CPD IN THE NEWS

Huffington Post - October 9, 2014, by Richard Eskow - Progressives who are elected to executive office have a unique opportunity to highlight neglected issues and stimulate much-needed debate, by taking actions which challenge the "conventional wisdom." They can change the political landscape by employing a principle that might be called "leadership by example."

The mayor of New York City is uniquely positioned to play this role, thanks to that city's prominence, and so far Bill de Blasio has done exceptionally well at it. Two of his actions -- on education and assistance to the poor -- deserve particular commendation, because they challenge the "bipartisan" consensus that has too often strangled open debate and left the public's interests unrepresented.

Action for the Impoverished

1. "Welfare Reform's" Record of Failure

"Centrist" Democrats like Bill Clinton, together with Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, have long sung the praises of "welfare reform" -- a set of policies that promised to turn welfare recipients into "productive citizens" through a combination of educational programs, work requirements, and "tough love" that denied benefits to some of them.

Clinton signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" on August 22, 1996, saying it would "end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility, and families." That bill quickly became a symbol of "bipartisan consensus" and a much-touted piece of model legislation for the neoliberal economic agenda.

Unfortunately, we now know that it didn't work. In fact, it backfired. A report from the University of Michigan's National Poverty Center showed that extreme poverty increased in the United States by 130 percent between 1996 and 2013 -- and pinpointed "welfare reform" as the cause.

Despite its documented failure, the myth persists that "welfare reform" succeeded. This belief has so far proved resistant to the mounting evidence against it, perhaps because it serves the personal interests of wealthy individuals and corporations who don't care to be taxed for antipoverty programs.

This "reform" myth also serves to assuage their consciences. Politicians like Cuomo and Clinton are all too happy to help in that effort by assuring wealthy Americans that this policy is smart, even liberal, and that it only coincidentally happens to benefit them personally.

2. The End of Welfare As They Know It

The mayor of New York City cannot supersede a federal law, but a recent executive action will hopefully serve to re-open the debate on welfare "reform." De Blasio ended the policies of his GOP predecessors and eased requirements for welfare eligibility in New York City. New rules will give young people more time to complete their educations, and native speakers of foreign languages time to learn English. He also cut back on some "workfare" requirements (which in some cases amount to little more than ritual humiliation.)

For the first time, allowances will be made for parental duties, travel time, and other obstacles which are faced every day by the poor -- but which are little-understood by prosperous "bipartisans" from either party.

As a de Blasio official explained, "we have the data to show that toughness for the sake of toughness hasn't been effective."

3. Data Driven

Data. That word is anathema to "centrist" politicians and commentators who claim to be technocrats, but who are actually driven by ideology, donor cash, or both. When de Blasio issued his orders the hyperventilation was, predictably, all but instantaneous. "We don't need to guess how de Blasio's welfare philosophy will pan out," wrote Heather McDonald, who is "Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute."

Reihan Salam fulminated in Slate that welfare programs must "rest on a solid moral foundation. And that, ultimately, is what work requirements are all about."

But when the work isn't available, or people have no practical way of obtaining it, it's immoral to make them -- or their children -- suffer. By ending the inhumane but "bipartisan" policies of his predecessors, Bill de Blasio has potentially re-opened the debate on the draconian and failed "welfare reform" concept.

Action on Education

1. Charter Schools Are "Special Interests"

De Blasio's much-publicized struggle with charter school CEO Eva Moskowitz began when he overturned Bloomberg's decision to give her "Success Academy" free space in city buildings. That led her to make a series of false claims about her organization's accomplishments -- claims that were effectively debunked by Diane Ravitch and Avi Blaustein. Success Academy students aren't the best in the state, they aren't the most difficult students in the city -- and the program is so cost-inefficient that it spends over $2,000 per year more per student than other schools serving similar populations.

Bloomberg was generous to Moskowitz because her program suited his predilection for Wall Street-friendly, corporate-cozy ideas -- ideas which appeared on the surface to promote innovation or "reform," but which on further study reveal themselves as a wealth transfer from the many to the few, often at the expense of the public good.

