A puzzle for central bankers: Solid growth but low inflation
Against a backdrop of strengthening growth but chronically low inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and other...
Against a backdrop of strengthening growth but chronically low inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and other central bankers are taking their measure of the global economy at their annual conference in the shadow of Wyoming's Grand Teton Mountains.
With the prospect of new leadership at the Fed within months, investors will be listening for any hint of shifting interest rate plans from the policymakers. The most watched events will come Friday, when Yellen and Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, will each address the conference.
Read the full article here.
Janet Yellen, the first woman Fed chair, proved the skeptics wrong and got fired anyway
Janet Yellen, the first woman Fed chair, proved the skeptics wrong and got fired anyway
On February 3, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, the first woman to lead the central bank and likely the most...
On February 3, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, the first woman to lead the central bank and likely the most qualified nominee ever for the post, will exit the Fed, leaving a legacy described as “near perfection” and with an “A” grade from a majority of economists.
And yet in 2014, the US Senate confirmed Yellen by a vote of 56-26, the lowest number of “yes” votes a confirmed Fed chair has ever received.
Read the full article here.
Bill Would Make Maryland Employers Set Work Schedules Earlier
As Labor Day approaches, advocates in Maryland are pushing for a change in how workers receive their schedules....
As Labor Day approaches, advocates in Maryland are pushing for a change in how workers receive their schedules.
Take Hilaria, who lives in Gaithersburg and works at a fast food restaurant. (That's all she'll say on the record, fearing potential reprisal from her employer.) Hilaria says she often doesn't receive her weekly work schedule until right before she has to start it.
"Sometimes it three to four days before the schedule [starts]," Hilaria says. "So we don't have enough time for activities — like for my daughter in school, or for my appointment with a doctor."
Advocates for workers argue Hilaria's story is not uncommon for those in the restaurant and hospitality industries. They're pushing the Maryland General Assembly to approve a measure next year that would make employers issue schedules three weeks in advance. It's called the Fair Work Week Act.
Del. David Moon of Montgomery County says it would provide protections for workers who don't have many.
"Schedules change. You're asked to fill in for people at the last second. It's a busy night and all of the sudden you have to jump in and completely alter your schedule. And if you can't, you're often made to find a replacement yourself," Del. Moon says.
A similar bill never received a vote during this year's session in Annapolis. Nationwide, Fair Work Week bills have been more successful at the city and county level. San Francisco approved a similar measure last year, and Albuqueque, New Mexico, is currently debating one.
Source: WAMU 88.5
What Does Black Lives Matter Want?
On August 1 the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), a coalition of over sixty organizations, rolled out “A Vision for...
On August 1 the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), a coalition of over sixty organizations, rolled out “A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom & Justice,” an ambitious document described by the press as the first signs of what young black activists “really want.” It lays out six demands aimed at ending all forms of violence and injustice endured by black people; redirecting resources from prisons and the military to education, health, and safety; creating a just, democratically controlled economy; and securing black political power within a genuinely inclusive democracy. Backing the demands are forty separate proposals and thirty-four policy briefs, replete with data, context, and legislative recommendations.
But the document quickly came under attack for its statement on Palestine, which calls Israel an apartheid state and characterizes the ongoing war in Gaza and the West Bank as genocide. Dozens of publications and media outlets devoted extensive coverage to the controversy around this single aspect of the platform, including The Guardian, the Washington Post, The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Of course, M4BL is not the first to argue that Israeli policies meet the UN definitions of apartheid. (The 1965 International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the 1975 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid define it as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”) Nor is M4BL the first group to use the term “genocide” to describe the plight of Palestinians under occupation and settlement. The renowned Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, for example, wrote of the war on Gaza in 2014 as “incremental genocide.” That Israel’s actions in Gaza correspond with the UN definition of genocide to “destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” by causing “serious bodily or mental harm” to group members is a legitimate argument to make.
