Fed Chair Janet Yellen: Slowdown in job market likely ‘transitory’
Fed Chair Janet Yellen: Slowdown in job market likely ‘transitory’
Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen expressed hope Tuesday morning that the slowdown in the U.S. job market...
Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet L. Yellen expressed hope Tuesday morning that the slowdown in the U.S. job market would prove temporary, but she emphasized that the central bank would be cautious in raising interest rates again.
Yellen, testifying before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, acknowledged that hiring has dropped off sharply in recent months, but she also pointed to early signs that wages are beginning to rise after years of stagnation. She said she is "optimistic" that the progress in employment will continue.
"We believe that will turn around, expect it to turn around, but we are taking a cautious approach … to make sure that expectation is borne out," Yellen told lawmakers.
The Fed is responsible for charting the course for the nation’s economy, with the dual mission to keep prices stable and strengthen employment. It does that by adjusting the influential federal funds rate. A higher rate helps curb inflation by making borrowing money more expensive, which discourages spending and investment and reins in economic growth. A lower rate means that money is cheap, stimulating purchases by households and businesses. That helps boost employment and speeds up the economy.
The Fed chief's assessment comes less than a week after the Fed unanimously voted to leave its benchmark interest rate unchanged. The central bank raised rates in December for the first time since the Great Recession but has not done so again amid persistent concerns about the health of the global economy.
Yellen said Tuesday that there is still "considerable uncertainty" over her outlook, with such risks as slow growth at home, turbulence in China and volatility in financial markets.
The most immediate threat comes from across the Atlantic Ocean, where Britain will vote Thursday on whether to remain in the European Union. A decision to exit — popularly known as Brexit — would upend Britain's four-decade partnership with the continent and throw the future of Europe’s open market into doubt.
Already, the British pound has been on a roller coaster as the probability of departure shifts with each poll. International policymakers have warned that a decision to leave would lower economic growth in the country by more than 5 percent over the next three years and potentially ripple across the rest of the world.
"A U.K. vote to exit the European Union could have significant economic repercussions," Yellen said Tuesday.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed slashed its target rate all the way to zero and pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in a bid to bolster the American recovery. More than seven years later, it is finally in the process of withdrawing that support.
The first move was in December, when the Fed nudged its target rate up to a range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent. At the time, officials anticipated raising rates four times this year, but the uncertainty in the global economy has forced them to downgrade that projection. Most Fed officials now think only two rate hikes are warranted this year, and a growing number think only one will be necessary.
That shift in thinking at the central bank is evident in Yellen’s own statements. Just last month, she had signaled that the central bank could raise rates "probably in the coming months." But Yellen dropped the reference in a speech early this month, after disappointing government data showed employers added just 38,000 jobs in May. And last week, she told reporters that she is "not comfortable to say it's in the next meeting or two."
On Tuesday, Yellen made the case for caution. Because rates are already so low, the Fed has limited room to reduce them further if the economy were to weaken, she said. Moving gradually also gives the central bank time to assess whether its forecast of continued economic improvement will come true.
"Our cautious approach to adjusting monetary policy remains appropriate," she said.
The Fed has faced criticism from both the left and the right recently over its governance. Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Banking Committee, opened the hearing Tuesday by calling on the Fed to follow more stringent rules for setting policy and to explain when it deviates.
"The desire to preserve the Fed’s independence, however, should not preclude consideration of additional measures to increase the transparency of the board’s actions," he said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) focused on diversity within the Fed’s top ranks. Last month, more than 100 lawmakers sent a letter to Yellen arguing for more minority representation among its leadership.
The central bank is led by a board of governors based in Washington and 12 regional bank presidents scattered throughout the country. The governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but regional bank leaders are chosen by local boards of directors.
Those officials tend to be white men. Yellen is the first woman to serve as chair in the central bank’s 101-year history. Only three Fed governors have been African American, and there have been no black regional bank presidents. No one now in the top brass is Hispanic.
By Ylan Q. Mui
Source
What Does Jeff Flake's Vote Mean? Brett Kavanaugh Is Still in the Running, For Now
What Does Jeff Flake's Vote Mean? Brett Kavanaugh Is Still in the Running, For Now
If you were tuned into the Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday afternoon, you may have witnessed a confusing moment:...
If you were tuned into the Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday afternoon, you may have witnessed a confusing moment: Hours after Senator Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, announced in a statement that he would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, he showed up late to the vote and then asked for a delay on the Senate floor vote, pending an FBI investigation. A quick vote along the roll call occurred...and then the hearing was abruptly adjourned.
Read the full article here.
Want To Change The Face Of Politics? Help Teens Register To Vote.
Want To Change The Face Of Politics? Help Teens Register To Vote.