That's exactly what the charter-school movement represents. Sure, it sounds like a good idea: Schools will "compete" for students, and those which offer the best "products" will succeed. As writer and education activist Jeff Bryant says: Everybody loves "choice," right?

But the concept is flawed at its core. Schools aren't failing because students and their parents don't have "choices" in schools. They're failing -- to the extent they are, because even that concept is overhyped -- because they don't have choices in jobs or housing. Schools are struggling because we don't pay teachers well enough, because we underfund our school districts, and because social factors (especially poverty) inhibit the learning process.

2. Rockets to Nowhere

For all the hype and all the money, there's still no evidence that charter schools work. Advocates love to claim that "school choice" offers lower-income children a way out of poverty. But Milwaukee, which the conservative American Enterprise Institute calls "one of the most 'choice-rich' environments in America," remains one of America's 10 most impoverished big cities.

And kids aren't any more educated in Milwaukee than they were before they were given all this "choice." Educator Diane Ravitch reviewed the data and found that, 22 years after the program was implemented, there was no evidence of improvement in students' test scores.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reviewed the "Rocketship" program, which has bid to take over Milwaukee's underperforming schools, and found that it isn't working. They observed that "in 2012-2013, all seven of the Rocketship schools failed to make adequate yearly progress according to federal standards."

Call it "failure to launch."

3. Follow the Money

The EPI also noted that "Blended-learning schools such as Rocketship are supported by investment banks, hedge funds, and venture capital firms that, in turn, aim to profit from both the construction and, especially, the digital software assigned to students."

That might help explain why wealthy Wall Street investors paid Moskowitz's $2,000-plus-per-student cost overruns out of their own pockets. The same hedge funders also happen to have donated at least $400,000 to Andrew Cuomo's reelection campaign. Perhaps coincidentally, Cuomo led the charge against de Blasio after he moved to end Moskowitz's taxpayer-funded privileges.

Charter schools are an ideological and investment opportunity, which explains why enormous sums of money have been expended promoting them. (The latest effort, funded by $12 million from the wealthiest families in the nation, is something called "The Education Post."

Not all charter schools are driven by the profit motive, and some may in fact do a good job. But there is no evidence to support their claims, their operating principles, or the broader "free market" ideology behind them -- an ideology that is founded on hostility to government itself.

4. Breeding Fraud

Ravitch also notes that Washington, D.C., whose "Opportunity Scholarship Program" launched at least one educational celebrity career, was equally unable to demonstrate results. Its final-year report notes that "There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement."

There is conclusive evidence, however, that the charter school movement has produced at least one fairly widespread outcome: fraud. A recent report from the Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education, and ACTION United told the story. The report, titled "Fraud and Financial Mismanagement in Pennsylvania's Charter Schools," showed that the state had failed to properly audit or review its publicly-funded charter schools.

It also uncovered a pattern of abuses so disturbing it makes charter schools look like petri dishes for fraud. The director of one charter school diverted $2.6 million in school funds to rebuild his church. Another stole $8 million for "houses, a Florida condominium, and an airplane." Yet another used taxpayer funds to finance "a restaurant, a health food store, and a private school." A couple stole nearly $1 million for their personal use.

There are more revelations in the report -- and it only covers one state.

And yet, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, charter schools continue to be talked up by Bill Clinton, whose recent boosterism was described by Salon's Luke Brinker as "stunning" in its variance with the facts. (Jeff Bryant has more on the reality behind Clinton's disingenuous remarks.)

5. The Ongoing Battle

De Blasio acted wisely in moving to end Bloomberg's gift of scarce New York City school resources to Moskowitz. He was ultimately forced to back down, at least in the short term, after her big-dollar backers won a victory in Albany.

That was no surprise, given the money behind the so-called "reformers." But it's not the end of the story, either. De Blasio's position on charter schools triggered a fierce response -- but it also triggered a long-overdue conversation.

By challenging the conventional wisdom on charter schools, Bill de Blasio has started something their backers didn't want: a genuine debate on their merits. He may have lost a battle, but if the debate continues he's likely to win the war.

