CPD IN THE NEWS

Johansson and the John Gore Organization partnered for a benefit performance of Our Town in Atlanta.

Read the full article here.

The Nation - April 28, 2015, by Brad Lander & Karl Kumodzi - In August 2014, the municipality of Ferguson, Missouri erupted onto the national scene. In the wake of the killing of Michael Brown, we learned much about economic and political life in Ferguson and greater St. Louis County.

To many, it was no surprise to learn that, for years, African-American residents of municipalities throughout St. Louis County have been disproportionately and illegally stopped for minor offenses. Blacks are far more likely to be stopped, searched, ticketed, fined, and arrested. Many wind up jailed, leading to a cycle of lost jobs, drivers’ licenses, homes, or child custody. Some are beaten, terrorized, or—like Michael Brown—even killed.

It was more surprising to learn that in Ferguson, “Driving While Black” isn’t only about racial profiling: it’s also about municipal revenue. Fines and court fees have become the city’s second largest revenue source, and the over-criminalization of Black people has become a strategy for collecting taxes.

It is important to understand and address the revenue crisis facing U.S. municipalities. As cities have become unable to pay their bills, they often turn to regressive strategies that disproportionately harm people of color and low-income residents.

Ithaca, NY is like Ferguson. Up until January 2014, residents had to pay for installations and repairs of public sidewalks adjoining their properties—with one notable case in which 28 homeowners were forced to pay a combined $100,000 out of their personal pockets to the city for repairs. Detroit, MI is like Ferguson. After the city filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history, the city’s water department responded to pressures to lower their $90 million portion of the overall $20 billion debt by shutting off crucial water services to mostly Black low-income residents who owed over a mere $150 on their water bills. This April, Baltimore followed Detroit’s lead.

These cities are like Ferguson because of a common underlying problem: All across America, cities and towns are struggling to maintain enough revenue to provide crucial services to residents. The collateral damage of this revenue crisis—over-criminalization, utility shut-offs, the withdrawal of public services, and slashed budgets for schools—is dire.

Local Progress, a national network of progressive municipal elected officials, is working to address inequality from an often overlooked source: municipal budgets. In our new report, Progressive Policies for Raising Municipal Revenue, Local Progress lays out forward-thinking strategies and policy options that cities can pursue to restructure their revenue streams in a way that doesn’t fall disproportionately on the backs of their most vulnerable residents.

The roots of the municipal revenue crisis were decades in the making. Following the post-war desegregation of housing and education, and other civil rights victories of the 50’s and 60’s, racial animosity and the conservative backlash against taxation—referred to by historians as the tax revolt—helped to fuel the exodus of higher-income families from urban centers to suburban enclaves.

This “white flight” dramatically eroded the tax base of urban centers like Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis—and later of first-ring suburban municipalities like Ferguson.

The tax revolt also led directly to policies that dramatically reduced the ability of cities to collect enough revenue through property and other taxes. Most dramatic was the 1976 passage of Prop 13 in California, which contributed heavily to the erosion of California’s public education system and other public services.

In 2008, the Great Recession caused the municipal revenue crisis that had been brewing for decades to explode, spurring significant and rapid declines in general fund revenues for municipalities. In order to deal with the impacts of this dramatic shortfall, cities were forced to cut personnel, cancel capital projects (and their much-needed jobs), and slash funding for education, parks, libraries, sanitation, and more. These cuts hit low-income families the hardest. And they are especially harmful to Black families because African-Americans are 30 percent more likely to be employed by the public sector than other workers.

The strategies that many municipalities adopted to address the crisis hit low-income people of color the hardest. When property tax revenue declined in St. Louis County, fines-and-fees revenue increased in order to maintain revenue. Tickets are issued for everything from failure to cut one’s lawn to sleeping over at someone’s house without being on the occupancy certificate. In nearby Edmundson, the city averages $600 per person per year in court fines, and forecasts increasing revenue from these fines in their future budget proposals – essentially creating a hidden tax on the most vulnerable residents. Black residents throughout the region report feeling “as if their governments see them as little more than sources of revenue.”

Many towns have resorted to privatizing formerly public responsibilities such as trash collection, sewage, roads, parks, and introducing new fees to force residents to foot the bill directly. These fees and taxes are often extremely regressive, because as everyone is forced to pay a flat rate, poor people end up paying a higher percentage of their income. A recent study conducted by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates are 10.9% for the poorest fifth of taxpayers and 5.4% for the wealthiest 1 percent. In fact, in the ten states with the most regressive tax structures, the poorest fifth pay as much as seven times the percentage of their income in taxes and fees as the wealthiest residents do.

Addressing the municipal revenue crisis is, therefore, a central barrier to achieving racial and economic justice in our urban centers, and to rebuilding a more democratic, just, and livable America with genuinely shared prosperity.

Luckily, there are creative and progressive strategies that municipalities can adopt to generate more revenue in a progressive way, such as:

● Expanding the progressivity of existing local income taxes by creating more tax brackets with greater differences between brackets, and doing the same for property taxes in order to generate more revenue from commercial and high-end development.

● Eliminating corporate tax breaks at the city level, particularly Tax Increment Financing and business improvement districts that come with tax breaks

● Restructuring fines so that residents pay different rates based on income. A $200 traffic ticket has no deterrent effect for a millionaire, but can be devastating for a low wage worker; a more rational fine system, like the one adopted in Finland, would be more fair and generate more revenue.

● Mandating that major tax-exempt institutions like hospitals and universities make genuine and fair payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to help cover the costs of crucial city services that they use.