In a recent Center for Popular Democracy report, we detailed examples of youth-focused campaigns for high school...
In a recent Center for Popular Democracy report, we detailed examples of youth-focused campaigns for high school registration around the country. In Phoenix, organizers at Living United for Change in Arizona regularly go door-to-door registering eligible students in the 27,000-student Phoenix Union High School district. They also work with school district officials to integrate voter registration in high schools.
Read the full article here.
Charter School Cheats: New Report On Charter Industry Exposes $100 million In Taxpayer Funds Meant For Children Instead Lost To Fraud, Waste & Abuse
ProgressOhio - May 16, 2014 - A new report released today reveals that fraudulent charter operators in 15 states are...
ProgressOhio - May 16, 2014 - A new report released today reveals that fraudulent charter operators in 15 states are responsible for losing, misusing or wasting over $100 million in taxpayer money.
“Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud And Abuse,” authored by the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education, echoes a warning from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General. The report draws upon news reports, criminal complaints and more to detail how, in just 15 of the 42 states that have charter schools, charter operators have used school funds illegally to buy personal luxuries for themselves, support their other businesses, and more.
The report also includes recommendations for policymakers on how they can address the problem of rampant fraud, waste and abuse in the charter school industry. Both organizations recommend pausing charter expansion until these problems are addressed.
“We expected to find a fair amount of fraud when we began this project, but we did not expect to find over $100 million in taxpayer dollars lost. That’s just in 15 states. And that figure fails to capture the real harm to children. Clearly, we should hit the pause button on charter expansion until there is a better oversight system in place to protect our children and our communities,” said Kyle Serrette, the Director of Education Justice at the Center for Popular Democracy.”
“Our school system exists to serve students and enrich communities,” added Sabrina Stevens, Executive Director of Integrity in Education. “School funding is too scarce as it is; we can hardly afford to waste the resources we do have on people who would prioritize exotic vacations over school supplies or food for children. We also can’t continue to rely on the media or isolated whistleblowers to identify these problems. We need to have rules in place that can systematically weed out incompetent or unscrupulous charter operators before they pose a risk to students and taxpayers.”
You can read the report by going to www.integrityineducation.org or www.populardemocracy.org.
Source
Families, Lawmakers to Speak at Rally in Washington, DC on Six-Month Anniversary of Hurricane María
Families, Lawmakers to Speak at Rally in Washington, DC on Six-Month Anniversary of Hurricane María
“Protesters will gather for a rally at the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then...
“Protesters will gather for a rally at the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then march towards several congressional offices to voice their demands. The event is organized by Power 4 Puerto Rico, a coalition made up of the Hispanic Federation and Center for Popular Democracy, among other community organizations.”
Read the full article here.
Why the Federal Reserve is due for a radical reinvention
The Federal Reserve is a hot topic in the news these days. Usually, the stories revolve around the merits of its...
The Federal Reserve is a hot topic in the news these days. Usually, the stories revolve around the merits of its decisions: Was quantitative easing a good idea? Should it raise interest rates again in April? But Andrew Levin, a Dartmouth economist and former aide to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, thinks our questions need to go much deeper.
On Monday, Levin and the activist campaign Fed Up proposed four major reforms that would radically alter the structure of the Federal Reserve. The reason they cite is compellingly simple: How the Fed works is basically out of whack with what it does today.
The Federal Reserve began around a century ago as a decentralized and private institution aimed at avoiding financial panics and making sure the interactions between the nation's for-profit banks remained stable. Since then, it's basically become a kind of government agency, with a fundamental role in shaping the American economy and the supply of wages and jobs for everyday workers. But the design and governance of the Fed has not kept up with that shift in responsibilities.
To understand why, let's start at the very beginning. Western economies began creating central banks several centuries ago as modern capitalism was first coming into focus, to serve as a "lender of last resort." Private banks could go and borrow from the central bank when times were tight — even if was just for a few days — and that would quell potential financial panics and bank runs. As a result, central banks were generally created by government charters, but as private corporations whose shares were owned by the banks that borrowed from them. "When the Bank of England and some other major central banks were founded, they were viewed as mostly providing services to commercial banks," as Levin explained to The Week.
America's Federal Reserve was created in 1913 under very similar circumstances. A potential financial crisis in 1907 was averted only when J.P. Morgan stepped in to backstop the country's private banks with his own personal fortune. No one wanted a repeat of that, so the Fed was created. It's actually a system of 12 regions, each overseen by a Fed branch bank — there's one in Dallas, in Richmond, in New York City, and so forth — with the private banks owning the shares of whatever Fed bank oversees their region.
