Can Game-Changing "Community Schools" Model Survive Dallas ISD Politics?
Can Game-Changing "Community Schools" Model Survive Dallas ISD Politics?
On a sunny morning in early May, a wayward DART bus pulled to a stop in front of Paul Laurence Dunbar Learning Center...
On a sunny morning in early May, a wayward DART bus pulled to a stop in front of Paul Laurence Dunbar Learning Center in South Dallas. From the porches of tumbledown homes, neighbors glanced with mild curiosity as the school’s principal, Dionel Waters, stepped aboard. Waiting for him on the bus was an array of local dignitaries, including a city council member, a state representative, a U.S. Congressman, a Dallas County judge, and the guest of honor, Robert Kaplan, the president of the Dallas Fed. The riders had accepted an activist group's invitation to tour hardscrabble Dallas neighborhoods that remain untouched by the region’s booming economy.
Waters stood at the front of the idling bus with a microphone and described for Kaplan some of Dunbar’s challenges. The previous school year, all but two of the campus’ 594 students qualified as low-income. The median household income for the surrounding neighborhood, which borders the sprawling parking lots on Fair Park’s eastern edge, is around $10,000 per year. Broken families are the norm, as are parents with criminal records. Unemployment in the area is staggering, with only a third of working-age men and around 40 percent of working-age women with jobs, according to census data.
Then, Waters pivoted. Together with Hank Lawson, who works for the community development nonprofit Frazier Revitalization Inc., Waters described a vision for transformational change at Dunbar. With support from the Texas Organizing Project, which organized the bus tour, Dunbar would open the 2016-17 school year as Dallas ISD’s first ever “community school.”
Community schools are built on the idea that education doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Poverty levels, family structure, health and nutrition, emotional well-being, and all manner of other outside factors impact academic performance and school quality. Creating a better school, then, requires addressing not only what happens in the classroom but outside social and economic factors as well.
Exactly what a community school looks like depends on the specific needs of the individual school and the surrounding community. Generally speaking, though, the model emphasizes getting parents, community members and teachers greater input in campus decision-making; forging partnerships with local businesses and nonprofits to provide programming and services the school can’t; and finding non-punitive ways to address student behavior.
It is billed as a more humane alternative to No Child Left Behind-style school reform, which can punish poor and heavily minority schools for poor performance without doing much to address root causes.
Community schools are meant to be transformational. A report released in February by the Center for Popular Democracy profiled eight campuses and school districts across the country that have implemented the community schools model with tremendous success.
One of the more dramatic turnarounds took place in Austin. Webb Middle School, a perennially low-performing campus in a working class Hispanic neighborhood in northeast Austin, was on the brink of closure in 2007 when neighbors rallied and convinced the district to give them a final chance to save the school. They turned to the community schools model and crafted a detailed plan based on feedback from parents and neighbors.
The school restored music and art to the curriculum, adding band, orchestra and a dance troupe. The Boys and Girls Club began offering after-school programs. Another nonprofit provided college mentoring. A mobile clinic offered free immunizations and physicals. Other organizations provided parents help with employment, housing and health issues and offered them ESL classes.
Test scores climbed. So did enrollment. By 2015, Webb had gone from the worst middle school in the district to one of its best.
Waters and Lawson hoped something similar could happen at Dunbar, which had been placed on the state’s list of failing schools in the 2014-15 school year. So did Ed Turner, the Texas Organizing Project staffer who’d already spent months laying the groundwork and joined Waters and Lawson on the bus. And so, for that matter, did DISD administrators. Cynthia Wilson, Superintendent Michael Hinojosa’s chief of staff, told the Observer the following day that the district was supporting the community schools model in general and the Dunbar pilot in particular. “From our perspective, [it’s] a win-win,” she said.
On the bus, Kaplan nodded along as Waters spoke; turning Dunbar into a community school certainly seemed like a no-brainer.
But then, rather abruptly, DISD pulled the plug. Alendra Lyons, a community leader in the Dunbar neighborhood who both works at the school and serves on its site-based decision-making committee, was told at a committee meeting in June that the community schools pilot had been moved elsewhere.
Why, after months of planning and the showy presentation to the VIPs on the DART bus, the Dunbar project had been unceremoniously scrapped, Lyons couldn’t say, only that it definitely wasn’t happening.
DISD’s official explanation is, in a word, bureaucracy.
In a July 25 email, DISD spokesman Andre Riley said the community schools initiative had been moved from under Wilson and into the school leadership department.
Stephanie Elizalde, the chief of school leadership, said in a subsequent interview that she decided that John Neely Bryan Elementary in East Oak Cliff was a better fit for the pilot. Like Dunbar, John Neely Bryan is overwhelmingly low-income and has struggled academically, bouncing on and off the state’s list of failing schools. Last August, it received its second consecutive “improvement required” designation from the Texas Education Agency; a third would mean implementation of a “campus turnaround plan” and potentially drastic changes at the campus.
Unlike Dunbar, however, Bryan is part of DISD’s “Intensive Support Network,” two dozen struggling schools targeted by district administrators for special oversight. It also has a more seasoned principal. Elizalde describes Waters as “likeable, intelligent [but] also relatively inexperienced” – barely 30 with just two years as a principal under his belt. Elizalde felt that Bryan’s principal, DISD veteran Tonya Anderson, was better equipped to make the pilot a success.
For advocates of community schools, the stakes are high. A high-profile failure in the pilot could taint the model in DISD and cripple efforts to expand to other campuses. “That is what I don’t want to have happen,” Elizalde said. "I’ve got to think bigger picture."
But several people familiar with the discussions say Dunbar was the victim less of ordinary bureaucratic machinations but of DISD’s toxic internal politics. Specifically, they point to a long-simmering feud between the Texas Organizing Project and trustee Bernadette Nutall.
The rift dates back to efforts to rescue Dade Middle School, which, thanks to poor planning, sky-high turnover, and heavy-handed interventions by then-Superintendent Mike Miles, spun into chaos soon after it opened for the 2013-14 school year. The Texas Organizing Project was heavily involved in the turnaround effort, mobilizing parents and pushing DISD to make Dade the first of 20 community schools in the district. So, for that matter, was Nutall, who was famously removed from the campus following a confrontation with Miles.
By all accounts, the turnaround effort has been a success. There is much less agreement on whether Dade’s resurgence has more to do with the Texas Organizing Project’s community work, Nutall’s close oversight, or, alternately, a belatedly successful intervention by Miles, whose administration found a hyper-competent principal in Tracie Washington and offered the district’s best teachers a hefty salary bump to teach at Dade.
Nutall has bristled at the Texas Organizing Project’s credit-taking. In response to a KERA story this spring focused on the organization’s efforts to turn Dade and other campuses into community schools, Nutall sent an indignant email to trustee Miguel Solis, who was quoted in the piece broadly endorsing the community schools concept, and several DISD administrators saying Dade’s success had been “hijacked.”
Dade staff and community members had long been trying to have a meaningful role in the school, Nutall wrote, but they were consistently rebuffed by Miles and the previous campus administration.
