CPD IN THE NEWS

As the new year begins, any honest progressive knows the political outlook is bleak. But if we're going to limit the damage that President-elect Donald Trump inflicts on the country, then despair is not an option. The real question, as Democracy Alliance President Gara LaMarche recently said, "is how you fight intelligently and strategically when every house is burning down."

Indeed, with Trump and Republicans in Congress aggressively pushing a right-wing agenda, progressives will need to invest their resources and attention where they can do the most good — both now and over the next four years. With that in mind, here are three steps to take to resist and rebuild as the Trump administration gets underway.

First, while strong national leadership is certainly important, progressives must recognize that the most significant resistance to Trump won't take place in Washington. It's going to happen in the streets led by grass-roots activists, and in communities, city halls and statehouses nationwide.

There is real potential for cities and states to act as a bulwark against Trump's agenda. On immigration, for example, a coalition of mayors from across the country — including New York and Los Angeles but also cities throughout the Rust Belt and the South — are already coordinating to fight Trump's deportation plans. Local Progress, a national network of city and county officials, is working to protect civil rights and advance economic and social justice. And while the Trump administration may ravage the environment, cities and states can also continue the fight against global warming; in particular, California has the potential to become a global leader on the issue, and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has defiantly pledged to move forward with plans to slash carbon emissions in the state regardless of Trump's policies.

Cities and states also give progressives an opportunity to play offense by advancing policies that truly improve people's lives, while providing a concrete and actionable blueprint for the rest of the country. Take the Fight for $15. Last year, 25 states, cities and counties approved minimum-wage increases that will result in raises for millions of workers nationwide. And despite Trump's hostility to workers, there are campaigns to increase the minimum wage planned in at least 13 states and other localities over the next two years, representing a real chance to build on that progress.

Second, as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman writes, "We need a broad commitment from activists and donors to take back state governments." Even if Democrats do well in the midterm elections, they are unlikely to regain control of Congress until after the next round of redistricting, in 2020. Yet there will be 87 state legislative chambers and 36 gubernatorial seats up for grabs in 2018. Progressives would be wise to adopt a laserlike focus on winning these races.

A strong performance at the state level in 2018 would do more than improve progressives' ability to combat Trump's policies. It would also help create a stronger pipeline of leaders who could eventually run for higher office, following in the steps of incoming House members Jamie B. Raskin, D-Md., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. Crucially, it would also give progressive Democrats more influence over congressional redistricting in 2020, boosting the party's prospects at the national level. For that reason, it's noteworthy that President Obama is planning to get involved in state legislative elections and redistricting after he leaves office, though grass-roots efforts will remain paramount.

And third, it will be critical for progressive leaders in Washington to amplify local progress to drive a national message. In the absence of a single party leader — especially one whose success depends on compromising with congressional Republicans — there is more room for strong, populist progressive voices to emerge in opposition to Trump.

Already, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Vt., Elizabeth Warren, Mass., Sherrod Brown, Ohio, and Jeff Merkley, Ore., are stepping up, and they will be joined in the House by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose members will play a key role in recruiting and running progressive candidates, connecting with grass-roots movements and driving local issues into the national sphere. Working alongside activist groups, progressive Democrats can present a clear alternative vision for the nation.

To that end, the race for Democratic National Committee chair presents a significant opportunity to shift the party's direction. Regardless of who prevails, progressives would be wise to insist on a return to the 50-state strategy that former chairman Howard Dean championed and that all of the current candidates say they support. Ultimately, the party's fortunes will depend on recruiting a new generation of progressive leaders, especially women and people of color, who can harness the power of social movements and drive it into electoral politics — everywhere in the country, at every level of government.

By: Katrina Vanden Heuvel

Source

El Diario – October 25, 2013, by Juan Matossian -

En el 60% de los casos de fallecimientos por caídas, investigados entre 2003 y 2011 en el estado, la víctima era latino y/o inmigrante

Los obreros de construcción hispanos e inmigrantes sufren muchos másaccidentes y muertes por caídas que otros trabajadores del mismo gremio, debido a las pobres condiciones de seguridad en las que trabajan en el estado de Nueva York, según reveló un estudio.

El reporte, comisionado por el Center for Popular Democracy, muestra que en el 60% de las muertes por caídas en los accidentes, investigados entre 2003 y 2011 en el estado, el fallecido era latino y/o inmigrante.

En la ciudad, esta cifra se incrementa hasta casi el 75% – tres de cada cuatro – a pesar de que sólo supone el 40% de la fuerza total de trabajo en ese reglón.