More importantly, each regional Fed bank is run by a board of nine directors, six of whom are appointed by the private banking industry. The other three are appointed by the Federal Reserve system's national Board of Governors — a seven-member group appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate. Together, the directors appoint a president to run their particular regional bank, rather like a CEO and a corporate board: They set the president's salary, review his or her performance, etc. All nine used to do that, but Dodd-Frank reformed the system in 2010 so that three of the six governors appointed by the private banks no longer play a role in selecting the president.
Over the course of the 20th Century, various developments like the end of the gold standard and the creation of federal deposit insurance diluted the importance of the regional banks as lenders of last resort. At the same time, however, the regional banks found themselves owning large amounts of financial instruments as a result of serving that role. So they created a joint national group to manage all those holdings called the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), and over time it grew in importance. Its decisions are determined by 12 votes: the seven members of the Board of Governors, plus five of the 12 regional presidents. (The 12 presidents rotate through the voting positions, while the other seven sit in on the FOMC but don't vote.)
Today, when we talk about the Fed setting interest rates or meeting to decide monetary policy — which in turn decides the rate of wage growth and the supply of jobs throughout the entire national economy — we're talking about the FOMC. "For all practical purposes, the Federal Reserve today is a public enterprise," Levin said. "It's serving the public. It's making nationally critical decisions."
The problem is the Federal Reserve system was originally conceived of and designed as an add-on to the private banking industry, and that design has remained even as the nature and responsibilities of the Fed have change enormously: "This whole rationale that made perfect sense in 1913 doesn't make sense anymore," Levin said. The result is an institution that, while of enormous import to the public good, is incredibly complex, opaque, and governed with comparatively little input from everyday Americans.
"The Fed, in order to be effective, has to have the confidence of the public," Levin said. But allowing the banks to hold such enormous sway over the decision-making of the institution tasked with both setting national interest rates and regulating the financial system undermines that confidence. Economist Dean Baker analogized it to "reserving seats on the Federal Communications Commission’s board for the cable television industry." Levin himself likened it to allowing criminal attorneys or defense lawyers to select the director of the FBI and set his or her salary and performance review.
So Levin has put forward four major reforms. They're broad, and the details for how they could play out are negotiable, but they're aimed at starting a conversation around the topic.
One is to eliminate private ownership of shares in the Federal Reserve system and make it fully public, but more importantly to completely reform how the nine directors of each regional bank are appointed. This could involve reducing the number of directors, but mostly it would involve selecting them all via the same process, one that brings in all aspects of the community — small businesses, community groups, unions, non-profits, etc. In particular, directors should not come from institutions — i.e. private banks and financial entities — that the Fed system is tasked with overseeing.
The next step would be to make the process by which the nine directors for each region select their president public and transparent. As Ady Barkan, the campaign director for Fed Up, pointed out in a press call, when all 12 regional president slots were up for replacement in February, all 12 were quietly and opaquely re-appointed — even after the Fed Up campaign pressed Fed officials to lay out a system by which the public could participate. The ones for Dallas, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia were all previously associated with Goldman Sachs. St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard once told Barkan that, "To call the reappointment process pro forma would be an understatement."
Third would be to set term limits for Fed officials. Make them long enough to insulate those officials from political pressure. But don't allow them to serve multiple terms one after the other as they can now.
And finally, apply the same transparency standards to the Fed that are applied to other government agencies: Allow the Government Accountability Office to publish an annual review of all the Fed's operations and policies, and make sure both the Fed's Inspector General and the Freedom of Information Act apply to the 12 regional banks as well as the national Board of Governors.
"What I've proposed is something that seems incremental, workable, and helpful," Levin concluded. And despite arguments over whether the Fed is making the right choices in the here and now about things like interest rates, Levin's goal is much bigger: to make the Fed a healthy functioning member of our democracy long after the current economic situation — and whatever particular monetary policy stance it calls for — has passed.
"These reforms are to improve governance, accountability and transparency," Levin said. "We live in a democracy — and the government is supposed to serve the public."
By Jeff Spross
Source
New York City Council Passes Bill Forcing Employers to Provide Paid Sick Leave
The New American - May 9th, 2013 - On Wednesday the New York City Council...
The New American - May 9th, 2013 - On Wednesday the New York City Council voted 45-3 to pass the New York City Earned Sick Time Act, a bill that will require employers with more than 20 employees to provide five paid sick days to each of them every year while mandating that those employees using their sick days can’t be fired. The law would become effective on January 1, 2014, and companies with more than 15 employees would be required to comply with the law starting in 2015.
Even if Mayor Bloomberg vetoes the bill, the council will likely override it, making the law effective anyway. This will impact the employers of more than one million employees who currently have no paid sick days provided for them. The costs to be borne by those employers weren't provided in any public announcements.
