Constituents “wake up” GOP Senators at D.C. homes: “Kill the repeal, Don’t kill us”
07.25.17
WASHINGTON D.C. – Dozens of constituents from across the country showed up at GOP senators’...
07.25.17
WASHINGTON D.C. – Dozens of constituents from across the country showed up at GOP senators’ homes on Tuesday morning chanting “kill the repeal, don’t kill us” ahead of a critical Senate vote in the afternoon to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Please see photos and video of the protest.
Doctors, nurses, and people with grave medical conditions arrived around 7 a.m. at the homes of Republican senators John Boozman (AK) and Rob Portman (OH) to ‘wake them up’ and let them know one more time the importance of healthcare for their families. Carrying signs that read “Wake up America. Save the ACA” and “Our Lives Matter,” demonstrators demanded Sen. Portman stand up for the healthcare of his constituents.
People from Arkansas, many of them members of Arkansas Community Organization, drove from the state to Sen. Boozman’s home to tell their stories in front of his DC home and urge him to vote no on ACA repeal or on the Better Care Reconciliation Act. Healthcare activists and professionals highlighted the callousness of lawmakers who plan to strip at least 22 million people of health care.
Risking arrest for civil disobedience, demonstrators plan to visit the Capitol Hill office of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell later Tuesday in a last-ditch attempt to keep him from holding a vote that would kill Obamacare in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
The demonstrations occurred just hours before the GOP Senate is expected to vote to repeal and dismantle the Affordable Care Act - not even what the bill they will voting on contains.
Last week, 170 people were arrested for visiting the offices of every single GOP senator to let them know how their efforts to kill the ACA would affect their lives. Tuesday’s action was led by the Housing Works, Center for Popular Democracy, and CPD affiliates Arkansas Community Organization and Rights and Democracy Vermont.
Today’s protest marked the fifth time CPD and Housing Works have helped concerned citizens travel from their homes across the country to Washington D.C. to confront their elected officials and demand they speak out against efforts to dismantle Obamacare.
###
What Housing Recovery?
New York Times - May 8, 2014, by Peter Dreier - Recently there’s been a lot of happy talk about the nation’s housing recovery. Frequent reports about rising prices suggest that the tens of...
New York Times - May 8, 2014, by Peter Dreier - Recently there’s been a lot of happy talk about the nation’s housing recovery. Frequent reports about rising prices suggest that the tens of millions of people whose homes lost value just have to wait until the recovery reaches their neighborhood to lift them out of crisis. But this supposed housing recovery is bypassing many of our cities and towns.
The total value of America’s owner-occupied housing remains $3.2 trillion below 2006 levels. According to Zillow, a real estate database, 9.8 million households still owe more on their mortgages than the market value of their homes. That’s one-fifth of all mortgaged homes. Without government intervention, many of them are at risk of joining the almost five million households that have already suffered through foreclosure since the housing bubble burst in 2007.
With my colleagues Alex Schwartz of the New School and Gregory Squires of George Washington University, I have identified the 15 metropolitan areas, 100 cities and 395 ZIP codes with the highest proportion of underwater mortgages.
How bad is it? More than 10 million Americans, spread across 23 states, live in ZIP codes where between 43 percent and 76 percent of homeowners are under water. The biggest concentrations are in Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. The cities in the worst shape are Las Vegas, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando and Chicago. Places with so many underwater homes are toxic; they depress the value of surrounding homes and undermine local governments’ fiscal health.
The blame for this tragedy lies mostly with banks’ risky, reckless and sometimes illegal lending practices. The story is a familiar one. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, millions of Americans bought or refinanced homes in an overheated market. Mortgage brokers lied or misled borrowers about the terms of these mortgages, often pushing borrowers into high-interest subprime loans, even when they were eligible for conventional mortgages.
They particularly targeted minority areas. In 2006, when subprime lending was at its peak, 54 percent of blacks, 47 percent of Latinos and 18 percent of whites received high-priced loans, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
Not surprisingly, the nation’s worst underwater areas are disproportionately in black and Latino neighborhoods. In almost two-thirds of the hardest-hit ZIP codes, African-Americans and Latinos account for at least half of the residents.
The banks’ risky loans eventually came crashing down, devastating communities and causing financial havoc. The federal government rescued the banks, but nobody came to the rescue of the communities the banks left behind.
