Campaign News

U.S. lawmakers including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Thursday sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen urging more diversity at the U.S. central bank.

Ten of the Fed's 12 regional bank presidents are men; 11 of them are white, the letter noted.

"Given the critical linkage between monetary policy and the experiences of hardworking Americans, the importance of ensuring that such positions are filled by persons that reflect and represent the interests of our diverse country cannot be understated," said the letter, signed by 116 members of Congress and 11 Senators.

The Fed has come under fire in recent months from both Republicans and Democrats, including candidates for the 2016 presidential campaign, for a range of perceived failings, from its process to deciding monetary policy to its governance. Those calls have emboldened lawmakers who seek to limit the Fed's powers and are prompting some current and former Fed officials to call for steps to placate the bank's harshest critics.

A Federal Reserve Board spokesman said the U.S. central bank was committed to diversity and was already taking steps to bring more women and minorities into its leadership ranks.

Minorities now make up 24 percent of regional Fed bank boards, up from 16 percent in 2010; 46 percent of all directors are either non-white or a woman, the spokesman said, adding, "we are striving to continue that progress."

Reporting by Ann Saphir; Editing by James Dalgleish

Source

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.

Times Union - August 10, 2014, by  Casey Seiler - Between its draft and final versions, a report by SUNY's Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government on New York's controversial Scaffold Law incorporated changes that tended to increase its estimates of the law's cost and impact.

Some of the changes echoed suggestions made to researchers by the leader of an anti-Scaffold Law organization that paid $82,000 to fund the report — sponsorship that has led critics to attack the study as advocacy in the guise of research. Its authors, however, insist the changes reflect nothing more than their own good-faith efforts to clarify the analysis.

The Scaffold Law, which places "absolute liability" on employers for gravity-related workplace injuries, is supported by labor unions but opposed by business groups that claim it needlessly drives up construction costs. Opponents would like to see New York follow other states by adopting a "comparative negligence" standard that would make workers proportionately responsible when their actions contribute to an accident.

The Rockefeller Institute report was funded by the Lawsuit Reform Alliance, a leading opponent of the law, through its research arm, the New York Civil Justice Institute. The study, made public in February, drew initial controversy for a statistical analysis that concluded construction injuries in Illinois dropped after the state repealed its version of the Scaffold Law in 1995. That finding was highlighted by the law's opponents, and harshly criticized by labor groups such as the Center for Popular Democracy.

The director of the Albany-based Rockefeller Institute, Thomas Gais, subsequently backed away from that chapter, citing what he described as flaws in the Illinois analysis — conducted by a Cornell University researcher — and the fact that the report was released to its funders before a final round of vetting had taken place.

After that dispute came to light in April, advocates on both sides filed Freedom of Information Law requests to find out if pressure had been placed on the institute, either during its research or after the report's release.

Documents produced by the Rockefeller Institute in response to the Center for Popular Democracy's FOIL included email correspondence between researchers and Tom Stebbins, the leader of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance. The exchanges, described last month by the Times Union, included a July 2013 email containing two pages of Stebbins' suggested edits offered in response to a draft version of the report. While many of his suggested changes were merely typographical, others went to the substance of the report.

The institute initially refused to release the draft report, but produced it last week on the advice of SUNY's FOIL officer. Side-by-side comparisons of the two reports show that in several instances changes were made that addressed issues raised by Stebbins.

The contract between the institute and the LRA required the researchers to communicate regularly with their funders as the report progressed. In an interview last week, Stebbins said his suggestions were nothing more than an effort "to get the complete picture" of the costs of Scaffold Law.

The second section of the report, prepared by lead researcher Michael Hattery, attempted to assess the public sector costs and impacts imposed by Scaffold Law, including the annual average price of Scaffold Law-related injury awards for public projects. In the draft, researchers found that sum by taking total spending on state and local capital projects (not including public authorities) and applying the average percentage that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority reported spending for labor law injury award costs. (Because the MTA uses what's essentially an in-house insurance entity, it offered the researchers rich data on insurance costs, claim awards and construction value.)

In the draft version of the report, the formula estimates the cost of gravity-related claims costs by using half of the MTA's fraction (0.3 percent of total construction value) to estimate awards in urban areas and a quarter of the MTA average (0.15 percent) for non-urban awards. Using those multipliers, the average cost added up to $28.3 million for 2007-2011.

"Why do you use half of the MTA average .3%," Stebbins asked the researchers in his notes on the draft. He added that it seemed "very inconsistent" with the industry's estimate that Scaffold Law adds at least 4 percent to the cost of any public construction project.

"How can we reconcile?" he wrote.

Stebbins also pointed the authors to data available from the New York City School Construction Authority, which has in recent years buckled under escalating insurance costs for its projects.