The few mainstream reporters and pundits who considered the full M4BL document either reduced it to a laundry list of demands or positioned it as an alternative to the platform of the Democratic Party—or else focused on their own benighted astonishment that the movement has an agenda beyond curbing police violence. But anyone following Black Lives Matter from its inception in the killingtrayvonsaftermath of the George Zimmerman verdict should not be surprised by the document’s broad scope. Black Lives Matter founders Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi are veteran organizers with a distinguished record of fighting for economic justice, immigrant rights, gender equity, and ending mass incarceration. “A Vision for Black Lives” was not a response to the U.S. presidential election, nor to unfounded criticisms of the movement as “rudderless” or merely a hashtag. It was the product of a year of collective discussion, research, collaboration, and intense debate, beginning with the Movement for Black Lives Convening in Cleveland last July, which initially brought together thirty different organizations. It was the product of some of the country’s greatest minds representing organizations such as the Black Youth Project 100, Million Hoodies, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Dream Defenders, the Organization for Black Struggle, and Southerners on New Ground (SONG). As Marbre Stahly-Butts, a leader of the M4BL policy table explained, “We formed working groups, facilitated multiple convenings, drew on a range of expertise, and sought guidance from grassroots organizations, organizers and elders. As of today, well over sixty organizations and hundreds of people have contributed to the platform.”
The result is actually more than a platform. It is a remarkable blueprint for social transformation that ought to be read and discussed by everyone. The demands are not intended as Band-Aids to patch up the existing system but achievable goals that will produce deep structural changes and improve the lives of all Americans and much of the world. Thenjiwe McHarris, an eminent human rights activist and a principle coordinator of the M4BL policy table, put it best: “We hope that what has been created carries forward the legacy of our elders and our ancestors while imagining a world and a country profoundly different than what currently exists. For us and for those that will come after us.” The document was not drafted with the expectation that it will become the basis of a mass movement, or that it will replace the Democratic Party’s platform. Rather it is a vision statement for long-term, transformative organizing. Indeed, “A Vision for Black Lives” is less a political platform than a plan for ending structural racism, saving the planet, and transforming the entire nation—not just black lives.
If heeded, the call to “end the war on Black people” would not only reduce our vulnerability to poverty, prison, and premature death but also generate what I would call a peace dividend of billions of dollars. Demilitarizing the police, abolishing bail, decriminalizing drugs and sex work, and ending the criminalization of youth, transfolk, and gender-nonconforming people would dramatically diminish jail and prison populations, reduce police budgets, and make us safer. “A Vision for Black Lives” explicitly calls for divesting from prisons, policing, a failed war on drugs, fossil fuels, fiscal and trade policies that benefit the rich and deepen inequality, and a military budget in which two-thirds of the Pentagon’s spending goes to private contractors. The savings are to be invested in education, universal healthcare, housing, living wage jobs, “community-based drug and mental health treatment,” restorative justice, food justice, and green energy.
But the point is not simply to reinvest the peace dividend into existing social and economic structures. It is to change those structures—which is why “A Vision for Black Lives” emphasizes community control, self-determination, and “collective ownership” of certain economic institutions. It calls for community control over police and schools, participatory budgeting, the right to organize, financial and institutional support for cooperatives, and “fair development” policies based on human needs and community participation rather than market principles. Democratizing the institutions that have governed black communities for decades without accountability will go a long way toward securing a more permanent peace since it will finally end a relationship based on subjugation, subordination, and surveillance. And by insisting that such institutions be more attentive to the needs of the most marginalized and vulnerable—working people and the poor, the homeless, the formerly incarcerated, the disabled, women, and the LGBTQ community—“A Vision for Black Lives” enriches our practice of democracy.
