employers, and Good for All New Yorkers
Each year, thousands of New Yorkers — parents, siblings, employers,...
Each year, thousands of New Yorkers — parents, siblings, employers, workers and students — face detention and the possibility of deportation without the assistance of legal counsel. These New Yorkers are isolated from their loved ones and confront the possibility of long-term and, in some cases, permanent separation from their communities.
This analysis demonstrates that New York State can dramatically reduce the emotional and economic cost of the detention and deportation system by providing high-quality legal counsel for detained immigrants who are facing deportation through the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP). For an annual investment of $7.4 million – or 78-cents per personal income taxpayer per year – NYIFUP would help ensure that deportation proceedings reflect our fundamental values, providing a measure of fairness for immigrant New Yorkers.
Download the report here.
Executive SummaryEach year, thousands of New Yorkers— parents, siblings, employers, workers and students — face detention and the possibility of deportation without the assistance of legal counsel. These New Yorkers are isolated from their loved ones and confront the possibility of long-term and, in some cases, permanent separation from their communities.
This system of detention and deportation calls our collective commitment to due process into question. Immigration proceedings share many of the same features as criminal proceedings, with immigrant New Yorkers risking their liberty and extended separation from their families and communities. Yet, unlike criminal proceedings, immigration proceedings lack basic safeguards to guarantee fairness. Most strikingly, because New Yorkers have no guaranteed access to counsel in immigration proceedings, thousands face trained government attorneys in these high-stakes proceedings every year without the benefit of legal assistance. This leads to detentions that continue for months or years longer than necessary and deportations of New Yorkers who have viable legal claims to remain in the communities they call home.
But these are not the only costs. Current policies and practices are also costly in economic terms, resulting in significant annual outlays. Needlessly long detentions and avoidable deportations burden Empire State employers, New York State government, immigrant families and, ultimately, New Yorkers as a whole.
This analysis demonstrates that New York State can dramatically reduce these costs by providing highquality legal counsel for detained immigrants who are facing deportation through the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP). For an annual investment of $7.4 million – or 78-cents per personal income taxpayer per year – NYIFUP would help ensure that deportation proceedings reflect our fundamental values, providing a measure of fairness for immigrant New Yorkers.
The program would generate nearly $1.9 million in annual savings to New York State by reducing spending on public health insurance programs and foster care services and capturing tax revenues that would otherwise be lost. In addition, NYIFUP would produce $4 million in savings for Empire State employers each year, by preventing turnover-related costs stemming from detentions and deportations. Taken together, these savings offset the majority of the investment needed to establish the program.
-New York State employers pay an estimated $9.1 million in turnover-related costs annually as they are forced to replace detained or deported employees. NYIFUP would save employers $4 million in such costs each year.-The detention or deportation of a parent makes it difficult for some students to complete school, limiting their long-term earning potential, increasing reliance on public health insurance programs and decreasing tax revenues. Over 10 years of the NYIFUP program, this would translate into $3.1 million in annualized costs to the state each year. NYIFUP would save New York over $1.3 million in such costs each year.-Detentions and deportations cost New York’s State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) about $685,000 each year. NYIFUP would save the state over $310,000 per year in such costs.-The state pays over $562,000 a year to provide foster care for the children of detained or deported New Yorkers. NYIFUP would reduce these costs by over $263,000 each year.
Few investments have the potential to yield such far-reaching returns. We urge New York State to seize the opportunity to create a first-in-the-nation, statewide system of universal representation for individuals who are detained and facing deportation. Doing so will produce $5.9 million in savings each year to New York State and employers, ensure that the system lives up to our most closely-held ideals and help to keep Empire State families whole.
The Problem With Bernie Sanders’ Bold Plan To Aid Puerto Rico
The Problem With Bernie Sanders’ Bold Plan To Aid Puerto Rico
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., holds a town hall meeting at the Luis Muñoz Marin Foundation in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, Monday, May 16, 2016. Sanders arrived in...
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., holds a town hall meeting at the Luis Muñoz Marin Foundation in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, Monday, May 16, 2016. Sanders arrived in Puerto Rico on Monday to talk about the U.S. territory's worsening debt crisis ahead of the June 5 primary.
The race for the Democratic nomination is in its final throes, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Hillary Clinton are fighting it out for every last remaining delegate. Puerto Rico’s June 5 primary — in which 67 delegates are up for grabs — will carry more political weight than usual, and the campaigns are lavishing attention on the island.
As he campaigned in the territory’s capital on Monday, Sanders laid out a bold proposal to help Puerto Rico dig itself out from $72 billion dollars in debt, but economists and former government officials tell ThinkProgress the plan is legally impossible.