The $28.3 million figure, he wrote, "does not include additional insurance costs, which is likely the driver of the 4% estimate. Any thoughts on getting to that number? ... Perhaps we could have an MTA estimate for payouts and an SCA estimate for insurance. That may help reconcile the two figures."

The final report uses calculations that doubled the potential claims costs.

A corrected version of the draft's calculation ($30.2 million) is offered as a "lower bound" for average annual injury awards, but the report provides a new "upper bound" of $60.5 million obtained by employing the full MTA average (0.6 percent) for urban projects and half of that fraction (0.3 percent) for non-urban work.

In a response to the Times Union's emailed questions last week, Hattery said that the injury award cost figure was always intended as "a very rough estimate" due to a lack of specific data.

"After reflection — after the first draft — we chose to use a range rather than a single point estimate," he said. "This is often done so that users and readers of the report do not overvalue the 'precision' of a single number when it is based on a significant set of assumptions."

The same chapter of the draft includes a two-page case study on the construction of the Lake Champlain Bridge, in which those interviewed — including the chief engineers on the New York and Vermont sides of the project, Vermont's attorney general, and the contractor's project engineer and risk control manager — said Scaffold Law had only marginal impact on the structure's price tag.

In his edits, Stebbins recommended scrapping the case study: "As discussed, suggest we remove this section unless we can get someone to talk."

"I felt that no one they interviewed knew what Scaffold Law was and how it affected the cost of construction," Stebbins said last week. " ... We were not able to get people who understood what the costs were."

The final report jettisoned the Champlain Bridge analysis.

Hattery said the case study was dropped because it failed to provide a contrast between insurance costs in the two states. Because New York was the principle partner in the bridge project, he said, "there was no contrast to compare in the execution of the project ... nor were there any fall-from-height claims to review and describe, to our knowledge."

In its place, a new case study was added that examined Scaffold Law's impacts on the School Construction Authority, and described the $1.1 million settlement of an accident claim that ended up costing half of the construction value of the project where the injury occurred.

Hattery said the SCA analysis was included because of the researchers' desire to offer "at least one specific Scaffold case in a higher-density urban environment. ... The case was completed later, in part, because it required a longer time frame for access to personnel, data, etc."

Stebbins said it would have been irresponsible for researchers to not have addressed the SCA in the analysis.

The final report was the centerpiece of February's annual Scaffold Law reform lobby day at the Capitol. The Lawsuit Reform Alliance touted its release with a news statement: "With the study in hand," it concluded, "Scaffold Law reform advocates look for positive traction in the legislature this year."

Instead, the session ended with no action taken on Scaffold Law.

Josie Duffy of the Center for Popular Democracy called on the Rockefeller Institute to release all the drafts of the disputed report.

"The public deserves a full accounting of SUNY's role in helping business groups attack worker safety laws," she said.

Source.

The Washington Post - August 19, 2014, by Ylan Q. Mui - District resident Shemethia Butler never finished college or studied finance. But she plans to fly to Wyoming this week for one of the most elite economic conferences in the world. Her goal: schooling the central bankers gathered among the Grand Tetons in Jackson Hole about the hard realities of her own kitchen-table economics.

There’s $899 in monthly rent for the two-bedroom apartment she shares with her 5-year-old daughter, $83 to $90 for electricity, $40 for her cell phone. Meanwhile, Butler brings in less than $700 a month from her part-time job at McDonald’s. She doesn’t need a spreadsheet to know that the numbers don’t add up.

“I’m going to Wyoming to let these bankers in Jackson Hole know that we are not in recovery,” said Butler, 34. “I need them to understand. I need them to see where I’m coming from.”

The three-day meeting in Jackson Hole, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, includes a keynote by Fed Chair Janet Yellen. In the past, notable speakers have included Columbia University economist Michael Woodford and Bank of India Gov. Raghuram Rajan. The atmosphere is decidedly academic, with strict rules governing the presentation and debate of research papers that can run 50 pages or longer -- not the typical setting for a populist uprising.

This year the conference is focused on the health of labor markets, a key consideration for the Fed as it weighs when to end its unprecedented support for the American economy. And activist groups have become increasingly worried that workers themselves are not included in the discussion.

The Center for Popular Democracy is slated to release a letter Tuesday signed by more than 60 left-leaning organizations, ranging from community groups to bigger players such as the Economic Policy Institute, Public Citizen and Demos. They are calling on the Fed to keep its easy-money policies in place until wages start to rise and what has been an exceptionally uneven recovery begins to broaden out. Butler, along with several other workers and activists, intend to trek through the mountains to deliver that message in person before the conference begins Thursday.

“We are writing to remind you that the American economy is not working,” the letter reads. “We hope that in the coming months and years, the Federal Reserve’s leaders will make a more concerted effort to listen to our voices.”