The AFL/CIO explained why such legislation was needed:
In addition to the potential loss of wages for working families, the lack of paid sick days forces many people to go to work when they are contagious and [make] co-workers and customers sick.
No paid sick time also decreases [the] productivity for workers who show up unable to perform to their normal level of ability.
The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) was joyous over the vote, calling it “a historic agreement to give over one million New Yorkers the right to take paid days off from work to care for themselves or a sick family member. The new legislation represents a major step forward for workers’ rights.” The CPD was joined by Make the Road New York; 32 BJ SEIU, the largest property service workers union; NYC City Council’s Progressive Caucus; the Working Families Party; A Better Balance; and the NY Paid Sick Leave Coalition.
Bill Lipton of the Working Families Party was equally ecstatic: "This is a sweet victory. It provides economic security for New Yorkers, and a shot in the arm for the paid sick days movement across the country."
The bill was first introduced by council member Gale Brewer, a permanent politician and long-time progressive political activist, back in July 2009 but went nowhere for nearly four years, owing to resistance by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Quinn’s change to allow a vote coincided nicely with her announcement in March to run to succeed Mayor Bloomberg.
Brewer exulted in the victory:
After 4 years of non-stop advocacy and coalition building, I want to thank the Paid Sick Days Coalition members and my Council colleagues with all my heart for support [of my bill] and never giving up.
I also extend my thanks to Speaker Quinn and her staff for their contributions to this legislation….
The argument over [paid sick leave] was always about common sense and fairness. I believe this law enshrines the principle that American exceptionalism is not just about large profits and small elites, but a workplace that is safe, fair and respectful of the lives of workers.
Approximately one million New Yorkers will now have the fundamental right to a paid day off when they or a family member falls ill, and no worker will be fired if they must stay home. This is a tremendous accomplishment of which all fair-minded New Yorkers can be proud.
Four major cities have already passed paid sick leave laws — Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. — while similar measures are being considered in 20 others. On the national level, two other progressives, Sen. Tom Harken (D-Iowa) and Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn.), are pushing the Healthy Families Act, which proposes essentially the same thing as Brewer’s bill: seven paid sick days each year required to be paid for by employers with more than 15 employees. The National Partnership for Women & Families outlined the benefits of such national legislation:
• Paid sick days provide families with economic security;
• Providing paid sick days is cost effective to employers;
• Paid sick days reduce community contagion;
• Paid sick days can decrease health care costs.
Each of these assumptions can be rebutted successfully, but none does it better than Ayn Rand, who always asked “At whose expense?” and Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson, which also asked about the unseen consequences of such meddling. The "broken window fallacy" is also helpful in understanding what progressives refuse to see: Someone must pay for such mandates, usually someone silent or impotent, without enough political influence to stop such “progress” — usually the taxpayers or employers unlucky enough to have a successful business large enough to be included in the mandate.
Some of the unseen consequences would naturally include higher employment costs to the business owners, as these are, in effect, pay raises to employees. The business owners' higher costs would be reflected in higher prices to consumers, which would likely reduce competitive advantage in a market niche. More likely, however, owners will discover that they can’t afford all the people working for them and will be forced to reduce their payrolls through terminations or attrition. That will increase social costs, as those no longer working will start receiving unemployment benefits provided by the state.
In the longer run, however, making employers less competitive will shrink rather than expand the general economy. Some will not hire new workers. Others may decide to retire, deciding that it’s no longer worth the effort, as government becomes more and more intrusive. Still others may choose to move out of the city, or the state, to more tax-friendly environments, further reducing the city’s economic output.
The biggest cost of all, however, is the continued and growing acceptance of government intervention as a way to solve perceived social “problems” and giving progressives more opportunities to expand the power and reach of government
Perhaps the best rebuttal is to review the bill of rights of another country, well-known to historians, which also had a progressive agenda very similar to that of Quinn, Brewer, and the AFL/CIO. It stated:
Citizens … have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality….
Citizens … have the right to rest and leisure … the reduction of the working day to seven hours … [and] the institution of annual vacations with full pay….
Citizens … have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work … ensured by the extensive development of social insurance for workers and employees. [Emphasis added.]
These are, of course, the rights enshrined in the 1936 Constitution of the USSR.
A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.
Source
From Seattle to St. Petersburg: Highlights of the Urban Resistance, Year 1
From Seattle to St. Petersburg: Highlights of the Urban Resistance, Year 1
Donald Trump’s first year in office will be remembered in this country as a nightmare of national debasement, a time...
