CPD IN THE NEWS

Immigration advocates are praising Mayor Bill de Blasio's proposal for a municipal ID program.

In his State of the City address, de Blasio said that the city would make ID cards available to all New Yorkers.

That includes people who usually can't get other forms of identification, like the homeless and undocumented immigrants.

On Tuesday, the Center for Popular Democracy released a report analyzing similar programs in other cities.

Advocates say that the program could be a big help to vulnerable populations.

"Without this ID, it can be difficult to register to a child for school. It can be difficult to open a bank account. It can be difficult to even exercise your right to vote, to file a complaint with the police department," said Brittny Saunders of the Center for Popular Democracy.

"We also want to make sure that this card is available to multiple constituencies in this city," said City Councilman Carlos Menchaca of Brooklyn. "There's so many constituencies in this city that can benefit from this card, so we want to make sure that we know all those so we design the best cards that everyone has it."

Menchaca, who is the immigration chair for the City Council, also said that the Council plans to hold hearings in the next month about the best way to design the program.

Source

The Federal Reserve faces criticism from lawmakers and others over its record on diversity at the same time the central bank is highlighting the economic outlook for minority groups.

Several Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee questioned Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen on Tuesday about the selection process for regional Fed bank presidents, echoing the concerns of advocacy groups who have said the system should be more open and allow more public input.

The 12 regional bank presidents are appointed by regional boards, subject to approval by the Washington, D.C.-based Fed board of governors. As heads of regional Fed branches, they are expected to keep their fingers on the pulse of their local economies and participate on decisions about interest rates. Just two of the current presidents are women and none are black or Hispanic. The last black president stepped down in 1974.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) criticized the selection process, saying Washington officials represented little more than a rubber stamp. Earlier this year, Fed governors signed off on the reappointment of most bank presidents until 2021 “without any public debate or any public discussion,” she said.

“If you’re concerned about this, why didn’t you use either of these opportunities to say enough is enough. Let’s go back and see if we can find qualified regional presidents who also contribute to the overall diversity of the Fed’s leadership?” Ms. Warren asked.

“It just shows me that the selection process for regional Fed presidents is broken,” retorted Ms. Warren, calling on Congress to consider changing the process.

The Center for Popular Democracy, a left-leaning advocacy group, has been pressing the Fed for months to increase the diversity of its leadership, as have many Democrats on Capitol Hill who signed onto a letter from Ms. Warren to Ms. Yellen on the matter last month.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has also weighed in. Her campaign released a statement saying the Fed “needs to be more representative of America as a whole.”

In a June 13 response to the lawmakers’ letter, Ms. Yellen acknowledged “there is still work to be done” on diversity within the Fed ranks “and I assure you that workforce diversity remains a priority for the Federal Reserve.”

In her prepared testimony Tuesday, Ms. Yellen stressed the need to ensure that the gains from the economic recovery are widely distributed.

She noted that blacks and Hispanics are still suffering some of the effects of the recession in more pronounced ways than other groups. Black and Hispanic workers still face higher unemployment rates than the workforce as a whole, she said.

“It is troubling that unemployment rates for these minority groups remain higher than for the nation overall, and that the annual income of the median African-American household is still well below the median income of other U.S. households,” Ms. Yellen said.

Diverging economic circumstances between white and black households predate the recession but the gaps widened after the financial crisis and have only barely narrowed in the recovery.

A Fed report released alongside Ms. Yellen’s testimony found that black households, which saw their median incomes fall 16% during the recession, are only 88% of the way back to prerecession levels. White households, by contrast, saw incomes fall only 8% and are already back to 94% of prerecession levels, the report said.

It is rare for the Fed to address the economic conditions for individual demographic groups. The central bank’s congressional mandate requires that it seek to hold down unemployment and keep inflation stable for the country as a whole. In the past, Ms. Yellen has said she was sympathetic to the economic troubles of minority groups but stressed the Fed’s options for addressing them were limited.

Ms. Yellen’s comments Tuesday suggest a rising recognition within the Fed that the racial gaps in the economy are becoming more pronounced and that there is a role for monetary policy to play in shrinking those gaps.

“It’s important for us to be aware of those differences and to focus on them as we think about monetary policy and work that the Federal Reserve does in the area of community development,” she said.

Ms. Yellen is set to address the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday and could face many of the same questions.

By  David Harrison

Source

Politico - November 4, 2013, by Edward-Isaac Dovere -

Even New York liberals weren’t expecting things to go this well.

Tuesday, voters in America’s most prominent city are poised to elect Bill de Blasio mayor and turn over every major lever of municipal government to a new breed of politics that’s been on the rise but never close to this level of power: a mix of young progressives, reconstituted ’60s- and ’70s-era lefties, newly active minority voters and deep-pocketed unions that have transformed themselves into expert campaign organizers.

