Meet the Ordinary People Who Are Mobilizing around Monetary Policy
The Washington Post - August 19, 2014, by Ylan Q. Mui - District resident Shemethia Butler never finished college or...
The Washington Post - August 19, 2014, by Ylan Q. Mui - District resident Shemethia Butler never finished college or studied finance. But she plans to fly to Wyoming this week for one of the most elite economic conferences in the world. Her goal: schooling the central bankers gathered among the Grand Tetons in Jackson Hole about the hard realities of her own kitchen-table economics.
There’s $899 in monthly rent for the two-bedroom apartment she shares with her 5-year-old daughter, $83 to $90 for electricity, $40 for her cell phone. Meanwhile, Butler brings in less than $700 a month from her part-time job at McDonald’s. She doesn’t need a spreadsheet to know that the numbers don’t add up.
“I’m going to Wyoming to let these bankers in Jackson Hole know that we are not in recovery,” said Butler, 34. “I need them to understand. I need them to see where I’m coming from.”
The three-day meeting in Jackson Hole, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, includes a keynote by Fed Chair Janet Yellen. In the past, notable speakers have included Columbia University economist Michael Woodford and Bank of India Gov. Raghuram Rajan. The atmosphere is decidedly academic, with strict rules governing the presentation and debate of research papers that can run 50 pages or longer -- not the typical setting for a populist uprising.
This year the conference is focused on the health of labor markets, a key consideration for the Fed as it weighs when to end its unprecedented support for the American economy. And activist groups have become increasingly worried that workers themselves are not included in the discussion.
The Center for Popular Democracy is slated to release a letter Tuesday signed by more than 60 left-leaning organizations, ranging from community groups to bigger players such as the Economic Policy Institute, Public Citizen and Demos. They are calling on the Fed to keep its easy-money policies in place until wages start to rise and what has been an exceptionally uneven recovery begins to broaden out. Butler, along with several other workers and activists, intend to trek through the mountains to deliver that message in person before the conference begins Thursday.
“We are writing to remind you that the American economy is not working,” the letter reads. “We hope that in the coming months and years, the Federal Reserve’s leaders will make a more concerted effort to listen to our voices.”
The Fed is an unusual target for this type of grassroots campaign, more typical in protests against big companies such as Wal-Mart or around issues like voting rights. Monetary policy can be an abstract concept, rife with jargon and inscrutable acronyms. Criticism of the Fed has typically come from economists debating its mathematical models, politicians bristling over the independent central bank’s powers or frustrated investors attempting to divine its intentions.
“Most people don’t really understand much about what the Fed does and certainly not why it does what it does,” said Allan Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University and Fed historian. “It’s rather remote from most people’s current experience and interests. It’s very hard to summon public outrage, whether it’s deserved or not.”
The Fed’s charge is to keep prices stable and encourage maximum employment. It operates by setting the interest rate at which banks lend to each other overnight. That rate, in turn, influences the cost of borrowing throughout the economy. Lower rates help stimulate consumer and business spending -- and with any luck, create jobs -- while higher rates help quell an overexuberent economy and rising prices.
The Fed slashed its target for interest rates to zero in 2008 to combat the financial crisis and has kept it there ever since. It has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy for an additional boost. But now, the unemployment rate is falling faster than many at the Fed expected. Job growth is reaching into higher-wage industries after years of being concentrated in low-paying sectors. For the first time since the recession, the central bank is seriously debating if the economy is ready to stand on its own.
That is enough to worry activist groups -- particularly since hope of federal legislation on issues such as the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits and paid leave stand little chance of passing in a polarized Congress. The Fed is one of the only games left in town.
“Monetary policy is central to our economy and our society, and the discourse around monetary policy needs to be democraticized,” said Ady Barkan, senior attorney for the Center for Popular Democracy. “We can’t leave the debate about Fed policies up to academics and elite bankers and corporate executives.”
The unusually contentious battle last year over who would lead the Fed also help stoke interest in the institution, he said. President Obama had initially planned to nominate former Treasury Secretary and close adviser Lawrence H. Summers for the post. But Democrats balked at Summers’ role in deregulating the financial industry during the Clinton administration and his disparaging comments about women made when he was president of Harvard University.
The pressure from liberal groups helped ensure that Summers could not secure the votes to win confirmation in the Senate. He eventually withdrew his name, and Obama instead nominated Yellen, who was the second-in-command at the Fed.
Yellen may be particularly sympathetic to the activists’ arguments, at least relative to previous Fed chairmen. In a speech Chicago in March, she invoked individual stories of struggling workers to illustrate the human toll of high unemployment -- an unorthodox move in an institution more famousfor obfuscation. The next month, she met with representatives from the AFL-CIO, which did not sign the joint letter, and has repeatedly cited the high number of involuntary part-time workers and those who have given up looking for a job as reasons to be patient in withdrawing the Fed’s support. Yellen is slated to speak about the labor markets Friday in Jackson Hole.
"These and other indications that significant slack remains in labor markets are corroborated by the continued slow pace of growth in most measures of hourly compensation," she said in congressional testimony last month.
It is unclear how much grassroots opposition may influence Fed thinking -- particularly since it occurs so rarely. Meltzer said he could not recall activists ever gathering at Jackson Hole. The last public campaign mobilized against the Fed was in the 1980s, when then-Chairman Paul Volcker was hiking interest rates to stem double-digit inflation. Though he successfully brought prices under control, the economy went into recession as a result. Farmers and construction workers were particularly hard hit by the rate hikes, and they mailed blocks of wood to the Fed in protest and blocked its entrances with tractors.
The measures did little to sway Volcker, according to Stephen Axilrod, who worked at the Fed for three decades and was among Volcker’s key aides. His course had been set.