“However, since the new administration has been in place, the staff, parents, students and community members have been able to implement the very same suggestions that were ignored before,” she wrote. “The results have been tremendous. Yet, they weren’t recognized for their efforts. Instead, they believe that their results have been hijacked in an effort to falsely attribute their success to a concept that had little to do with the results.”
In an interview, Nutall said she supports community schools but that there “has to be buy in from all parties.” That wasn’t present at Dade, and it wasn’t present at other campuses where Texas Organizing Project wanted to implement the model. “I understand them [the Texas Organizing Project] getting upset,” she said, adding that “they wanted the whole Lincoln-Madison feeder pattern.”
“I am not going to force something on principals and teachers,” Nutall said. “That is not good governance.”
At the same time, Nutall distanced herself from the decision to move the community schools pilot from Dunbar. The decision, Nutall said, was a judgment call by Elizalde and other DISD administrators.
Allison Brim, organizing director for the Texas Organizing Project, was also careful to downplay the friction between her group and Nutall.
“Essentially what happened, there had just been turnover in the administration,” Brim said.
In early 2016, former chief of school leadership Robert Bravo, with whom the Texas Organizing Project had been in discussions, was replaced by Elizalde. “She was very supportive of the community school concept but really wanted to reconsider where we were going to do the first pilot, which we were open to in some ways as well.”
John Neely Bryan, in everyone’s view, could benefit as much from the community schools model as Dunbar. Perhaps even more, given the comparative lack of outside resources directed at Bryan by churches and nonprofits.
“We were also interested in having full support from the trustee,” Brim said. She described Nutall as “supportive” of community schools but said that John Neely Bryan’s trustee, Lew Blackburn,”was pretty eager to find a school in his district” for a pilot.
In the end, for the Texas Organizing Project as well as for Elizalde, the most important thing “was really getting the opportunity to prove that this model was an effective, successful model for school turnaround,” Brim said.
All parties – Brim, Elizalde, and Nutall – were quick to say that the idea of turning Dunbar into a community school isn’t dead. Discussions are ongoing, and DISD and the Texas Organizing Project may well get around to implementing the model in the coming years.
Dunbar, after all, is still in sore need of a turnaround. State accountability ratings the Texas Education Agency will release in the coming days will show that Dunbar is on the state’s list of failing schools for the second consecutive year, which has made Elizalde rethink the decision to move the pilot.
“If I had a crystal ball and could have seen that Dunbar was going to wind up in [improvement required]-2 status," she said, "I would have left it there anyway.”
By ERIC NICHOLSON
Source
After Volkswagen scandal, can consumers trust anything companies say? (+video)
After Volkswagen scandal, can consumers trust anything companies say? (+video)
Adam Galatioto’s loyalty to diesel Volkswagens predates his ability to drive. The 29-year-old’s parents...
Adam Galatioto’s loyalty to diesel Volkswagens predates his ability to drive.
The 29-year-old’s parents first bought a Jetta TDI in 1998, and he drove the little sedan through high school, college, and a master’s program before selling it in 2013. Mr. Galatioto and his girlfriend now share a 2011 Jetta TDI SportWagen, which he helped encourage her to buy.
“They get really good mileage,” he says. “Mine got 50 m.p.g. on the highway. By proxy that means you are being environmentally friendly.”
He’s not alone. Volkswagen has long enjoyed a reputation for reliable engineering, cheerful affordability, and, largely thanks to its efforts in clean diesel, sustainability. In Consumer Reports’ 2014 survey on how people perceive leading car brands, the German automaker was singled out (alongside Tesla) for its fuel efficiency.
That made recent revelations that VW had duped environmental regulators for years, installing software on 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide allowing them to run cleaner during emissions tests than they did on the road, all the more unnerving.
“I don’t generally trust corporations on what they say, and this was so intentionally devious it just lumps them in with any other car company for me,” Galatioto says.
This is a worst-nightmare scenario for companies trying to attract customers that increasingly want to make not just quality or affordable purchases, but ethical ones. It’s an impulse nearly every consumer industry is racing to capitalize on, from restaurant chains shifting to cage-free eggs and fair-trade coffee to retailers pledging to raise wages and give workers more predictable scheduling.
But with such promises being made left and right, and especially in the wake of Volkswagen’s fall, conscientious consumers may be wondering: Can any of them really be trusted?
Not always, clearly, but there is some comfort to be had on that front. Brands that fail to deliver risk even greater financial and reputational fallout than ever before (Volkswagen lost a third of its stock value when the scandal broke, and it faces billions in future losses from EPA fines, repairs, and lost sales). Combined with effective third-party oversight, it’s a powerful motivator for companies on the whole to behave better, experts say.
Consumers, particularly younger ones, are armed with easier access to information about what they buy than previous generations, and it’s affecting their choices. Millennials (adults ages 21 to 34) are more than twice as likely as their Gen-X and baby boomer counterparts to be willing to pay extra for products and services billed as environmentally and socially sustainable, according to a 2014 Nielsen survey. They are equally more prone to check product labels for signs of sustainable and ethical production.
“There’s an increased attention to more intangible characteristics of a product,” says Dutch Leonard, a professor who teaches corporate responsibility and risk management at Harvard Business School. “When I buy a shirt, it has a particular color, it’s soft, or wrinkle-free. But now people are also paying attention to where it was made, if the workers are being exploited, and if the company is environmentally conscious or not.”
This makes responsible changes effective marketing tools, which can create domino effects as companies try to keep up with and outdo standards in their particular industries. When Wal-Mart, the biggest retailer in the world, raised its minimum pay rate at the beginning of this year, competitors such as Target and Kohl’s quickly followed suit. The success of Chipotle, which has a carefully detailed food-sourcing policy, has been followed by major supply chain overhauls for McDonald’s, General Mills, and other giants of the corporate food world.
“Customers want 'food with integrity,' ” Warren Solochek, a restaurant-industry analyst with NPD Group, a market-research firm, told the Monitor in May. “[Companies] that choose locally sourced, fresh ingredients can put that on their website and know that people are looking at it.”
But especially for major corporations, “when you say you are doing things, you will attract attention from outside business groups," Professor Leonard says. "You can bet some NGO [nongovernmental organization] is going to try and figure out if that’s true or not.”
Indeed, Volkswagen isn’t the first brand to have its positive positioning face pushback, especially as global companies work to strike an operational balance between ethics and profitability. Wal-Mart’s wage hikes were followed by cutbacks in worker hours when the retailer’s earnings suffered, a move that led labor advocacy groups to call the earlier wage hikes “a publicity stunt.” Earlier this week, the Center for Popular Democracyreleased a report showing that Starbucks has so far failed to live up to a much-publicized vow from a year ago to give workers more consistent schedules.
While Volkswagen eluded the Environmental Protection Agency, it was eventually found out by the International Council on Clean Transportation, an independent nonprofit aided by researchers at West Virginia University.
In addition to catching such discrepancies, watchdog groups can be helpful in weeding out credible claims of positive change from the less so. In the mid-2000s, the Unions of Concerned Scientists’ annual environmental consumer guide largely dispelled the idea that washable cloth diapers are significantly better for the environment than disposable ones.