Donald Trump’s first year in office will be remembered in this country as a nightmare of national debasement, a time during which the worst America has to offer was on open display: immigration roundups and white supremacist rallies, plutocratic tax policies and oil drilling in the Arctic, nuclear brinkmanship with North Korea, and a US-backed war against Yemen. The frightful headlines, the garbage hot takes, the nonstop onslaught of official lies are so consuming and absolute that they start to feel normal, which is the worst feeling of all.
Read the full article here.
This Is What Chicago Can Learn From America's Other Police Accountability Taskforces
This Is What Chicago Can Learn From America's Other Police Accountability Taskforces
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ...
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced the formation of a police accountability task force Tuesday.
In a Monday press release, the mayor said the five-member body — which he will appoint, and which will be advised by former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick — "will review the system of accountability, oversight and training that is currently in place for Chicago's police officers," according to the Chicago Tribune.
"The shooting of Laquan McDonald requires more than just words," Emanuel said in a statement. "It requires that we act."
The announcement came one week after a Cook County judge compelled the city to release video footage of the Oct. 2014 killing of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, which was captured on a patrol car dash camera but kept under wraps for 13 months.
McDonald's killer, Officer Jason Van Dyke, shot the teenager 16 times in front of multiple witnesses but was charged with first-degree murder only last week. The sluggish circumstances of the release have since drawn accusations of an administrative cover-up. Van Dyke was released from jail Monday after posting ten percent of his $150,000 bail.
Mayor Emanuel also fired Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy on Tuesday, in response to calls from the public and some officials to have him removed. Meanwhile, the video's release has set off a week of protests in Chicago, as questions remain regarding next steps.
Jason Van Dyke is the first Chicago police officer to be charged with first-degree murder for an on-duty incident in 35 years, a fact that has elicited doubt Emanuel's task force will yield substantive results.
"Our first thought is that this [task force] can't be a substitute for what's really needed here, which is a full-scale federal investigation of the Chicago Police Department with subpoena power," Ed Yohnka, Director of Communications and Public Policy at the ACLU of Illinois, told Mic. "Whatever this task force does, what we've witnessed in this and other instances is a fundamental breakdown in the ability of police to protect the public, and the public's faith in CPD."
Others echoed Yohnka's skepticism. "Appointing a committee to look into an issue is a tried-and-true tactic elected officials long have employed to buy time and breathing room when faced with a scandal or crisis," wrotethe Chicago Tribune. "[It] gives Emanuel something else to talk to reporters and the public about other than the ... video."
Indeed, it's unclear how effective police accountability task forces in other cities have been. An Inspectors General was appointed in Los Angeles, New York City and New Orleans have uncovered systemic abuses and identified problems that shoddy or nonexistent data collection had rendered invisible over the past decade. Seattle has a 15-member community police commission, appointed by the mayor, to review oversight and accountability processes.
However, "there is no clear evidence that these oversight bodies alone are effective in obtaining meaningful reforms," according to a Justice in Policing report and toolkit from the Center for Popular Democracy and PolicyLink, both policy advocacy organizations.
Yohnka suggested to Mic that a more tried route to change in Chicago would require a U.S. Department of Justice investigation. "That confidence needs to be restored, that someone in power is actively looking into this," he said. "But it's systemic. This issue pervades multiple superintendents and multiple people in terms of leadership in the department. It requires a systemic approach to accountability, transparency and how law enforcement operates."
One such DOJ examination of the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department published in March laid bare a hotbed of racist law enforcement practices that yielded reform suggestions amidst a national conversation around racism and policing. This is not a unique phenomenon. According to the Washington Post, the DOJ has launched 67 investigations into police departments across the U.S. over the past decade, 24 of which were closed without reform agreements, and just 26 of which resulted in "binding agreements tracked by monitors."
Results have been mixed. The long-term effect of these agreements are not tracked by the DOJ, making it hard to tell if they actually work.
"We don't tend to evaluate .?.?. after we have left," Vanita Gupta, principal deputy assistant attorney general of the department's civil rights division, told the Post. "There's a limit to how much we can .?.?. remain engaged with a particular jurisdiction given our limited resources."
This leaves little precedent for a positive outcome in Chicago — a city with a staggering recent history of police abuse. Over the past decade, the city has spent $500 million on legal costs and settlements stemming from law enforcement misconduct, including $5 million paid out to Laquan McDonald's family in April.
That same month, Chicago set up a $5.5 million fund to compensate victims of former-CPD Commander John Burge, who tortured and sexually abused more than 100 mostly black arrestees during his tenure with the department. The case of Dante Servin, an off-duty officer who fired into a crowd and killed 22-year-old Rekia Boyd in 2012, was also dismissed in April because state's attorney Anita Alvarez — whose office has a history of questionable conduct — charged him with a crime the judge deemed too severe for what he did.
