CPD IN THE NEWS

Out and About Nashville - October 3, 2014 - A landmark report released today paints a stark picture of the added financial burdens faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans because of anti-LGBT laws at the national, state and local levels. According to the report, these laws contribute to significantly higher rates of poverty among LGBT Americans and create unfair financial penalties in the form of higher taxes, reduced wages and Social Security income, increased healthcare costs, and more. 

The momentum of recent court rulings overturning marriage bans across the country has created the impression that LGBT Americans are on the cusp of achieving full equality from coast-to-coast. But the new report, Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for Being LGBT in America, documents how inequitable laws harm the economic well-being of LGBT people in three key ways: by enabling legal discrimination in jobs, housing, credit and other areas; by failing to recognize LGBT families, both in general and across a range of programs and laws designed to help American families; and by creating barriers to safe and affordable education for LGBT students and the children of LGBT parents. 

Paying an Unfair Price was co-authored by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) and the Center for American Progress (CAP), in partnership with Center for Community Change, Center for Popular Democracy, National Association of Social Workers, and the National Education Association. It is available online at www.lgbtmap.org/unfair-price (link is external).

“Unfair laws deliver a one-two punch. They both drive poverty within the LGBT community and then hit people when they are down,” said Ineke Mushovic, Executive Director of MAP. “While families with means might be able to withstand the costs of extra taxation or the unfair denial of Social Security benefits, for an already-struggling family these financial penalties can mean the difference between getting by and getting evicted. Anti-LGBT laws do the most harm to the most vulnerable in the LGBT community, including those who are barely making ends meet, families with children, older adults, and people of color.”

The report documents the often-devastating consequences when the law fails LGBT families. For example, children raised by same-sex parents are almost twice as likely to be poor as children raised by married opposite-sex parents. Additionally, 15 percent of transgender workers have incomes of less than $10,000 per year; among the population as a whole, the comparable figure is just four percent. To demonstrate the connection between anti-LGBT laws and the finances of LGBT Americans and their families, the report outlines how LGBT people living in states with low levels of equality are more likely to be poor, both compared to their non-LGBT neighbors, and compared to their LGBT counterparts in state with high levels of equality. For example, the denial of marriage costs gay and lesbian families money; same-sex couples with children had just $689 less in household income than married opposite-sex couples in states with marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples, but had an astounding $8,912 less in household income in states lacking such protections.

DISCRIMINATORY LAWS CREATE A DEVASTATING CYCLE OF POVERTY

How do inequitable laws contribute to higher rates of poverty for LGBT people? The report documents how LGBT people in the United States face clear financial penalties because of three primary failures in the law.

Lack of protection from discrimination means that LGBT people can be fired, denied housing and credit, and refused medically-necessary healthcare simply because they are LGBT. The financial penalty: LGBT people can struggle to find work, make less on the job, and have higher housing and medical costs than their non-LGBT peers.

Refusal to recognize LGBT families means that LGBT families are denied many of the same benefits afforded to non-LGBT families when it comes to health insurance, taxes, vital safety-net programs, and retirement planning. The financial penalty: LGBT families pay more for health insurance, taxes, and legal assistance, and may be unable to access essential protections for their families in times of crisis.

Failure to adequately protect LGBT students means that LGBT people and their families often face a hostile, unsafe, and unwelcoming environment in local schools, as well as discrimination in accessing financial aid and other support. The financial penalty:LGBT youth are more likely to perform poorly in school and to face challenges pursuing postsecondary educational opportunities, as can youth with LGBT parents. This, in turn, can reduce their earnings over time, as well as their chances of having successful jobs and careers.

“Imagine losing your job or your home simply because of who you are or whom you love. Imagine having to choose between paying the rent and finding legal help so you can establish parenting rights for the child you have been raising from birth,” said Laura E. Durso, Director LGBT Progress at the Center for American Progress at CAP. “These are just a couple of the added costs that are harming the economic security of LGBT people across the country. It is unfair and un-American that LGBT people are penalized because of who they are, and it has real and profound effects on their ability to stay out of poverty and provide for their families.”

