The Left's Fed Up Makes A Naked Power Grab For Control Of The Fed
The left is undertaking an amazing back door plan to dramatically increase its influence over the Fed’s interest-rate-...
The left is undertaking an amazing back door plan to dramatically increase its influence over the Fed’s interest-rate-setting Open Market Committee.
The key activist group, a division of the Center for Popular Democracy, is working to kick the bankers off the boards of directors of the district Federal Reserve banks. Those boards choose the presidents who serve, in rotation, as voting members on the FOMC. Brilliant.
In scope, the left’s plan makes trivial by comparison Auric Goldfinger’s “Operation Grand Slam” to contaminate America’s gold holdings at the US Treasury Depository at Fort Knox. Goldfinger planned to turn them radioactive. Those holdings amounted, in 1964, to about $14 billion. They are now valued at close to $200 billion.
Either way, a tidy sum. Yet it’s just a nickel compared to the Fed’s more than $4 trillion holdings.
Most impressive. The left is undertaking its own Operation Super Grand Slam.
It is doing so proficiently and systematically. Unfortunately for the left, fortunately for America, it has run into a real life James Bond: House Monetary Policy Subcommittee Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI). The irresistible force has met its immovable object.
Fed Up, the left’s instrumentality, was repelled during the most recent skirmish. This occurred last week at a hearing of a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, “Federal Reserve Districts: Governance, Monetary Policy, and Economic Performance.”
Fed Up is a project of the Center for Popular Democracy, which, according to Wikipedia (citing a paywalled article by John Judis from the National Journal) is the successor, at least in part, to the somewhat notorious ACORN. According to the Center’s website:
The Federal Reserve has tremendous influence over our economy. Although our communities continue to suffer through a weak recovery and economic inequality keeps growing, corporate and financial interests are demanding that the Fed put the brakes on growth so wages don’t rise. There is a real danger that in early 2015 (sic), the Fed will cut the legs out from the recovery before the economy reaches full acceleration, costing our communities millions of jobs and workers tens of billions in wages.
True, and fair, enough. Let it be said that I, along with much of the right, also am highly critical of the Fed. I, a dues paying member of the AFL-CIO, am of the wing of the right wing that is in full solidarity with Fed Up’s commitment to wage growth.
We share identification of the Fed as a main perp in the failure of workers to thrive. From the right check out, for example, Put Growth First. Its website is headlined “End the Fed’s War on Wage Growth: Restore Prosperity for the Striving Majority.”
I, while opposing tokenism, am in sympathy with Fed Up’s stand that the Federal Reserve is unacceptably deficient in social, gender, and ethnic diversity. I have great admiration for Fed Up’s tactical proficiency, clarity of message, and decency in presenting that message. I, too, am fed up with the Fed.
That said, I am on record as dubious about the Fed’s power to “set” interest rates outside the trivial, and mostly symbolic, impact of setting the discount rate. I also am not part of the “raise interest rates” cheerleader squad on the right. I’m for allowing the credit markets to organically set interest rates based on … wait for it … supply and demand.
I part company with the left on its proposed solution of taking over district Federal Reserve Bank governance. Hola, Venezuela! Upon encountering Fed Up’s representatives while we were waiting to enter the Congressional hearing I requested the opportunity to engage in further conversation. Waiting, eagerly, to hear back.
Fed Up is a class act. Making the voices of the have-nots heard is commendable. Bring it on.
By Ralph Benko
Source
Cities, states seek to protect immigrants' data from federal officials
Cities, states seek to protect immigrants' data from federal officials
Fear is growing in immigrant communities that the federal government might try to obtain the information from local...
Fear is growing in immigrant communities that the federal government might try to obtain the information from local governments, said Emily Tucker, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Popular Democracy, which backs the expansion of municipal ID programs and seeks to help unauthorized immigrants facing deportation.
Read the full story here.