Both Sanders and Clinton have urged Congress to pass a bill giving Puerto Rico the ability to declare bankruptcy and restructure its debt. But Sanders went further this week, demanding that the Federal Reserve act unilaterally to help the island if Congress continues to drag its feet on a bill to restructure the massive debt the Puerto Rican government says it cannot pay.
Ironically, the reforms Congress passed to rein in Wall Street following the 2008 financial crisis — reforms Sanders supported — are part of why the Federal Reserve can’t do what Sanders is now demanding.
“If the Federal Reserve could bail out Wall Street, it can help the 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico improve its economy and lift its children out of poverty,” he said. “Under current law, the Federal Reserve has the authority.”
Some progressive groups, like the Center for Popular Democracy, are voicing support for Sanders’ plan. In an e-mail to ThinkProgress, the director of the CPD’s “Fed Up” campaign said that if the U.S. government could find a way to prop up Wall Street during the 2008 crash, it can do the same for Puerto Rico.
“When the financial crisis hit Wall Street, they used all of their most creative legal minds and institutional power to design solutions that would protect the big banks from collapse; if they wanted to, Fed officials could similarly find appropriate solutions here.”
But other economic experts and former Federal Reserve board members told ThinkProgress that Sanders is mistaken. Ironically, the reforms Congress passed to rein in Wall Street following the 2008 financial crisis — reforms Sanders supported — are part of why the Federal Reserve can’t do what Sanders is now demanding.
“The type of assistance Senator Sanders is asking the Fed to provide would not be legally possible,” said Donald Kohn, who served on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors from 2002 to 2010. “[It is] not what the Congress intended. Among other things, [the law] requires that any facility be broadly based and not intended for a particular troubled borrower.”
The reforms in the 2010 Dodd-Frank bill sharply curtailed the central bank’s ability to make emergency loans to struggling banks, partnerships, or corporations in order to keep them afloat. While questioning whether the Puerto Rican government counts as a bank, partnership, or corporation in the first place, Kohn also cited another section of the law saying the Federal Reserve must “prohibit borrowing from programs and facilities by borrowers that are insolvent,” as Puerto Rico will soon be, and that emergency lending powers are “not to aid a failing financial company.”
The Federal Reserve has given Congress the same message, and other fiscal policy experts agree. University of Pennsylvania professor Peter Conti-Brown, an expert on the Fed’s legal authority, told the Washington Examiner that Dodd-Frank “specifically forbids this kind of targeted bailout,” while Cato Institute director of financial regulation studies Mark Calabria added that “the intent and clear language forbids ‘one-off’ rescues to single entities.”
Warren Gunnels with the Sanders campaign argued in an e-mail to ThinkProgress that because only a fraction of Dodd-Frank’s reforms have been finalized and implemented, the Federal Reserve can still step in. “The Federal Reserve has the authority to facilitate an orderly restructuring of Puerto Rico’s debt through a reverse auction process that will lead to major haircuts for Wall Street vulture funds,” he said.
Still, most experts say it falls on Congress to act to rescue Puerto Rico. House Republicans introduced a bill this week that would allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debt, but would also implement an un-elected control board to oversee the island’s budget and cut the minimum wage from $7.25 to $4.25 an hour for workers under 25.
We don’t need more austerity for children in Puerto Rico who are going hungry.
Sanders blasted the proposal as undemocratic and a further burden on the poor. “We need austerity for billionaire Wall Street hedge fund managers who have exacerbated the financial crisis in Puerto Rico. We don’t need more austerity for children in Puerto Rico who are going hungry,” he said.
Regardless of the feasibility of Sanders’ Federal Reserve proposal, his pro-sovereignty and anti-austerity message resonated with Puerto Ricans on and off the island. Two prominent officials, including the mayor of the capital of San Juan, rescinded their endorsements for Hillary Clinton after Sanders’ visit, while other community leaders sang his praises.
“Bernie Sanders is the only candidate dedicated to the people of Puerto Rico,” said Jose Nicolas Medina, an attorney in San Juan. “Much of our problems are due the policies of Clinton. As first lady and as Senator, Hillary did nothing to help the situation of Puerto Rico. So we punish the Clintons with our votes.”
Others watching Sanders’ speeches told ThinkProgress they were inspired by his promise to allow Puerto Ricans to vote for either independence or statehood during his first year in the White House, and his characterization of the current U.S.-Puerto Rican relationship as “colonial-like treatment.”
“To have a candidate for president finally admit that Puerto Rico is a colony is historic,” said Phillip Arroyo, the former chair of the Young Democrats of America’s Hispanic Caucus and a Puerto Rican living in Florida. “He has planted a seed in the mind of the new generation. It will ultimately bear fruit regardless of whether he’s elected.”
BY ALICE OLLSTEIN
Source
7 days ago
7 days ago