“None of that, in my head, had much to do with anything,” Axilrod said.
But he and other Fed watchers acknowledge that the central bank is in a new era. Public confidence in government and financial institutions is shaky at best. The Fed has made a concerted effort to increase transparency and connect with Main Street. At the same time, lawmakers have launched several efforts to curtail the Fed’s powers -- or even get rid of it altogether. Though such proposals stand little chance of passing, they can shift public perception of the central bank.
“Part of it is part of a reputational issue,” said Sarah Binder, a professor at George Washington University and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The Fed’s credibility depends on people believing that they’re going to do what they say they’re going to do.”
And right now, the Fed’s next step is not all that clear. Prominent economists outside of the institution -- and several top officials within it -- are arguing that the Fed has goosed the economy to its limit. Some worry it could be even laying the groundwork for the next bubble: The major U.S. stock indexes have roughly doubled in value since the depths of the recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has hit 15 record highs this year alone.
But Butler still has a long way to go to before rebuilding her life after losing her job at the Golden Corral due to budget cuts a few years ago. At McDonald’s, she makes $9.50 an hour, and she pulls in extra money by baby-sitting or doing her friends’ hair. It’s still not enough to make ends meet.
“Things may be fine on Wall Street, but they are not fine on my street,” Butler said. “And if [central bankers] lived on my street, they would definitely change their mind.”
Source
Report: $15 Chicago Minimum Wage Would Lift Up Struggling Workers
Progress Illinois - May 27, 2014, by Ellyn Fortino - A proposal to hike Chicago's minimum wage to $15 an hour would not...
Progress Illinois - May 27, 2014, by Ellyn Fortino - A proposal to hike Chicago's minimum wage to $15 an hour would not only be a boon for many low-wage workers but also the city's economy, according to a new report by the Center for Popular Democracy.
"Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would promote economic stability among Chicago workers, economic vitality in their neighborhoods and economic growth throughout this city," said Connie Razza, director of strategic research at the center, which works both locally and nationally to build "the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda."
The new report comes ahead of Wednesday's Chicago City Council meeting, during which aldermen with the Progressive Reform Caucus plan to introduce an ordinance for a citywide hourly minimum wage of $15 an hour. The ordinance was developed with members of Raise Chicago, a coalition of community and labor groups advocating for a higher hourly wage floor in the city. Chicago's current minimum wage is $8.25 an hour, the same as the base hourly wage in Illinois and $1 more than the federal level.
Under the proposed ordinance, large companies in Chicago making at least $50 million annually would have one year to phase in a $15 minimum hourly wage, including for workers at their subsidiaries and franchise locations, according to Raise Chicago. Small and mid-sized businesses would have slightly more than five years to boost their employees' wages to $15 an hour.
The first phase of the proposed ordinance, which would apply to larger firms, would increase the wages for 22 percent of Chicago workers, or 229,000 people, according to the report. Phase one would generate nearly $1.5 billion in new gross wages annually, or $1.1 billion after deductions. During the first stage of the proposed ordinance, the higher employee wages would mean an estimated $616 million in new economic activity across the region, leading to the creation of 5,350 new jobs, the report showed. A $15 hourly wage for workers employed by large businesses in the city would also provide approximately $45 million in new sales tax revenue.
Increased wages for workers could also lower employee turnover costs for businesses, according to the report. Requiring Chicago employers with annual gross revenues of $50 million or greater to pay their workers at least $15 an hour would reduce labor turnover in the workforce by as much as 80 percent per year.
However, larger firms covered under the proposed ordinance could see their overall employer costs increase by up to 4 percent, according to the report's estimations. As a result, affected firms may raise consumer prices by about 2 percent. Such a price hike would translate into an $0.08 increase for a $4 hamburger, the report noted.
Ald. Roderick Sawyer (6th), who intends to co-sponsor the ordinance, said he expects about 10 out of the 50 Chicago aldermen to initially sign on to the legislation.
"The push then would be to get others to join with us in this cause, because it's important," the alderman said. "We should have talked about this many, many years ago, and had (the minimum wage) kept up with inflation, we might not be having this conversation right now. ... I'm hoping that our colleagues will see that this is not a job killer."
Sawyer said there is no specific date planned for when the proposal could go up for a full city council vote.
It is the alderman's hope that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's recently-formed minimum wage task force will consider the $15 minimum wage proposal. Emanuel has asked members on the diverse committee, chaired by Ald. Will Burns (4th) and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law's President John Bouman, to craft a plan to increase the wages for hourly minimum wage and tipped workers in the city.
"I understand the interest in forming this committee," Sawyer said. "I don't think it's necessary because a proposed ordinance is ready to be submitted tomorrow. But now that the committee has been talked about, this [$15 minimum wage ordinance] is the first thing they can look at."
Sawyer and other backers of a $15 minimum wage are "open to listening to any and all suggestions" about the proposed ordinance, the alderman said. Sawyer also noted that Chicagoans are in favor of a $15 minimum wage.
During the March primary election, Chicago voters overwhelming supported a non-binding ballot referendum to increase the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour for employees of companies with annual revenues over $50 million. The referendum appeared on the ballot in 103 city precincts, garnering support from 87 percent of voters.
Katelyn Johnson, executive director of Action Now, which is involved with the Raise Chicago campaign, said the city's strong public support of a $15 minimum wage is not surprising.
"We know that people in this city are struggling," she stressed. "The current minimum wage in Illinois is only $8.25 an hour, and that's so low that the workers, and certainly those who are supporting families, simply cannot survive, oftentimes working two or three jobs just to make ends meet and make other major personal sacrifices for themselves and their families.