Activists Push the Democrats for Real Solutions on Climate Change
Activists Push the Democrats for Real Solutions on Climate Change
There might be no issue that splits so neatly along party lines as climate change. While Democrats have all but...
There might be no issue that splits so neatly along party lines as climate change. While Democrats have all but consensed on the existence of man-made global warming, Republicans have staked out their place as the party of denial. But with climate-fueled chaos on the horizon, trumping Trump’s climate plan may not be enough to stave off the end of the world as we know it—and progressive activists are looking for more ambition on their side of the aisle.
First, the bad. At this year’s Republican National Convention, the GOP’s drive to drill baby drill toward an “all of the above” energy policy yielded chilling results.
Take the GOP’s climate and energy platform, an extremist document—even for them—that calls for more pipelines, a cancellation of the Clean Power Plan, the United States’ total withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and the end of the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide and just about anything else, morphing it into “an independent [and toothless] bipartisan commission.”
Others fused energy policy with Trumpian law-and-order nationalism: “Every onerous regulation puts American lives at risk,” Harold Hamm, a fracking mogul and Trump’s pick for energy secretary, said Wednesday. “Developing America’s own oil supply is a matter of national security.”
And official RNC proceedings were dotted with panels on energy sponsored by the likes of the American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying outfit for the fossil fuel industry. At one such event, Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voiced a myth popular among her colleagues: “The earth is no longer warming, and has not for the about past 13 years, in fact it has begun to cool.”
Squared with any climate science worth its peer review, the GOP’s plan is a recipe for literal disaster. This year will likely be the hottest on record, and recent research shows that thanks to ramped-up melting, Greenland lost a trillion tons of ice from 2011 to 2014.
Rising temperatures could cost the global economy some $2 trillion by 2030, around the time when coastal cities might become virtually uninhabitable. By stripping the government of its ability to scale back the emissions fueling these trends, the Republican platform might well kill us all—or at least force us inland.
But is the Democrats’ plan much better? When it comes to climate change, there’s precious little time for lesser evils; the physics—as scientists are quick to tell us—has put humanity on a deadline. Next week, thousands will converge on the Democratic National Convention to enforce it.
Articulating climate change as “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time,” the Democratic platform sets out a series of ambitious goals on climate for the next half-century: a full transition to clean energy by 2050, creating millions of well-paying green jobs, fulfilling the Paris Agreement for a 1.5 degree Celsius global cap on warming, pricing both carbon and methane, and abandoning the “all of the above” stance Democrats wrote into their platform in 2012.
The issue, climate organizers say, is that the plan says next to nothing about how to get there. Though the platform benefitted from input of climate hawks like Bill McKibben, Keith Ellison and Cornel West, many of the strongest environmental protections brought up in the drafting process were struck down. Food and Water Watch National Organizing Director Mark Schlosberg noted that, among other shortcomings, the document failed to ban fracking, reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership or commit to keeping fossil fuels buried.
Not only that, but Clinton’s staffers have made pains to distinguish the party’s plans from her own, which are focused largely on market-based clean energy incentives and a handful of regulations. If the Democrats’ own nominee won’t champion her party’s policy slate, pushing beyond it will be no easy task.
Despite its flaws, the Democrats’ platform remains the most ambitious the party has produced to date. But meeting its relatively lofty benchmarks would require rapid cuts to current fossil fuel use, and a virtual moratorium on new pipelines, drilling projects, coal-fired power plants and fuel export terminals—none of which are included to sufficient degree in either the document or Clinton’s own agenda. Even if every national commitment outlined in the Paris Agreement is met, the world is still on track for around 3 degrees of warming. A recent report from Nature, moreover, finds that “the window for limiting warming to below 1.5 C … seems to have closed.” Meeting that now, researchers say, would require the use of some magically efficient (and currently non-existent) technology to suck carbon out of the atmosphere.
The Democrats’ platform, Schlosberg explains, “Contains some good language [on climate change] … and calls for a World War II-scale mobilization to address it. But the rest of the platform doesn’t live up to what is necessary to implement that. …
“We need to put forward an affirmative vision of what [a low-carbon world] should look like,” he adds, “not just what we can bargain for.”
