Death Cab for Cutie Disses Donald Trump in New Song 'Million Dollar Loan'
Death Cab for Cutie Disses Donald Trump in New Song 'Million Dollar Loan'
It's the first installment in a 30-day series of anti-Trump songs, from artists including R.E.M., Aimee Mann and Jim...
It's the first installment in a 30-day series of anti-Trump songs, from artists including R.E.M., Aimee Mann and Jim James.
One of Donald Trump’s many claims from the 2016 campaign trail that got fact checkers scurrying to their records was that he’d built his massive empire off a small loan from his father. As it turns out, Fred Trump loaned his son nearly a million dollars to help him build New York’s Grand Hyatt hotel in 1978 -- the move that put the younger Trump on the map. In a brand new song to kick off a multi-faceted anti-Trump initiative, Death Cab For Cutie has made the Republican candidate's dubious claim its target.
It’s called “Million Dollar Loan,” and it's the first installment of a Dave Eggers-headed series called 30 Days, 30 Songs. Every day through Election Day 2016, an artist will share a previously-unreleased song geared towards ensuring Trump never sniffs the White House. From Death Cab, we get the lyric video for "Million Dollar Loan," produced by Simian Design. It’s actually a soothingly catchy song, as strong as anything off their 2015 album Kintsugi. It doesn’t sound outwardly bitter, but their point is clear:
“You reap what you sow / From a million dollar loan / Call your father on the phone / And get that million dollar loan.”
With gentle acoustics and percussive clatter behind them, Ben Gibbard’s vocals lament one-percenter excess in much the same way they’ve previously pined for lost loves.
30 Days, 30 Songs will also include submissions from Aimee Mann, Thao Nguyen, clipping., My Morning Jacket’s Jim James, Bhi Bhiman and a previously unreleased live recording from the still-broken-up R.E.M. All proceeds will go towards the Center for Popular Democracy (CDP), particularly its efforts to register all American citizens to vote.
Find Gibbard's statement on "Million Dollar Loan" below:
Lyrically, “Million Dollar Loan” deals with a particularly tone deaf moment in Donald Trump’s ascent to the Republican nomination. While campaigning in New Hampshire last year, he attempted to cast himself as a self-made man by claiming he built his fortune with just a “small loan of a million dollars” from his father. Not only has this statement been proven to be wildly untrue, he was so flippant about it. It truly disgusted me. Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unworthy of the honor and responsibility of being President of the United States of America, and in no way, shape or form represents what this country truly stands for. He is beneath us.
By Chris Payne
Source
AIDS Activists Among #KillRepeal Protests and Arrests in DC - Video
AIDS Activists Among #KillRepeal Protests and Arrests in DC - Video
Republican Senators recently failed in their efforts to repeal and replace the nation’s current health care plan, but...
Republican Senators recently failed in their efforts to repeal and replace the nation’s current health care plan, but AIDS activists say the battle is not over. So they joined hundreds of health care workers, advocates and other people with preexisting conditions as they occupied the offices of all Republican U.S. senators to send them the message to “Kill the Bill,” “Kill Repeal” and “Protect Our Care.”
The massive manifestation of civil disobedience was held Wednesday afternoon, July 19, following a town hall meeting about health care held at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Washington, DC. As images and videos of the actions were shared on social media, it was reported that arrests were being made. On July 10, about 80 people were arrested while protesting the Senate health care bill in DC.
Watch the video and read the full article here.
A Victory for Smarter, More Effective Policing
Huffington Post – September 9, 2013, by Brittny Saunders - On August 22, the New York City Council took the final step...
Huffington Post – September 9, 2013, by Brittny Saunders -
On August 22, the New York City Council took the final step toward enacting the Community Safety Act (CSA), overriding Mayor Bloomberg’s recent veto and striking a blow against stop-and-frisk and other discriminatory NYPD tactics. This is more than a win for those who have fought hardest for the CSA. It’s a victory for everyone who wants smarter and more effective policing — in NYC and beyond.
In June, the Council approved two CSA measures: the “End NYPD Discriminatory Profiling Bill,” which will expand and strengthen the ban on bias-based policing and the “NYPD Oversight Act,” which will create a new Inspector General to provide independent oversight of the Department. Despite the Mayor’s rejection of the bills and weeks of aggressive advocacy by the administration and its surrogates, the Council re-affirmed its decision recently.
The hard-won victory is due to the tireless efforts of Communities United for Police Reform — a coalition of base-building, legal and policy groups in the City — their allies in the Council and the countless New Yorkers who raised their voices in opposition to discriminatory policing. It also amounts to a repudiation of a set of policies and practices that the Bloomberg administration has vehemently defended, even in the face of statistical evidence undermining their claims and growing concern among members of the public.