● Converting city services into municipality-owned utilities when possible, charging utility fees to all users, and applying conservation pricing so lower-income households pay a lower rate while bulk users—such as commercial and industry—pay higher rates

● Forming statewide coalitions of municipal elected officials, grassroots organizations, school boards, and other affected parties to change preemption and revenue policies at the state level.

These policy innovations and many more are detailed in our report.

Cities are America’s bedrock and its future: both for our country and for the progressive movement. Cities are home to 67% of the population, account for 75% of our GDP, and house our best public institutions and infrastructure.

The policy recommendations laid out by Local Progress in our new report can help municipalities develop progressive revenue solutions—so they can pay for public education, health, and housing programs that help families thrive, invest in the infrastructure of public transportation, climate resilience, parks that sustainable cities need, and stimulate inclusive economic growth that creates good jobs.

Through progressive revenue strategies, cities can turn the Ferguson-like cycle of disinvestment and inequality into a cycle of reinvestment and opportunity—and help make sure that our cities can become the models for our vision of a more progressive and prosperous America.

Source

Members of Congress involved in overseeing the country’s financial regulators agree that changes to the Federal Reserve’s governance model are overdue. But a Wednesday panel hearing revealed that lawmakers differ on what elements of the status quo need to be preserved.

Republicans on the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade argued that the Fed’s existing structure, which was enshrined in the 103-year-old Federal Reserve Act, is adequately representative when it comes to racial or gender makeup.

Wednesday’s hearing was the first chance Republican lawmakers had to discuss Fed reform proposals since both parties’ election platforms were adopted at their respective nominating conventions in July, when Democrats called for more diversity.

What the Fed needs instead, according to subcommittee chairman Bill Huizenga (R-Mich), is a new rules-based approach to monetary policymaking that’s outlined in the Financial CHOICE Act, the centerpiece of House GOP’s deregulatory agenda.

Those changes should not extend to major changes at the Fed that would, in effect, eliminate the representation of the banking industry on regional boards or take extraordinary measures to ensure greater diversity, as Democrats suggested in their 2016 election platform, Huizenga said.

He characterized Democratic proposals to overhaul the Fed’s governance structure as a “hostile takeover” of the central bank that’s only being undertaken to ensure high levels of inflation. “Democrats have constantly resisted reforms that would modernize the Federal Reserve, bringing much needed transparency to what most Americans consider an impossibly opaque institution,” Huizenga said.

He then referred to a bill he sponsors that would give Congress oversight responsibilities regarding monetary policy. “The Democrats on the other side of the aisle would like to double down on what Dodd-Frank started, co-opting the Federal Reserve district banks by subjecting them to the same politics that has kicked economic opportunity to the sidelines in the name of reinflating asset prices,” Huizenga said.

He had backup from Kansas City Fed President Esther George and Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker, both of whom testified at today’s hearing and said the central bank’s current governance structure facilitates adequate regional, commercial, ethnic and gender diversity.

“I remain convinced this is a question of accountability, and not of structure, of the Federal Reserve,” George told the panel, referencing the Fed’s overall efforts to be a representative body.

Lacker said he agreed with George, and added that there are “multiple dimensions” officials look at when selecting a regional Fed board.

Regional Fed boards are divided into three alphabetically organized classes. Member banks of each regional Fed select Class A directors to represent the banking industry and Class B directors to serve the public or other commercial interests. The Fed’s Board of Governors selects Class C directors, who are appointed to represent the public interest.

Democrats had their position supported by William Spriggs, chief economist at the AFL-CIO, along with activists in the “Fed Up” coalition who attended the hearing wearing green t-shirts as a form of silent protest about the current Fed structure.

Spriggs and representatives from Fed Up argued that the lack of adequate racial representation on regional boards has prevented the bank from addressing higher rates of unemployment in African-American and Latino communities through monetary policy.

“We believe that when our voices our excluded from the conversation, then our interests are excluded,” said Ruben Lucio, a field organizer for the Fed Up Coalition, which is led by the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy. Members of the coalition met with George during the Fed’s retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyo., last month.

Lucio indicated that the Fed’s method for determining full employment — part of its dual mandate, along with price stability — might be due for a reevaluation.

“Whose unemployment are they looking at? Are they looking at overall unemployment? Are they talking about black and brown unemployment?” Lucio asked. “When you raise those interest rates because certain communities have recovered, and it’s fine because you’re scared about some threat of inflation, who are you impacting when those interest rates go up?”

Some lawmakers questioned the lopsided nature of the Fed’s regional districts. Reps. Denny Heck of Washington and Bill Foster of Illinois, both members of the business-friendly New Democrat Coalition, were joined by Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah) in floating the possibility of taking a new look at the geographic makeup of the regional boards.

Despite members having stated such clear positions on the issue of Fed governance, the likelihood of movement on any statutory changes to Fed governance is slim at this point. Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said she’s interested in taking an “objective” look at what changes might be needed, but she didn’t say what laws or regulations are needed to implement the changes sought by Democrats.

Huizenga, who reiterated to reporters afterward that he thinks the Fed’s regional directors should be selected as a “meritocracy,” struck a similar tone. “I don’t know that there’s any kind of consensus, as of yet, on that,” he said.

By Ryan Rainey

Source

Sunrise Movement is a youth climate organization that aims to “stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.” It has been taking the lead on efforts to combine climate protection with a federal jobs guarantee. Other groups like the Sierra Club, Demos, 350.org, the Center for Popular Democracy, the Labor Network for Sustainability, and the US Climate Action Network have also been discussing the climate jobs guarantee (CJG).

Read the full article here.