Clinton offers fresh support for key progressive priorities
Over the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a whole lot to say...
Over the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a whole lot to say about the Federal Reserve or monetary policy in general, which is why it was all the more interesting to see the Democratic frontrunner’s campaign yesterday endorse a change long sought by progressive activists. The Washington Post reported:
The Fed is led by a seven-member board of governors based in Washington and a dozen regional bank presidents based across the country, from New York to Kansas City to San Francisco. The governors are nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate, but regional bank presidents are selected by their boards of directors, whose occupants are chosen by the banking industry and by the Fed governors in Washington.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Clinton’s campaign said she supports removing bankers from the boards of directors and increasing diversity within the Fed.
In a written statement, a campaign spokesperson told the Post, “The Federal Reserve is a vital institution for our economy and the well-being of our middle class, and 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 and that commonsense reforms – like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks – are long overdue.”
This brings Clinton in line with Bernie Sanders, who endorsed this policy late last year, saying he wants a system in which “the foxes would no longer guard the henhouse.”
The statement also came the same day Clinton wrote an op-ed for the Washington Informer, an African-American newspaper, vowing to be a “vocal champion” for D.C. statehood.
“In the case of our nation’s capital, we have an entire populace that is routinely denied a voice in its own democracy,” Clinton wrote, adding, “Washingtonians serve in the military, serve on juries, and pay taxes just like everyone else. And yet, they don’t even have a vote in Congress.”
Earlier this week, Clinton also emphasized her support for a “public option” in health care coverage, including a possible Medicare buy-in policy.
The broader pattern matters, and it’s not altogether expected.
When Clinton’s campaign got underway nearly a year ago, the former Secretary of State started laying out her platform, and on a variety of issues – immigration, criminal-justice reform, expanding voting rights, etc. – the Democrat not only endorsed progressive ideas, she endorsed an agenda that was even more ambitious and further to the left than many expected.
At the time, of course, the question that loomed over the race dealt with motivation: was Clinton throwing her support behind a series of bold proposals because she was worried about Bernie Sanders, or was she serious about these plans? It’s one thing to make appeals to the left as the Democratic race gets underway, but would Clinton follow through when she shifts her attention to the general election?
The answer to these questions is coming into sharper focus. While the Democratic race still has some primaries to go, the delegate math suggests Clinton is well positioned to prevail, and she’s already begun shifting her attention to Donald Trump and the fall election. If the cynics were correct, this would be about the time we’d expect to see Clinton move gradually towards the center, eschewing some of her more progressive goals.
Except this week, we’re seeing the opposite, with Clinton backing Sanders-endorsed changes to the financial industry and touting her support for a public option.
Maybe Clinton is hoping to win over Sanders’ ardent fans who aren’t yet ready to back her candidacy in the fall. Maybe she believes these progressive goals are popular enough with the American mainstream that she’s not really taking much of a risk. Maybe she actually believes what she’s saying and none of this is calculated in any meaningful way.
Whatever the motivation, Clinton may be focusing her attention on the general election, but many of her key progressive ideals, at least for now, remain very much intact.
By Steve Benen
Source
Critics of Fed on Left and Right Prepare to Head to Jackson Hole
At least two groups—one on the right and one from the left—are expected to show up in some fashion to press the Fed to...
At least two groups—one on the right and one from the left—are expected to show up in some fashion to press the Fed to change its policies.
The conference, Aug. 27-29, will draw Fed officials, foreign central bankers, academic economists, reporters and others to talk about inflation and monetary policy in view of Grand Teton mountain range.
Just a short-drive away from the conference, the conservative American Principles Project has scheduled another conference to discuss how the group believes the Fed has failed to defend the dollar and promote prosperity. This gathering is titled, “Central Banks: The Problem or the Solution?”
Liberal-leaning activists from the Fed Up Coalition–representing unions, community activists and policy advocates–are also expected to gather in Jackson Hole, much as they did last year, to urge the Fed to change its structure to become more open and democratic.
The group opposes raising short-term interest rates from near zero now. The members want the Fed to maintain its ultra-easy policy to spur the economy and lift more of the nation’s workers out of troubled economic conditions. Members of the group have been meeting with Fed officials lately to voice their concerns.
The Kansas City Fed conference in Jackson Hole gives central bank officials a chance to socialize, hike, debate major issues facing the global economy and occasionally make major policy speeches. Attendance is strictly by invitation-only.
