Campaign News

“There are thousands and thousands of retail employees now working at companies owned by Wall Street and private equity firms, and this kind of financial instability in the sector makes it hard for workers to have sustainable careers,’’ said Carrie Gleason, a director at the Center for Popular Democracy, which is working on the campaign along with Organization United for Respect. “We’re organizing to ensure there’s some accountability for owners who aren’t necessarily running the businesses in good faith."

Read the full article here.

DENVER - President-Elect Donald Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from cities that don’t tow-the-line on immigration.

 “We will end sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths,” he said on August 31. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayers’ dollars.”

 That threat has raised concerns in cities like Denver and Aurora, where police departments have said they won’t enforce federal immigration law, because they don’t have the resources and because that's the federal government’s job.

 Denver Mayor Michael Hancock says that doesn’t mean the cities don’t cooperate.

 “We follow the law,” he told Denver7. “We still cooperate with agencies and ICE (Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement) but we won’t do anything unlawful or unconstitutional.”

 That means Denver won’t detain someone for ICE officials once their adjudicated sentence has been served.

 When federal courts began to rule in 2014 that cities lack the authority to hold inmates in local jails beyond the term of their sentence, Denver modified its policies in regard to detainers, to conform to constitutional standards, as did numerous state and local agencies throughout the United States.

 When asked if Denver is a sanctuary city, the mayor replied, “Denver never adopted a formal policy to be a sanctuary city.  What we are is a very welcoming and inclusive city.”

 The inclusive city of Denver received $175-million from the federal government in 2015.  Much of it was spent on transportation, affordable housing and other forms of public assistance.

 Hancock said he doesn’t think the federal government will withhold money from Denver and other big cities, but Denver City Councilwoman Robin Kniech, who chairs the Finance Committee, said, “We accept the possibility of that risk.”

 Kniech said federal funds are important but not more important than people.

 “We, as a city council, discussed that yesterday, how strongly we support our residents and our obligations to those residents.  If that’s the risk, we will face that risk.”

 Kniech said Denver has seen the federal government turn its back on financial obligations for many reasons.

 “Whether it’s due to government shutdowns or other political shenanigans in Congress, we have to have contingency plans in place,” she said.  “We work to mitigate the impact on our residents.”

 Kniech said if they have to face that challenge, “I’m confident we would use all the tools in our toolbox to help protect our residents.”

 The councilwoman said she is interested in collaborating with other cities and towns.

Kniech is a member of the Board of Local Progress, which includes people who serve on city councils and county commissioners, who are committed to the values of inclusiveness and a stronger economy for their most vulnerable constituents.

 “I have been working with colleagues in Austin, Texas, New York City, Los Angeles and other cities all across the country who are standing up to these threats just as Denver is,”  she said.  “I’m confident we have a national movement.”

 The mayor’s staff pointed out that between 2006 and 2013, the State of Colorado adopted and enforced a law (SB 06-90) which required the state to withhold certain grants from any city that had adopted “sanctuary” policies, and defined the term to mean: “Local government ordinances or policies that prohibit local officials, including peace officers, from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within the state.”

 During that time, no state grants were ever withheld from the city, because Denver was not deemed to have adopted a “sanctuary” policy within the meaning of that statute.

 Other Colorado cities concerned

 Aurora received $11-million from the feds last year.

 When asked if they’re concerned about a loss of federal funds, Lori MacKenzie, a spokeswoman for the city, said, “We don’t want to speculate because it’s simply too early to know what will take shape at the federal level.”

 Trump’s threats are also a concern to the city of Boulder.

 In an emailed statement, Boulder Communications Director Patrick von Keyserling told Denver7 that Boulder’s City Council asked staff to conduct research into the impacts of declaring Boulder a sanctuary city.

 He said no decision has been made, but acknowledged that the issue of declaring sanctuary is one that has legal and financial implications.

 “The city’s research will take into account the potential loss of federal dollars, impact on existing city services and programs and staff’s ability to serve Boulder residents, as well as our community’s strong commitment to social justice,” he said.