Party platforms, at day’s end, are symbolic documents—more of a temperature gauge on the party’s mainstream than a commitment that it will do what it says. Even the “strongest climate change platform ever,” as the Guardian called the Democrats’ plan, leaves a dangerous gap between science and policy.
That’s part of the reason why—on Sunday—Food and Water Watch, with the support of some 900 sponsoring organizations, is hosting a March for a Clean Energy Revolution through downtown Philadelphia, just hours before the convention is set to begin. Joined by the Center for Popular Democracy, National Nurses United, the Labor Network for Sustainability and others, the march will invite thousands to call for everything from a ban on fracking to keeping fossil fuels underground.
Also on the ground next week will be Nay’Chelle Harris, a member of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) and something called the It Takes Root People’s Caravan. A redux, of sorts, of a delegation of organizers who attended the Paris climate talks back in December, the caravan has been bringing together “grassroots Indigenous, Latin@, Black, Asian, Muslim and working class white organizers from around the country” to plan and support actions in Cleveland, Philadelphia and points in between.
This week they joined the immigrant rights’ group Mijente outside the RNC to “wall off Trump,” and in Philly will participate in actions to shut down an immigration detention center and stop the expansion of a South Philadelphia oil refinery. Like Harris, many “caravanistas” work at the intersections of racial, immigration and climate justice. They kicked off their trip with a Pledge of Resistance “to stand against the racism, misogyny and hateful and xenophobic policies being put forth at the Republican National Convention.” Climate justice, they say, won’t come without victory on other fronts as well.
Having first gotten involved in MORE’s campaign against coal company Peabody Energy as a student at Washington University in St. Louis, Harris started devoting more time to the group after Michael Brown’s killing in nearby Ferguson in the summer of 2014. MORE provided jail support to protesters arrested in Ferguson that summer, and since then has worked on a project mapping out the connections between St. Louis power brokers—including Peabody Energy, headquartered there—and the city’s police department. “Power Behind the Police,” as the project is known, looks to target the “St. Louis 1%” while building out a people’s agenda for a just transition away from fossil fuels and police violence alike.
“We need to confront the GOP, and confront Trump and his rhetoric,” Harris told me by phone from Cleveland. “But we also need to confront the DNC—they have been pushing militarism, they have been pushing market-based, false solutions to climate change. They haven’t shown real dedication to ending violence against black people.” Carbon taxes and trading schemes have been a favorite not just of progressives but also free market ideologues, whose proposed version of the carbon tax would swap corporate regulations for a price on oil and coal. (Former Bush economist N. Gregory Mankiw is a fan of the idea, along with ExxonMobil.) Many in the caravan, on the other hand, see such elite-driven, market-based proposals as a cynical way to stave off the kinds of strong regulations that might actually put a dent in the fossil fuel industry’s business model, and protect communities on extraction’s frontlines.
Schlosberg and Harris each said that taking on such false solutions, and securing a better climate plan, would take more coordination among movements across issues. Harris joins many millennials, too, in her frustration with politics as usual as a path toward that, saying she “doesn’t feel beholden to the Democratic Party.” But she is also part of a tide of grassroots organizers who see electoral fights as a field of struggle in pushing movements’ demands, along with mobilizations and other forms of pressure from outside of formal politics—like demonstrations happening in Philadelphia next week.
“We can’t depend on the political system,” Harris told In These Times. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use every avenue for change we have at our disposal.” She referenced two local St. Louis politicians—Democrats Megan Green and Rasheen Aldridge—as examples of what it looks like for officials to run on platforms and govern on platforms that are accountable to activists. Green, an alderwoman, and Aldridge—now running for Democratic Committeeman in the city’s fifth ward—have each used their campaigns to push for demands brought forth by the movement for black lives and Fight for $15.