Leadership Through Action

By taking actions which challenge the orthodoxy of his own party's corporate wing -- an orthodoxy shared and taken to extremes by the entire GOP -- Bill de Blasio is changing the political landscape. Although he is reportedly close to the Clintons (he managed Hillary's 2000 senatorial campaign), his executive decisions are offering a new political vision for progressives who have felt starved for representation in the two-party system of recent decades.

De Blasio's deeds haven't been limited to education and welfare, of course. As we've discussed elsewhere, he's taken on issues that range from the minimum wage to the environment, and to housing as a human right.

He's made mistakes, and he's all but certain to make more as he navigates difficult political waters. De Blasio's trying to effect change from within the political process, which is always a risky endeavor. But he's made great strides in a short time. His is the sort of leadership which can change the national political landscape even as it improves the quality of life for his constituents.

Bill de Blasio is using his position as mayor of New York to lead -- with action as well as words. And for that he's owed a debt of gratitude.

Source

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Friday that the case for raising interest rates has strengthened in light of a solid job market and an improved outlook for the US economy and inflation.

At a gathering of central bankers from round the world in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Yellen said improvements in the USA labor market and expectations for moderate economic growth have boosted the case for a rate rise, supporting what the rate futures market has been pricing in for some time. The gains were all but erased after Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said her remarks leave open the possibility of boosting rates in September.

The economy is "nearing" the Fed's goals of full employment and stable prices, share said.

With an interest rate hike unlikely in the immediate future, the dollar is struggling to gain traction.

Still Yellen declined to hint at whether the Fed might raise rates at its next policy meeting, September 20-21, or at its subsequent meetings in early November and mid-December.

The head of America's central bank said the case for an interest rate hike had strengthened but stopped short of indicating any timetable for a move.

"Yellen's speech at Jackson Hole today didn't necessarily offer much in the way of surprises", said OANDA senior market analyst Craig Erlam.

"New policy tools, which helped the Federal Reserve respond to the financial crisis and Great Recession, are likely to remain useful in dealing with future downturns", Yellen said. Although setting a hawkish tone and perhaps trying to sound balanced, Yellen did issue a few cautionary words, but for the most part, she indicated that more rate hikes were on the horizon.

Although US government data earlier on Friday showed the economy growing only sluggishly in the second quarter, Yellen said a lot of new jobs were being created and economic growth would likely continue at a moderate pace.

Yellen's words returned a measure of clarity on the intentions of U.S. monetary policymakers, who have been publicly at odds in recent months over the need to raise rates in the near-term. "On balance, it strengthened the case for a December move", said Bill Northey, chief investment officer for the private client group at U.S. Bank in Helena, Montana.

Prices for fed funds futures implied investors saw about even odds that the Fed will raise rates in December, largely unchanged from before Yellen's remarks.

The dollar eased to 100.47 yen from 100.55 yen Thursday in NY, while the euro nudged up to US$1.1291 from US$1.1281.

In a meeting, members of the groups Fed Up and the Center for Popular Democracy told Fed policymakers that the assessment that the USA was approaching full employment did not reflect life for many blacks and Latinos looking for work. The dollar's 5 percent loss this year reflects a dimming outlook for the US central bank to reduce stimulus and diverge from unprecedented easing in Europe and Asia.

In afternoon trading, the dollar index, which measures the greenback versus six major currencies, rose 0.8 percent at 95.563.

By Adam Cater

Source

On Monday at 11 a.m. at City Hall Park, “Representative Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), joined by New York State Assemblyman Marco Crespo and community leaders, will hold a press conference calling for secure housing for residents of Puerto Rico in support of the Housing Victims of Major Disasters Act, introduced by Rep. Espaillat earlier this Congress.” Other participants will include former City Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito, Frankie Miranda of Hispanic Federation, and Ana María Archila of Center for Popular Democracy, among others.

Read the full article here.