The McDonald case has also been plagued by scandal, including allegations that police officers tampered with surveillance tape that captured the shooting from a nearby Burger King, resulting in 86 minutes of footage gone missing.
Some have suggested the mere appearance of police accountability can have positive effects, lending legitimacy to law enforcement bodies that had formerly lost the trust of their communities. But in the case of Chicago, it may be too late for that.
"The reality is, we're kind of past the point of cosmetics here," said Ed Yohnka. "There's been this fundamental breakdown in terms of trust. Whether we're talking the Burge incidents or the millions of dollars in payouts to victims, there really needs to be a much broader look at what is going on."
Source: Mic
LIKE WOODY GUTHRIE BEFORE THEM, ROOTS MUSICIANS TAKE ON TRUMP THROUGH SONG
LIKE WOODY GUTHRIE BEFORE THEM, ROOTS MUSICIANS TAKE ON TRUMP THROUGH SONG
If there are two American figures one would least expect to be connected, they may well be Woody Guthrie and Donald...
If there are two American figures one would least expect to be connected, they may well be Woody Guthrie and Donald Trump. Guthrie, one of the most revered political songwriters ever to put pen to paper, has next to nothing in common with Republican presidential nominee Trump, a man who represents everything against which Guthrie fought as a folk singer and activist. But the two do have one connection: Trump's father, the late New York real estate mogul Fred C. Trump.
In the early 1950s, Guthrie was briefly a tenant of Trump's Beach Haven apartment complex, a Brooklyn property the elder Trump developed using an FHA subsidy specifically designated for affordable public housing. Years after Guthrie moved out of Beach Haven, in 1964, Trump would be investigated for profiteering, having, as Will Kaufman wrote in a story on Guthrie and Trump for The Conversation earlier this year, "overestimat[ed] his Beach Haven building charges to the tune of $3.7 million." And in 1973, six years after Guthrie's death from Huntington's disease at the age of 55, Trump was sued by the Justice Department for discriminating against Black people, eventually settling outside of court.
"In 1950, Woody and his family rented an apartment in the complex called Beach Haven that was owned by Fred Trump," Deana McCloud, Executive Director of Tulsa's Woody Guthrie Center, says. "After they moved in, it came to [Guthrie’s] attention that the elder Mr. Trump would not lease apartments to African-Americans, which did not sit very well with Woody, as an advocate for civil rights."
It was the racism of "Old Man Trump" that stoked the most intense anger in Guthrie, inspiring him to write two sets of writing -- the first being the better known "Beach Haven Ain't My Home," a re-working of an existing Guthrie song called "Ain't Got No Home" and one that is often referred to as "Old Man Trump," and the second, "Racial Hate at Beach Haven." Both writings are available on view at the Guthrie Center and, since Kaufman's piece was published, have been fodder for outlets as large as NPR and the New York Times, once again relevant in light of the 2016 election. As seen in the images provided by Kaufman, Guthrie punctuated his lyrics with exclamation points, a seemingly small detail that McCloud finds very telling.
"What’s really interesting for me is, I looked at the lyrics for ‘Beach Haven Ain’t My Home’ and -- of course, we have thousands of examples of Woody’s handwriting and very seldom does he use exclamation points -- in this particular lyric, every line is followed by an exclamation point," she says with a slight laugh. "His emotions are very apparent in the lyrics. It was just an issue with him, the idea that people should be separated and kept apart in anything, but especially when it comes to allowing them to live together and learn together and cooperate with each other."
A reimagined "Old Man Trump," recorded by Santa Barbara band U.S. Elevator, made its way into current headlines just a few days ago as part of the "30 Days, 30 Songs" project, an initiative spearheaded by acclaimed author Dave Eggers (famous for works like 2000's A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and the more recent novel A Hologram for the King; he also documented his time at a Sacramento Trump rally for the Guardian) and Zeitgeist Artist Management's Jordan Kurland, who is known for his integral role in the careers of artists like Death Cab for Cutie and Bob Mould. The project, which kicked off October 10, is a playlist of anti-Trump songs, proceeds from which will benefit the Center for Popular Democracy, written and/or performed by a diverse roster of artists that includes Aimee Mann, Jim James, R.E.M., and Adia Victoria. At press time, the initiative has grown to become "30 Days, 40 Songs," and could continue to grow larger as Election Day draws nearer. "30 Days" follows the pair's 2012 effort "90 Days, 90 Reasons," a series of essays by figures like Roxane Gay and George Saunders that argued for the re-election of President Barack Obama.