The Fed is an unusual target for this type of grassroots campaign, more typical in protests against big companies such as Wal-Mart or around issues like voting rights. Monetary policy can be an abstract concept, rife with jargon and inscrutable acronyms. Criticism of the Fed has typically come from economists debating its mathematical models, politicians bristling over the independent central bank’s powers or frustrated investors attempting to divine its intentions.

“Most people don’t really understand much about what the Fed does and certainly not why it does what it does,” said Allan Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University and Fed historian. “It’s rather remote from most people’s current experience and interests. It’s very hard to summon public outrage, whether it’s deserved or not.”

The Fed’s charge is to keep prices stable and encourage maximum employment. It operates by setting the interest rate at which banks lend to each other overnight. That rate, in turn, influences the cost of borrowing throughout the economy. Lower rates help stimulate consumer and business spending -- and with any luck, create jobs -- while higher rates help quell an overexuberent economy and rising prices.

The Fed slashed its target for interest rates to zero in 2008 to combat the financial crisis and has kept it there ever since. It has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy for an additional boost. But now, the unemployment rate is falling faster than many at the Fed expected. Job growth is reaching into higher-wage industries after years of being concentrated in low-paying sectors. For the first time since the recession, the central bank is seriously debating if the economy is ready to stand on its own.

That is enough to worry activist groups -- particularly since hope of federal legislation on issues such as the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits and paid leave stand little chance of passing in a polarized Congress. The Fed is one of the only games left in town.

“Monetary policy is central to our economy and our society, and the discourse around monetary policy needs to be democraticized,” said Ady Barkan, senior attorney for the Center for Popular Democracy. “We can’t leave the debate about Fed policies up to academics and elite bankers and corporate executives.”

The unusually contentious battle last year over who would lead the Fed also help stoke interest in the institution, he said. President Obama had initially planned to nominate former Treasury Secretary and close adviser Lawrence H. Summers for the post. But Democrats balked at Summers’ role in deregulating the financial industry during the Clinton administration and his disparaging comments about women made when he was president of Harvard University.

The pressure from liberal groups helped ensure that Summers could not secure the votes to win confirmation in the Senate. He eventually withdrew his name, and Obama instead nominated Yellen, who was the second-in-command at the Fed.

Yellen may be particularly sympathetic to the activists’ arguments, at least relative to previous Fed chairmen. In a speech Chicago in March, she invoked individual stories of struggling workers to illustrate the human toll of high unemployment -- an unorthodox move in an institution more famousfor obfuscation. The next month, she met with representatives from the AFL-CIO, which did not sign the joint letter, and has repeatedly cited the high number of involuntary part-time workers and those who have given up looking for a job as reasons to be patient in withdrawing the Fed’s support. Yellen is slated to speak about the labor markets Friday in Jackson Hole.

"These and other indications that significant slack remains in labor markets are corroborated by the continued slow pace of growth in most measures of hourly compensation," she said in congressional testimony last month.

It is unclear how much grassroots opposition may influence Fed thinking -- particularly since it occurs so rarely. Meltzer said he could not recall activists ever gathering at Jackson Hole. The last public campaign mobilized against the Fed was in the 1980s, when then-Chairman Paul Volcker was hiking interest rates to stem double-digit inflation. Though he successfully brought prices under control, the economy went into recession as a result. Farmers and construction workers were particularly hard hit by the rate hikes, and they mailed blocks of wood to the Fed in protest and blocked its entrances with tractors.

The measures did little to sway Volcker, according to Stephen Axilrod, who worked at the Fed for three decades and was among Volcker’s key aides. His course had been set.

“None of that, in my head, had much to do with anything,” Axilrod said.

But he and other Fed watchers acknowledge that the central bank is in a new era. Public confidence in government and financial institutions is shaky at best. The Fed has made a concerted effort to increase transparency and connect with Main Street. At the same time, lawmakers have launched several efforts to curtail the Fed’s powers -- or even get rid of it altogether. Though such proposals stand little chance of passing, they can shift public perception of the central bank.

“Part of it is part of a reputational issue,” said Sarah Binder, a professor at George Washington University and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The Fed’s credibility depends on people believing that they’re going to do what they say they’re going to do.”

And right now, the Fed’s next step is not all that clear. Prominent economists outside of the institution -- and several top officials within it -- are arguing that the Fed has goosed the economy to its limit. Some worry it could be even laying the groundwork for the next bubble: The major U.S. stock indexes have roughly doubled in value since the depths of the recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has hit 15 record highs this year alone.

But Butler still has a long way to go to before rebuilding her life after losing her job at the Golden Corral due to budget cuts a few years ago. At McDonald’s, she makes $9.50 an hour, and she pulls in extra money by baby-sitting or doing her friends’ hair. It’s still not enough to make ends meet.

“Things may be fine on Wall Street, but they are not fine on my street,” Butler said. “And if [central bankers] lived on my street, they would definitely change their mind.”

Source