Furthermore, some major corporations and industry groups have partnerships with independent, NGO-like organizations to set ethical industry standards and submit to outside monitoring. Unilever, for example, teamed up with the the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in the 1990s to create the Marine Stewardship Council, a certification program for sustainable fisheries. In 2008, Starbucks embarked on a decade-long project with Conservation International to improve the sustainability of its coffee supply around the world. Home Depot sells lumber certified by an outside organization.
Such collaborations may not catch everything, Leonard says, but they are effective because they are “constructed in such a way that the [certification groups] are not beholden to an industry. We may not be able to get full agreement on the standards, but we might make real progress by creating safe harbors through development of standards that are negotiated in advance.”
Source: The Christian Science Monitor
NYT Misses the Story on the Fed and African American Unemployment
CEPR - March 3, 2015 - The NYT...
CEPR - March 3, 2015 - The NYT examined the impact the Fed has on unemployment among African Americans and came up with the bizarre conclusion that the Fed can't do much:
"The Fed has a hammer, and, as the saying goes, not all problems are nails."
This conclusion is bizarre, because the data are very clear; efforts to reduce the overall unemployment rate disproportionately help African Americans and Hispanics. As a rule of thumb, the African American unemployment rate is roughly twice the unemployment rate and the unemployment rate for African American teens is roughly six times the white unemployment rates. (The unemployment rate for Hispanics is generally 1.5 times the white unemployment rate.)
In keeping with this rule of thumb, the unemployment rate for whites in January was 4.9 percent. It was 10.3 percent for African Americans and 29.7 percent for African American teens. Here's what the longer term picture looks like.
If we could get back to 2000 levels of unemployment, when the unemployment rate for whites bottomed out at 3.4 percent, we might see something like the 7.0 percent unemployment rate for blacks overall and 20.0 percent we saw for black teens back in April of 2000.
Alternatively, to flip it over and talk about employment rates, the percentage of black teens that was employed peaked at 31.7 percent in 2000, more than 50 percent higher than the 19.6 percent figure for last month. Does anyone really want to say that increasing the probability that black teens will have a job by 50 percent doesn't make a difference?
There is a separate issue as to whether it would be possible to get down to 4.0 percent unemployment without triggering spiraling inflation. This is an arguable point. But it is worth noting that those who say it is not possible to have 4.0 percent unemployment today also said that it was not possible back in 2000.
Source
NYC’s Indian-American Commissioner of Immigrant Affairs strives for inclusive city
NYC’s Indian-American Commissioner of Immigrant Affairs strives for inclusive city
The seeds of social activism were planted early in Nisha Agarwal’s bloodstream. The current Commissioner of Immigrant...
The seeds of social activism were planted early in Nisha Agarwal’s bloodstream. The current Commissioner of Immigrant Affairs in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office took up causes and showing her community organizing skills since she was a little girl.
Her parents, psychologist mother Rita Agarwal, and father, Suresh Agarwal, a nuclear engineer, encouraged her to speak her mind and back it with action, she recalls. Agarwal is among numerous Indian-Americans of this generation who have brought their social activism into public office and policy reform from inside, after banging on doors from the outside.
Read the full article here.
New Report: Anti-Scaffold Law Research is Junk
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 17, 2014 Contact: TJ Helmstetter, Center for Popular Democracy (973...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 17, 2014
Contact: TJ Helmstetter, Center for Popular Democracy (973) 464-9224; tjhelm@populardemocracy.org
"FATALLY FLAWED": ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE REPORT IS DEAD WRONG, BIASED
NEW REPORT PROVIDES WINDOW INTO INDUSTRY FRONT GROUP AND EFFORT TO GUT SAFETY LAW
CPD, NYCOSH: Scaffold Law Saves Lives, Protects Workers; Industry-Funded Rockefeller Institute "Report" is Junk
(NEW YORK) -- Today, the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) released a paper entitled "Fatally Flawed: Why the Rockefeller Institute's Scaffold Law Report Doesn't Add Up." The report is in response to an earlier "report" funded by a construction industry-front group, that sought to gut worker protections known as the Scaffold Safety Law.
"The Cost of Labor Law 240 on New York’s Economy and Public Infrastructure" was released last month by the Rockefeller Institute at SUNY-Albany, commissioned by an $82,800 check from the "New York Civil Justice Institute,"* a front-group whose address is the same as the Lawsuit Reform Alliance, which has worked for years to weaken laws that make it possible for people to assert rights against abusive or negligent landlords, employers, and other business interests. The LRA itself has frequently been criticized as being a front group for the construction industry and other corporate interests.
*SOURCE: SUNY-Albany Division of Research, “Accent on Research,” Spring 2013 Newsletter, http://www.albany.edu/research/assets/springaccent2013.pdf (page 20)
"Industry front groups are putting construction profits first when they mislead the public to obscure the real stakes of this debate: workers' lives and safety on the job," said Josie Duffy, policy advocate at the Center for Popular Democracy. "The Scaffold Safety Law saves lives. Gutting it, as some are advocating, will harm workers and disproportionately put Latino and immigrant workers at risk. These groups should be ashamed of themselves for spending $82,000 on a junk report instead of making sure the workers who build our cities have the protection they need."
The Scaffold Safety Law is a critical safety protection for construction workers, who are increasingly Latino and immigrant. In fact, an earlier review of construction site accidents by the Center for Popular Democracy, published in an October 2013 report entitled "Fatal Inequality" starkly illustrated how important the Scaffold Law is because of the ongoing rates of injury in construction in New York, and notably, how the risks are disproportionately borne by immigrant workers and workers of color:
In 60% of those fatalities, the worker was Latino and/or immigrant, disproportionately high for their participation in construction work.
In New York City, 74% of fatal falls involved Latino and/or immigrant workers.
Today's report "Fatally Flawed" makes the following points, in detail:
The Rockefeller Institute’s report is fundamentally biased.
The Rockefeller Institute's report confuses correlation with causation.
The Rockefeller Institute's report ignores key facts about New York State & the construction industry.
The Rockefeller Institute's report compares apples & oranges to make a false point.
The Rockefeller Institute's report uses faulty math to claim rising rates & lost jobs.
The conclusion is simple: New York’s strong worker health and safety laws, such as the Scaffold Law, protect workers from unnecessary risk. And it is the inherently dangerous nature of construction at an elevation—not the laws designed to protect workers —that account for injuries on the job. Any attempt to water down key worker protections will simply expose more workers, and their families, to unnecessary risk of injury. New York cannot afford to turn back the clock on protecting our workers or our public safety.
Read the full report, "Fatally Flawed: Why the Rockefeller Institute's Scaffold Law Report Doesn't Add Up" for evidence and details.
NYCOSH & CPD also released a new one-pager explaining how the Scaffold Safety Law works, read it here.
The Center for Popular Democracy and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health are proud partners in the newly launched Scaffold Safety Coalition. The Scaffold Safety Coalition is a diverse group of workers, advocates and organizations committed to protecting construction workers in New York State, creating a unified front in the fight to defend New York’s Scaffold Safety Law from industry-backed efforts to gut the law. On behalf of more than 1.5 million New Yorkers, the coalition has pledged to push for increased enforcement of New York’s construction safety standards. More information and a full list of partners in the Scaffold Safety Coalition is available at the coalition website: www.scaffoldsafetylaw.com.