APP monetary-policy director Steven Lonegan said the aim of his event is to refocus the Fed on defending the dollar. “We are really challenging the Fed toe to toe on their own turf” by coming to Jackson Hole, he said.
The broader mission of the conference, Mr. Lonegan said, was to engage the nation’s political candidates to speak about the Fed. He said all known candidates have been asked to appear at the event, although none have so far accepted.
The APP event includes representatives from the Heritage Foundation, economists, Fox Business Network personality John Stossel, and a member of the British Parliament, according to the conference program.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Voters Want Less Charter School Growth and More Regulation, Survey Finds
Ed Week - March 3, 2015, by Arianna Prothero - A national poll of U.S. voters finds that although a majority of voters...
Ed Week - March 3, 2015, by Arianna Prothero - A national poll of U.S. voters finds that although a majority of voters support charter schools, they aren't necessarily in favor of expanding them.
The survey, conducted for In the Public Interest and the Center for Popular Democracy—two groups involved in education policy and skeptical of charters—found participants largely favor charter school reform proposals such as requiring open board meetings, regular audits, and policies to help shield district schools from the impact of charter schools opening up nearby.
The two organizations are partnering to push a series of charter school accountability proposals. The initiative, called the Charter School Accountability Agenda, was unveiled in tandem with the poll results and quickly received support from the American Federation of Teachers, one of the two national teachers' unions. The proposals are based off of a September report released from Brown University's Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
However, the survey also found that lack of school choice falls last on a list of education concerns, including issues such as class-size and parental involvement.
Sixty-two percent of those surveyed said they either wanted the number of charter schools in their area maintained or reduced.
Forty-four percent said they favored charter schools when asked without a description of what charters are, but that number climbed to 52 percent when participants were provided a description. Eighteen percent said they opposed charter schools when not given a definition, and 38 percent said they opposed charter schools after seeing a description.
When asked if charter schools are public or private schools, 30 percent said the former and 58 percent checked the latter.
Those results are somewhat reminiscent of another poll conducted recently by Gallup, which found strong support for charter schools even though many people didn't really understand how charters work.
The public polling firm GBA Strategies surveyed 1,000 people, selected randomly from a national voter file, on behalf of the Center for Popular Democracy and In the Public Interest. You can dig into more of the survey results here.
Source
Cities, states seek to protect immigrants' data from federal officials
Cities, states seek to protect immigrants' data from federal officials
Fear is growing in immigrant communities that the federal government might try to obtain the information from local...
Fear is growing in immigrant communities that the federal government might try to obtain the information from local governments, said Emily Tucker, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Popular Democracy, which backs the expansion of municipal ID programs and seeks to help unauthorized immigrants facing deportation.
Read the full story here.
STUDY: LGBT People of Color at Risk of Lifelong Poverty
The Advocate Magazine - April 23, 2015, by Trudy Ring - Legal discrimination, lack of family recognition, and lack of...
The Advocate Magazine - April 23, 2015, by Trudy Ring - Legal discrimination, lack of family recognition, and lack of safe educational environments put LGBT people of color at risk of lifelong poverty, says a report released today.
Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for LGBT People of Color examines the economic insecurity this group experiences, compared to white LGBT people and non-LGBT people of color. It is coauthored by the by the Movement Advancement Project and the Center for American Progress, in partnership with several other organizations.
The report details the discrimination that LGBT people of color face in employment, housing, health care, and other aspects of their lives. “Disproportionate numbers of LGBT people of color live in places that lack any explicit state-level protections for LGBT people,” says Ineke Mushovic, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project. “This means that LGBT people of color face a high risk of economic harm from anti-LGBT laws. Based on the connection between poverty and an individual’s race or ethnicity, many LGBT people of color are less able to absorb the financial penalties created by anti-LGBT laws when compared to white LGBT people.”
Also, LGBT people of color are more likely to be raising children than white LGBT people, often in states without marriage equality or legal recognition of parenting ties, the report notes. And young LGBT people of color frequently encounter bullying or harassment in school, making it harder for them to obtain the type of education that can lead to better economic opportunities.
The report concludes with recommendations for addressing these problems. It is a companion to a larger report, Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for Being LGBT in America, released in September.
The findings of Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for LGBT People of Color are summarized in the accompanying infographics. To read the full report, click here.
Partners in compiling the report were the Center for Community Change, Center for Popular Democracy, League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Association of Social Workers, National Black Justice Coalition, National Education Association, and National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance.
Source
Its Integrity Questioned, SUNY Institute Retreats From Politically Tinged Study
The Chronicle of Higher Education - April 28, 2014, by Paul Basken - The State University of New York’s Nelson A....