"The $15 an hour wage will correct that," Johnson added. "It will provide a path out of poverty for families and allow (workers) to meet their families' basic needs so they no longer have to rely on food stamps or other public assistance. And in addition, it will stimulate the city's economy."
A total of 900,000 people work in Chicago, and 329,000 of them make less than $15 an hour, according to the report. Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately represented among low-wage workers in the city.
Blacks and Latinos make up 23.6 percent and 26.8 percent of the share of all Chicago workers, respectively. However, 28 percent of low-wage earners in the city are black and 42.4 percent are Latino. Low-wage workers who live in the city are concentrated in the Chicago neighborhoods of Austin, Avondale, Bridgeport and McKinley Park, among other areas.
"This geographic concentration of residents earning low wages means that an increase in the minimum wage will offer larger benefits to certain neighborhoods, while also stimulating the citywide economy," the report reads.
Meanwhile, Chicago aldermen are up for re-election next year, and Sawyer said those who co-sponsor the $15 minimum wage ordinance might see more support from voters at the polls.
"I think in my community, (supporting a $15 an hour minimum wage) plays better. People that try to live off of minimum wage understand that it needs to be raised, so those [aldermen] that have people that can understand that will obviously fare better," Sawyer said. "Maybe some in more affluent wards, it many not play as well, but even those there can understand the economic impact."
People who "have more disposable income, they spend it," the alderman continued. "And if you have more disposable income and you spend it, that means the money is circulating in those individual communities. Sales taxes are paid. That means we can get more revenue to do things: Pay down debt, infrastructure improvements, capital improvements."
Over the next few months, Raise Chicago members and others plan to take part in a number of activities to build community support for a $15 Chicago minimum wage and "put pressure on elected officials to carry out the will of the people," Johnson said.
When asked if Chicagoans can expect to see more public protests concerning the minimum wage, Johnson said, "We'll see."
Be sure to check back with Progress Illinois for our coverage of Wednesday's Chicago City Council meeting.
Source
America’s biggest corporations are quietly boosting Trump’s hate agenda
America’s biggest corporations are quietly boosting Trump’s hate agenda
America’s biggest corporations are quietly boosting Trump’s hate agenda......
America’s biggest corporations are quietly boosting Trump’s hate agenda...
Read full article here.
Group in Allentown rallies for immigration reform
The Morning Call - April 6, 2013 - ...
The Morning Call - April 6, 2013 - Whitehall Township resident Belkys Luvon doesn't expect all of America's undocumented immigrants to be granted U.S. citizenship overnight. That's not what she and other advocates of comprehensive reform of the country's immigration laws are lobbying for — or even what they'd want.
But Luvon, who said she came to the United States legally from the Dominican Republic 29 years ago, feels it only fair that undocumented immigrants be offered legal means of gaining citizenship.
Basically, what proponents call "a path to citizenship" should be for those who have lived here, abided by the law, worked hard, raised families and otherwise contributed to the well-being of countless communities, Luvon said.
She and other Lehigh Valley residents, as well as organizers from other areas, staged a public rally for immigration reform Saturday at Allentown's Cedar Creek Park. Only a few dozen people were on hand in the early going — the event got off to a late start — but support for the cause regionally, as well as nationally, is strong, according to Tony Perlstein of the Center for Popular Democracy inWashington, D.C., which supports reform.
In addition to the event in Allentown, "speak outs" for reform were scheduled in Norristown and other parts of Pennsylvania, and across the country, Perlstein said.
Luzon — who operates a consulting business helping immigrants attain citizenship, as well as with preparing income tax returns and starting businesses of their own — said she wants more people, regardless of status, to have the kind of opportunity granted to her.
"I consider myself lucky, thank God," she said, having followed her mother to America. "I believe it is fair, after living here and working hard" — and staying out of trouble with the law, she stressed — for people to have a path to citizenship as envisioned by PresidentBarack Obama, Luzon said.
Luzon objects to the term "illegal immigrants."
"No human being is illegal," she said.
Reform supporter Erika Sutherland, a Muhlenberg Collegeprofessor, said she hopes for a comprehensive package of reforms that streamlines existing programs for attaining citizenship and gives people a way to get on the path toward citizenship.
Among the goals, she said, is "an equitable comprehensive citizenship" for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom are "people contributing to our community and [who] want nothing more than the ability to stay and work."
"We are a nation of immigrants," Sutherland concluded. "We can do better."
With a group of Republican and Democratic senators working on comprehensive reform, the Center for Popular Democracy expects tens of thousands of supporters at a demonstration Wednesday in Washington in favor of reform, Perlstein said.
Source
Does the Federal Reserve need reforming?
Does the Federal Reserve need reforming?
First, the Federal Reserve is a pretty complex place. There’s the Fed in Washington we talk about every time interest...
First, the Federal Reserve is a pretty complex place. There’s the Fed in Washington we talk about every time interest rates are changed (or not changed). Then there are 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, each with a board of directors of nine people.
That’s where the Democratic Party, and activist groups on the left, are aiming their fire.
Currently, three of those nine directors are representatives of private banks (private banks are members of the regional Federal Reserve Banks). Another three are community representatives, but also elected by private banks. The remaining three are appointed by the Board of Governors.
Critics on the left, in addition to calling for more diversity within the Federal Reserve system, also want private banks gone from regional fed banks. “These private banks get a say on who’s on those board of directors and they get representatives on those boards of directors,” said Ady Barkan, campaign director of Fed Up, a left-leaning group that’s pushed for changes at the fed. “It’s an egregious example of regulatory capture.”
Barkan says that regional bank presidents tend to be more conservative, more hawkish on interest rates, than their counterparts in Washington D.C. He blames both a lack of diversity and the influence of private banks. “You can’t imagine for example that cable networks would get some special role in choosing people on the FCC,” said Andrew Levin, professor of economics at Dartmouth College.