What that will mean as they try to translate that ideology into a governing philosophy is a question that even people who’ve been leading the charge are still asking. And in New York, where there are more than 8 million residents (plus close to a million more who come in daily for work), 300,000 city employees and a $70 billion-plus budget, there’s a lot riding on the answer.

These are the people who formed the labor-funded, liberal-favorite Working Families Party and sparked Occupy Wall Street. They say government shouldn’t just allow for change — it should force new change on the city and private sector. That means universal pre-K; closed tax loopholes; pensions divested from fossil fuel companies; family-friendlier work policies, including financial support for single parents; and paid sick leave requirements. And on the housing front: more market regulation, leveraging of privately owned real estate that’s in trouble and greater community power over developers’ plans.

The reaction of the city’s business, real estate, finance and high-tech industry leaders to its new governing class-in-waiting has ranged from panic to scoffing at the stuff they say pipe dreams are made of. The political establishment in the city is skeptical any of it can work, especially without igniting a budget disaster. And the progressives in charge are superstitious enough that, despite their candidates’ long and overwhelming lead in the polls, they’ve avoided doing too much planning before election night.

One thing all sides agree on: A new era has arrived. Barring major upsets, former political-labor strategist de Blasio will be the mayor, longtime Upper West Side official and political maven Scott Stringer will be the city comptroller, and Tish James, a product of Brooklyn African-American activism and politics, will be the public advocate, roughly the equivalent of the city council president.

The city council speaker most likely won’t be picked until January, but even the conservative choices are liberal Democrats. And whoever gets the job will face a newly empowered City Council, in which the rapidly multiplying Progressive Caucus members include many unconnected to the traditions of go-along legislators, and have made clear they’re going to push for their own changes.

That array of progressive victories is “a dream,” de Blasio said on his way out of a late September fundraiser for Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the godfather of this strain of progressivism in the city, that seconded as an advance celebration for the impending takeover.

“For a lot of progressives who’ve spent a whole lot of time on the steps of City Hall, this is the chance to get inside City Hall,” Stringer told POLITICO. “The challenge for all of us is to come together and govern and build our city for every New Yorker.”

Expectations are high, and made higher by the spirit of achieving what seemed impossible with unexpected election wins including de Blasio’s late surge and Stringer’s fending off Eliot Spitzer.

So what happens next, when these are the people confronted with a complicated and tight city budget, multiple costly labor contracts that are coming due for renewal, a crime rate that seems like it will statistically have to edge up at some point? How do they manage when they’re in charge, and not the outside instigators? And what happens when they’re heading into office promising major changes in rent costs and education, realignment of investments in city services and a detailed agenda of “broadly shared prosperity” — along with other liberal priorities like confronting climate change and improving senior care? When many competing interests are all going to be demanding attention from people who’ve never before been in positions of major power?

“There’s a lot you can do with really good leadership throughout the city that shares this agenda,” said Brad Lander, a city councilman who leads the progressive bloc and helped organize “Toward a 21st Century for All,” a collection of policy essays that’s become one of the main touchstones of progressive planning. “New York City is going to be an exciting laboratory.”

“What a pleasure it will be to have a city administration united with people who believe that you can increase the minimum wage, who believe that you can have paid sick leave, who believe that it doesn’t harm the city to treat workers and low-income people right, who believe that the purpose of an economy is not just to get the numbers on television but to help people live their lives, and who believe that the purpose of city government is to help all people — not just the 1 percent or the 5 percent or the 10 percent,” Nadler said, riling the crowd at an Upper West Side rally over the weekend.

At the rally, the talk was of how subway tokens cost only $1.25 and that Miley Cyrus wasn’t yet born the last time a Democrat was elected mayor. But that was a very different type of Democrat than what’s coming now — much more rooted in traditions of government spending and programs than the current strain’s emphasis on activist intervention, rethinking budget priorities and reeling in what they see as runaway wealthy interests.

“‘Liberal’s’ too soft,” actor-singer-activist Harry Belafonte declared at the rally to describe what he said was the most exciting political moment in his life in New York. “’Radicals.’ It’s time for radicals.”

There are limitations. Taxes — including the one on high-income earners that would pay for de Blasio’s signature expanded pre-kindergarten proposal — have to be approved by the state government, which also has the authority to take over city finances at any point if they begin to veer off track.

“It should be a comfort to people who are worried about the city going off the rails in a crazy far-left direction that Albany is not going to let that happen,” said Kathy Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, which represents business and financial interests across the city.

“I don’t think the primary concern is whether the mayor’s a lefty,” she said, reflecting the private-sector leaders she’s talked to. “It’s whether we’re going to have a mayor who can effectively manage 300,000 city workers and an $80 billion budget and not allow the city to run off the rails.”