ABOUT THE CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY: The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda.
ABOUT THE NEW YORK COMMITTEE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH: The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) is a membership organization of workers, unions, community-based organizations, and workers’ rights activists. NYCOSH uses training, education, advocacy, and organizing to improve health and safety conditions in our workplaces, our communities, and our environment. Founded 35 years ago on the principle that workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths are preventable, NYCOSH works to extend and defend every person’s right to a safe and healthful workplace and community. Visit NYCOSH's website at: www.nycosh.org.
Tobacco giant pours $10 million into effort to defeat Colorado tax increase on its products
Tobacco giant pours $10 million into effort to defeat Colorado tax increase on its products
Gary Kubiak taken to the hospital after Broncos’ loss to Atlanta in Denver Broncos defense toppled after Falcons...
Gary Kubiak taken to the hospital after Broncos’ loss to Atlanta in Denver
Broncos defense toppled after Falcons finally find a made-to-order blueprint to beat them
Ask Amy: Sisters’ maternal support affects relationship
Nixon-era proposal to give “basic income” to all people springs back to life
Poll: Should Colorado voters pass medical aid in dying?
Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump trade charges, insults in second presidential debate
Nearly $35 million has been poured into Colorado’s statewide ballot initiatives so far this year, according to campaign finance reports filed this week, with a tobacco giant accounting for $10 million of that in its effort to defeat a tax increase on its products.
Combined with $1.7 million collected by proponents of the tobacco tax, which would fund various health-related initiatives, that makes Amendment 72 the most costly race so far at $11.7 million. The medical aid-in-dying measure, Proposition 106, has been a distant second at $6.6 million with proponents raising $4.8 million and opponents gathering $1.8 million.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 Hickenlooper endorses higher minimum wage, aid in dying, cigarette tax
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 9 statewide ballot initiatives you’ll see on Election Day
Still, it could have been more. Much, much more.
“There are a number of intense fights, but this year will be known for what’s not on the ballot, what might have been if TABOR, fracking and wine-and-beer had gone forward,” said independent political analyst Eric Sondermann, noting that the three contentious issues could easily have doubled or tripled what has been raised so far. “Television would be truly unwatchable.”
Some fundraising snapshots:
Amendment 69
Proponents of the effort to create a state-run health care system, dubbed ColoradoCare, have raised their money — $369,233 so far — almost entirely by relatively small donations, many under $100. The opposition’s $4 million has attracted six-figure support from health care players like HealthONE and Centura Health, as well as the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.
2016 COLORADO BALLOT MEASURES
• Amendment 69: ColoradoCare
• Amendment 70: Minimum Wage
• Amendment 71: Constitutional changes
• Amendment 72: Cigarette taxes
• Proposition 106: Aid-in-dying
• Proposition 107: Presidential primaries
• Proposition 108: Unaffiliated voters
• Amendment T: Slavery reference
• Amendment U: Property taxes
• Ballot Issue 4B: Arts funding
Amendment 70
Substantial chunks of the $3.1 million for the measure that would raise the state’s minimum wage — an effort that has surfaced in various forms across the country — come from national groups such as the New York-based Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund, which has given $650,000, and unions such as Service Employees International Union, which has given $250,000. Opponents have raised considerably less, with many contributors coming from the restaurant industry. But their effort also has attracted out-of-state donors such as the anti-“Big Labor” Workforce Fairness Institute, which gave $250,000.
Amendment 71
A political Who’s Who of interests has coalesced around the attempt, dubbed Raise the Bar, to make amending the state constitution much more difficult. But some energy industry players stand out. Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence, an oil-and-gas financed group that amassed millions of dollars anticipating a battle over proposed fracking measures that failed to make the ballot, instead has poured $2 million into the measure so far. Vital for Colorado, a coalition of business interests that advocates for oil and gas development, along with the Colorado Petroleum Council and Whiting Petroleum Corp., have combined for nearly another $1 million.
Campaign finance reports for the three committees listed as opposing the initiative have reported only about $1,000 in contributions.
Amendment 72
Fundraising for the effort to pass the tobacco tax has delivered $1.7 million in several five- and six-figure chunks from health care entities such as Children’s Hospital Colorado and the American Heart Association, while University of Colorado Health and University Physicians, Inc. have led the way with $250,000 each. Opposition — in two $5 million donations — comes from Virginia-based Altria Client Services and its affiliates, part of the group that owns Philip Morris.
“The fact that they’re investing and now reinvesting, they see some glimmer of opportunity or they’d not be playing at that magnitude,” Sondermann said. “That said, they remain underdogs — though big-money underdogs.”
Proposition 106
Proponents of the medical aid-in-dying initiative have a substantial edge, with nearly all of their funding coming from the Compassion and Choices Action Network, a Denver-based but nationally active organization that works to protect and expand end-of-life options. Leading the largely faith-based opposition to the proposition is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, which has contributed $1.115 million, while dioceses across the country have pitched in to varying degrees. In the latest reporting cycle, the Colorado Springs archdiocese contributed $500,000.
Propositions 107 and 108
The measures to create a state presidential primary and also allow unaffiliated voters to cast ballots in party primaries have raised $3.7 million — notably $950,000 from Davita CEO Kent Thiry — against no discernible opposition at this point.
“If an opposition campaign is going to come together,” Sondermann said, “the time is now — if not past tense.”
Two referred measures, to clean up language in the state constitution referring to slavery and to provide a minor property tax exemption, have faced no organized opposition and raised very little money.
Two more reporting periods remain before the November election.
________
Issue contributions
Total for all initiatives as of Oct. 3 report: $34.77 million
Amendment 72 — Tobacco tax
Yes: $1.7 million
No: $10 million
Total: $11.7 million
Proposition 106 — Medical aid-in-dying
Yes: $4.8 million
No: $1.8 million
Total: $6.6 million
Amendment 69 — ColoradoCare
Yes: $369,233
No: $4.0 million
Total: $4.37 million
Amendment 70 — Minimum wage
Yes: $3.1 million
No: $1.2 million
Total: $4.3 million
Amendment 71 — Tougher to amend constitution
Yes: $4.1 million
No: $980
Total: $4.1 million
Propositions 107/108 — Presidential primary/independents vote in primaries
Yes: $3.7 million (including $805k loan)
No: $0
Total: $3.7 million
Amendment T — Clean up language referring to slavery
Yes: $15,129
No opposition
Amendment U — Exempt certain interests from property tax
$0
No committee for or against
By KEVIN SIMPSON
Source
Campaign regulatory board stymied by Legislature
Minnesota’s campaign finance regulatory board heads into election season with its slimmest possible board membership...
Minnesota’s campaign finance regulatory board heads into election season with its slimmest possible board membership for taking action after the Legislature failed to confirm two appointees before adjourning its session.
Two appointments before lawmakers got hung up over concerns raised by Senate Republicans about the DFL political background of Emma Greenman. Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board appointments require confirmation from the House and Senate on a three-fifths vote; the House supplied sufficient votes to confirm Greenman and former Republican state Rep. Margaret “Peggy” Leppik during the session’s final day.