But the fed has already undergone some major reforms to limit influence. Under Dodd Frank, the private-bank representatives who serve on regional boards don’t get to nominate regional presidents anymore. “The bankers themselves are not involved in the choice of that person,” explained Stephen Ceccetti, professor of economics at Brandeis International Business school. “That is the person who participates in monetary policy discussions and decisions.”
Ceccetti also argues that the conservative, hawkish leanings of some regional Fed presidents are actually at odds with bank profits. “Higher interest rates don’t help banks,” he said.
Lastly, he said, regional Fed banks aren’t responsible for actually regulating banks, “they don’t even get to see the stuff.”
Chair Janet Yellen herself has said that if the fed were redesigned from scratch, it would probably look pretty different than it did a hundred years ago, but, in her view, it works pretty well. Ceccetti agreed, saying “I don’t see that anyone’s been able to show that there’s any harm or pressure applied by the banks through their directors to the policy of the Federal Reserve.”
Changing the structure of the fed would require an act of congress.
By SABRI BEN-ACHOUR
Source
'I was demanding a connection': Ana Maria Archila reflects on confronting Jeff Flake
'I was demanding a connection': Ana Maria Archila reflects on confronting Jeff Flake
Ana Maria Archila had never told her father that she was sexually abused as a child. But after she confronted a U.S....
Ana Maria Archila had never told her father that she was sexually abused as a child.
But after she confronted a U.S. senator about President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the video started going viral, she thought it was time to share her story.
“I always carried the fear that my parents would feel that they had failed in taking care of me if I told them,” Archila said Friday night in a phone interview with The Washington Post.
Read the full article here.
Full-Time Hires Buck the Trend at Fast-Food, Retail Chains
Full-Time Hires Buck the Trend at Fast-Food, Retail Chains
EASTON, Pa.—The orders came in fast during a recent Friday lunchtime rush at a Sheetz Inc. convenience store here....
EASTON, Pa.—The orders came in fast during a recent Friday lunchtime rush at a Sheetz Inc. convenience store here. Behind the counter, Alexis Cooper layered tomatoes on two sandwiches, refilled a container of onions and swirled a peanut-butter milkshake.
Six weeks into her job at Sheetz, Ms. Cooper easily distinguishes the beep of the deep fryer from the boop of the convenience store’s order-taking system and knows to have a pepperoni roll ready for a regular who shows up around noon.
Ms. Cooper, 20 years old, is something of a rarity in the realm of fast-food and retail work: a full-time employee.
At a time when many chains are shifting workers to part-time, the Altoona, Pa.-based Sheetz is making a big bet on full-time hires, who now comprise 53% of the company’s 17,000-person workforce. Leaders at the convenience store-and-gas-station chain say having full-time workers behind the register results in better customer service, lower turnover and a more engaged workforce—all of which, executives say, will lead to higher sales and profits.
Nearly 5.7 million workers said they were working part-time last year because they couldn’t get more hours or find full-time work, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics survey data. About 65% of store employees in the retail sector work part-time, according to an analysis by search and consulting firm Korn Ferry Hay Group. Companies reason that keeping staff to 30 hours or fewer a week curbs labor costs and allows firms to act nimbly, adjusting staffing to match customer demand.
Sheetz, and others like beauty retailer Bluemercury Inc., acknowledge that full-timers might cost more at first, but say they are more reliable—27% of full-time hourly workers leave their jobs per year, versus 68.7% of part-timers, according to the Korn Ferry report. Lower employee turnover saves on training and hiring costs, those employers say, and some report their customers spend more when full-timers take orders and ring up purchases.
“This is a moment where some employers at least are taking stock of whether they’ve gone down the labor flexibility path a little too far,” says Susan Lambert, a University of Chicago professor who studies hourly work.
Full-time workers are the “glue” that holds businesses together, Ms. Lambert’s research has found. They help coordinate tasks and anticipate business needs, and are often more committed. These employees are more likely to go the extra mile on the job, such as tracking down an item online for a customer.
For customers, a full-time employee “gives them the same face every day. It builds a different feeling than the robot behind the counter,” says Sheetz Chief Executive Joe Sheetz.
On employee surveys, Sheetz’s full-time workers tend to report more commitment and willingness to put in extra effort than part-timers do. That engagement correlates with higher customer-service marks, says Stephanie Doliveira, Sheetz’s human-resources vice president.
Less than a quarter of Sheetz’s full-time staff leaves each year; for part-timers, 83% leave. Overall voluntary turnover at the company is down two percentage points from last year, saving $925,000 in recruiting and training, Ms. Doliveira says. Starting sales associates make $9 to $11 per hour and are eligible for paid time off; those working more than 30 hours per week get access to health insurance.
At Buffalo Wings & Rings, a restaurant with 50 locations in the U.S., full-timers ring up 6% higher sales per hour on average and have far lower rates of absenteeism than part-timers do, according to CEO Nader Masadeh. The eatery has doubled its share of full-time workers since 2013, with about 37% of employees working full-time. The company’s training costs have fallen 25% as a result, according to Mr. Masadeh.
Churn among part-time workers prompted &pizza, a 14-store chain in the Washington, D.C., area, to halt new restaurant openings for a while, says CEO Michael Lastoria. Managers noticed that customers gave low ratings to new stores where inexperienced, often part-time, workers comprised 95% of staff. Some 31% of &pizza staff now workfull-time, up from 15% in 2014, and the chain is set to open seven additional stores this year, Mr. Lastoria says.