The best solution to this quagmire is for banks and other financial institutions to modify underwater mortgages to their current market value, an approach called “principal reduction.” If lenders rewrote the loans to reflect fair-market values, owners would have lower monthly payments, which would free them to put millions of dollars into local economies. Cities would have more stable property tax revenues, and lenders would ultimately benefit by having fewer delinquent loans.
Of course, many banks no longer own the loans they made. They pooled large numbers of subprime loans into private securities and sold them. The companies that service these securities generally refuse to countenance the idea of “principal reduction.” Yes, some homeowners have been able to persuade lenders to reset their loans, but most get the cold shoulder or a bureaucratic runaround.
In some cities, though, nonprofit lenders, like New Jersey Community Capital and Hogar Hispano, have stepped into the void, raising capital and purchasing troubled loans in order to modify them on affordable terms. But too few loan holders have been willing to sell to these homeowner-friendly groups.
In 2012, some of the biggest banks signed a settlement agreement with 49 state attorneys general to modify mortgages, but many of them continue to heap abuse on their customers, and sufficient relief has not reached trapped homeowners.
The Obama administration created several initiatives to help troubled borrowers, but these programs do not require banks to reset loans as a condition of getting federal funds. The government’s Home Affordable Modification Program has helped only one-quarter of the four million homeowners it was supposed to reach.
Worse, the federal government has actually been an obstacle to reform. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has refused to allow these two mortgage giants to reduce the principal on underwater mortgages that they own or guarantee. All it would take is for President Obama’s new appointee as F.H.F.A. director, former Representative Melvin Watt, to change the policy, an action that does not require congressional approval. He should do so immediately.
Meanwhile, faced with this predicament, some municipalities have been trying to take matters into their own hands. Late last year, Richmond, Calif., was the first city to develop a plan to use its power of eminent domain to buy underwater mortgages at their current market value and to refinance them, but many other localities are likely to follow. A number of responsible for-profit and nonprofit lenders stand ready to do business with them so that local governments don’t have to use tax dollars to purchase these loans.
Dealing with this problem on a city-by-city basis may not be the most efficient way to confront a national crisis, but in the face of Wall Street intransigence and federal indifference, cities have had to find their own way to restore the lost wealth of their constituents.
Source
Urban leaders converge in Minneapolis to discuss 'blue city' agendas
Urban leaders converge in Minneapolis to discuss 'blue city' agendas
Leaders in progressive urban politics from around the country are converging in Minneapolis Friday to strategize on affordable housing, immigrant rights, criminal justice reform and other issues....
Leaders in progressive urban politics from around the country are converging in Minneapolis Friday to strategize on affordable housing, immigrant rights, criminal justice reform and other issues. The two-day conference, called the Local Progress Convening, promotes the development of “blue city” — or Democratic — political agendas, and will include panels of city-level politicians and organizers from Philadelphia, Denver and New York.
Read the full article here.
Who We Are: Municipal ID Cards as a Local Strategy to Promote Belonging and Shared Community Identity
One of the paradoxes at the center of the struggle for immigrant rights in the United States is that while immigration law and policy is made at the national level, most of the impacts of those...
One of the paradoxes at the center of the struggle for immigrant rights in the United States is that while immigration law and policy is made at the national level, most of the impacts of those laws occur at the local level. Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, negotiate and renegotiate a statutory framework that includes some and excludes others, and design and redesign a police apparatus to enforce the framework. Meanwhile, in towns and cities across the country, immigrants and the neighborhoods they are part of experience firsthand the difficult realities of trying to live, work, take care of a family, and participate in community within a set of legal structures that do not always protect their basic rights and freedoms.
In the face of uncertain and incomplete federal immigration reform efforts, cities, counties and states are increasingly looking for ways to address immigration policy issues locally. This is the context in which the idea for municipal identification cards has arisen. Municipal ID cards can help individuals deal with the ongoing struggle to integrate and participate in civic life.
Download the full report here.
Who Needs ID?The ability to provide proof of identity is a basic necessity that many Americans take for granted. Access to widely accepted forms of ID such as passports, drivers licenses and social security cards is a privilege that attends other privileges—privileges of race, of class and of citizenship. But, increasingly, identification requirements gate-keep almost every aspect of daily life. Without the right form of ID you may not be able to open a bank account or even cash a check, see a doctor at a hospital, register your child for school, apply for public benefits, file a complaint with the police department, borrow a book from a library, vote in an election, or even collect a package from the post office. Ironically, the very people who are most in need of such basic services are also those who have the most difficulty obtaining the proof of identity that will allow them to access those services. In addition to serving practical urgencies, identification cards also have a symbolic importance as a sign of membership in the community. Cities that offer ID to their residents regardless of immigration status are making a powerful statement of welcome and inclusion.