“I don’t think anyone should consider a party to be their savior,” Harris added, whether it’s the Democrats or the Green Party. “What matters now is people power.”
By KATE ARONOFF
Source
Demonstrators Take Over Manhattan Amazon Store in Protest of Queens HQ
Demonstrators Take Over Manhattan Amazon Store in Protest of Queens HQ
"I think Amazon is only going to make it worse," said Charles Khan, of the Center for Popular Democracy. "There's no...
"I think Amazon is only going to make it worse," said Charles Khan, of the Center for Popular Democracy. "There's no reason to give them $3 billion when we have so many problems, homelessness."
Read the full article here.
Activists went all out to save Obamacare. Now they’re fighting for opioid recovery funds.
Activists went all out to save Obamacare. Now they’re fighting for opioid recovery funds.
It’s Phil Krauss’ first time protesting on Capitol Hill. He’s an advocate who kicked heroin three years ago when he was...
It’s Phil Krauss’ first time protesting on Capitol Hill. He’s an advocate who kicked heroin three years ago when he was 32 years old. He’s new to organizing but he’s surrounded by veterans, many who were just at the Russell Senate Office Building two months ago trying to save the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Read the full article here.
Activists to Protest at Regional Feds Ahead of Jobs Data
Wall Street Journal - March 3, 2015, by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa - A network of liberal activists is planning a series...
Wall Street Journal - March 3, 2015, by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa - A network of liberal activists is planning a series of small demonstrations outside of several Federal Reserve district banks Thursday, intending to highlight elevated unemployment among minority communities and urging officials not to raise interest rates any time soon.
Fed officials have indicated they plan to lift their benchmark short-term interest rate from near zero, where it has been since late 2008, sometime this year if the economy continues to strengthen as expected.
The activists say the nation’s 5.7% jobless rate understates the underlying weakness of the labor market, pointing to high long-term and black unemployment as symptoms of an economy that is still ailing. The unemployment rate for blacks was 10.3% in January.
“The Federal Reserve has the power–and responsibility–to foster stronger economic conditions that create opportunity for all communities,” the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank backing the demonstrations, said in a statement.
The activists are planning actions outside the regional Fed banks of New York, San Francisco, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Charlotte, N.C. (home to a branch of the Richmond Fed) and Dallas.
The Labor Department releases its February employment report on Friday.
Becky Moeller, president of the Texas AFL-CIO, said she and other community leaders have been frustrated by what they see as an opaque process for selecting the next Dallas Fed president. The current chief, Richard Fisher, is set to step down March 19.
Ms. Moeller said instead of getting a meeting with members of the Dallas Fed’s board of directors, which is in charge of the search, she and her delegation met with the bank’s general counsel in a session she described as not very helpful.
“This has been a comedy of pass the buck,” she said. “We don’t have a candidate—we’re just trying to talk processes.”
The Dallas Fed said it had recently met with the following groups regarding the search for a new bank president: Texas AFL-CIO, Texas Organizing Project, Jobs With Justice, Fort Worth Building Trades and Ironworkers, Workers Defense Project, Communication Workers of America, Dallas Central Labor Council, Harris County Central Labor Council and American Federation of Teachers.
“We had a productive conversation with representatives from these groups,” said James Hoard, a spokesman for the Dallas Fed. “We were interested in hearing their views on the selection of a new Dallas Fed president, and hope we were able to provide useful information to them, as well.”
The Center for Popular Democracy and the Fed Up Coalition, the umbrella groups coordinating the protests, expressed dismay at the lack of transparency in the selection of Patrick Harker as the new Philadelphia Fed President.
“Despite repeated requests from community, consumer, labor and academic organizations and public officials within the region, the Philadelphia Fed refused to create any mechanisms for engagement with the public,” said Kendra Brooks of Action United in Philadelphia.
“Instead, the process was entirely opaque: nobody outside of the Federal Reserve knew who the candidates were or what the criteria were for selection. This process did a disservice to the Federal Reserve System and the people of the Philadelphia region.”