The Chronicle of Higher Education - April 28, 2014, by Paul Basken - The State University of New York’s Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government is backing away from a politically divisive report critical of a worker’s-rights law, admitting that the industry-financed analysis has multiple major flaws that undermine its central finding.
The report, published in February, criticizes New York State’s so-called Scaffold Law, which holds contractors and property owners legally liable for on-site injuries and accidents. The analysis suffers from "really big weaknesses," said the institute’s director, Thomas L. Gais, who added that he considers the report as not officially a product of his institute. The key analytical section of the report "is just really awful," he said.
The Rockefeller Institute prides itself as a provider of unbiased and empirical policy analysis. Defenders of the Scaffold Law, however, have complained that the institute tainted itself by accepting an $82,000 payment from a business group with construction-industry supporters to produce the report.
The report is "junk" and "fundamentally biased," said the Center for Popular Democracy and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, two groups representing unionized workers and immigrants.
The case has shined a spotlight on the question of whether universities and their research institutes, as declining public financing leaves them increasingly reliant on private-sector support, are able to provide policy makers with objective technical advice.
There are hundreds of such institutes at universities around the country, and it’s often possible to "predict the policy outcomes from where their support comes from," said Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University who writes about bias in research.
A ‘Quality-Control Issue’
Mr. Gais, a social scientist who has led the Rockefeller Institute for four years, adamantly denied there was any bias in the report on behalf of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. The alliance has long opposed the Scaffold Law, but Mr. Gais said he never expected to get any repeat business from the industry-affiliated group. "We got the money no matter what we wrote," he said.
The report instead suffered from what Mr. Gais called a "quality-control issue," in which a relatively new institute researcher, Michael R. Hattery, delivered it to the Lawsuit Reform Alliance without its being thoroughly reviewed at the institute.
Another major problem with the 89-page report, Mr. Gais said, lies with a section that uses a flawed statistical analysis to make the "counterintuitive" argument that New York’s worker-safety law actually leaves workers less safe.
That section’s author, R. Richard Geddes, an associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, also has drawn criticism within his own institution. At least two members of the labor-studies department at Cornell wrote newspaper op-eds criticizing Mr. Geddes’s work.
One, Richard W. Hurd, a professor of industrial and labor relations, wrote that Mr. Geddes had "misused sophisticated statistical techniques and produced inaccurate results." Lee H. Adler, an instructor of labor and employment law at Cornell, wrote that the episode reflects more than a century of attempts by business leaders to deprive workers of the fundamental right to sue.
Mr. Geddes emotionally denounced the criticism in an interview with The Chronicle, saying he had absolutely not been influenced by the source of money and describing his work as a state-of-the-art analysis of who actually gets injured on construction sites in New York State.
"I find that offensive, I find that deeply offensive, that they said my work is biased, after we spent hours and hours collecting the best data we could find," Mr. Geddes said.
A Valid Concern
Among its arguments, the report compares worker-injury records in New York and Illinois, which repealed a similar worker-protection law in 1995. The study found that both accident rates and costs declined in Illinois after repeal.
The labor groups said the study’s shortfalls included a failure to take into account situations where higher union-membership rates would encourage workers to report accidents, and workplaces where greater percentages of immigrants might depress reporting statistics.
Mr. Geddes said the critics bore the responsibility of showing how such factors would substantially have affected the report’s conclusions. Mr. Hattery said he also stood by the report but recognized that the possible effect of those omissions was a valid concern that should be assessed in future studies.
Mr. Geddes said he recognized some drawbacks in a system where academic institutes rely more heavily on private supporters. "It has made it harder because people without any evidence at all, any support, are attacking, are saying you’re biased," he said. "I find that profoundly offensive."
Mr. Hattery, however, said he welcomed the process now unfolding. "I don’t at all resent or have a problem with these kinds of questions’ being asked," he said. "When you think you have integrity and are humble and a good conscience, you’re probably in trouble."
Source
It Takes a Village: Educators, Unions Rally for Continued Funding of Community Schools
Baltimore City Paper - November 4, 2014, by Evan Serpick - Administrators, teachers, union organizers, community...
Baltimore City Paper - November 4, 2014, by Evan Serpick - Administrators, teachers, union organizers, community leaders, politicians, and students—including cheerleading squads and step teams—were among those gathered in front of City Hall on Oct. 21 to sing the praises of community schools, some literally.