Having more full-time workers requires managers to adjust. Sheetz’s store managers initially resisted adding more full-timers when the company launched the initiative in the summer of 2014, Ms. Doliveira says. Used to having a big bench of part-time workers to call upon, they worried about being caught short when employees called in sick. Managers are also figuring out how to plan shifts now that more workers have vacation time.
Moving to full-time has come with health insurance and an extra $50 or so each week for Tammy Shepard, a salesperson at a Sheetz in Statesville, N.C. “It gives you a sense of security, which is a huge thing,” she says.
Full-time private industry workers make $25.44 an hour in wages and salaries, as compared with $13.29 for part-time workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“There’s a real penalty that workers pay for working part-time,” says Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at left-leaning advocacy group Center for Popular Democracy.
The promise of a 40-hour work week was what spurred Ms. Cooper to apply to Sheetz, though she holds down another part-time job managing a nearby pub. Logging just 14 hours a week there has made it tricky to stay on top of everything, such as the new beers on the menu.
“It stinks when you don’t know certain things,” she says.
By RACHEL FEINTZEIG
Source
Barkin Tapped as Next President of Richmond Fed Bank
Barkin Tapped as Next President of Richmond Fed Bank
The Federal Reserve's Richmond regional bank announced on Monday that Thomas Barkin, a senior executive at global...
The Federal Reserve's Richmond regional bank announced on Monday that Thomas Barkin, a senior executive at global management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., will be the bank's next president.
He will succeed Jeffrey Lacker, who resigned as the bank's president in April after revealing his involvement in a leak of confidential information in 2012 that had triggered congressional and FBI investigations.
Read the full article here.
A Five-Point Plan for Sanders Going Forward
A Five-Point Plan for Sanders Going Forward
When Bernie Sanders announced a year ago that he was running for president, few of his supporters—and probably not even...
When Bernie Sanders announced a year ago that he was running for president, few of his supporters—and probably not even Sanders himself—expected that he would actually win. It appeared that Sanders, like his hero Eugene Debs—who ran for president five times in the early 1900s on the Socialist Party ticket—was running mainly to inject progressive issues into the national debate and to help build a movement for radical change.
Debs never captured more than 6 percent of the popular vote (in 1912), but his campaigns played an important role in shaping Americans’ views. In the 1912 presidential race, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson (the eventually winner) and Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt co-opted many of Debs’s ideas. Congress eventually adopted some of the planks of the Socialist Party’s 1912 platform, including the minimum wage, child labor laws, women’s suffrage, Social Security, unemployment insurance, occupational health and safety laws, and the creation of the Labor Department.
So in “Debsian” terms, Sanders has already won. His attacks on the “billionaire class” have resonated with the American people. Far more than Hillary Clinton, he has tapped and channeled Americans’ anger over rising inequality, declining living standards, and the disproportionate political influence of big business and the super-rich. Although he calls himself a democratic socialist, Sanders is really championing a new New Deal—an American version of European social democracy.
And polls reveal that a majority of Americans agree with his policy agenda for challenging the political and business establishment. One CNN poll found that 71 percent of Americans—including 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of independents and 51 percent of Republicans—believe that our economic system unfairly favors the wealthy. Another poll by CBS and The New York Times found that 63 percent of Americans favor increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations to help reduce income inequality. Indeed, poll after poll has also showed that large majorities of Americans favor a campaign-finance overhaul, stricter Wall Street regulations, government-mandated paid family leave, and a federal minimum wage increase to $15 an hour by 2020.
Sanders has pushed Hillary Clinton—a liberal on domestic social issues, a centrist on taxes and business regulations, a sometime foreign policy hawk, and a less-than-ardent progressive—to the left. Indeed, the Democrats’ presidential primary has largely been fought on Sanders’s terms. His priorities—increasing the minimum wage, toughening Wall Street regulations, expanding Medicare and providing free public higher education, combating unemployment (particularly high among African-Americans), paid family leave, and ending the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels—have dominated the debates and pushed Clinton to adopt milder versions of his proposals. (In some areas, such as police racism, our biased criminal justice system, and mass incarceration, Clinton has taken the lead and Sanders has followed suit.)
In one year, Sanders has gone from being a relatively invisible senator from a small state—an outsider in the upper chamber and in mainstream politics, not even a registered Democrat—to being a political force to be reckoned with. Along with Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, he now leads the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.
Nevertheless, in the last few weeks it has become clear that Sanders will not be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. In states that have already held primaries, Clinton has gained 12,989,134 (57 percent) of the votes compared with 9,957,889 votes (43 percent) for Sanders. In the delegate count, Clinton is beating Sanders 1,772 (54 percent) to 1,498 (46 percent). Sanders ran a remarkable campaign, but he’s come up short.
Ardent Sanders supporters who still believe that he has a chance to capture the nomination are simply wrong. Even if Sanders beats Clinton in all the remaining primaries (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia), he won’t have enough delegates to garner the nomination at the party’s Philadelphia convention. That reality requires Clinton and Sanders to recognize that they—and their supporters—need one another. It also begs the question: What should Sanders do? How can he build on his popularity and success in this year’s campaign to further his goal of transforming American society and politics?
Drawing on the ideas of many people—activists, journalists, scholars, and others, inside and outside Sanders’s camp—I suggest a five-point plan for Sanders and the Sanderistas. This plan gives the many liberals and progressives who have “felt the Bern” a road map to ensure that the 74-year-old Vermont socialist with a Brooklyn accent makes the transition from candidate for president to catalyst for change.