Goals of Municipal ID Card Programs Improve community safety by making it easier for those without state-issued ID to interact with local authorities. Improve access to financial services by providing a form of ID that will allow those without other forms of identification to open bank accounts. Mitigate impact of racial profiling. Make symbolic statement of welcome and solidarity to immigrant residents. Promote unity and sense of membership in the local community among all residents.Ten cities have already enacted municipal ID card programs: New Haven, CT; San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Richmond, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Asbury Park, NJ; Mercer County, NJ; Trenton, NJ; Princeton, NJ; and Washington, D.C. Campaigns are underway in several other jurisdictions as well, including Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY.
Yet Another Subsidy for the Big Banks
But there’s a bigger risk-free payout the Fed makes to big banks, one set to rise exponentially as the economy improves. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, hundreds of billions...
But there’s a bigger risk-free payout the Fed makes to big banks, one set to rise exponentially as the economy improves. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, hundreds of billions of dollars that would otherwise go into the federal Treasury will leak out to banks, including branches of foreign banks, in the coming years. If Congress needs to find money to pay for new programs, they could cancel the Fed’s recent practice of paying interest on bank reserves.
For nearly 100 years, the Federal Reserve managed the nation’s monetary policy without paying interest on reserves, including the 10 percent of the value of loanswhich banks are required by law to park at the Fed. But in 2006, Congress passed the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act, authorizing interest payments. It was actually an old idea first promoted by conservative economist Milton Friedman.
Friedman thought that required reserves without compensation constituted a hidden tax on the financial industry. He also believed the strategy would make it easier for central banks to engage in monetary policy. If the Fed offered an interest rate on excess reserves just above the federal-funds rate (a.k.a. the rate banks use to lend to each other), then it makes more financial sense for banks to leave their money there. It sets a floor for the federal-funds rate, in other words, giving the Fed more control over its range. It also helps the Fed expand its balance sheet, critical to engaging in monetary interventions like quantitative easing.
Under the 2006 law, interest on reserves wasn’t supposed to kick in until 2011, but Congress moved up the date three years when it passed the law authorizing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Fed set the interest rate on all reserves at a skinny 0.25 percent, which produces a small payout on required reserves. But excess reserves above the 10 percent requirement, which banks never left at the Fed until 2008, exploded as the Fed’s balance sheet expanded. From virtually nothing seven years ago, excess reserves hover around $3 trillion today.
Who owns these excess reserves? As the Cleveland Fed noted in a report last week, more than 80 percent come from the top 100 largest banks. U.S. branches of foreign banks, primarily from the European Union, have about $1 trillion in excess reserves parked at the Fed.
The Fed’s audited financial statement indicates that they have paid banks $25.2 billion in interest on reserves from 2008 to 2014. That number jumped from $2.1 billion in 2009 to $6.7 billion in 2014, a three-fold increase. The entire time, the interest rate has been the same: 0.25 percent. But that’s subject to change.
As the economy improves, the Fed is clearly angling to raise the federal-funds rate, which has been stuck around zero since 2008. Fed officials have already indicated they will accomplish this mostly through recalibrating interest on reserves. At theirSeptember 2014 policy meeting, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said the central bank would “move the federal-funds rate into the target range … primarily by adjusting the interest rate it pays on excess reserve balances.” While the interest rate on required reserves may stay constant, the Fed would raise the interest rate on excess reserves, allowing interbank lending only to rise so far.
In effect, interest on excess reserves is equivalent to the federal-funds rate. And the higher the interest rate goes, the more money banks make from the Fed. You can see this most clearly in Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections of Fed remittances.
Any money the Fed makes on investments gets returned to the federal Treasury. And business has been good for the Fed of late. They remitted $99 billion in 2014 and a projected $102 billion this year. But CBO’s latest update predicts that number will fall drastically, to $76 billion in 2016, $40 billion in 2017, and just $17 billion in 2018. The lion’s share of the difference comes from the Fed paying out their earnings to banks, with higher interest on reserves as they hike rates.