The Philadelphia Fed said in response: “Several of our staff members did meet with members from Action United to hear their concerns. The Philadelphia Fed also provided them the opportunity to provide names of potential candidates to our executive search firm.”
The same group of activists showed up at the Kansas City Fed’s annual Jackson Hole symposium last summer and held a meeting with Janet Yellen at the Fed in November.
Last week, Ms. Yellen met with a group of conservative activists who argued the Fed’s low-rate policies were hurting rather than boosting employment.
The Great Recession has brought increased political scrutiny on the Fed, with prominent Republican and Democratic politicians calling for various changes in the central bank’s governance.
Source
Wall Street Journal: Citigroup Pact Has Detailed Plan for $2.5 Billion in Relief to Consumers
Wall Street Journal - July 14, 2014, by Alan Zibel - Citigroup’s $7 billion settlement with the Justice Department over...
Wall Street Journal - July 14, 2014, by Alan Zibel - Citigroup’s $7 billion settlement with the Justice Department over the sale of flawed mortgage securities includes an agreement by the bank to provide $820 million worth of loan forgiveness and other assistance, plus nearly $300 million in refinancing. The money is also earmarked to help with down payments, donations to community groups and financing for rental housing.
These requirements, outlined in a 15-page appendix to the agreement, provide more specificity for consumer assistance than a $25 billion 2012 state/federal settlement with Citigroup and four other banks over mortgage-servicing problems. They also are more detailed than a November 2013 settlement with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. over similar flawed mortgage securities sold to investors.
At a press conference in Washington on Monday, Associate Attorney General Tony West said the department aimed to improve on previous settlements by establishing an “an innovative consumer relief menu—one that not only includes the principal reductions and loan modifications we’ve built into previous resolutions, but also new, consumer-friendly measures.”
The Citigroup settlement, unlike previous pacts, directs the bank to provide half of its loan assistance to particularly hard-hit parts of the country. It also mandates that borrowers whose loan balances are cut won’t remain “underwater” —or owe more on their homes than their properties are worth.
The J.P. Morgan settlement addresses similar issues, but in a less targeted way. It gave the bank a bonus for providing aid to hard-hit areas, but set no specific requirement. In addition, the J.P. Morgan settlement encourages loan write-downs but does not specify how much of a borrower’s debt must be forgiven. The Citigroup settlement contains $180 million in financing for affordable rental housing—a provision not included in other settlements.
“This settlement is far more nuanced than previous settlements with respect to consumer relief,” said Andrew Jakabovics, senior director for policy development and research Enterprise Community Partners, a large affordable-housing nonprofit group. The pact, he said, “reflects many of the best practices we’ve seen develop with respect to creating sustainable loan modifications.”
A Justice Department official said the consumer-assistance portion of the Citigroup settlement reflects refinements to the government’s thinking after previous settlements. In addition, the official said the smaller size of Citigroup’s mortgage-lending portfolio caused the government to consider additional avenues for relief because the bank had fewer loans to modify.
There has been tension between the Obama administration and liberal activist groups over efforts to resolve cases related to banks’ mortgage-crisis conduct.
Consumer groups have been unhappy with previous settlements of mortgage-related cases. For example, the 2012 mortgage-servicing settlement allowed banks to receive credit for short sales, in which a bank agrees to allow the sale of a property with a mortgage worth more than the home’s value, and for granting “deeds in lieu of foreclosure,” where a homeowner voluntary surrenders the home.
Some activists are still skeptical of the government’s settlements with the financial industry. Kevin Whelan, national campaign director for the Home Defenders League, an activist group representing homeowners, said there’s been no noticeable impact from last fall’s J.P. Morgan settlement.
“We haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve done anything at all,” Mr. Whelan said.
No statistics on the J.P. Morgan settlement have been released. A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman declined comment.
Joseph Smith, a former North Carolina banking regulator, is serving as the independent monitor overseeing the J.P. Morgan settlement and is expected to release a report on its progress in the coming weeks.