Board chairman Christian Sande said Friday that it could be August before the board is back to full strength. That’s because of the legal steps Gov. Mark Dayton must take to fill the slots, by which time election contests will be in full swing and campaign finance complaints will be streaming in.
“It means for the board to take any action the votes have to be unanimous,” Sande said. “I don’t know that it handicaps us. But it certainly does indicate that where in the past with six active members of the board it might be easier to arrive at four votes to achieve something.”
Absence of a single member would deprive the board of the quorum it needs to even meet.
The remaining members would have to be in complete agreement to impose any penalties, issue any advisory opinions or take other substantive action because state law requires four votes in favor when the typically six-member board makes decisions.
Campaign finance board appointments always have come with more political sensitivity and scrutiny than most agencies. In fact, state law dictates a specific political makeup and that some members be former lawmakers.
Greenman and Leppik had been serving on the board pending confirmation but their appointments were considered null when the Legislature adjourned without positive votes.
A Dayton spokesman says the governor plans to resubmit their names once the openings are posted, which would allow them to serve again until the Legislature returns next year and takes another look. It’s not clear when that could happen.
Sen. Scott Newman of Hutchinson said he and his Republican colleagues weren’t willing to confirm Greenman because of past and present political activity.
“Is this someone who would be able to set aside partisan politics and render judgment as to violations of campaign finance laws? We really doubted it,” Newman said in a phone interview. “We were very concerned about it because of the degree of involvement in political partisanship.”
He added, “This is not a personal attack on her. It is simply a realization of her past activities. She was a very politically active person.”
Greenman, a 36-year-old Minneapolis lawyer, is director of voting rights and democracy for the Center for Popular Democracy. Past stints include work for the Wellstone Action organization formed after the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone and for a Minnesota unit of the Service Employees International Union. In her appointment materials, she lists her political affiliation as with the DFL.
Greenman didn’t immediately return a call or email inquiring about her intentions moving forward said in an email Friday that the lack of a vote was disappointing. She said she is considering reapplying and has been encouraged to do so.
“I have had the pleasure of of serving on the board since January and believe it plays an important role in supporting and protecting Minnesota’s democracy,” she wrote.
In a packet compiled in connection with her earlier appointment, Greenman disclosed details about her past political involvement and her present job, which she said posed no conflict with a campaign board role and didn’t encompass campaign finance matters.
“At this point in my career I am able to serve on the board without any direct conflicts of interest. I do not work for any candidates or any political campaign committees. I do not currently represent the Minnesota DFL or any party official or political candidate,” she wrote in a November letter to Dayton seeking the appointment.
By Brian Bakst
Source
A Collaboration to Strengthen the United States Federal Reserve System
April 16, 2018 Alexander R. Mehran Chair of the Board Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Dear Mr. Mehran:...
April 16, 2018
Alexander R. Mehran
Chair of the Board
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Dear Mr. Mehran:
We are writing to offer you our view about the urgency of appointing an individual who deeply understands the economic realities facing working class Americans to serve as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
For all of the dynamism and strength of the US economy, it has come to be characterized most fundamentally by enormous disparities in wealth, income and opportunity that strongly correlate to race, ethnicity and geography. Failing to address significant disparities in income and net worth between major segments of our population, and particularly in segments that are driving our nation’s demographic growth, will result in a less globally competitive US economy. This is a significant economic risk for the 12th District and the United States.
The San Francisco Fed will be strengthened by having a President whose experience and expertise better reflect the large segments of our population that are not proportionally experiencing the benefits of our economy. Ensuring that this expertise and perspective is represented within the Fed is a critical way to prepare for the challenges and opportunities in our economic future. This will require considering candidates with more diverse experience including in the fields of community development and philanthropy. We submit that the San Francisco Fed has a historic opportunity to name the first Hispanic, East Asian American or Pacific Islander President of a Federal Reserve Bank.
We applaud Chairman Powell's insightful comments on the necessity for diversity in Federal Reserve System and the larger economics profession. In his testimony before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on November 28th, 2017, he stated, “We make better decisions when we have diverse voices around the table—both at the Board of Governors and at the Reserve Banks…We’ve seen what works. It’s about recruiting. It’s about going out of your way. It’s about bringing people in. Once they’re in, it’s about giving them paths for success. And it’s about having an overall culture and company that is very focused on diversity and sticks with that focus for a long period of time. That works.” This recognition must be coupled with bold leadership and action.
In order to decide the course of monetary policy through an informed assessment of different regional economic conditions from diverse points of view, the Federal Reserve System was designed to be decentralized, independent and include representatives of the public in its governance. The Fed’s mission is undermined when regional Reserve Banks fail to recruit leaders who live up to the mandate to “represent the public.” Selections that fail to allow meaningful opportunities for public input and engagement have tended to result in the elevation of Fed insiders. This insularity undermines the Fed’s public credibility and increases the likelihood that Congress will ultimately intervene to reform the process. The process for selecting the President of the New York Fed perpetuated the status quo. We urge the San Francisco Fed to avoid the same mistake. As a first step, we call on the San Francisco Fed to include the Chair of its own Community Advisory Board in the official selection committee for the next President.
Please accept this letter as an offer of support. We will do anything we can to help identify strong candidates as well as to publicly support actions that the San Francisco Fed takes to ensure progress on diversifying its Board of Directors and executive leadership.
Thank you for your service to the 12th District and our nation.