Step One
Between now and the convention, Sanders should fight to the end to get as many delegates as possible. Voters in the remaining primaries—all of which save the June 14 Washington, D.C., contest will be held on June 7—have the right to vote for Sanders or Clinton. Americans deserve to see how much support Sanders has for his progressive agenda. Moreover, having a competitive race with a large Democratic turnout is particularly important in California, which follows an unusual system in which the two candidates with the most primary votes, regardless of party, advance to the general election. Democratic registration in California has been surging, so a strong turnout by Sanders supporters could shut out Republicans from the run-offs for U.S. Senate and some tight congressional contests, and help guarantee more Democratic victories in November.
Between now and the June primaries, Sanders should stop criticizing the Democratic National Committee and Hillary personally and return to focusing on policy issues. After those primaries, he should negotiate a truce with Clinton. In exchange for Sanders suspending his campaign and endorsing Clinton before the Democratic convention, the two Democrats should agree on a strategy that gives Sanders and his followers a significant voice at the convention, during the fight against Trump, and in the run-up to the next Clinton administration.
Step Two
At the convention and through Election Day, Sanders will surely remain on the public stage. He will certainly get a prime-time speaking role at the Democratic convention, where he can reiterate his attacks on the nation’s economic and social injustices, attack Trump, and strongly endorse Clinton.
He should also use his leverage to shape the party’s platform on issues like Wall Street reform, the minimum wage, skyrocketing college tuition, and paid family leave, and insist that Clinton incorporate some of his key policy ideas into her campaign stump speeches. One sign that Clinton and DNC chair Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz are taking heed of Sanders’s insurgency is the appointment this week of a majority of progressives to the party’s platform committee. They include AFSCME’s Paul Booth, former EMILY’s List head Wendy Sherman and Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress. Also on the committee are House Democrats Luis Guttierez, of Illinois, Barbara Lee of California, and Maryland’s Elijah Cummings, along with Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, all stalwart progressives. They join Sanders’s nominees Cornel West, House Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota, environment activist Bill McKibben, Arab American leader James Zogby, and Native American White House aide Deborah Parker. (Unfortunately missing from the committee are any progressive economists.)
Sanders has predicted that the convention could get “messy,” explaining that “that’s what democracy is about.” But Sanders should discourage his supporters from disrupting the convention inside and outside the hall. If his followers want to protest, there are plenty of targets in Philadelphia—big banks, insurance companies, McDonald’s, Walmart stores—where they can rally against the billionaire class. A prime target for protesters would be Verizon, where they could join the picket lines of employees who have been on strike since April.
When the convention is over, Sanders should energetically campaign for Clinton in key swing states and for progressive Democrats running for Congress in close races, in order to increase turnout among his supporters. He should make sure that his key staff members land posts on Clinton’s campaign and those of Democratic candidates in battleground races. These aides can help mobilize Sanders’s volunteers and followers to support Clinton. Also in this window, Sanders should escalate his attacks on Trump and remind his supporters of the damage that a Trump presidency would do to the country and to the progressive agenda.
Step Three
After Election Day, once Clinton has won the White House and the Democrats have recaptured the Senate, Sanders will be in a strong position to reshape the agenda of both the Democratic Party and the nation. New York Senator Charles Schumer, a liberal on social issues but a strong ally of Wall Street, may well be the Senate’s next majority leader. To balance the party’s leadership, Sanders should push for a progressive to replace Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC. Strong candidates include such popular legislators as Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon (the only Senate member to endorse Sanders), and Dick Durbin of Illinois, and House members Karen Bass and Xavier Becerra (both of California), Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. The party’s next chair could also come from the ranks of such respected political veterans as Democracy Alliance head Gara LaMarche, Common Cause Director Miles Rapoport, or even billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer. (Full disclosure: Rapoport serves on the Prospect’s board.)
Step Four
After January, when the new president and Congress take office, Sanders will become chair of the powerful Senate Budget Committee—assuming Democrats retake the upper chamber, as predicted. In that position, Sanders can influence federal budget, tax, and regulatory policy to advance a progressive agenda around financial reform, anti-poverty initiatives, health care, environmental sustainability, affordable housing, Social Security, labor law reform, workplace safety, paid family leave, and even campaign-finance reform, immigration reform, and the military budget.
One of his perks in that post will be to fill the committee’s staff with experts from universities and such progressive think tanks as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for American Progress, the Economic Policy Institute, the National Employment Law Project, and the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He will also be able to hold public hearings—in Washington, D.C., but also in cities around the country—on a wide range of issues. Hearings provide opportunities for ordinary Americans as well as experts to make their voices heard, gain media attention, and advance a progressive agenda. They can serve as forums that can help support grass-roots activists.
Sanders could also work with progressive think tanks and activist groups to create a “shadow cabinet” of experts on the left to parallel Clinton’s cabinet picks. This Sanders circle could issue regular reports on what the major federal executive agencies could be doing to advance an economic and social justice agenda, much as the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership reports became the blueprint for the Reagan Revolution.
Step Five
Through the 2018 midterm elections and beyond, Sanders can help build the “grass-roots political revolution” without which, as he has said throughout his campaign, there is little hope for transformational change. Sanders’s campaign success has been fueled by the many grass-roots insurgencies that in recent years have challenged the political and economic establishment. These include Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Fight for $15, campus campaigns to divest from fossil fuels and slash student debt, and crusades for women’s health care access, marriage equality, and gun safety. Sanders’s campaign helped give voice to these activists and their issues. They fed his campaign and were fed by it.
Many progressive politicians have promised to transform their electoral campaigns into ongoing movement operations, but few have had the patience or resources to do so. Many of Jesse Jackson’s supporters hoped that his presidential efforts in 1984 and 1988 would evolve into a permanent Rainbow Coalition of progressive activists, but it didn’t happen. After Obama won his brilliantly executed 2008 campaign—built by an army of seasoned political and community organizers who trained hundreds of thousands of volunteers in the art of activism—he created the nonprofit now known as Organizing for Action (OFA).