By Lance Hernandez

Source

“Aguilera fue una de cerca de 80 personas que fueron arrestadas el pasado lunes por bloquear las calles alrededor del Congreso, en una gran manifestación para pedir protección permanente para los jóvenes indocumentados del país. Unas 900 personas participaron del evento, según cifras dadas por los grupos que la organizaron, entre ellas el Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). "Muchas veces los consejeros legales les recomiendan que no tomen ese riesgo si tienen DACA. Pero muchas veces ellos dicen, ‘Entiendo los riesgos y estoy tomando esta decisión’", asegura Hilary Klein, quien maneja los programas de justicia para inmigrantes del CPD. "Creo que es un ejemplo de cómo los dreamers en esta batalla han liderado el camino con su valentía y su dignidad", agregó.”

Lea el artículo completo aquí.

The answer should clearly be "no." The preponderance of economic data indicates that the predictable costs of premature tightening — slower job and wage growth — far outweigh the risk of accelerating inflation.

Six years into a lackluster U.S. expansion, price growth for personal consumption expenditures — excluding food and energy — has averaged less than 1.5% annually in the recovery, well below the Fed's unofficial 2% inflation target. It slowed to 1.3% so far in 2015.

Global economic forces are poised to drive inflation still lower. Last week, oil prices fell to $42, a low not seen since February 2009. Europe's growth remains anemic and is likely to remain so: The IMF forecast for 2015 is just 1.5%. And while it is difficult to piece together a precise picture of what is happening in China, most experts see growth slowing markedly, with effects in other emerging markets.

With a weaker euro and yuan, our exports will decrease and our imports increase. Together, this will put pressure on domestic businesses and the job market, which is hardly robust.

Despite a headline unemployment rate of 5.3%, the true labor market situation faced by working families in the United States remains dire. Millions remain trapped in disguised unemployment and part-time employment. As of July, the nation faced a jobs gap of 3.3 million — the number needed to reach pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who entered the potential labor force. The true unemployment rate, including those working part time involuntarily and marginally attached, is more than 10.4%.

Poor labor market conditions are also reflected in wages and incomes. So far this year, wages for production non-supervisory workers, which tracks closely to the median wage, fell by 0.5%. Median household income — a better indicator of how well the economy is doing as seen by the typical American than GDP — at last measure was lower than it was a quarter-century ago.

It is hard to see why the Fed would choose slower job and wage growth for most Americans just to protect against the theoretical risk of moderately higher inflation. But, then again, it's often hard to understand the Fed's policy choices, which tend to contribute to widening inequality in the United States.

Too often, after the end of one recession, the Fed, fearing inflation, has used monetary policy to dampen the economic expansion. Its maneuvers keep inflation low but unemployment higher than it otherwise would be, negatively affecting all workers, not just those out of a job. Workers in jobs face greater stresses, downward pressure on wages and diminished opportunities for upward career mobility. The costs of higher unemployment are borne disproportionately by people in lower-income jobs, who also tend to be disproportionately people of color and women.

After the 2008 crisis, the Fed tried to stimulate the economy by buying bank debt, mortgage-backed securities and Treasury assets directly from the market — so-called quantitative easing — which disproportionately benefited the rich. Data on wealth ownership show clearly that the portfolios of the rich are weighed more toward equity, and one of the main channels through which quantitative easing helped the economy was to increase equity prices.

So quantitative easing was yet another instance of failed trickle-down economics — by giving more to the rich, the Fed hoped that everyone would benefit. But so far, these policies have enriched the few without returning the economy to full employment or broadly shared income growth.

The Fed has been forthright in pointing out the limits of monetary policy to help the economy. Fiscal policy could lead to stronger and more equitable growth, but the Republican-led Congress has demanded austerity.

Still, there is more the Fed could do. It could do more to curb excessive debit card fees and the anti-competitive charges that credit and debit cards impose on merchants. These fees lead to higher prices and lower real incomes of workers. It could also do more to encourage lending to small and medium-sized businesses.

Easiest of all, it could choose not to raise interest rates. All policy is made under uncertainty. In this case, however, the risks are one-sided: Ordinary Americans in particular will be hurt by a premature rate rise, as the economy slows, unemployment increases and there is even more downward pressure on wages.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute.

Source: The Los Angeles Times