While it’s hard to pinpoint the totals because the CBO doesn’t separate out interest on reserves, by marking the difference between 2015 and subsequent years we can estimate that the Fed could deliver anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion a year to banks, risk-free. That’s an enormous amount of money, based on the claim that interest on reserves is somehow an indispensible strategy for monetary policy, even though the Fed thrived for 91 years without such a tool.
This shift in how monetary policy is conducted occurred with practically no debate. Fed officials are reportedly worried about the “optics” of their exit plan, with its unjust enrichment of the largest banks. But outside of a few libertarians, nobody has raised alarms yet.
One progressive group that’s challenged the Fed from the left was stunned to learn that, in addition to depressing the economy, an interest-rate hike would have a secondary effect as a silent bank bailout. “Clearly this is under-covered, because I haven’t heard about it,” said Ady Barkan with the Center for Popular Democracy, director of Fed Up, a grassroots organization pushing the central bank to adopt pro-worker policies. “But we shouldn’t be shocked. It is the rule that the Fed prioritizes helping banks, and has over the last seven years.”
There are other ways to control monetary policy besides interest on excess reserves, unless you believe that the Fed was impotent from 1917 to 2008. For instance, the Fed could reduce their balance sheet, rather than letting it contract through attrition, the current strategy. That would reduce the money supply, which shows what a pickle the Fed has gotten itself into with its expanded balance sheet. But the Minneapolis Fed, at least, downplayed the risks of gradual asset sales into a global market.
Another option is to hold off on raising rates, allowing the balance sheet to slowly contract and encouraging banks to recirculate excess reserves into the economy by creating favorable conditions for more profitable investments. “It’s incomprehensible to us to think that the economy is getting too healthy too quickly,” said Barkan of Fed Up.
Members of Congress, who created this mess by authorizing interest on reserves, could take it away too, and in so doing could create a large pay-for that could be transferred into productive projects. You could potentially fund an entire six-year highway bill simply by eliminating interest on reserves.
We don’t even know if the Fed’s rate-raising strategy will work without drawbacks, as it’s never been tested. But if “working” equals paying the largest banks hundreds of billions in unearned money, the Fed should figure out something else.
A Job Guarantee and the Federal Reserve Board
The idea that the government would commit itself to act as an employer of last resort and guarantee a job to everyone has been getting more attention in recent months. While many on the left have...
The idea that the government would commit itself to act as an employer of last resort and guarantee a job to everyone has been getting more attention in recent months. While many on the left have long pushed this position, the Clinton-linked Center for American Progress (CAP) recently embraced the idea in a conference last week. It is good to see ideas outside of the mainstream getting attention, but there are a couple of issues worth keeping in mind to ensure that the effort does not end up being counterproductive.
The first is to recognize that a job guarantee is a huge lift, not only politically but in its implementation. In effect the guarantee is not only going to be providing jobs to workers who do not currently have one, but it will also end up offering a potentially more attractive alternative to millions of people now in low-wage jobs. How attractive the alternative is will of course depend on the wage offered in the government supported jobs.
Read the full article here.
Stable schedules for workers boost retail sales
Funding for the research came from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Institute of International Education in...
Funding for the research came from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Institute of International Education in collaboration with the Ford Foundation, Center for Popular Democracy, the Suzanne M. Nora Johnson and David G. Johnson Foundation, and the Gap.
Read the full article here.
Car wash activists release report on John Lage
Amsterdam News - June 20, 2013 - According to a recently released report by car wash workers and their advocates, the owner of several car washes with labor law violations is still paid by the...
Amsterdam News - June 20, 2013 - According to a recently released report by car wash workers and their advocates, the owner of several car washes with labor law violations is still paid by the city to clean city-owned cars.
Created and distributed by Make the Road New York, Center for Popular Democracy, New York Communities for Change and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, the report includes public documents that they believe show that city taxpayers have “spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting” John Lage and his associate Fernando Magalhaes.
According to the report, between 2007 and 2013, Lage Car Wash Inc. had contracts with the New York City Police Department and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) worth over $300,000 combined. Also, the city paid Lage Car Wash at least $135,924 for the past three years for car wash services and almost $38,000 to other entities that are controlled by Lage or Magalhaes. Last year, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation in Lage’s business practices.
Currently, car wash employees of Lage’s report that they work over 50 hours a week for an hourly wage of $6 without tips or about $7.30 including tips and including overtime. Back in 2005, the U.S. Labor Department sued Lage on charges he and 15 of his companies “willfully and repeatedly” violated wage laws. The suit ended with Lage paying $4.7 million in wages and fines.