For example, “A Vision for Black Lives” advocates not only closing tax loopholes for the rich but revising a regressive tax policy in which the poorest 20 percent of the population pays on average twice as much in taxes as the richest 1 percent. M4BL supports a massive jobs program for black workers, but the organization’s proposal includes a living wage, protection and support for unions and worker centers, and anti-discrimination clauses that protect queer and trans employees, the disabled, and the formerly incarcerated. Unlike the Democratic Party, M4BL does not subscribe to the breadwinner model of jobs as the sole source of income. It instead supports a universal basic income (UBI) that “would meet basic human needs,” eliminate poverty, and ensure “economic security for all.” This is not a new idea; some kind of guaranteed annual income has been fundamental to other industrializing nations with strong social safety nets and vibrant economies, and the National Welfare Rights Organization proposed similar legislation nearly a half century ago. The American revolutionary Thomas Paine argued in the eighteenth century for the right of citizens to draw a basic income from the levying of property tax, as Elizabeth Anderson recently reminded. Ironically, the idea of a basic income or “negative income tax” also won support from neoliberal economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek—although for very different reasons. Because eligibility does not require means testing, a UBI would effectively reduce the size of government by eliminating the bureaucratic machine of social workers and investigators who police the dispensation of entitlements such as food stamps and welfare. And by divesting from an unwieldy and unjust prison-industrial complex, there would be more than enough revenue to create good-paying jobs and provide a basic income for all.
Reducing the military is not just about resources; it is about ending war, at home and abroad. “A Vision for Black Lives” includes a devastating critique of U.S. foreign policy, including the escalation of the war on terror in Africa, machinations in Haiti, the recent coup in Honduras, ongoing support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and the role of war and free-trade policies in fueling the global refugee crisis. M4BL’s critique of U.S. militarism is driven by Love—not the uncritical love of flag and nation we saw exhibited at both major party conventions, but a love of global humanity. “The movement for Black lives,” one policy brief explains, “must be tied to liberation movements around the world. The Black community is a global diaspora and our political demands must reflect this global reality. As it stands funds and resources needed to realize domestic demands are currently used for wars and violence destroying communities abroad.”
Finally, a peace dividend can fund M4BL’s most controversial demand: reparations. For M4BL, reparations would take the form of massive investment in black communities harmed by past and present policies of exploitation, theft, and disinvestment; free and open access to lifetime education and student debt forgiveness; and mandated changes in the school curriculum that acknowledge the impact of slavery, colonialism, and Jim Crow in producing wealth and racial inequality. The latter is essential, since perhaps the greatest obstacle to reparations is the common narrative that American wealth is the product of individual hard work and initiative, while poverty results from misfortune, culture, bad behavior, or inadequate education. We have for too long had ample evidence that this is a lie. From generations of unfree, unpaid labor, from taxing black communities to subsidize separate but unequal institutions, from land dispossession and federal housing policies and corporate practices that conspire to keep housing values in black and brown communities significantly lower, resulting in massive loss of potential wealth—the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Structural racism is to blame for generations of inequality. Restoring some of that wealth in the form of education, housing, infrastructure, and jobs with living wages would not only begin to repair the relationship between black residents and the rest of the country, but also strengthen the economy as a whole.
To see how “A Vision for Black Lives” is also a vision for the country as a whole requires imagination. But it also requires seeing black people as fully human, as producers of wealth, sources of intellect, and as victims of crimes—whether the theft of our bodies, our labor, our children, our income, our security, or our psychological well-being. If we had the capacity to see structural racism and its consequences not as a black problem but as an American problem we have faced since colonial times, we may finally begin to hear what the Black Lives Matter movement has been saying all along: when all black lives are valued and the structures and practices that do harm to black communities are eliminated, we will change our country and possibly the world.
By ROBIN D.G. KELLEY
Source
80 Arrested in DC Protesting GOP Health Care Bill
Capitol Police arrested 80 people protesting the Republican health care bill in Washington, DC, reports CNN. Over 100...
Capitol Police arrested 80 people protesting the Republican health care bill in Washington, DC, reports CNN. Over 100 protesters from across the United States gathered outside GOP lawmakers’ offices on July 10 to try to stop the Republican bill—dubbed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)—that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare).
Read the full article here.
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities...
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities of color...
Read the full article here.
The Actions of the Federal Reserve Bank Have Created an Economy That Hurts Workers And Has Devastated The Black Community
Atlanta Black Star - March 4, 2015, by Nick Chiles - The actions of the Federal Reserve have typically been undertaken...