Thomas Perrelli, a former Justice Department official who helped broker the 2012 mortgage settlement, will serve as the monitor of the Citigroup agreement. Mr. Perrelli is now at the law firm Jenner & Block in Washington.
Source
Echen a los codiciosos buitres residenciales
Para los estadounidenses y, en particular, las personas de color, la propiedad de vivienda es una fuerza económica...
Para los estadounidenses y, en particular, las personas de color, la propiedad de vivienda es una fuerza económica estabilizadora y esencial desde hace tiempo. Ofrece la oportunidad de que las familias aumenten su seguridad económica en el trascurso de las décadas.
Por eso la crisis de ejecuciones hipotecarias fue tan difícil, en especial para los latinos y las personas de raza negra. Significó que su patrimonio, en ocasiones acumulado por varias generaciones, desapareció casi instantáneamente.
Ambos recordamos claramente las difíciles conversaciones que tuvimos con vecinos que pasaban apuros durante el caos. Aquí en Nueva York, como en todas partes, a pesar de que las personas de color no constituían la mayoría de los propietarios de vivienda, se veían afectadas por las ejecuciones hipotecarias con mayor frecuencia. Eso significó que al perder su patrimonio, más y más de ellos se fueron de la ciudad y nuestros vecindarios cambiaron.
Desafortunadamente, aún estamos viendo los efectos. Una purga lenta que se viene produciendo desde hace años a medida que la ciudad se aburguesa se ha facilitado por las ejecuciones hipotecarias y alquileres cada vez más altos, con los que más familias han dejado de ser propietarias para pasar a ser inquilinas. Muchas familias trabajadoras que han perdido su vivienda ahora además tienen dificultad para alquilar, debido al costo en aumento en el mercado.
Wall Street ha encontrado un socio inverosímil en estos desalojos: el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de Estados Unidos (HUD por su sigla en inglés). En todo el país, cientos de miles enfrentan ejecuciones hipotecarias. A pesar de la misión de HUD de “crear comunidades sólidas y sostenibles que incluyan a todos, con viviendas económicas y de calidad”, el departamento ha operado un programa que vende decenas de miles de hogares muy descontados a especuladores de Wall Street.
Cuando los fondos de especulación y firmas inversionistas privadas adquieren estos préstamos, por lo general fuerzan a los propietarios a dejar su vivienda —por medio de ejecuciones hipotecarias o ventas al descubierto (que no cubren las obligaciones hipotecarias) — y luego convierten las residencias en caras propiedades para alquilar, lo que hace que aumenten los precios en todo el vecindario.
En un extraño vuelco del destino, Blackstone Group, una de las más grandes firmas privadas de inversión en el mundo, ahora también es el mayor propietario de casas unifamiliares en alquiler en Estados Unidos. Entonces, Blackstone no solo está desalojando a familias de sus casas; también está sacando a familias trabajadoras de sus vecindarios.
Sin embargo, la práctica continúa. En tan solo los últimos seis meses, HUD ha vendido más de 7,000 préstamos a fondos de especulación y firmas privadas de inversión.
HUD ha programado otra venta masiva de hipotecas afectadas para el 18 de mayo.
HUD, dirigido por el secretario Julián Castro, debe revertir su curso antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Debe poner un alto a esta venta en subasta de viviendas a Wall Street. En vez, debe colaborar con el gobierno de la ciudad de Nueva York y partes interesadas en la comunidad para poner estos préstamos afectados en manos de entidades sin fines de lucro u otros compradores impulsados por una misión, quienes ayudarán a las familias a conservar sus casas.
No se trata simplemente de ilusas propuestas por liberales. Cada vez hay más instituciones financieras dedicadas al desarrollo comunitario que han conseguido capital y están listas y dispuestas a adquirir estos préstamos hipotecarios en mora y colaborar con familias en apuros.