"One of the things that really struck [Eggers] about the rally was the music that was being played," Kurland says. "It was so off-base from Trump’s message, you know? It was Elton John’s 'Tiny Dancer' or Bruce Springsteen or the Who -- clearly just songs that didn’t make sense contextually, but also songs that there’s no way the artists would have approved. So Dave came back with the idea to get artists to write songs that should be played at Trump rallies, with that meaning they could be songs either directly about Donald Trump or songs that celebrate all the things that Donald Trump is against, like diversity and freedom of speech, etcetera, etcetera."
Nashville artist Adia Victoria -- who speaks powerfully on race, class, and Southern culture in both her music and in interviews -- contributed the sparse, sobering "Backwards Blues" to the playlist. When sharing the song on Facebook, she wrote, "Perhaps the greatest irony is how a campaign fueled by outright lies reveals a deep-seated kernel of truth of what far too many Americans hold up as sacred: massive wealth, the sway of celebrity, branding, power, and greed. I don't want to say that he's the president we deserve, yet here we are."
Many other musicians outside of the "30 Days" project have found themselves getting political in recent months, too. Ani DiFranco recently released the song "Play God" which, while not overtly anti-Trump, champions women's reproductive rights, a message that flies in the face of Trump's endlessly mysognistic rhetoric and behavior. "As we prepare for our first woman president, isn't this the perfect time for all of us to put women's civil rights into law?" DiFranco asks. "Make reproductive freedom a Constitutional amendment. With the Supreme Court in flux, we cannot afford to leave our rights in the balance."
Revered Nashville/Austin songwriter Radney Foster contributed to the conversation with "All That I Require" -- what he describes as an "anti-fascism history lesson" that, to name only one example, feels especially chilling in light of Trump's third debate comments about his reluctance to concede the election were Clinton to win the presidency.
"The voices of extremism and fascism are ringing more loudly in our national debate than ever before in my lifetime," Foster says. "Questioning the free press and the peaceful transition of power never ends well. All of the sloganeering in the song are taken from Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco -- demagogues from the right and the left. I hope the song is something that will make us all, Democrat or Republican, do some soul-searching about what kind of country we want to be.”
One of the most powerful, acclaimed albums of 2016, the Drive-By Truckers' latest release American Band, was described by Slate's Carl Wilson as "the perfect album for the year of Trump." DBT songwriters Patterson Hood and Mike Cooley address a number of difficult topics, including racism, immigration, and police brutality, on the LP, with songs like "Ramon Casiano" and "What It Means" two standouts (among a consistently stellar batch of songs) whose narratives have chilling parallels: The first describes the death of Mexican teenager Ramon Casiano at the hands of Harlon B. Carter; the second refers to the murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, as well as cases like the police killing of Michael Brown. The album grapples with many of the very issues for which Trump stands, providing alternative viewpoints from, as Wilson describes, a group of men "embodying the stereotypical demographics of a Trump voter (white, male, middle-age, non–college-educated)."
Akron, Ohio, songwriter Joseph Arthur released his anti-Trump number, "The Campaign Song," which juxtaposes audio and video of clips of Trump shouting catchphrases like "Build That Wall" with lyrics like "Trump is a chump," earlier this month and invoked Guthrie's legacy as a political songwriter, as well as his unfortunate connection to the Trump family. "Woody Guthrie wrote a protest song about Donald Trump’s grandfather," Arthur wrote on his website. "So this is like carrying the torch for Woody. I used the lingo of a by-gone era to accentuate that aspect like ‘America really should boot bums like this out’ and ‘Old scratch’. I wanted to use the lingo of Trump’s elders as subtle form of linguistic manipulation designed to send him under his bed shivering like the whimpering maggot that he is.”
A particularly biting critique of Trump, his policies and his deeply flawed Trump University comes from folk singer/songwriter Anthony D'Amato, who released the song "If You're Gonna Build a Wall" and its accompanying video via MoveOn's Facebook page last week. D'Amato was inspired to write the song, which references Trump's desire to build a wall between Mexico and the United States and includes lines like "Oh if you're gonna build a wall / You better be ready the day it falls," after covertly attending a Trump Rally in Long Island.
"I wrote this song last Summer during the primaries," D'Amato says. "I was home from tour with a broken finger and bombarded by election news every day. The rhetoric was dark and divisive and ran counter to a lot of the ideals I always felt like this country was built on. Trump's campaign was the initial spark, but the song touches on race and class and privilege, too. History doesn't look kindly on those who build themselves up by excluding and demonizing the less powerful. If you're going to do that, you'd better be prepared for the consequences."
Pioneer Valley band Parsonsfield also felt compelled to write about Trump's hypothetical wall, expressing their frustration in the song "Barbed Wire," a stirring track off their recently released album Blooming through the Black. "It's funny how the loudest voices championing freedom are the ones who want to erect the clearest symbol of restrictiveness," the band's Chris Freeman says. "It will never happen, but the rhetoric is frightening enough. The song references the wall in the sense that they are often built as a mechanism to keep others out. The builder usually fails to see that they are also the ones being kept in.”