Atlanta Black Star - March 4, 2015, by Nick Chiles - The actions of the Federal Reserve have typically been undertaken to benefit banks and the financial services sector collectively known as Wall Street, but a new report by the Center for Popular Democracy reveals that the Fed’s traditional policies substantially contribute to the dire economic conditions of African-Americans across the country.
While there have been many reports showing how badly African-Americans suffered from the Great Recession and how middle and low-income Americans have not benefitted from the so-called economic recovery, which was really just a recovery for Wall Street, this report is one of the first to link the fortunes of specific groups like African-Americans to the actions of the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank, remains a shadowy presence to most rank-and-file Americans, who would hardly think of the Federal Reserve when assigning blame for their financial struggles.
The intentions of the Center for Popular Democracy, with assistance from the Economic Policy Institute, are clear just by reading the name of its report—”Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserve’s Full-Employment Mandate.”
In the explanation for the report’s rather trite title, the primary author, Connie M. Razza of the Center for Popular Democracy, said Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard refers to African-American communities because “hundreds of U.S. cities have streets named for Martin Luther King Jr., often located in persistently lower-income Black neighborhoods.”
The report’s premise is that the Fed’s goal of keeping the national employment rate at about 5.2 percent—which the Fed considers “full employment” because it allows for movement in the job market—is actually devastating to the African-American community. The reason: When the national unemployment rate stays in the vicinity of 5.2 percent, the African-American unemployment rate is typically about 11 percent.
But because the Fed is dominated by the interests of Wall Street, the impact of its policies on Main Street or on African-Americans is not ever truly considered.
“Although the Great Recession officially ended nearly six years ago, the American economy is still far from healthy,” the report states. “Wall Street has had a robust recovery. Large corporations are making record profits. But the labor market remains weak.”
As Razza points out, the policy decisions of the Federal Reserve directly affect Main Street and MLK Blvd. The Fed’s primary job is keeping inflation stable, regulating the financial system, and ensuring full employment. But corporate and finance executives generally want to limit wage growth so that they maximize their future profits.
“But most people in America earn their living from wages, not capital income, and it is in their interest to see full employment whereby wages grow faster than prices in order to lift working and middle-class families’ living standards,” Razza writes.
Typically the Feds resolve this dilemma in favor of Wall Street, by intentionally limiting wage growth and keeping unemployment excessively high.
“The Fed’s policy choices over the past 35 years have led to increased inequality, stagnant or falling wages and an American Dream that is inaccessible to tens of millions of families—particularly Black families,” the report says.
As detailed in the report, the last eight years have been catastrophic for the nation’s African-American community in virtually every financial indicator studied by economists:
* In January 2015, the national African-American unemployment rate was 10.3 percent, more than twice the current white unemployment rate and higher than the 10.0 percent U.S. unemployment rate reached in October 2010, at the height of the recession.
* The contraction in public-sector jobs—which are disproportionately held by Black people and women—has meant that the African-American workforce has been disproportionately impacted by the recession. In 2011, the number of African-Americans who were unemployed and had most recently been employed in state or local government was higher than their share in the decline of state and local government job loss, suggesting that they were disproportionately laid off and faced more barriers to finding work after losing their public-sector jobs, according to the report. The loss of public-sector jobs also has potential implications for wage inequality since African-Americans and women who are employed in public service have historically suffered significantly less wage inequality than their peers in the private sector.
* Wages have been stagnant or falling for the vast majority of workers since 2000, the report states. While at the median, wages for white workers have risen only 2.5 percent in 14 years, African-American workers have seen a wage cut of 3.1 percent over the same period. In fact, in two-thirds of the states for which data are available, the median real wages of African-American workers declined between 2000 and 2014. The fastest declines were in Michigan (down 15.8 percent), Ohio (down 13.7 percent) and South Carolina (down 11.6 percent).
* Between 1989 and 2001—a period of comparatively robust job growth and a tight labor market during the late 1990s—the wealth gap between whites and African-Americans narrowed. In 2001, Black households had roughly 16 percent the wealth of white households, compared with 6 percent in 1989. By 2013, median African-American household wealth was only 8 percent that of whites.