None of this was of much surprise to Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union President Stuart Appelbaum.
“This report is proof that Lage Car Wash Inc. and its treatment of workers is not fair to the workers, nor do these conditions uplift and sustain our communities,” said Appelbaum. “New York City should quickly take action and truly reconsider doing business with a company who operates in this manner.”
Last week, car wash workers and supporters attended the Car Wash Workers General Assembly, where they discussed their experiences working for Lage-owned companies.
“We learned from the strike at Sunny Day [in the Bronx] and the struggle at Soho [in Manhattan] that we can defend our rights and win, and we are no longer going to accept mistreatment and poverty wages,” said Hector Gómez, a car wash worker who worked at the recently closed Lage Car Wash in Soho and currently works at Sutphin Car Wash. “Just think how much more we can win when all the car washes in New York City are organized and united.”
Source
What should — and should not — be written into a new U.S. education law
Both the U.S. House and Senate are now — eight years late — debating this week how to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known in its current form as No Child Left Behind. Signed...
Both the U.S. House and Senate are now — eight years late — debating this week how to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known in its current form as No Child Left Behind. Signed into law in 2002, NCLB was supposed to have been rewritten by Congress in 2007, but sheer negligence and an inability among lawmakers to agree meant that America’s public schools were forced to live under a law that was fatally flawed.
Here is a letter that was sent to every senator about what the signatories believe should — and should not — be in any new education law. Addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the letter was sent by the Journey for Justice Alliance, a coalition of nearly 40 organizations of parents and students of color in 23 states, as well as from 175 other national and local civil rights, youth and community organizations.
Dear Senators McConnell and Reid,
The Journey for Justice Alliance, an alliance of 38 organizations of Black and Brown parents and students in 23 states, joins with the 175 other national and local grassroots community, youth and civil rights organizations signed on below, to call on the U.S. Congress to pass an ESEA reauthorization without requiring the regime of oppressive, high stakes, standardized testing and sanctions that have recently been promoted as civil rights provisions within ESEA.
We respectfully disagree that the proliferation of high stakes assessments and top-down interventions are needed in order to improve our schools. We live in the communities where these schools exist. What, from our vantage point, happens because of these tests is not improvement. It’s destruction.
Black and Latino families want world class public schools for our children, just as white and affluent families do. We want quality and stability. We want a varied and rich curriculum in our schools. We don’t want them closed or privatized. We want to spend our days learning, creating and debating, not preparing for test after test.
In the Chicago Public Schools, for example, children in kindergarten through 8th grade are administered anywhere between 8 and 25 standardized tests per year. By the time they graduate from 8th grade, they have taken an average of 180 standardized tests! We are not opposed to state mandated testing as a component of a well-rounded system of evaluating student needs. But enough is enough.
We want balanced assessments, such as oral exams, portfolios, daily check-ins and teacher created assessment tools—all of which are used at the University of Chicago Lab School, where President Barack Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have sent their children to be educated. For us, civil rights are about access to schools all our children deserve. Are our children less worthy?
High stakes standardized tests have been proven to harm Black and Brown children, adults, schools and communities. Curriculum is narrowed. Their results purport to show that our children are failures. They also claim to show that our schools are failures, leading to closures or wholesale dismissal of staff. Children in low income communities lose important relationships with caring adults when this happens. Other good schools are destabilized as they receive hundreds of children from closed schools. Large proportions of Black teachers lose their jobs in this process, because it is Black teachers who are often drawn to commit their skills and energies to Black children. Standardized testing, whether intentionally or not, has negatively impacted the Black middle class, because they are the teachers, lunchroom workers, teacher aides, counselors, security staff and custodians who are fired when schools close.
Standardized tests are used as the reason why voting rights are removed from Black and Brown voters—a civil right every bit as important as education. Our schools and school districts are regularly judged to be failures—and then stripped of local control through the appointment of state takeover authorities that eliminate democratic process and our local voice—and have yet so far largely failed to actually improve the quality of education our children receive.
Throughout the course of the debate on the reauthorization of ESEA, way too much attention has focused on testing and sanctions, and not on the much more critical solutions to educational inequality.