Paying an Unfair Price offers broad recommendations for helping strengthen economic security for LGBT Americans. Recommendations include: instituting basic nondiscrimination protections at the federal and state level; allowing same-sex couples to marry in all states; allowing LGBT parents to form legal ties with the children they are raising; and protecting students from discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“At a time when so many American families are struggling to make ends meet, the report's findings point to an even bleaker reality for those who are both LGBT and people of color," said Connie Razza, Director of Strategic Research at the Center for Popular Democracy. "Unchecked employment discrimination and laws that needlessly increase the costs of healthcare, housing and childcare are doing profound harm to our economic strength as a nation. This report offers real-life policy solutions that, if implemented, would protect some of our most vulnerable individuals and families."

“Reducing the unfair financial penalties that LGBT people face in this country because they are LGBT is not that complicated. It is a simple matter of treating LGBT Americans equally under the law. For example, extending the freedom to marry, including LGBT students in safe schools laws, and ending the exclusion of LGBT people from laws meant to protect families when a parent dies or becomes disabled,” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change.

Source

New York Times - January 28, 2013, by Kirk Semple - In the next several days, the deans of the nation’s top law schools will be notified of a new job opportunity for their graduating students. Applicants must be high achievers who want to be part of a groundbreaking start-up, live in New York City, train with veteran lawyers and help create a new paradigm in immigration representation.

The call comes from the Immigrant Justice Corps, a new group that received a life-giving injection on Tuesday when the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, a poverty-fighting philanthropy, approved more than $1.3 million in funding.

The initiative is the long-nurtured idea of Robert A. Katzmann, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, who has for years campaigned to redress a grave problem: the shortage of competent legal representation for immigrants, particularly those of modest means facing deportation.

The group’s plan is to recruit 25 graduating law students or recent graduates, immerse them in immigration law and then farm them out to community-based organizations. The young lawyers would commit to at least two years of service and as many as three.

“It’s a very simple concept, but it’s one that will not only ensure fairness for immigrants but will infuse our legal system with a generation of lawyers committed to serving those in need,” said Judge Katzmann, whose father was a refugee from Nazi Germany and whose maternal grandparents were immigrants from Russia.

The corps intends to hire a cadre of 25 lawyers every year, each earning a salary of $47,000 plus benefits. They will be assisted by recent college graduates with multilingual skills who will handle less complex cases, such as naturalization applications. The team will be supervised by a group of staff lawyers and advised by veteran lawyers.

Organizers estimate that by the third year, the corps will be handling nearly 15,000 cases a year, about double the number of immigration cases currently overseen by nonprofit organizations in New York City.

Robin Hood’s grants, while enough to get the initiative off the ground, will cover only a fraction of the project’s operating costs, which are expected to total about $4 million in the first year and about $7 million in each successive year.

But foundation officials and corps board members anticipate that they will be able to raise money from other foundations as well as philanthropists and the government.

During an interview this month, with the foundation’s approval nearly certain, Judge Katzmann turned emotional.

“The dream is about to come true, after lots of hopes and some disappointments,” he said, pausing for a moment. “I’m choked up as I’m thinking about it.”

In 2007, deeply concerned about the quality and availability of representation for immigrants, he sounded a clarion call and started a study group that investigated the issue’s impact on immigrant populations. Among its findings: Most detained immigrants in the New York region did not have counsel at the time their cases were completed.

Judge Katzmann and his allies have warned that, absent new programs, the problem would grow worse should Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform providing legal status for undocumented immigrants.

The study group spawned an initiative, the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, which seeks to provide legal representation for every poor immigrant facing deportation in New York.

But Judge Katzmann pressed for more: a national army of young lawyers in the style of public service programs like AmeriCorps Vista or the Peace Corps.

Robin Hood heard about the idea last spring and agreed to fund a planning process. Organizers decided to limit the project to New York City, at least until it had sufficient funding to expand nationally.

Nisha Agarwal, the executive director of the Immigrant Justice Corps, views the pilot project as something that could be replicated in other cities with large immigrant populations, and as a kind of feeder system for legal talent. “Maybe these fellows will leave these fellowships and go elsewhere in the country,” she said, “and be leaders in immigrant representation.”

