Campaign News

The left is undertaking an amazing back door plan to dramatically increase its influence over the Fed’s interest-rate-setting Open Market Committee.

The key activist group, a division of the Center for Popular Democracy, is working to kick the bankers off the boards of directors of the district Federal Reserve banks. Those boards choose the presidents who serve, in rotation, as voting members on the FOMC. Brilliant.

In scope, the left’s plan makes trivial by comparison Auric Goldfinger’s “Operation Grand Slam” to contaminate America’s gold holdings at the US Treasury Depository at Fort Knox. Goldfinger planned to turn them radioactive. Those holdings amounted, in 1964, to about $14 billion. They are now valued at close to $200 billion.

Either way, a tidy sum. Yet it’s just a nickel compared to the Fed’s more than $4 trillion holdings.

Most impressive. The left is undertaking its own Operation Super Grand Slam.

It is doing so proficiently and systematically. Unfortunately for the left, fortunately for America, it has run into a real life James Bond: House Monetary Policy Subcommittee Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI). The irresistible force has met its immovable object.

Fed Up, the left’s instrumentality, was repelled during the most recent skirmish. This occurred last week at a hearing of a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, “Federal Reserve Districts: Governance, Monetary Policy, and Economic Performance.”

Fed Up is a project of the Center for Popular Democracy, which, according to Wikipedia (citing a paywalled article by John Judis from the National Journal) is the successor, at least in part, to the somewhat notorious ACORN. According to the Center’s website:

The Federal Reserve has tremendous influence over our economy. Although our communities continue to suffer through a weak recovery and economic inequality keeps growing, corporate and financial interests are demanding that the Fed put the brakes on growth so wages don’t rise. There is a real danger that in early 2015 (sic), the Fed will cut the legs out from the recovery before the economy reaches full acceleration, costing our communities millions of jobs and workers tens of billions in wages.

True, and fair, enough. Let it be said that I, along with much of the right, also am highly critical of the Fed. I, a dues paying member of the AFL-CIO, am of the wing of the right wing that is in full solidarity with Fed Up’s commitment to wage growth.

We share identification of the Fed as a main perp in the failure of workers to thrive. From the right check out, for example, Put Growth First. Its website is headlined “End the Fed’s War on Wage Growth: Restore Prosperity for the Striving Majority.”

I, while opposing tokenism, am in sympathy with Fed Up’s stand that the Federal Reserve is unacceptably deficient in social, gender, and ethnic diversity. I have great admiration for Fed Up’s tactical proficiency, clarity of message, and decency in presenting that message. I, too, am fed up with the Fed.

That said, I am on record as dubious about the Fed’s power to “set” interest rates outside the trivial, and mostly symbolic, impact of setting the discount rate. I also am not part of the “raise interest rates” cheerleader squad on the right. I’m for allowing the credit markets to organically set interest rates based on … wait for it … supply and demand.

I part company with the left on its proposed solution of taking over district Federal Reserve Bank governance. Hola, Venezuela! Upon encountering Fed Up’s representatives while we were waiting to enter the Congressional hearing I requested the opportunity to engage in further conversation. Waiting, eagerly, to hear back.

Fed Up is a class act. Making the voices of the have-nots heard is commendable. Bring it on.

By Ralph Benko

Source

Whitehurst’s group of activists, Fed Up, has printed pamphlets to distribute at the conference venue that say George, along with other traditionally hawkish policymakers, “wants more people to be unemployed.”

Read the full article here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 30, 2014   Contact: TJ Helmstetter, Center for Popular Democracy (973) 464-9224; tjhelm@populardemocracy.org 

Daniel Coates, Make the Road New York(347) 489-7085; daniel.coates@maketheroadny.org 

On Day of Council Hearings, Congress Members Endorse "Municipal ID" Program Crowley, Meng, Nadler, Velazquez: Municipal IDs Will Benefit ALL New Yorkers & Provide Critical Services 