Respectfully submitted,
California Reinvestment Coalition Center for Popular Democracy Chicanos Por La Causa Community Council of Idaho Greenlining Institute NALCAB – National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development TELACU
cc: Jerome Powell, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Lael Brainard, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Randal Quarles, Vice Chairman for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
San Francisco Fed Board Chair Alexander Mehran's April 20 Response to Coalition Outreach re: Collaboration Surrounding San Francisco Fed Presidential Appointment
April 20, 2018
Noel Poyo Executive Director National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders 5404 Wurzbach Rd. San Antonio, TX 78238 Dear Mr. Poyo: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 2018, concerning the appointment of the next President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. We appreciate your taking the time to reach out and share your perspectives on this important undertaking. As Chair of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, I know that I speak for all of my board colleagues in saying that the appointment of a Federal Reserve Bank President is among our most important responsibilities and one that we take very seriously. We share your desire to find a qualified candidate to fill this important role that understands and is able to represent the varied needs and interests of the richly diverse people and business communities throughout the Twelfth District. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has a legacy of success with regard to recruiting, developing and promoting women and minorities into leadership positions within its senior ranks. As you are well aware, Janet Yellen served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank from 2004 to 2010 before going on to become Vice Chair and later Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Under President Williams' leadership, the Bank continued to strengthen its focus on diversity and inclusion at all employee levels but particularly an10ng its leadership ranks where women now occupy over 30 percent and minorities over 45 percent of seniorlevel roles. In addition, President Williams established the Bank's Community Advisory Council in 2017 to give even stronger voice to those representing the district's underserved communities and to contribute to his ongoing economic analyses and monetary policy views. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has set a high bar for its executive leadership that we fully intend to uphold. Our board has not yet publicly communicated about the selection committee, job specifications or the processes that we will undertake to gather a list of qualified candidates for this important role. We expect to do so in the near future and will keep you apprised of our progress. For now, please know that we are absolutely committed to gathering input from various community and business leaders like you and your colleagues regarding the appointment of the next President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. While I appreciate your suggestion to include Mr. Matsubayashi, who chairs the Bank's Community Advisory Council, as part of the official selection committee, the Federal Reserve Act stipulates that only the Class B and Class C directors (those not affiliated with banks or financial institutions) are eligible to participate in the appointment process. As such, Mr. Matsubayashi is unable to serve in this capacity. However, we recognize that he is doing an outstanding job leading the Community Advisory Council, and we would greatly value his input and suggestions, as well as input from you and your colleagues, regarding qualified candidates for this important role. I wish to thank you once again for reaching out and offering your support of this important undertaking. We look forward to continuing this open, constructive dialogue, and with your support, doing all that we can to find the absolute best person from a diverse candidate pool to lead the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Sincerely, Alexander R. Mehran Chair of the Board Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Federal Reserve Agent cc: Danielle Beavers, Diversity and Inclusion Director, The Greenlining Institute David Adame, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicanos Por La Causa Irma Morin, Chief Executive Officer, Community Council of Idaho Jerome Powell, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Jordan Haedtler, Campaign Manager, Fed Up, Center for Popular Democracy Jose Villalobos, Senior Vice President, TELACU Lael Brainard, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Orson Aguilar, President, The Greenlining Institute Paulina Gonzalez, Executive Director, California Reinvestment Coalition Randal Quarles, Vice Chairman for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Seema Agnani, Executive Director, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development Coalition's Response to Chair Mehran's LetterMay 4, 2018
Alexander R. Mehran Chair of the Board Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Dear Mr. Mehran:
Thank you for your letter dated April 20 and for your commitment to finding a San Francisco Fed president who “understands and is able to represent the varied needs and interests of the richly diverse people and business communities throughout the Twelfth district.”
We appreciate that the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank has shown its commitment to public representation by strengthening diversity among Reserve Bank staff. Unfortunately, that commitment has not extended to the position of President. Similarly, diversity and public representation on the San Francisco Fed’s governing board remains lacking. The Twelfth District is one of the most demographically diverse districts in the country, yet a recent analysis by the Center for Popular Democracy found that the San Francisco Fed’s board of directors is the least diverse in the Federal Reserve System.
Your letter indicated that it would not be possible to include a Community Advisory Council member on the search committee because “only the Class B and C directors (those not affiliated with banks or financial institutions) are eligible to participate in the appointment process.” We would like to clarify our request regarding Mr. Matsubayashi’s inclusion. Following established precedent, Mr. Matsubayashi can play a critical advisory role on the search committee by suggesting, interviewing, and advising on candidates under consideration. We are not suggesting or expecting that he would have final decision-making authority over which candidate is ultimately chosen.
The Federal Reserve Act clearly designates Class B and C directors as the final arbiters of who serves as president of each Reserve Bank. We do not agree that inclusion of a member of the public on the search committee would in any way violate the law. We have consulted with legal experts on the Federal Reserve Act, and they concur. Whenever a regional Reserve Bank encounters a presidential vacancy, it is customary to hire an executive search firm to identify and vet candidates who can fill that vacancy. We posit that employees of those executive search firms are participating in the search process. In 2014, outgoing Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher solicited the participation of non-Class B/C directors when he reportedly convened an advisory committee consisting of former Dallas Fed chairmen to help choose his successor.2 Freedom of Information Act requests have also revealed that members of the Board of Governors have occasionally suggested candidates to fill Reserve Bank presidential vacancies, thereby going beyond the final approval role that the Federal Reserve Act prescribes for governors. We fail to see how the inclusion of Mr. Matsubayashi on the search committee in an advisory capacity is distinguished from these other examples of involvement by non- Class B and C directors in recent Reserve Bank presidential selections.
In your letter of April 20th, you identified the establishment of the Community Advisory Council as an important step toward giving an “even stronger voice to those representing underserved communities,” in the District. The Council includes individuals selected by the San Francisco Fed itself as credible representatives of diverse communities. If the San Francisco Fed is unwilling to find a way to meaningfully include a leading member of that advisory council in the selection process for the next President, it is difficult to understand how underserved communities are truly gaining a stronger voice.
It is also difficult to be assured that people of color will be given due consideration for the position of President when communities of color and other important segments of the District’s population are not adequately reflected in the selection process. Despite clear calls for consideration of diverse candidates from members of Congress and the public, the last two Reserve Bank presidential vacancies have resulted in the selection of white, male, longtime Fed insiders. Including the Chair of the San Francisco Fed’s Community Advisory Council on the search committee in San Francisco is an essential step to maintain the credibility of the selection process for the next President of the San Francisco Fed.
In light of this clarification, we respectfully request that you consider including the Chair of the San Francisco Fed’s Community Advisory Council in the search process in a manner consistent with the Federal Reserve Act. If the San Francisco Fed chooses not to accept this recommendation, we would appreciate an explanation as to why. Regardless of your decision, we look forward to your continued collaboration as you take on the important responsibility of finding a qualified candidate to fill a policymaking role of crucial importance to the public.
Thank you for your service to the 12th District and our nation.
Respectfully submitted,
California Reinvestment Coalition Greenlining Institute Center for Popular Democracy Community Council of Idaho Chicanos Por La Causa NALCAB – National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development TELACU
cc: Jerome Powell, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Lael Brainard, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Randal Quarles, Vice Chairman for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
What the Campaign’s Focus on Inequality Means for New York
City Limits – September 4, 2013, by Gail Robinson - On July 21, five candidates for mayor of New York left their...
City Limits – September 4, 2013, by Gail Robinson -
On July 21, five candidates for mayor of New York left their usual beds to spend the night in a public housing project in Harlem. The sleepover made for good photo opportunities and sound bites––Council Speaker Christine Quinn likened the mold she saw in a bathroom to a horror movie––but it also helped signal that the two New Yorks of Fernando Ferrer’s failed mayoral campaigns have returned to center stage in New York politics.
Public Advocate Bill de Blasio’s recent emergence as leader in the polls has confirmed that. “Bill de Blasio’s Surge is All About Inequality,” blared a recent headline in the New Republic.
While de Blasio has made New York’s “tale of two cities” a centerpiece of his campaign, other candidates also have targeted income inequality, and even many moderates and conservatives see the issue as an important one. “It’s a barbell economy. That’s definitely true,” says Nicole Gelinas, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Sharp differences exist, however, about how New York should confront this problem and whether anything a New York City mayor can do will make a difference.
Why now
During his first term, it’s said, the word poverty passed through Michael Bloomberg’s lips once or twice. It didn’t seem to hurt him.
Now the problem has emerged as the elephant in the room. Figures released last year found the percentage of New Yorkers living in poverty had increased for three consecutive years, reaching 20.9 percent in 2011. The Economist recently noted that in New York City in 2012 “the richest 1 percent took home close to 39 percent of the income earned in the city, more than double the national figure of 19 percent.” While some of this is due to New York’s status as the home to a lot of really rich people, it also points to a decline in the middle class, as jobs paying less than $35,000 replaced the jobs the recession stripped away.