Usan la reducción del monto principal debido para ayudar a modificar los préstamos afectados y hacer que los pagos sean más costeables. Cuando es realmente imposible evitar las ejecuciones hipotecarias, estas entidades sin fines de lucro formulan planes para la disposición de las propiedades que toman en cuenta las necesidades de vivienda económica de la comunidad que las rodea.
Estos préstamos hipotecarios en mora están vinculados con los propietarios y las viviendas en apuros en nuestros vecindarios. Vender nuestro inventario residencial a los propios depredadores que los pusieron en esta situación no solo demuestra poca visión de futuro, sino que daña nuestras comunidades irreparablemente.
Los especuladores de Wall Street se enriquecieron creando la crisis de vivienda que causó estragos en nuestras comunidades. No se debe permitir que vuelvan a enriquecerse aprovechándose de los restos de los vecindarios que ya han destrozado.
By Ana Maria Archila Y Jonathan Westin
Source
Donald Trump: Evictor-in-chief
Landlord-in-chief Donald Trump wants to evict 800,000 people from the U.S. On September 5th, the Trump administration...
Landlord-in-chief Donald Trump wants to evict 800,000 people from the U.S. On September 5th, the Trump administration announced it intends to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
Many DACA recipients, employed in the construction industry, built the very buildings that made real-estate moguls like Trump rich.
Everyday, the people of New York City are fighting landlords and their racist policies. This past couple of weeks have been no exception. On Wednesday, Aug. 30, thousands turned out for a march to protect DACA. It was organized by 15 different community organizations, including 32BJ SEIU, Working Families Party, Make the Road New York, New York Immigration Coalition, United We Dream, Tenants and Neighbors, Churches United For Fair Housing (CUFFH), New York Communities for Change, Alliance for Quality Education (AQE), VOCAL NY, the Women’s March, and the Center for Popular Democracy. Thousands in cities and municipalities around the country also rallied and marched to defend DACA.
Read the full article here.
Liberals and conservatives blast the Fed
WISN 12 ABC - November 11, 2014, by Patrick Gillespie - The economy might be improving, but Federal Reserve chair Janet...
WISN 12 ABC - November 11, 2014, by Patrick Gillespie - The economy might be improving, but Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen can't catch a break.
Conservatives in Congress demanded an audit of the Fed last month. Now liberals have their list of grievances.
A coalition led by the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy has launched a "Fed Up" campaign. They say the Fed is out of touch with Main Street and isn't focusing enough on getting people back to work.
America's central bank has a dual mandate to keep prices of goods stable and get the economy to full employment.
The coalition sent a public letter to Yellen on Tuesday calling for "public engagement" in the selection of the replacements for two regional Fed Presidents who are resigning. Dallas Fed President Richard Fischer and Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser are leaving their posts soon.
Yellen will meet with three dozen coalition representatives on Friday.
The timing of the demands is a bit odd. Since taking over as Fed chair in early 2014, Yellen has repeatedly stressed that full employment and higher wages are among her top goals.
America's unemployment rate is now at a six-year low. The economy added another 214,000 jobs in October and is on track for its best year of jobs gains since 1999. Wages, however, have not improved since the recession.
"We continue to hear reports that the economy is recovering, but millions of workers and their families are still struggling, whether from involuntarily part-time hours, poverty wages, or a lack of earned sick time," said Ady Barkan, a staff attorney at the Center for Popular Democracy.
Both conservative and liberal groups say their aim is simply for more transparency at the Fed, although there is concern about politics impacting the central bank.
The Fed's decisions on interest rates which influence everything from mortgage rates to the bond market are intended to be free of outside influence.
In October, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, led the conservative critics and said the Fed should be audited by a Congressional oversight office. Two auditors already look at the Fed's finances every year, but Cruz wants closer scrutiny of whether the Fed made the right monetary policy choices.
Yellen and Cruz have not scheduled a meeting, although Yellen appears before Congress twice a year.
Source
14 hours ago
3 days ago