Many of the organizers who worked on that campaign went to work for OFA, hoping to build an infrastructure to keep campaign volunteers involved in issue battles in between election cycles. But OFA has not lived up to its early promise, in large part because Obama made it an arm of the DNC in a bid to build support for his legislative agenda.
Occasionally, however, the candidate and the movement forge ahead beyond the campaign. After the writer Upton Sinclair narrowly lost his 1934 bid to become California governor on a radical End Poverty in California (EPIC) platform, his followers built a statewide movement through EPIC clubs that revitalized the state’s Democratic Party into an effective political operation over the next several decades. Similarly, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, a former political science professor and community organizer, took seriously his responsibility to turn his electoral support into a broad statewide progressive movement. After he died in a tragic plane crash in 2002 while running for a third term, his supporters launched several organizations—including Wellstone Action, the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy—to mobilize Minnesotans around issues and help recruit, train, and elect progressives to office.
Ever since Sanders first announced his plan to run for president, many journalists and activists have looked for signals that he was making plans, once the election was over, to transform his campaign into that “grass-roots political revolution” he’s been calling for. Not surprisingly, during the campaign Sanders and his top advisers have focused almost entirely on winning votes and delegates. But early on, some of his key operatives were already thinking about the longer term.
Next month, some progressive leaders inside and outside the Sanders campaign will convene a three-day meeting in Chicago for what they are calling a People’s Summit to strategize about how to build on the Sanders campaign over the long haul. Neither Sanders nor his aides have agreed on what a post-campaign operation would look like. But many understand that Sanders is in a unique position to use his influence and fundraising ability to build an organization or network to mobilize his supporters that, in the short term, can push President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress to the left on key issues like the minimum wage, health-care reform, Supreme Court nominees, and Wall Street regulation, and, in the longer term, can become an ongoing force for progressive change.
Can Sanders sustain the momentum of his campaign into the marshy terrain of movement-building? He has the capacity to raise money from the millions of people who helped him collect more than $200 million for his campaign. He has an unprecedentedly large list of volunteers who could form the basis of an ongoing organization. How many will want to participate in or contribute to a Sanders-led movement is anybody’s guess. How Sanders deploys these lists, and how he will connect with the many existing progressive groups—unions, environmental groups, community organizing networks, and others—is another open question.
Election campaigns have a set of rules, and a predictable beginning, middle, and end, that helps bring people together for a common goal—electing a candidate on a particular date. Movements are more complicated. The American progressive movement is a diverse mosaic with many groups that compete for attention and funding. They work on many different issues. Some are more willing than others to participate in coalitions, agree on a common set of issue priorities, and forge compromises on legislation. Some are reluctant to endorse candidates or get involved in election campaigns. Many of the activists affiliated with these groups came together to support Sanders, but there is no guarantee that they won’t go their own ways after Election Day.
As the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, for eight years (1981-89), Sanders helped build a political coalition that not only adopted progressive laws and helped build progressive institutions but also stayed in power for three decades after he left office to run for Congress. In the House and Senate, however, Sanders been known as more of a gadfly than a coalition-builder.
But even as a figurehead, Sanders can play an important role in strengthening the left. Sanders can select a number of key issues and work closely with unions and other groups that are already working on those causes. He can be their champion and give them more visibility. He can show up at their meetings and rallies and support their causes. He can raise money to support existing local, statewide, and national groups—like National People’s Action, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, the Center for Popular Democracy, the Sierra Club, Black Lives Matter, United We Dream, and many others—that recruit and train people in the skills of citizen activism and campaign mechanics, and that help elect progressive Democrats to local, state, and national office.
Going into the 2018 midterm elections, and beyond, Sanders can focus attention on helping a select group of progressive Democrats win primary battles and support their campaigns against Republicans running for local and state offices as well as Congress. In that way, he can help groups build and train a “farm team” of progressive candidates to run for myriad offices, laying the groundwork for expanding the progressive caucuses in the House and Senate.
As part of this inside/outside strategy, Sanders could work with progressive activist groups and his progressive Senate and House colleagues to identify a few key legislative priorities to build multi-year campaigns around these issues. He and his network can convene an annual “Feel the Bern” conference (and some state-level summits as well) to bring together the many strands of the progressive movement, highlight their commonalities, celebrate their victories, showcase their leaders, organizers, and candidates, and identify the key battles on the horizon.
This five-point plan will likely meet with resistance from some Sanders supporters who argue passionately that he can still win the Democratic nomination. Sanders’s string of primary wins has made the notion of a President Sanders begin to seem at least plausible. His favorability ratings have consistently exceeded Clinton’s. He has shown that he can raise significant sums from millions of small-dollar contributors without relying on Wall Street, corporate America, and the super-rich to bankroll his campaign. He has attracted huge crowds and recruited large numbers of volunteers in blue and red states alike. He has surprised many skeptics with his knowledge of policy details and his first-rate performances at Democratic debates.
Indeed, it is remarkable how well Sanders has done despite what he and his supporters have justifiably called a “rigged” system. His backers are correct that some of the party’s rules—regarding the debate schedule, super-delegates, and other matters, many of them mishandled by Wasserman Schultz, the transparently pro-Clinton chair of the Democratic National Committee—put Sanders at a disadvantage.