“We are gentle, angry people,” The Charm City Labor Chorus sang from the dais. “And we are singing for our lives.”
The effort, organized by the Baltimore Teachers Union (BTU), Maryland Communities United, Center for Popular Democracy, and AFT-Maryland, aims to press the city government to continue funding the city’s 48 community schools and to ultimately expand the program to include all 210 city schools. (Disclosure: My wife is a teacher in Baltimore City Public Schools.) Community schools work to help students and their families access non-academic services such as health care and food assistance. One key element of the advocates’ efforts, many of those assembled acknowledged, was to inform the public and key officials of exactly what community schools are and how they’re beneficial to students and families.
“People hear ‘community schools’ and they don’t know what that means,” said Councilman Carl Stokes (D, 12th District), who spoke to the crowd “on behalf of [his] colleagues” in support of the effort.
The $10 million in municipal funding for the city’s 48 community schools pays for each school to employ a site coordinator to connect students and families in need with existing services, both public and private. The funding does not, organizers emphasize, pay for the services themselves.
Christopher Gaither, who has been principal of Upper Fells Point’s Wolfe Street Academy for nine years, spoke to the assembled group in Spanish and English. He said when Wolfe Street became a community school in 2006, the school, which had a 72 percent English language learner (ELL) population and 94 percent reduced-price lunch population, ranked 77th among city elementary schools. Eight years later, the ELL rate has gone up to 78 and reduced-lunch rate up to 96, but the school is now ranked second in the city academically, behind only Roland Park Elementary-Middle (which, as Gaither estimated, has an 18 percent reduced-price lunch population). Gaither gives much of the credit to being a community school.
“It sets up systems to identify partnerships to help families to take on challenges,” he said, before adding, more colloquially, “It gives people fish and teaches them how to fish.”
Gaither said his site coordinator helps families apply for food stamps and Medicaid, and also helps find mental health and housing services when needed, in addition to establishing after-school and recreational programs.
“No parent at Roland Park would think it’s acceptable if their child had to go to school hungry or without sleeping because of bedbugs,” he said. “Why should our parents?”
He added that, while community school funding doesn’t pay directly for social services, it does make that funding more effective, since site coordinators are able to link social-service providers directly with families in need so those providers spend less time and money on outreach.
Among those speaking at the rally were Chelsea Gilmer, a seventh-grader at City Springs Elementary/Middle School downtown who is active in Baltimore Urban Debate League, and Yolanda Pernell, a parent of children at Callaway Elementary, a community school in Northwest Baltimore where the site coordinator created an after-school program with the Boys and Girls Club of Metropolitan Baltimore.
Fred D. Mason, president of the Maryland and D.C. AFL-CIO, was on hand to explain why unions support community schools. “It provides a better, safer, more productive community for teachers to work in,” he said. “When the community organizations are coming into the school, interacting with the students, it just make a better overall environment for everybody.”
But BTU president Marietta English, who has been pushing City Hall hard on the issue, worries that funding for community schools will be cut. “We’re looking at how we can get the funding for next year,” she said. “Right now, it’s all about the budget deficit. Everybody I talk to is like, ‘Well you know we got a budget deficit.’ I hear their support but in the end, it’s ‘Where do we get the money?’”
Speaking to City Paper after the rally, Stokes said funding community schools was imperative.
“The city government needs to put it in the budget in this coming budget year—they should pass it so that it goes into the budget for July and can apply to next year,” he said. “This works. The schools that have the full funding for the coordinator, it works for them. A lot of kids come from environments that aren’t as strong as they could be, should be, and to make that environment in the school helps kids all around.”
Source
300+ Arrested in Mass Civil Disobedience Protests at the Nation's Capitol
300+ Arrested in Mass Civil Disobedience Protests at the Nation's Capitol
By Greenpeace In the final day of a record-setting week of civil disobedience at the Capitol, more than 300 people were...
By Greenpeace
In the final day of a record-setting week of civil disobedience at the Capitol, more than 300 people were arrested Monday as they demanded democracy reforms.
Yesterday's arrests came on the third and final day of Democracy Awakening. Combined with arrests made during the recent Democracy Spring, the protests constituted what organizers believe is a record for civil disobedience over democracy issues during this century.
The message: On voting rights, money in politics and the recent vacancy on U.S. Supreme Court, Congress is failing to do its job and ignoring the will of the people. Democracy Awakening isn't the end of something, but the beginning of a new phase in the movement for democracy, organizers said.