“We have to govern,” Stringer said. “We have to do things through the lens of what we can afford and also what we can’t afford.”

At a meeting of municipally elected progressives in Washington state in late October, the same “tale of two cities” line that’s dominated de Blasio’s campaign kept coming up as people talked about how they could build support for many of the ideas that de Blasio’s about to have the power to do.

“It’s happening all over the country,” de Blasio said in a taped message to the Local Progress conference. “This is a tremendous moment for progressive activism.”

The mayors of Richmond, Calif., and Fitchburg, Mass., both attended, but as people there acknowledged, the importance and size of New York make de Blasio and the incoming officials a much bigger deal for the movement, in both spotlight and potential.

“It’s easy to talk on the outside than to be on the inside, actually preparing the meal, so that means they’re going to be judged on what kind of meal they prepare,” said Nick Licata, a former Seattle City Council president who’s the chairman of Local Progress. “It’s going to be a challenge — it’s always a challenge for any advocate group, left or right, when you go from proposing something to actually implementing it.”

John Del Cecato, a political consultant who was one of the main architects of de Blasio’s campaign, said there’s a clear reason why the revolution started in New York.

“There aren’t just pockets of extreme wealth and pockets of poverty anymore. We’ve got close to 400,000 millionaires, while half the city lives at or near the poverty line,” Del Cecato said. De Blasio’s appeal, he said, is the fact that the current state of affairs “is deeply troubling not just to those who are living the struggle every day, but to those who’ve done quite well who fear that New York is losing what’s made it such a special place for generations.”

Recalibrating the enormous city government to focus on pre-K, after-school programs, community hospitals, better wages and affordable housing is going to be difficult, and certainly won’t be fast, Del Cecato said.

But this year’s elections, he argued, are an important start to “move New York in a direction that acknowledges where we’re slipping behind, puts us on a new path and establishes a mind-set that we’re a city that leaves nobody behind.”

Source:

We’re in the thick of the second post-Citizens United presidential campaign, and it’s already clear that allowing unlimited funds to influence political elections was a terrible idea. 

Half of the funds supporting presidential candidates from both parties comes from a mere 158 families — a miniscule percentage of America’s 120 million households — as documented by a recent New York Times investigation. Largely white, older, male, and Republican, they are also unrepresentative of what our multicultural society looks like.

As a result of this narrow group of donors controlling what’s on the political agenda, America has a fundamentally undemocratic system in which working class people and people of color are left on the margins, silenced in a political debate, they can’t gain access to — because they don’t have millions to share.

America has become a tyranny of the few, and Americans are fed up with the broken system. Last week, voters in Maine elected to increase funding from $2 million to $3 million for the Clean Elections Fund, which provides government grants to candidates who agree to limit their spending and private fundraising. It might be a long time before Citizens United is overturned. In the interim, it’s important that other states introduce similar legislation challenging existing financing models.

The tyranny of the few is two-pronged, however. Not only are our elected leaders being held accountable to wealthy donors instead of the people of our nation, the least privileged of this nation are simultaneously facing strong barriers to voting. 

Our antiquated voter registration system results in roughly 62 million eligible voters not registered, either because they never registered or their registration information is incorrect. In a 2008 Current Population Survey, blacks and Latinos cited “difficulties with the registration process” as their main reason for not registering to vote. Whites disproportionately reported not registering because they were “not interested in elections or politics.” Barriers to voting registration are in many states especially well in place for people of color, workers and youth, who are targeted by voter suppression laws.

We could put an end to the error-ridden old-fashioned manual voter registration and step into the 21st century with automatic voter registration. Other states could follow the example set by California and Oregon, which are linking voter registration to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Through linking voter registration with public offices such as the DMV, revenue agencies, the Postal Service and others, the United States could secure over 56 million more voters, as a report from Center for Popular Democracy shows. 

So to sum up: people of color and working class Americans aren’t just unable to place millions of dollars with politicians who will take care of them in Congress, they aren’t even able to vote for leaders who might serve their interests.

The outcome? Our America has become an oligarchy run by a tiny and overly privileged section of its population, whose lives and wishes for our nation are in stark opposition to the lives and dreams of the average American. 

This is borne out in our legislation. Despite overwhelming public support for policies such as taxing those who earn more than $1 million a year, and laws that address inequality, workers’ rights, and protection of the middle class, we see the footprints of corporate powers all over our legislation. 

We need to act fast by passing laws that disrupt this undemocratic cycle. We must break Congress’ dependency on big money and return the power to the people, but we can’t only rely on our lawmakers to change our nation. 

It will take a lot of work, but we can’t allow for this undemocratic oligarchy to go on. Let’s not leave the future of our country in the hands of the wealthiest, let’s instead bring back democracy to our nation.

Source: Common Dreams