In March, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools issued a letter to the House and Senate leadership, with four recommendations for ESEA Reauthorization.:
First, there are 5000 community schools in America today, providing an array of wrap around services and after school programs to children and their families. These community schools serve over 5 million children, and we want to double that number and intensify the effort. We are calling for a significant investment in creating thousands moresustainable community schools. They provide a curriculum that is engaging, relevant and challenging, supports for quality teaching and not standardized testing, wrap-around supports for every child, a student centered culture and finally, transformative parent and community engagement.We call on the federal government to provide $1 billion toward that goal, and we are asking our local governments to decrease the high stakes standardized testing with its expensive test prep programs and divert those funds into resourcing more sustainable community schools. Second, we want to include restorative justice and positive approaches to discipline in all of our sustainable community schools, so we are calling on the federal government to provide $500 million for restorative justice coordinators and training in all of our sustainable community schools. Third, to finally move toward fully resourcing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we call on the federal government to provide $20 billion this year for the schools that serve the most low income students, and more in future years until we finally reach the 40% increase in funding for poor schools that the Act originally envisioned. Finally, we ask for a moratorium on the federal Charter Schools Program, which has pumped over $3 billion into new charter schools, many of which have already closed, or have failed the students drawn to them by the illusive promise of quality. We want the resources that all our schools deserve – we don’t need more schools. We need better ones.So now we are prepared to say, clearly, that we will take nothing less than the schools our children deserve. It will cost some money to support them, but that’s okay, because we have billionaires and hedge funders in this country who have neverpaid the tax rates that the rest of us pay. We are a rich country, and we can afford some world class community schools.
As we continue to organize for educational justice, it is that tradition of struggle that will guide J4J, AROS and the scores of organizations who have signed on to this letter. We are the people directly impacted and will continue to organize in the memory of the great institution builder Ella Baker who said, “Oppressed people, whatever their level of formal education, have the ability to understand and interpret the world around them, to see the world for what it is, and move to transform it.” Our voices matter.
In Anticipation,Jitu BrownJourney for Justice Alliance
Along with…
ACTION of Greater Lansing, Lansing, MIAction NCWashington, DCAction UnitedAdvocates Building Lasting Equality (ABLE), NHAdvocating, Mobilizing, and Organizing in Solidarity (AMOS), La Crosse, WIAFT Local 2115, Birmingham, ALAlliance AFT DallasAlliance for Congregational Transformation Influencing Our Neighborhoods (ACTION), Youngstown, OHAlliance for Educational Justice (AEJ)The Alliance for Newark Public SchoolsAlliance for Public Schools, FLAlliance for Quality Education (AQE), New YorkAlliance of Communities Transforming Syracuse (ACTS),Syracuse, NYAlliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS)American Federation of Teachers (AFT)Arkansas Community OrganizationAROS HoustonAsamblea de Derechos Civiles, Twin Cities/St. Cloud, MNAtlantans Building Leadership for Empowerment (ABLE), Atlanta, GAAustin Voices for Education and Youth, TXBadAss Teachers Association (BATs)Baltimore Algebra ProjectBaltimore Teachers UnionBoston Area Youth Organizing ProjectBYOP/Community Labor United, Boston, MABrighton Park Neighborhood Council, Chicago, ILBoston Education Justice AllianceCalifornians for JusticeCamden Parent Union, NJCamden Student Union, NJCapital Region Organizing Project (CROP), Sacramento, CACenter for Popular Democracy (CPD)Change the Stakes, NYCChicago Teachers UnionChicago PEACECincinnati Federation of TeachersCitizen Action of New YorkCitizens for Better Schools & Sustainable Communities, Birmingham, ALCitizens for Education AwarenessCoalition of Black Trade UnionistsCoalition for Community Schools, New Orleans, LACoalition for Effective Newark Public Schools, NJColeman Advocates for Children & Youth, San Francisco, CACommunity Coalition, CACommunity Voices for Public Education, Houston, TXCommunities UnitedConcerned Citizen’s CoalitionConcerned Citizens of New Orleans, LACongregations United to Serve Humanity (CUSH), Kenosha, WIDetroit LIFE Coalition, MIDRUM, NYCEducation AustinEmpower