(NEW YORK) Earlier this year, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito announced plans to make city-issued identification cards available for all New Yorkers, which would particularly help residents who otherwise have limited access to identification documents, including immigrants and homeless New Yorkers. Similar municipal ID programs are in place in ten cities nationwide, as noted in the Center for Popular Democracy's report, "Who We Are: Municipal ID Cards as a Local Strategy to Promote Belonging and Shared Community Identity."    Today, U.S. Representatives Joe Crowley, Grace Meng, Jerry Nadler, and Nydia Velazquez have each signaled their support for the proposal. Also today, the City Council held its first hearings on the bill introduced earlier this month. Advocates attended the hearing in support of the measure, which will improve interactions between residents and law enforcement, make cardholders less vulnerable to crime, and improve quality of life for the most vulnerable New Yorkers.  QUOTES FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:     “Our city must be accessible to all New Yorkers, not just some. Creating a municipal ID card is a commonsense measure that will lift countless New Yorkers out of the shadows and ensure the integration of our most vulnerable communities.  I commend Council Members Dromm and Menchaca for ushering along this very important effort and I look forward to New York City proving that we are at our best when everyone can participate.”    “I applaud Mayor de Blasio and members of the City Council for proposing a plan to create municipal ID cards, and I urge that this critical initiative be enacted into law. Having an official form of identification is essential in today’s society. It is a must for so many things from opening a bank account to entering public buildings. It’s also critical for accessing important services and vital resources. Municipal IDs would go a long way towards improving the lives of thousands of New Yorkers, especially the most vulnerable in our city, and it would allow many to come out of the shadows. I am proud to support New York’s efforts to create municipal ID cards, and I look forward to the plan soon becoming a reality here in our great city.”   "For thousands of people in New York City,  the lack of meaningful, official identification is an unnecessary and damaging barrier.  All New Yorkers should have access to an ID that they can use confidently with municipal authorities, private buildings, schools and other entities with which they interact on a daily basis. A Municipal ID would be a critical step in ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to be an integrated and participating member of our city.  I am glad to see that Mayor de Blasio and the New York City Council are leading the way to make this idea a reality."   "In New York, our diversity is our strength and this initiative would help a broader set of people engage with our city. I applaud the City Council and Mayor for moving forward to create a Municipal ID program, which will help some of our newest residents feel truly at home in joining our communities."

Taif Jany is a rising young policy expert who was born and raised in Iraq and now lives in Washington, DC. His family is Mandaean, not Muslim, but his birthplace and brown skin make him feel like a target all the time. He sometimes looks over his shoulder when he walks through DC, where he works as policy coordinator for the Young Elected Officials (YEO) Network Action, a program of People for the American Way. Over the last year, his feelings of insecurity have only gotten worse.

This article was produced in partnership with Local Progress, a network of progressive local elected officials, to highlight some of the bold efforts unfolding in cities across the country.

“Personally I feel intimidated when I walk around the street,” said Jany. “I feel like I’m an easy target, even though I’m not Muslim. I hear from some of my Muslim friends about daily harassment in cities, suburbs, everywhere.”

And that was before Donald Trump won the presidential election.

Jany and his friends have good reason to be scared. Muslims, along with Arabs and South Asians more broadly, are under assault in the United States. While anti-Muslim bigotry has a long and grotesque history in this country, the shape and nature of the bias has intensified during the last few years, with Muslims suffering the fallout in deeds as well as words. In 2015, 78 mosques were targeted for arson or other forms of vandalism, more than triple the number of mosques targeted in the two years prior. Since 2010, ten states have passed “anti-Sharia” laws, with a majority of the rest pushing to add “anti-Sharia” measures to their books, never mind the fact that Sharia poses zero threat, legal or otherwise, to American constitutional law. And hate crimes are on the rise across the country, with official reports of anti-Muslim crimes jumping from 154 in 2014 to 174 in 2015.

Then there is the rhetoric—poison-tipped words and proposals deployed, not merely by fringe-racist characters like Pamela Geller but also by leading political figures who have turned Muslim bashing into campaign-season sport. Trump has rightly garnered the most attention with his pitch for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims” seeking to come to the country, followed by the allegedly toned-down version of that pitch—his call for “extreme vetting.” He has also said he would “implement” a database to track Muslims. But he has hardly been the only one to embrace bigotry. Almost all of his Republican primary competitors trafficked, at some point or another, in anti-Muslim slurs, with Ben Carson comparing Syrian refugees to “rabid dogs” and Mike Huckabee describing Muslims as “uncorked animals.” And such rhetoric hurts; it has real, often violent, consequences. One recent Georgetown University study found that anti-Muslim attacks corresponded with calls from prominent politicians to ban Muslim immigrants.

That’s why Jany, along with hundreds of politicians and local leaders across the country have begun pushing back. Under the aegis of the American Leaders Against Hate and Anti-Muslim Bigotry Campaign, progressive officials at every level of local government have begun introducing legislation and pressing for policies that combat Islamophobia. From school-district initiatives in California and elsewhere that require schools to monitor religious bullying, to advertising and education campaigns in cities like New York that aim to teach non-Muslims about Muslim communities, local officials are joining forces with Muslim constituents to show what true leadership looks like. In the last month alone, the city councils of Columbus (Ohio) and New York City passed resolutions condemning Islamophobia—and affirming support for Muslim communities.

“We were regressing into more and more Islamophobia,” said Daneek Miller, who represents southeast Queens as the New York City Council’s only Muslim member and who helped pass the New York resolution. “These last six months or so, with Trump, have made things worse. We had to do something to reverse the trend.”