Source: El Diario

Ete mes, el alcalde de la ciudad de Nueva York Bill de Blasio anunció un sueldo mínimo garantizado de $15 para todos los empleados del gobierno municipal para fines de 2018. Esta es una gran victoria para más de 50,000 empleados en toda la ciudad que pasan apuros para mantener a su familia, incluidos aquellos directamente en planilla y decenas de miles que trabajan en organizaciones sin fines de lucro contratadas por la ciudad.

A diferencia de Seattle y Los Ángeles, donde los funcionarios municipales tienen el poder para aumentar el sueldo mínimo de todos los empleados de su ciudad, el alcalde De Blasio no puede aumentar los salarios de todos los trabajadores de la ciudad de Nueva York unilateralmente. El gobernador Andrew Cuomo y la legislatura estatal tienen ese poder. Los esfuerzos del gobernador por incrementar el salario mínimo a $15 se están viendo obstaculizados por el Senado estatal, que está controlado por los republicanos.

La decisión de De Blasio de aumentar los sueldos de los empleados municipales es un paso independiente crucial hacia una ciudad más equitativa y debe inspirar a otras ciudades en el país. También refleja el poder e ímpetu de un movimiento revolucionario encabezado por los trabajadores que exigen salarios más altos en todo el país.

Incluso mientras los gobiernos estatales y el gobierno federal arrastran los pies con respecto al asunto inevitable de un salario mínimo decente para las familias trabajadoras en los Estados Unidos, el audaz paso que dio De Blasio muestra que las ciudades pueden y deben tomar las riendas del problema.

El aumento del salario mínimo por el alcalde se produjo poco después de su anuncio el mes pasado de que a los 20,000 empleados no sindicalizados de la ciudad se les otorgaría seis semanas de licencia remunerada por maternidad/paternidad y hasta 12 semanas, cuando se combine con licencias existentes. El alcalde ahora ha pasado a negociar los mismos beneficios con los sindicatos de la ciudad. Nuevamente, los trabajadores del sector privado de la ciudad de Nueva York deben esperar a que Albany o Washington, D.C. tome medidas con respecto a licencia familiar pagada para todos.

Las medidas recientes del alcalde De Blasio apoyan su objetivo de sacar a 800,000 neoyorquinos de la pobreza durante los próximos diez años. Más de 20 por ciento de la población de la ciudad vive en condiciones de pobreza, un enorme sector de una ciudad normalmente relacionada con extraordinaria riqueza.

En los dos últimos años se ha visto un ímpetu sin paralelo de parte de los propios trabajadores exigiendo sueldos decentes, desde la ciudad de Nueva York hasta Los Ángeles y Chicago, lo que resultó en aumentos salariales para los trabajadores de negocios de comida rápida y otros grupos.

Los trabajadores no esperan pacientemente a los funcionarios públicos; se están organizando de manera sin precedente. Alcaldes progresistas como De Blasio están respondiendo con políticas sensatas, mientras los funcionarios que no desean responder ya saben lo que se viene. Ciudades como Los Ángeles, Nueva York y Chicago están preparando el terreno y mostrando que es posible actuar independientemente de gobiernos estatales y el gobierno federal.

Además, varios estados han promulgado leyes que aumentan el salario mínimo por encima del mísero estándar de $7.25 por hora. Actualmente se realizan campañas en 14 estados y cuatro ciudades para aumentar el sueldo mínimo y los estándares a favor de los trabajadores. El ímpetu se está convirtiendo en una avalancha que tendrá consecuencias profundas en las elecciones presidenciales del 2016.

Casi la mitad de los trabajadores del país ganan menos de $15 por hora y 43 millones se ven forzados a trabajar cuando están enfermos o tienen la necesidad urgente de cuidar a alguien, o de lo contrario, ponen en peligro su empleo. Es el momento de que las ciudades escuchen a sus trabajadores y pasen por encima de la pasividad estatal y federal a fin de permitir que millones de estadounidenses que trabajan muy duro mantengan a sus familias.

-JoEllen Chernow es directora de la campaña a favor del salario mínimo y licencia pagada por enfermedad en el Center for Popular Democracy.