Source

En otras noticias, la dueña de una floristería de Nueva Jersey es acusada de robar flores de un cementerio y el expresidente dominicano Leonel Fernández está en Manhattan para presentar su nuevo libro.

Lea el artículo completo aquí.

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Jeffrey Lacker is set to tell a congressional panel Wednesday the U.S. central bank’s structure is effective, and that he is reluctant to see it altered in any major way.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lacker said the U.S. central bank—with its Washington-based board of governors and 12 quasiprivate, quasigovernmental regional banks across the country—“works well.”

The Federal Reserve, created more than a century ago, might seem like “an archaic structure, but the choices and trade-offs they were facing then are still relevant choices and trade-offs now. Our federated structure reflected a desire to ensure that the diversity of views were reflected in monetary policy,” he said.

Mr. Lacker spoke to the Journal on Thursday in his office overlooking the James River, ahead of speech in which he argued the Fed was increasingly likely to face trouble if it doesn’t raise short-term interest rates soon.

The veteran central banker—he is the longest-serving regional Fed bank president—and Kansas City Fed President Esther George are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Committee on Financial Services’ Monetary Policy and Trade subcommittee. They will discuss the structure of their banks and “how it relates to the conduct of monetary policy and economic performance.”

The Fed in recent years has faced critics from the right and left who would like to change the way the central bank operates. Some Republican lawmakers, for example, want to give Congress more scrutiny over the Fed’s interest-rate-setting policy actions via formal government audits, something central bankers have long argued would make policy-making more political and ultimately less effective.

Some left-leaning activists and Democrats, including the campaign of presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, have called for bankers to be removed from the boards overseeing the regional Fed banks.

Members of the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign, working with a former top Fed staffer, have gone further. They have called for the regional Fed banks, which are technically owned by private banks via nonvoting shares, to be moved fully into government. The group also has sought a more open process to select bank presidents, and to take stock of their performance once they are on the job.

“I completely understand the heightened attention the Fed has gotten” in light of the dramatic actions it took over the course of the financial crisis and its aftermath, Mr. Lacker said. “We’re America’s central bank. And I think it’s a discussion worth having.”

Some of the criticism of the Fed owes to misunderstandings, Mr. Lacker said. But he added, “I’d agree we could do a better job of explaining our governance.”

By and large, Mr. Lacker said the current setup has proved to be the best in terms of setting policy and achieving the independence most economists believe is critical for effective central banking, a view shared by other regional Fed bank chiefs.

He said the regional banks, part-private and part-public organizations, are afforded independence to provide views protected from political interference. Turning the regional Fed banks into fully governmental institutions would compromise that and relieve the board of governors of a vital counterweight, Mr. Lacker said.

“Preserving that diversity of views, preserving the independence of the reserve bank president’s role in monetary policy, is an exceptionally high value,” he said.

Mr. Lacker also said the regional Fed banks’ boards of directors, drawn from a mix of local business and community leaders, as well as bankers, provide insight into local economic developments. These directors also offer operational insight to the central bank, a large service provider to financial institutions on a variety of fronts, he said.

The U.S. central bank, which is a major financial industry regulator, has long faced criticism because bankers serve on the boards of directors of the regional Fed banks. Critics say it is a conflict of interest because it allows banks to oversee their supervisor. Fed officials reject this view, saying that its regulatory activities, while carried out largely by the regional banks, are directed out of Washington.

“I think we all appreciate the—you know, I think [former Treasury Secretary and New York Fed President] Tim Geithner called it the optics issue, or optics problem” of the ownership structure and board composition, Mr. Lacker said. “As a practical matter, it’s not an issue.”

Mr. Lacker said that private bank ownership of the regional Fed banks isn’t like corporate ownership because the banks’ shares don’t have voting rights. He also said the regional boards have “a classic American governance role” and he rejected the idea that there would be any conflicts of interest faced by the board members.

Mr. Lacker said he welcomes meeting with Fed critics.

Many are activists “trying very hard to do what they can to improve lives. And you know, you can’t help but come away from conversations like that with a deep appreciation of the struggles and challenges that many of our—you know, many people in our country face,” Mr. Lacker said. He added, “I commend them for their interest in us and the willingness to engage in conversation with us.”

By Michael S. Derby

Source