Sanders’s enthusiasts hope that they can persuade enough super-delegates to switch their loyalties away from Clinton. Their main argument is that Sanders has a better chance than Clinton to beat Trump. In a race once regarded as a coronation for Clinton, recent polls of registered voters show her in a statistical dead heat against Trump. Sanders, by contrast, who enjoys much higher favorability ratings than Clinton, bests Trump, 54 percent to 39 percent, in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Of course, Sanders has not yet been subjected to the kind of opposition media campaign that he would certainly face were he the nominee. Slate’s Michelle Goldberg noted in February that Republicans were already salivating about how they would excavate the radical speeches and writings from Sanders’s past, seek to discredit him as an unpatriotic Marxist ideologue, and exploit “his youthful opposition to the CIA and his anti-military leanings” if he were to win the nomination. Republicans would not only paint Sanders as an extreme “tax and spend” liberal but also try to transform him, in the public’s imagination, into a supporter of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Mao Tse-tung. This assault may not work with under-40 voters for whom the Cold War is a distant memory and who associate socialism with Scandinavia, not Cuba or China. But such attacks could certainly weaken many undecided voters’ support for Sanders.
By contrast, most Americans already know Clinton’s vulnerabilities since she’s been in the public arena for decades. This accounts for her low favorability ratings, but it also somewhat inoculates her from GOP efforts to further destroy her support. And Clinton is likely to win a surge in Democratic and independent support once she wins the nomination, just as Republicans began rallying behind Trump once he became his party’s presumptive nominee.
And the “Sanders or bust” crowd is playing into Trump’s hands. Some even say they won’t support or vote for Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination, arguing that she and Trump are equally undesirable—two sides of America’s corrupt corporate-dominated political system. The media have exaggerated the number and ferocity of Sanderistas who hold these views, but if enough Sanders followers refuse to vote for Clinton, it could help Trump win in several key battleground states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Florida, and possibly hand Trump the White House.
Some Clinton supporters—particularly among pundits and journalists—have also turned nasty, taking to the blogosphere and talk shows to trash Sanders’s ideas and to attack his most zealous enthusiasts as sexist, racist, and rude. But Clinton knows she needs Sanders’s supporters to win the White House, which is why she has adopted watered-down versions of Sanders’s agenda and why she has tread lightly in criticizing Sanders—at least publicly.
Sanders himself recognizes that his primary goal of making America a more humane and fair society will be made much more difficult if Trump becomes the nation’s president. Despite his differences with Clinton over policy issues, Sanders—as both a politician and a leader of a social insurgency—knows that his movement’s ability to influence the nation’s political culture and public policy will be much greater with her, rather than Trump, in the White House.
Electing Clinton will not produce the “political revolution” that Bernie has been calling for. Indeed, he acknowledged that even if he won the White House, little would change without a significant grass-roots movement to mobilize Americans to challenge corporate America’s disproportionate influence on our political life. Sanders’s supporters don’t want to give up on his election, but they may end up with something more lasting in the end—a generation-long movement. The five-point plan is a good place to start.
By Peter Dreier
Source
How Obama Can Help New York Immigrants Before Leaving Office
How Obama Can Help New York Immigrants Before Leaving Office
Barack Obama may have given his farewell address, but he still has work to do. In his speech, the president rightly...
Barack Obama may have given his farewell address, but he still has work to do. In his speech, the president rightly celebrated America’s history of welcoming immigrants and their contributions to our country. But Mr. Obama’s legacy on immigration is mixed. He has both deported more people than any prior president and acted in America’s best traditions by letting the Dreamers - undocumented youth brought to the United States as children – emerge from the shadows. There is one final step that President Obama can, and should, take to cement his legacy on the side of history we know is in his heart.
Most immigrant families in the United States are mixed status, meaning most have children who are citizens and immigrant parents, including Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs). The incoming administration’s promise to deport 2-3 million people with legal infractions threatens to rip these American families apart, because the threshold for deporting legal permanent residents is so low. Experts argue that this 2-3 million number cannot be reached without deporting people for minor offenses, such as traffic tickets. This is why I recently joined 60 local elected officials from across the country in asking President Obama to grant a blanket pardon to legal immigrants who have minor infractions and pose no threat to the country. He can prevent the breakup of these American families.
Pardoning this group of immigrants fits with the president’s recent actions on criminal justice and immigration. His clemency initiative and Deferred Arrival for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program seek to fix the broken criminal justice and immigrant systems that harm American families.
Having already designated Legal Permanent Residents with minor convictions as low priorities for deportation, President Obama could protect these American families further with a presidential pardon.
Some will object, arguing that America is a country of law and order. We agree, and support the deportation of those posing a risk to our community. We also support the American belief that punishment should fit the crime. Someone who had a minor infraction such as shoplifting or excessive traffic violations as a teenager could be eligible for deportation 20 years later as a responsible adult with children who are citizens. These deportations make no sense, and hurt families and children without enhancing the wellbeing of the country.
The group making this request, Local Progress, is composed of local elected officials that know, work with, live in, represent, and are part immigrant communities. We know that deportations cripple families and harm neighborhoods and the economy. We also know that the American Dream lives in our communities and that the country benefits from these newcomers and their children. Pardoning this group would prevent the unnecessary breakup of our American families, and allow parents to stay where they belong, raising their children in the communities they have helped build.
Watching President Obama’s farewell speech, I could not help but think about the many families in my Brooklyn district that have lost a family member to deportation. The effects are harsh. When a father gets deported, the family loses income and can lose their apartment. The education of children can be disrupted, and those remaining long to be with their missing family member. For the children – citizens, immigrants, or both – it is a hurt that does not go away. It is a step the U.S. government should not take lightly, or for symbolic political reasons.
I stand with my fellow elected officials to ask President Obama to grant these pardons. I also call on my fellow New Yorkers to call the president’s office and tell him to grant clemency to the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who stand to lose under President Trump. Before he leaves office, President Obama can help cement his legacy with such a pardon. He has the power, and should use it, as other presidents have done in the past. There is still time.
By Carlos Menchaca
Source
17 hours ago
17 hours ago