These new efforts are taking root in cities and towns across the country, creating oases of tolerance in some of the most unlikely states. In Kansas City, Missouri, the school board recently passed a resolution that condemns hate speech against Muslims and those who might be mistaken for Muslims, and explicitly supports its Muslim students. The Metro Nashville Public School Board in Tennessee adopted a similar resolution on October 11.

 

The American Leaders Against Hate campaign is the joint creation of Local Progress, a network of hundreds of progressive local officials, and the YEO Network Action, which came together earlier this year in the hope of transforming isolated local initiatives into a national platform against Islamophobia. Even before the campaign began mobilizing officials, the occasional mayor or city council would attempt isolated interventions. (In Muncie, Indiana, home state of Trump running mate Mike Pence, for instance, the City Council passed a unanimous resolution promoting religious freedom this past March.) Since the campaign’s launch, these interventions have accelerated rapidly in number as well as kind.

The campaign has thus far come up with about a dozen policy solutions to reduce Islamophobia. Some of them are relatively easy lifts that can be done on a local level. For instance, school districts can write into their bylaws explicit support for Muslim students, and a commitment to hold those who discriminate based on race or religion accountable for their actions. Many school districts have begun to take bullying more seriously; the American Leaders Against Hate campaign suggests being extra-vigilant about bullying based on religion or skin color, including a formalized tracking system for incidents.

Schools can also work anti-bullying and pro-diversity information into their curricula. They can train teachers and guidance counselors to not only know more about Muslim cultures but also to know how to spot bias within themselves and their students, and how to deal with it. While these measures are relatively minor tweaks on their own, together they add up to providing more inclusive environments for Muslim kids and others whose place of birth or religion make them susceptible to Trump-style bigotry.

Other policy changes, such as establishing anti-profiling measures for police, will need to clear more hurdles. But the first step toward clearing those hurdles is to get local elected leaders together to create a national platform capable of tackling bigger issues. The American Leaders Against Hate campaign, for instance, has recommended that states curb surveillance, which disproportionately affects Muslim communities. In the age of NSA data mining, that might be a big ask, but local officials are already making some headway. In June, Santa Clara County, California, passed a landmark ordinance that will help inform citizens about new technology the government is using for policing and surveillance, and make the legal framework for using those technologies transparent and open for debate.

While many of the efforts have been warmly received, a few have run into the buzzsaw of anti-Muslim hysteria either during or after their passage. In Kansas City, for instance, the school-board resolution condemning anti-Muslim hate speech caused an uproar that spread well beyond the city. Despite the fact that the resolution doesn’t require any major changes to school curricula, conservative websites warned of “creeping Sharia law,” and the school district received thousands of angry, sometimes violent, e-mails, many originating from an extremist group called Act for America. The barrage was so intense that the school district had to set special e-mail filters so that its employees could conduct normal business.

That backlash, Kansas City Board of Education chair Melissa Robinson said, was further proof of the amount of work needed to combat Islamophobia. “It’s an illumination of the hate that’s going on around our country,” Robinson said. “As an African-American woman, thinking about the history of what it means to be black in this country, I can relate to what they’re going through in a very deep way.”

Robinson says Kansas City Public Schools joined the American Leaders Against Hate campaign because they understood that Islamophobia wasn’t limited to the city’s school district. The campaign allows local action, like the kind Robinson is doing in Kansas, to have national impact.

Progressives at every level of local government have begun introducing legislation that combats Islamophobia.

While policy is the end goal of the nationwide campaign, its organizers also see it as a chance for ramping up pro-diversity rhetoric. Just as Donald Trump’s verbal attacks on Muslims have led to an increase in anti-Muslim violence, members of the American Leaders Against Hate campaign are hoping that by highlighting Islamophobia and the need for diversity and tolerance, they’ll be able to spur action in the other direction. That’s why the first part of the campaign has involved getting hundreds of local leaders to sign a letter pledging their support for Muslim communities: to show there is a large and effective counterweight to hateful rhetoric.

As the letter demonstrates, countering hateful rhetoric doesn’t have to involve arduous policy change. Instead, it can involve leaders using their positions of power to call for greater tolerance. Under New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for example, the city has begun an ad campaign to not only promote tolerance, but also ensure that Muslim New Yorkers feel welcome in the city. And in Minnesota, which has the largest Somali population in the United States, Abdi Warsame, a City Council member and Local Progress stalwart, has been using his platform to call for greater understanding between the Muslim and non-Muslim community, and to push for city services to be accessible to people who speak different languages, a boon to the city’s large Somali population.

“It’s very important to highlight the issue of Islamophobia in the same way we’d highlight anti-Semitism or homophobia, and start having a dialogue and discourse,” Warsame said. “We want to bring people together to discuss this issue. It’s not just about Muslims. It’s about who we want to be as cities, as states, as a country.”             

By Peter Moskowitz

Source