Given this, income inequality not being an issue in this year’s election “would be like terrorism not being an issue on Sept.12, 2001,” says Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. Areport by the Community Service Society (which owns City Limits) found that 70 percent of all New Yorkers––and 74 percent of those with moderate or high incomes––are somewhat worried or very worried about widening inequality in the city.
Organizing around issues such as the living wage and paid sick leave and the message of Occupy Wall Street also helped push the issue forward, as has Bloomberg’s fading presence. “People are reckoning with what New York has become on his watch, and he’s not spending $100 million to pump out an alternative message,” says Andrew Freidman, executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy.
De Blasio and City Comptroller John Liu have been most vocal on the issue. “Addressing the crisis of income inequality isn’t a small task. But if we are to thrive as a city, it must be at the very center of our vision for the next four years,” de Blasio said in the introduction to his position book.
“Economic inequality is ruining our chance for economic recovery,” Liu said in an Aug. 21 debate.
But all the Democratic candidates have acknowledged the problem. “As New York gets more expensive and incomes fail to keep up, millions of New Yorkers are at risk of being pushed out of the city. That’s horrible for them––and it’s bad for all of New York,” former City Comptroller Bill Thompson said in April. While keeping to his 2005 theme of fighting for those in the middle class or “struggling to make it there,” former Rep. Anthony Weiner, now calls for “an oligarch tax.”
Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has tried to address the concerns of liberal Democrats concerned about the income gap without forfeiting support from the man many blame for it, in February issued a plan aimed at addressing inequality. “We will keep New York City what it has always been, a place where opportunity is given, not just to those who can afford to buy it, but to those willing to work for it,” she has said.
The discussion has given rise to a cautious optimism among some who would like to see the city government shift direction. “There are a lot of good ideas out there, and I hope some of them make it into the playbook of the eventual winner,” says James Parrott, deputy director and chief economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute.
“There’s very little that the Democratic candidates have proposed … that I don’t agree with,” says Berg. But, he added, the question is what their priorities turns out to be and whether they can “mobilize the base without scaring off the middle.”
The limits of power
What, though, can the mayor, any mayor, do? Many of the conditions that have contributed to a rising wealth gap in New York––loss of manufacturing jobs, reduced clout for unions, increasing globalization, the rise of technology––affect the entire nation.
“We’ve seen statistics that show that New York is not any different or any worse in equality than what’s happening in the United States of America,” Republican candidate Joe Lhota said in March. In light of that, he said he did not see any short-term, New York City solutions to the problem.
After largely ignoring poverty in his first term, Bloomberg in his second term began shifting gears a bit. In 2006, he established the Center for Economic Opportunity to look at how poverty is measured and to launch programs to fight it. He followed up with an initiative aimed at young black and Latino men in his third term. While some of these efforts have won praise, overall they have not made any real dent in the percentage of New Yorkers at or near poverty.
The mayor––who undoubtedly would take credit if income inequality abated on his watch––has blamed larger forces for the fact that it hasn’t. After the release of income figures in 2012, a spokesperson for him said the “numbers reflect a national challenge: the U.S. economy has shifted and too many people are getting left behind without the skills they need to compete and succeed … That’s why the mayor believes we need a new national approach to job creation and education.”
But many see that as an easy way out. For one thing, they say, Bloomberg could have done less harm. “Some of the Bloomberg policies have been so wrongheaded,” says Parrott, citing the administration’s opposition to living wage measures and its undermining of contracts for school bus drivers and day care workers. “It’s taking what should be good working class jobs and making them poverty jobs.”
Beyond doing no harm, a mayor can advocate for policies to help the poor, much as Bloomberg has done for gun control. And some say that the mayor of New York is so powerful that many specific policy changes fall well with his or her grasp. The mayor controls a $70 billion budget, Friedman points out and so, he says, “I can think of 100 things the mayor could do.”
In Gelinas’ view, the city can help its low income resident by doing what we expect municipal government to do––enforce laws, protect the streets. “No matter how much you make, you have the right to live in a safe, quiet neighborhood,” she says. “That’s more the city’s job than to make sure everyone earns $80,000 a year.”
Tax breaks for some, hikes for others
No plan for dealing with income inequality has attracted as much attention as de Blasio’s proposal to increase taxes on those earning $500,000 or more to fund early childhood and after-school programs. Most of the Democrats, though, have embraced some changes in the tax system. Liu also calls for a tax on high-earning New Yorkers, saying the money would fund a variety of services, including early childhood education, police and housing for the homeless. Weiner has advocated making the transfer tax on home sales more progressive and upping the tax on homes that are not primary residences. Quinn would try to end the tax on low-income New Yorkers getting the earned income tax credit and, has had said that, if she had to raise taxes, she would do so “progressively.”
Certainly taking money from affluent New Yorkers ––a kind of Robin Hood approach––would reduce income equality in an immediate sense. Many of the proposed changes would require state approval, which could prove dicey. Beyond that, experts disagree over the longer-term impact of any tax hikes.
John Tepper Marlin, who served as chief economist with the city comptroller’s office for 14 years, says he believes the tax system is stacked against those in the lower middle class, the people most experts see at risk of slipping into poverty. Yet he thinks the problem would be best addressed on a national level.
“An attempt to tax the rich will fail because they’ll get away. … You can make a lot of mistakes in New York City and not kill the city, but other cities have been killed,” Marlin says. While he does not think the de Blasio tax hike is high enough to scare people away, he fears some will view it as “an opening wedge for a confiscatory tax.”
Others doubt that, noting that federal income tax rates on high earnersinched over 80 percent in 1941 and stayed over 90 percent until the early 1960s. “The national conversation around taxes has become incredibly one-sided,” says Angela Fernandez, executive director of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights. “If we can have a leader that shows some courage and raises taxes, I highly doubt it will affect the flow” of creative energetic people to New York.
Rather than raising taxes, Gelinas says, the city could get money for programs to address the income gap by confronting its long-standing budget problem, particularly the high cost of pensions for many city workers. The Republican candidates have indicated a willingness to do this, she says, and even the Democrats appear to recognize the current system is “not sustainable.”
Where the money goes
The question, though, is not only how to raise money but how to spend it. In targeting the money for early childhood education, de Blasio puts himself squarely alongside education experts who believe early childhood education can have a huge effect on outcomes farther down the road. “For our kids to compete and become the workforce we need, our mantra has to be learning earlier and learning longer,” he said in a speech before the Association for a Better New York.
Berg says the plan would not only provide education but also give poor children two free meals a day under the federal WIC program and help parents with child care. But while Parrot says early childhood education helps “make sure there’s starting gate equality,” he cautions it “is not going to show results right away in terms of reversing income inequality.”
Candidates have proposed other investments in education that they say also will better prepare students for better jobs and incomes. Thompson, who has the endorsement of the teachers union, has called for increased funding of schools and establishing additional pathways for students to graduate from high school prepared for college or careers. He also supports expansion of pre-K.