Those who planned to risk arrest included NAACP president and CEO Cornell William Brooks; the Rev. William Barber II, pastor and Moral Monday architect; radio commentator Jim Hightower; Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben and Jerry's; Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard; and Sierra Club President Aaron Mair.
Here's what they had to say about why they risked arrest at our nation's Capitol:
"I'm willing to risk arrest, arm in arm with partners from the civil rights and the labor movements, in order to help fix our democracy," Leonard said. "We will never get the kind of political progress needed to challenge climate change and systemic racism if corporate cash continues to mean more to politicians than the voices of the people."
"Democracy is supposed to be for all of us, but right now we have an out-of-balance system favoring the interests of big money," Cohen said. "This can't go on. I'm prepared to risk arrest to send a message that democracy should truly be of, by, and for the people."
"At a certain point, you have to say enough is enough," Greenfield said. "I have decided to risk arrest because we can't continue to have a political system where ordinary people are shut out of the process. It's not what our founders envisioned, and it's not what democracy is supposed to be about."
"We cannot sit by and watch obstructionists push an agenda of inequity, injustice and inaction -- and I'm willing to risk being arrested in order to make my voice heard in in the fight to ensure that every voice can be heard in our democracy," Mair said. "All too often, the costs of these assaults on our democracy fall on low-income communities and communities of color that already face disproportionate effects from pollution and the climate crisis. A zip code should never dictate the destiny of any American citizen."
Thousands of activists from around the country streamed into the nation's capital April 16-18 for Democracy Awakening, which featured teach-ins, a rally, a march and lobbying as well as the civil disobedience. The aim: to fight back against business as usual in Washington, DC.
More than 300 organizations endorsed Democracy Awakening. Democracy Awakening is part of a broad movement aimed at advancing democracy reforms. The mobilization began April 2, with Democracy Spring, an event that featured a march from Philadelphia to Washington D.C., followed by six days of sit-ins at the Capitol.
Others who planned to risk arrest included top leaders of the AFL-CIO, All Souls Unitarian Church, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Postal Workers Union, Campaign for America's Future, Democracy Initiative, Center for Popular Democracy, Communications Workers of America, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Every Voice, Food & Water Watch, Franciscan Action Network, Free Speech for People, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Jobs With Justice, the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church; the NAACP, Oil Change International, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, the United Church of Christ, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, We Are Casa, the Yes Men and 350.org.
Source
Will Maria response energize CT Puerto Rican voters?
A year after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, there is a debate about whether the storm has created political winds...
A year after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, there is a debate about whether the storm has created political winds that will prompt Connecticut’s Puerto Ricans to shed their reputation as unlikely voters.
Read the full article here.
Language access order faces hurdles in implementation
Epoch Times – August 5, 2013, by Genevieve Belmaker - New York State residents with limited English language...
Epoch Times – August 5, 2013, by Genevieve Belmaker - New York State residents with limited English language proficiency still face problems with access to government services, according to a new study.
More than 2 million people in New York State have limited English proficiency (LEP), according to Make the Road New York (MRNY), an immigrant advocacy organization that has partnered with The Center for Popular Democracy to complete the study.
Despite the number of people with LEP and the 2011 executive order 26 issued by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo for better provision of services, they still face many barriers accessing services.
Cuomo’s order requires that all state agencies that have direct public contact translate vital documents into the state’s top six LEP languages. The order also requires that interpretation and transportation services be provided in native languages if needed. But the study found two years later, that requirement has still not been fully implemented.
“There’s a growing number of cases where they are asking people to bring someone [for interpretation],” said Cornelia Brown, founder and executive director of the Multicultural Association of Medical Interpreters. “The one exception might be the Child Protective Services.”
Brown, who was speaking as part of a Monday, Aug. 5 conference call about the report, added that in many cases LEP people are asked to bring their own interpreters with no arrangement for reimbursement of any cost incurred.
In general, the report states that despite New York State’s indisputable position as a national leader in pro-immigrant policies, a “significant amount of work remains to be done to dismantle language barriers at government agencies that dispense key benefits and services.”
Some of the report’s key findings include that the majority of LEP New York State residents don’t get translated documents when trying to get access to state benefits and interpretation services. Despite the implementation shortfalls, most people who got translated materials or interpretation services said it was helpful.
To gather the data, MRNY and The Center for Popular Democracy worked with partner organizations across New York State starting in the spring of 2012 to survey LEP individuals in New York City, Long Island, Albany, Central New York and Buffalo.
Source
6 days ago
6 days ago