The report states that the wealth disparity began growing during the housing boom, precisely because of the racist practices of American banks. Between 2004 and 2007, at the height of the boom, white household wealth increased 23 percent, while African-American household wealth actually declined by 24 percent.
“The convergence of wage stagnation and banks’ preying on African-American communities with risky mortgage products (which banks backed with overvaluations of collateral property), led to African-American borrowers being more likely to receive subprime loans than white borrowers,” the report says. “These loans were frequently made as second mortgages, drawing down equity that homeowners had built up. Discriminatory subprime lending practices drained wealth from African-American homeowners before the recession and certainly made Black wealth significantly more vulnerable during the housing crisis.”
One of the most telling statistics in the report is the detailing of the jobs that the economy has regained during the recovery. If the public needed a clear indication of why so many people are still struggling though Wall Street is back, here it is:
While lower-wage industries accounted for 22 percent of job losses during the recession, they account for 44 percent of employment growth over the past four years. That means lower-wage industries today employ 1.85 million more workers than at the start of the recession.
Mid-wage industries accounted for 37 percent of job losses, but 26 percent of recent employment growth. There are now 958,000 fewer jobs in mid-wage industries than at the start of the recession.
Higher-wage industries accounted for 41 percent of job losses, but 30 percent of recent employment growth. There are now 976,000 fewer jobs in higher-wage industries than at the start of the recession.
And here’s another startling fact showing how much America’s economy has been tilted in favor of corporate America and against workers for a generation. Between 1948 and 1973, the hourly compensation of a typical worker in America grew in tandem with productivity. But since 1973, productivity grew 74.4 percent while the hourly compensation of a typical worker grew just 9.2 percent.
“This divergence between pay and productivity growth has meant that workers are not fully benefiting from productivity improvements,” the report says. “The economy—specifically, employers—can afford much higher pay, but is not providing it.”
So what should the Fed do to help Main Street and MLK Blvd. begin to enjoy the economic “recovery?” The report suggests a change in the structure of the Federal Reserve System so that fewer representatives from the financial industry and corporate America are appointed to the Fed’s governing board and more regular people are added. This would make the Fed more sensitive to the needs of Main Street and MLK Blvd., so that “the voices of consumers and working families can be heard.”
The Center for Popular Democracy suggests that the Fed keep interest rates low “so that the numbers of job openings and job seekers are balanced and everybody who wants to can find a good job.”
In addition, it wants the Feds to provide low- and zero-interest loans so that cities and states can invest in public works projects like renewable energy generation, public transit and affordable housing that will create good new jobs.
The Fed should study the harmful effects of inequality, according to the Center, and examine how policies like raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing a fair work week can strengthen the economy and expand the middle class.
Source
Local Puerto Ricans To Observe Hurricane Devastation, Make Call To Action
Local Puerto Ricans To Observe Hurricane Devastation, Make Call To Action
Vigils will be held Thursday in Hartford and Bridgeport to mark one year since Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto...
Vigils will be held Thursday in Hartford and Bridgeport to mark one year since Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico.
Read the full article here.
Will Maria response energize CT Puerto Rican voters?
A year after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, there is a debate about whether the storm has created political winds...
A year after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, there is a debate about whether the storm has created political winds that will prompt Connecticut’s Puerto Ricans to shed their reputation as unlikely voters.
Read the full article here.
Here Are the City Policies That Democrats Need to be Talking About
Here Are the City Policies That Democrats Need to be Talking About
This has been an incredibly disturbing election year: to a degree unprecedented in our lifetimes, hatred and xenophobia...
This has been an incredibly disturbing election year: to a degree unprecedented in our lifetimes, hatred and xenophobia are being marshalled to support a reactionary nationalistic agenda. As leaders of Local Progress, a network of more than 500 progressive elected officials from cities and towns across the country, we stand together in support of a positive vision to make America great: economic inclusion, racial and gender equity, sustainable communities, and good government that serves the public interest.