Quinn envisions “cradle to career” technical education, as well as increased computer training–notably, a technical school for girls in every borough. She would provide more time for high-needs students to learn by extending the school day and launching summer programs, and create so-called community schools that provide an array of social and health services as well as classroom teaching.
Lhota sees education as one of the few areas where the city can make a difference. “The city’s responsibility toward educating its children is the first and foremost thing that we need to do to make sure that inequality goes in a different direction,” he has said. “Our children need to be properly trained so they can work in a global economy.”
Lhota’s Republican rival, John Catsimatidis, has proposed a plan that would create stronger links between vocational education programs and corporations. It would include tax credits and incentives for those companies that invest in career training programs.
But while no one disputes the need for quality education, some question whether increased investment in schools will affect the income gap. After all, they note, Bloomberg already has dramatically hiked spending on schools.
Berg says that Bloomberg has put forth a contradictory narrative, saying on the one hand that education is the best cure for poverty and, on the other hand, that his many education changes have been a success. “Either he’s wrong about education being the only answer” or he’s wrong in saying his education programs worked, Berg adds.
The key, others say, would be in the type of investment in education and the quality of the programs. Fernandez says training often has been too rudimentary, preparing students for low-level jobs. “There’s been a lack of vision and an underestimation of the young people of our city,” she says. Fernandez would like the city to take money from a small increase in taxes and invest it in education to prepare people for high-end jobs: not home health aide, perhaps, but registered nurse.
Freidman believes investing in immigrants, particularly in English classes for them, would have a big payback.
Raising the floor
After peaking before the recession the average annual wage in New York’s private sector, fell sharply and, at the end of 2011, remained below where its 2007 level. In the state as a whole, low-wage jobs—those paying less than $45,000—accounted for 35.6 percent of all jobs in New York State; by June 2013, lower paying jobs accounted for 38.4 percent of the state total. Meanwhile, living in New York City has gotten more expensive, making it difficult for working families to pay the rent and put food on the table. “People see a job as the road out of poverty into the middle class, and it’s not getting them up there now,” says Nancy Rankin, vice president for policy, research and advocacy at the Community Service Society.
With this in mind, the Democratic candidates have all supported hikes in the minimum wage, including the increase to $9 an hour over three years approved by the state this year. Liu has called for the wage to go up to $11.65.
As to whether such policies might cost cities jobs in the long run, that, says policy consultant John Petro will “be an eternal debate.” Gelinas says higher wages prompt employers to replace workers with technology.
On economic development
The decline of manufacturing has left government across the country looking for other sources of good jobs. Bloomberg has joined the search, trying to diversify the city beyond Wall Street. To some extent he has succeeded, boosting tourism, for one, and working to make New York more of a tech center.
Some think he has not gone far enough. “Everybody is excited about high tech, but we have to remember UPS creates jobs too,” Petro says. He would like the city to invest in the kinds of blue-collar jobs currently at Willets Points but threatened by development there as well as white-collar jobs destined for Hudson Yards.
Billionaire businessman Catsimatidis has said his experience crating jobs would transfer to generating more jobs for the city as mayor, though specifics of his plan are scarce. Quinn offers a particularly detailed plan for branching out, calling for 2,000 new manufacturing jobs in Sunset Park, developing “world-class food markets” to spur food manufacturing in the city, building a green mechanics industry in the South Bronx and so on. In some cases, this effort would involve government subsidies and other incentives.
Some question the idea of subsidies to business. Others say that if the city is to hand out money to businesses and rich institutions, it should get a better return on its investment. “We have had an economic development policy that has really amounted to making the rich filthy rich,” Liu has said.
In particular, Liu and other critics fault the Bloomberg administration for not requiring recipients of city subsidies to pay a so-called living wage. The mayor vetoed and, after the Council overrode him, went to court to block a watered-down living wage bill that passed last year; the measure requires the developers receiving certain kinds of subsidies above a high-dollar threshold pay their own employees a living wage—but does not address the larger workforces of the tenant companies who occupy, say, a city-subsidized mall. Quinn, who brokered the compromise for that legislation, has said she would “work to ensure that more of those publicly funded developments are required to provide workers with a living wage and benefits, so working New Yorkers can pull themselves up to the middle class.” De Blasio says any business receiving a city subsidy would have to have “a clear plan” for providing health care to its workers.
Parrott, for one, says such policies are vital: “They can make a real difference right away.”
Friedman would link economic subsidies to “job quality,” giving preference to businesses that don’t oppose unionizing efforts, for example, or that hire workers on a full-time basis.
Some say the city also needs to get more in return for the aid it and the state provides developers, including tax breaks and favorable zoning. This could help solve one of the major problems facing low-income New Yorkers: the lack of affordable housing.
Quinn has pledged to build 40,000 units of middle-income––though not low-income––housing units over the next 10 years. Thompson has called for 70,000 new units and the preservation of 50,000 new ones. De Blasio is promising an even more ambitious plan.
Beyond housing, the candidates have addressed other issues that impact income inequality, such as transportation, making the city more energy efficient, improving access to broadband and making the city better able to withstand another storm like Sandy. Such projects would both make the city a better place and provide jobs.
Mending the safety net
While much of the discussion in this campaign has involved how to help low-income New Yorkers, the candidates and media couch the discussion as being about income inequality, rather than about poverty. Meanwhile, by all accounts, the systems aimed at helping the poor are weaker than they once were. Parrott has written that, even though the number of unemployed people in New York City essentially doubled from 2008 to 2012, the number receiving Temporary Assistance remained relatively constant.
Despite this, there has been little discussion of welfare and other assistance programs. “People are afraid they’ll be seen as encouraging the public assistance roles to rise for its own sake,” Parrott says.
In the spring, Thompson offered a plan to help reduce poverty that included improved job training and improved access to affordable health care and childcare, as well as effort to fight childhood hunger. De Blasio would improve outreach for various assistance programs and streamline the application process. Friedman thinks such efforts could make a difference. “Having a strong social safety net is a crucial first step” in preventing more people from sliding deeper into poverty,” he says.
Right now, with politicians and media focused on the candidates in the Democratic primary–and the largely liberal voters who will choose between them––New York City seems to have evolved away from prevailing attitudes of the Bloomberg years.
“New Yorkers are not buying the argument that the way to help small business and create jobs is to cut regulation and give tax breaks,” Rankin says. Instead, she continues, they have come to realize that “if you want businesses to thrive, you want people who have money to spend.”
Others think the political winds may shift by November or when a new mayor comes to office. “At the end of the day,” says Petro, “most voters are probably still going to care about taxes, picking up the trash and crime.”
Source
Richmond Fed Chief Pick Renews Debate on Shrouded Hiring Process
Richmond Fed Chief Pick Renews Debate on Shrouded Hiring Process
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s decision to hire Thomas Barkin as its next president has renewed questions over...
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s decision to hire Thomas Barkin as its next president has renewed questions over the cloaked process of selecting officials who set the most widely watched policy interest rates in the world.
After a nearly yearlong search, Richmond’s board of directors Monday confirmedthey had chosen the McKinsey & Co. executive to start on Jan. 1. Barkin will be a voter on the interest-rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee in 2018.
Read the full article here.
6 days ago
6 days ago