Like his father's before him, Donald Trump's policies seek to exclude rather than unite. And like Guthrie before them, today's musicians are using their platforms to voice progressive platforms, the latest entrants into the long, continually evolving songbook of American protest music. Protest music is most commonly attributed to the 1960s -- just look at this year's somewhat unusual, certainly polarizing winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature -- but it's a tradition that's been around in America for centuries. To name just two, non-'60s American milestones that birthed political music, the Civil War inspired a number of tunes, including "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" and "Song of the Abolitionist"; and the gay rights movement of the '80s and '90s brought us "Rebel Girl" by Bikini Kill and "True Colors" by Cyndi Lauper.
Trump is, of course, not the first politician to inspire musicians' ire (and he certainly won't be the last), although he has accomplished the not-so-desirable feat of doing so before the election results have even been tabulated. Bright Eyes, Radiohead, and, perhaps most famously, the Dixie Chicks were among the many artists who called out 43rd President George W. Bush through song. Ronald Reagan had the Ramones and Prince as detractors. And, in case you thought musicians only targeted Republicans, Democratic President Bill Clinton's indiscretions have been documented by artists as high-profile as Beyoncé -- though it's important to note that Monica Lewinsky is often, problematically, the target, instead of Clinton himself.
"The way that music makes a difference in society is still apparent today," McCloud says. "You still have those people who are raging against injustice and we know that Woody’s work is as relevant today as it was whenever he was writing it. The specific names might have changed a little, some specific details may have changed. But when you look at the lyrics that Woody wrote, and that Pete Seeger wrote, and Phil Ochs wrote, we’re still struggling with this huge divide between the people who have so much and those who struggle just to get by every day."
And while many artists choose to express political views through song, others take stances by withholding their music from candidates with whom they disagree. Just this year, the Trump campaign has received cease and desist letters (or, some cases, some very angry rhetoric) from the Rolling Stones, Adele, R.E.M. (who, along with Sleater-Kinney, just released their own "30 Days" tune), and several other artists regarding the usage of their songs at Trump rallies and events.
"Music and protest, for a very long time, have gone hand in hand," Kurland says. "For this particular project, it’s to get people inspired about the election or voting that have maybe been somewhat apathetic to it. Certainly Bernie Sanders captured a lot of people’s attention and imagination amongst younger voters and it just felt like, in May or June, there were people who were disappointed and people who weren’t really seeming like they were very engaged. So the idea of doing this is a way of getting people motivated by hearing a well-written song about an important topic. The goal with this project, and the other projects we've worked on in the past, is to appeal to younger voters who maybe don't fully grasp the importance of this election or understand how different the two candidates really are. I get so sick of hearing, 'Hillary is the lesser of two evils.' That couldn't be further from the truth."
While Guthrie isn't alive to sing us through these last few weeks leading up to election day, many of the issues for which he fought are, unfortunately, still issues today. McCloud believes he would have been just as disappointed by Donald's political rhetoric as he was by Fred's housing practices. "I certainly don’t want to put my thoughts into Woody’s voice by any means, but based on my knowledge of what he wrote and his perspective of things, I think, like many of us, it would be deeply troubling to him to see the lack of civility and the divisive nature of today’s political climate," she says. "This idea of getting together, walking together, talking together, solving problems is almost nonexistent in what we see today, and I think that would be deeply troubling to him."
Though it appears as though Hillary Clinton has all but clinched the election, the work to heal from and evolve past the divisive, racist, bigoted rhetoric in which the United States became ensnarled throughout this election is only just beginning. It's another chapter in a long, bloody story that is centuries long -- one that Guthrie, like his modern counterparts, immortalized in song, offering small glimpses of hope, wisdom, and catharsis for all of us hoping for a better world.
McCloud sums up Guthrie's feelings -- which were messy, uncomfortable, unresolved, but ultimately hopeful -- when she recounts his writing "Racial Hate at Beach Haven." "What I really love is the way he ends it," she says. "The last paragraph -- it’s so lyrical. It’s, ‘Let’s you and me shake hands together and get together and walk together and talk together and sing together and dance together and work together and play together and hold together and let’s get together and fight together and march together until we lick this goddamned racist hate together, what do you say?’ That’s Woody. He was upset. He was angry. But he still understood that this is a problem, and let’s sit down and talk about it and solve the problem instead of just being separate and having our own opinions. Let’s solve the problem."
By BRITTNEY MCKENNA
Source
2 days ago
2 days ago