DCEmpower DC Youth Organizing ProjectEmpower Hampton Roads, Norfolk, VAEquality, Solidarity, Truth, Hope, Empowerment, Reform (ESTHER), Neenah, WIThe Ezekiel Project, Saginaw, MIFairTest (National Center for Fair & Open Testing)Faith Action for Community Equity (FACE), Oahu/Maui, HIFaith Coalition for the Common Good, Springfield, ILFannie Lou Hamer Center for Change, MIFlorida Institute for Reform and Empowerment (FIRE)482Forward, Detroit, MIFuture of Tomorrow, Cypress Hills Local Development Corp, Brooklyn, NYGamalielGamaliel of Metro Chicago, Chicago, ILGenesis, Alameda County, CAThe Grassroots Collaborative, Chicago, ILGrassroots Education Movement, Chicago, ILGreat Public Schools (GPS) Pittsburgh, PAHouston Federation of Teachers, Local 2415, TXIndiana Organizing Project, South Bend, INInnerCity Struggle, LAInterfaith Strategy for Advocacy and Action in the Community (ISAAC), Kalamazoo, MIJoining Our Neighbors, Advancing Hope (JONAH), Eau Claire, WIJoint-Religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH), Battle Creek, MIJustice Organization Sharing Hope and United for Action (JOSHUA), Green Bay, WIJustice Overcoming Boundaries (JOB), San Diego, CAKansas Justice AdvocatesKeep the Vote/No Takeover Coalition, DetroitKenwood Oakland Community Organization (KOCO), Chicago, ILLabor Council for Latin American Advancement, AFL-CIO (LCLAA)Long Island Organizing Network (LION), Riverhead, NYMake the Road, New York, NYMaryland Communities UnitedMassachusetts Jobs with JusticeMedia Mobilizing Project, Philadelphia, PAMetro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity (MORE2), Kansas City, MO/KSMetropolitan Congregations United (MCU), St. Louis, MOMetropolitan Organizing Strategy for Enabling Strength (MOSES), Detroit, MIMilwaukee Inner-city Congregations Allied for Hope (MICAH), Milwaukee, WIMinnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change (MN NOC)Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE)More than A Score, Chicago, ILMOSES, Chicago, ILMOSES, Madison, WINAACP, ArkansasNAACP OregonNAACP Washington StateNAOMI, Wausau, WINC Heat/ Youth Organizing Institute, Durham/RaleighNehemiah, Petersburg, VANeighborhood Networks, Philadelphia, PANetwork for Public EducationNewark Student Union, NJNew Jersey Communities United (NJCU)The New York A. Phillip Randolph InstituteNew York City Coalition for Educational Justice (CEJ)New York City Opt OutNew York Communities for Change (NYCC)New York State United Teachers (NYSUT)Niagara Organizing Alliance for Hope (NOAH), Niagara Falls, NYNOLA Village, LANorth Bay Organizing Project (NBOP), Sonoma County, CANorthside Action For Justice, Chicago, ILOrganizers in the Land of Enchantment (OLE), NMOrganize Now, FLOur Community, Our Schools, Dallas, TXPadres Y Jovenes Unidos, Denver, COParents Across AmericaParents Across America, Roanoke Valley, VAParents for Public Schools of Greater Cincinnati, OHParents 4 Teachers,Chicago, ILParents on the MoveParents Unified for Local School Education (PULSE),Newark, NJPartnership for Renewal in Southern and Central Maryland (PRISCM),Prince George’s County, MDPaterson Education Fund, NJPatterson Education Organizing Committee, NJPennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network (PIIN), Pittsburgh, PAPIIN-Northwest, Erie, PAPilsen Alliance, Chicago, ILPhiladelphia Coalition Advocating for Public Schools (PCAPS), PAThe Philadelphia Council AFL-CIOPhiladelphia Federation of Teachers, PAPhiladelphia MoveOn.org, PAPhiladelphia Student Union, PAPittsburgh Federation of Teachers, PAPower U, Miami, FLPride at WorkProject SouthQuad Cities Interfaith (QCI), Davenport, IARacine Interfaith Coalition (RIC), Racine, WIRaise Your Voice, Chicago, ILRise Up GeorgiaRochester ACTS, Rochester, NYSave Our SchoolsSave Our Schools NJSchools and Communities UnitedSchott Foundation for Public EducationSEEK, COSistas & Brothas United, New York, NYStay Together Appalachian YouthSunflower Action, Wichita, KSSupport Our Students, Birmingham, ALStewards of Prophetic, Hopeful, Intentional, Action (SOPHIA), Waukesha, WITeachers for Social Justice, Chicago, ILTeaching for ChangeTexas Organizing Project (TOP), TXUnited Congregations Metro East (UCM), E. St. Louis, ILUnited Opt Out of NJUnited Federation of Teachers, NYCUnited Teachers of Los Angeles, CAUrban Youth Collaborative, NYVAYLA, New Orleans, LAVOICE, Buffalo, NYVoices for Education, AZWisconsin Jobs NowWISDOM (Gamaliel statewide), WIYinzercation, Pittsburgh, PAYouth Empowered in the StruggleYouth Justice Coalition, LAYouth On The Move, Bronx, NYYouth Together, Oakland, CAYouth United for Change, Philadelphia, PA
Source: Washington Post
How progressives can fight against Trump's agenda
How progressives can fight against Trump's agenda
As the new year begins, any honest progressive knows the political outlook is bleak. But if we're going to limit the damage that President-elect Donald Trump inflicts on the country, then despair...