Encuestas realizadas a empleados latinos evidenciaron que muy pocos se atreven a quejarse por las condiciones de seguridad por temor a represalias de sus jefes.

Problemas de seguridad

Ese fue el caso de Pedro Corchado, un obrero que cayó desde una escalera durante la renovación de un edificio hace cinco años, y sufrió graves heridas por no contar con un arnés de seguridad.

“Casi cualquiera que trabaje en construcción te dirá que es muy difícil negarse a las órdenes de escalar un andamio que no es seguro o subir una escalera sin equipamiento de seguridad”, dijo Corchado. “Para la mayoría de trabajadores como yo, decir ‘no’ al jefe simplemente no es una opción”.

El grupo que elaboró el estudio y otras organizaciones que defienden a estos trabajadores, argumentaron que la mejor manera de detener esta tendencia es aumentar los fondos deOSHA, porque ahora mismo la oficina no cuenta con los suficientes medios ni inspectores.

Calcularon que, para que OSHA inspeccione cada lugar de construcción que hay actualmente en Nueva York, les llevaría 107 años.

Por otro lado, hicieron un llamado para que se proteja la llamada “Ley del Andamio”, que ayuda a asegurar las condiciones de seguridad en los sitios de construcción y que varios promotores inmobiliarios presionan para que se derogue porque incrementa significativamente el coste de nuevos edificios.

“En lugar de invertir en la seguridad en el trabajo, la comunidad de negocios quiere que la responsabilidad por heridas y muertes pase a los que son más vulnerables y no tienen control sobre las condiciones laborales”, denunció Joel Shufro, director ejecutivo delComité para Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo de Nueva York. “Pondría a todos los obreros de construcción en riesgo, particularmente a los jornaleros y a los no sindicados”.

Una última petición es que se tomen medidas para asegurar que tanto los promotores, dueños y trabajadores de la construcción, reciban entrenamiento de seguridad de acuerdo con los estándares de OSHA.

Source

More than a hundred Democratic party lawmakers have written to Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen complaining of a lack of diversity within the central bank system and a leadership that is “overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male”.

The letter, signed by 11 senators and 116 representatives, calls on the Fed to do more to ensure its senior ranks reflect the country’s make-up in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, economic background and occupation. It also demands that the Fed place greater priority on securing full employment for minorities as it pursues its economic goals.

“When the voices of women, African-Americans, Latinos, and representatives of consumers and labour are excluded from key discussions, their interests are too often neglected,” the letter says. “By fostering genuine full employment, the Federal Reserve can help combat discrimination and dramatically reduce the disproportionate unemployment faced by minority populations.”

The signatories include senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Kirsten Gillibrand from New York; and representatives including Maxine Waters, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee and John Conyers from Michigan. All Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus put their names to the letter. It was not signed by Republican lawmakers.

The letter is the latest sign of political pressure on the Fed from both sides of the party divide. Republicans have been calling for greater Congressional scrutiny over the Fed amid persistent concerns about the ultra-loose monetary policy stance it has pursued since the financial crisis. Democrats, on the other hand, have urged Ms Yellen to maintain low interest rates in pursuit of higher employment, and in her most recent hearings before Congress Ms Yellen faced a barrage of complaints about the uneven economic progress seen between different races and ethnicities.

Eleven of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents are white and 10 of the 12 are men. All of the 10 current voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy, are white, while four of them are women. Members of the Fed’s Board of Governors, who rank among the top rate-setters, are selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but the Board of Governors has a key role in selecting the Fed’s regional bank presidents.

A spokesperson for the Federal Reserve Board said: “The Federal Reserve is committed to fostering diversity — by race, ethnicity, gender, and professional background — within its leadership ranks. To bring a variety of perspectives to Federal Reserve Bank and Branch boards, we have focused considerable attention in recent years on recruiting directors with diverse backgrounds and experiences.”

The Fed said that minority representation on its reserve bank and branch boards had increased from 16 per cent in 2010 to 24 per cent in 2016, while the proportion of women directors has risen from 23 per cent to 30 per cent over the same period. Some 46 per cent of all directors are “diverse in terms of race and/or gender”, the Fed added.

The Fed in December lifted interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade. It has since kept them on hold as it weighs up conflicting evidence about the strength of the recovery. Referring to monetary policy, the letter from the lawmakers urges Ms Yellen to “give due consideration to the interests and priorities of the millions of people around the country who still have not benefited from this recovery”.

Jesse Ferguson, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said: “The American people should have no doubt that the Fed is serving the public interest. That’s why Secretary Clinton believes that the Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole as well as that commonsense reforms — like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks — are long overdue.”

By Sam Fleming

Source

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