This week, as Republicans and Democrats gather for their national conventions, Local Progress is releasing a national platform of our own. We adopted the platform on July 9 in Pittsburgh at our Fifth Annual Convening, which was attended by over 100 local elected officials from around the country and hosted by Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto.
Our platform lays out a series of practical and transformational steps that the federal government can take to promote strong, equitable cities. On an array of issues – from affordable housing and environmental protection to workers’ rights and police reform – we’ve identified strategies Congress and the executive branch can take to support, incentivize, and collaborate with local government officials like us who are trying to help our constituents build dignified and secure lives. You can read our full platform here.
With conservatives in control of Congress and a large majority of statehouses, many of the most important policy developments in recent years have come from the local level. In our cities of Minneapolis and New York, for example, we’ve passed paid sick days laws that guarantee workers time off to care for themselves and their loved ones. Earned sick time is a worker rights issue, but it’s also about gender and racial equity, because those previously lacking paid sick days are overwhelmingly women and people of color. Our cities are also confronting the affordable housing crisis with inclusionary housing laws; pushing for reform of our police departments to eliminate discriminatory policing and keep our communities safe; and shifting budget priorities to invest in the infrastructure, programs and services that help all of our constituents thrive.
These city policies have transformed the national discourse. Hillary Clinton’s support for a higher federal minimum wage is a testament to the power of the workers, community-based organizations, and policy advocates who set such a worthy goal and to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who did so much to build momentum for the issue and pull her along. But it’s also a testament to Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and other cities that have actually passed $15 minimum wages and are shifting the boundaries of mainstream discourse. The members of Local Progress have been at the frontlines of these fights in cities around the country, and we are proud to stand in the trenches with constituents who are working so bravely to build a more just society.
But the fact is that we cannot do it alone. The devastation wrought by the water crisis in Flint brought national attention to a reality being felt across the country: localities are starved of the resources they need to provide crucial services for their residents, particularly for low-income families and communities of color. As public servants, we believe in the power of government to improve the lives of our constituents. However, too often federal and state governments are an obstacle, not an aid, to advancing local policies that address these urgent issues.
In too many states, cities do not receive the financial resources they need to build strong schools, run proper public transit systems, or keep parks clean and safe. And we are often prohibited from passing laws to raise the revenue we need. Beyond financial constraints, many states are preempting cities’ ability to pass common sense regulations: smart gun safety laws, livable wages for workers (a limitation that affects New York City), and a just transition to a clean energy economy.
In short, we need the federal government to help us. Here are a few examples, drawn from our platform, that show how the next Congress and Administration can help city governments make a huge difference in our constituents’ lives:
The Department of Education can double down on investments in community schools that have been proven to reduce inequities, as well as restorative justice programs to help end the school-to-prison pipeline. And it can evaluate for-profit charter schools to determine whether they are exacerbating segregation and adhering to basic standards of accountability.
Congress can support the creation and preservation of affordable housing with a significant expansion of the Section 8 voucher program and public housing, as well as a stronger commitment to programs that prevent homelessness. And the Department of Housing and Urban Development can ensure the distressed mortgages it sells help the community – rather than Wall Street speculators.
The Department of Transportation can partner with cities to strengthen Vision Zero and “complete streets” initiatives that improve access to public transit and prioritize safety, sustainability, and racial and economic equity.
The Department of Labor can collaborate with cities to enforce labor standards and respond to the challenges created by the on-demand economy.
And, of course, the federal government must help eliminate the racially disparate impact of local policing and criminal justice systems. The Department of Justice should strengthen its oversight of local police departments, ensure that special prosecutors conduct investigations of alleged police misconduct, and curtail the transfers of military equipment to local departments. And it should incentivize the creation of alternatives to incarceration such as mental health and addiction services in both states and localities.
More than ever, we need strong cities and strong city leaders. The truth is that, right now, Congress is not working for the American people. Cities are leading the way, and will continue to do so. We hope that next year, with a new Congress and a President committed to inclusion, equity, and shared prosperity, Washington DC will give our nation’s cities the support we need to promote genuine social justice for America.
By RITCHIE TORRES AND LISA BENDER
Source
2 months ago
2 months ago