As the new year begins, any honest progressive knows the political outlook is bleak. But if we're going to limit the damage that President-elect Donald Trump inflicts on the country, then despair is not an option. The real question, as Democracy Alliance President Gara LaMarche recently said, "is how you fight intelligently and strategically when every house is burning down."
Indeed, with Trump and Republicans in Congress aggressively pushing a right-wing agenda, progressives will need to invest their resources and attention where they can do the most good — both now and over the next four years. With that in mind, here are three steps to take to resist and rebuild as the Trump administration gets underway.
First, while strong national leadership is certainly important, progressives must recognize that the most significant resistance to Trump won't take place in Washington. It's going to happen in the streets led by grass-roots activists, and in communities, city halls and statehouses nationwide.
There is real potential for cities and states to act as a bulwark against Trump's agenda. On immigration, for example, a coalition of mayors from across the country — including New York and Los Angeles but also cities throughout the Rust Belt and the South — are already coordinating to fight Trump's deportation plans. Local Progress, a national network of city and county officials, is working to protect civil rights and advance economic and social justice. And while the Trump administration may ravage the environment, cities and states can also continue the fight against global warming; in particular, California has the potential to become a global leader on the issue, and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has defiantly pledged to move forward with plans to slash carbon emissions in the state regardless of Trump's policies.
Cities and states also give progressives an opportunity to play offense by advancing policies that truly improve people's lives, while providing a concrete and actionable blueprint for the rest of the country. Take the Fight for $15. Last year, 25 states, cities and counties approved minimum-wage increases that will result in raises for millions of workers nationwide. And despite Trump's hostility to workers, there are campaigns to increase the minimum wage planned in at least 13 states and other localities over the next two years, representing a real chance to build on that progress.
Second, as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman writes, "We need a broad commitment from activists and donors to take back state governments." Even if Democrats do well in the midterm elections, they are unlikely to regain control of Congress until after the next round of redistricting, in 2020. Yet there will be 87 state legislative chambers and 36 gubernatorial seats up for grabs in 2018. Progressives would be wise to adopt a laserlike focus on winning these races.
A strong performance at the state level in 2018 would do more than improve progressives' ability to combat Trump's policies. It would also help create a stronger pipeline of leaders who could eventually run for higher office, following in the steps of incoming House members Jamie B. Raskin, D-Md., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. Crucially, it would also give progressive Democrats more influence over congressional redistricting in 2020, boosting the party's prospects at the national level. For that reason, it's noteworthy that President Obama is planning to get involved in state legislative elections and redistricting after he leaves office, though grass-roots efforts will remain paramount.
And third, it will be critical for progressive leaders in Washington to amplify local progress to drive a national message. In the absence of a single party leader — especially one whose success depends on compromising with congressional Republicans — there is more room for strong, populist progressive voices to emerge in opposition to Trump.
Already, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Vt., Elizabeth Warren, Mass., Sherrod Brown, Ohio, and Jeff Merkley, Ore., are stepping up, and they will be joined in the House by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose members will play a key role in recruiting and running progressive candidates, connecting with grass-roots movements and driving local issues into the national sphere. Working alongside activist groups, progressive Democrats can present a clear alternative vision for the nation.
To that end, the race for Democratic National Committee chair presents a significant opportunity to shift the party's direction. Regardless of who prevails, progressives would be wise to insist on a return to the 50-state strategy that former chairman Howard Dean championed and that all of the current candidates say they support. Ultimately, the party's fortunes will depend on recruiting a new generation of progressive leaders, especially women and people of color, who can harness the power of social movements and drive it into electoral politics — everywhere in the country, at every level of government.
By: Katrina Vanden Heuvel
Source
13 hours ago
7 days ago