The basic facts are undisputed. Under Mayor Bloomberg, NYPD officers have made over 4 million stops on the streets of the city. Over 80 percent of those stops have targeted black or Latino New Yorkers. And in nearly 9 out of 10 cases, there has been no accusation of wrong-doing — no arrest was made and no citation was issued. Where the Mayor and Commissioner Kelly have set themselves against the opinion of growing numbers of New Yorkers is on the legality of these stops. Both Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly have maintained that the city’s use of stop-and-frisk is consistent with what the law requires and that these stops are an essential means of keeping the city safe. Advocates, meanwhile, have challenged both the constitutionality and the effectiveness of these stops, arguing that they are neither responsible for the decline in the city’s crime rates nor particularly effective at removing weapons from the city’s streets. Just over a week ago, federal judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, agreed, declaring the NYPD’s racially discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices unconstitutional in her decision in Floyd v. City of NY.
The sheer volume of stops conducted, the magnitude of the city’s investment in these tactics and the intensity of Mayor Bloomberg’s commitment to them have, unfortunately, established New York City as a poster child for discriminatory policing. And to some degree, the persistence of such discriminatory tactics in New York — long an innovator in public policy — has legitimized these approaches. The administration’s failure to evolve in this respect has reinforced the message that both Bloomberg and Kelly have made fairly explicit: that it is impossible to preserve public safety while also respecting the rights of all residents. For over a decade, they have asserted through words and actions that even the most sophisticated police force in the nation is incapable of doing things differently. Even with billions in funding and what are purported to be the greatest public safety minds in the nation at its disposal, the Department has been unable to break with a shameful history of subjecting people of color and other historically marginalized groups to invidious forms of social control.
New York’s recent move to reject discriminatory policing, however, contains a lesson for elected leaders everywhere. Put simply, in the 21st century, outdated notions of government accountability must expand. The Bloomberg administration’s efforts to defend the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices are, perhaps, most instructive when understood as a failure to deal with this fact. Local leaders must, of course, safeguard the rights and attend to the needs of all constituents, regardless of their numbers. But in a city with large numbers of black, brown, immigrant, homeless and LGBTQ residents, the unsustainable nature of policies that subject members of these and other groups to regular surveillance, harassment and civil rights violations should have been exceedingly clear. Still, over the last ten years, the administration has missed countless opportunities to shift course because it has ignored a sizeable chunk of its constituents. It has overlooked, for example, how unjustified street stops undermine trust between the police force and the next generation of New Yorkers, a puzzling choice for an administration that claims to be interested in keeping the city safe over the long term.
With the Council’s most recent vote and implementation of the CSA imminent, the city is poised to set precedent for how large urban centers can both enforce the law and respect the constitutional rights of all residents. And the prospect of a new local executive makes this a particularly hopeful moment. If the upcoming election brings with it a mayor who aims to be a leader for all New Yorkers, the city may at long last step into the leadership role it should always have occupied, demonstrating what local government can produce when it holds itself accountable to all constituents.
Source
Zara accused of creating culture of customer discrimination in new report
Mahita Gajanan, The Guardian, 06.22.2015 Black customers at Spanish fashion retailer Zara...
Black customers at Spanish fashion retailer Zara’s New York stores have been disproportionately identified as potential thieves, a significant proportion of employees surveyed by the Center for Popular Democracy have claimed in a new report released on Monday.
A survey of 251 employees and a round of focus groups conducted by the union-allied workers’ rights campaign group claims there is a practice within Zara to label suspicious customers or potential thieves with the code words “special orders”. Once a “special order” was identified and his or her location radioed to employees’ headsets, an employee would follow that customer around, the report claims.
Forty-three percent of the respondents did not answer questions referring to “special orders” or said they did not know the term.
But out of the 57% that did respond to that question, 46% claimed black customers were called special orders “always” or “often”, compared with 14% who said the same about Latino customers and 7% about whites.
Employees quoted in the survey claimed special orders were identified by “dressing a certain way” and were “mostly African American”, according to the CPD. One employee told the group he felt “that black customers were targeted when it came to stealing”, the report said.
One black employee claimed that when he had come in to pick up a check one day wearing a hooded jacket he was identified as a special order and prevented from entering a back office.
Connie Razza, CPD’s director of strategic research, said the code words used at Zara had now changed from “special orders” to a request for “customer service” to go to the location of the suspicious customer.
The report also claims that employees of color face unequal conditions within the company’s eight New York City stores.
“I was expecting some level of discrimination, but the degree of disparity with workers getting raises and hours that vary so dramatically was surprising,” said Razza.
The report claims:
Black employees are more than twice as dissatisfied with their hours as white employees.
Darker-skinned employees were least likely to be promoted, and received harsher treatment from managers.
Lighter-skinned employees of color and white employees experienced better treatment within the company, with higher status assignments, more work hours and a stronger likelihood of being promoted.
Many of the employees interviewed felt there was favoritism within the company based on race.
Razza said that while the retail industry was known for unpredictable working schedules and low wages, the situation was “even worse for black employees”.
The report, compiled from surveys conducted between February and April, claimed employees said that managers showed favoritism, and “many of the employees interviewed felt that favoritism is based on race”.
Such favoritism, they said, can have an impact on promotions, the distribution of work hours and management evaluation and treatment, the report claimed.
Of the 251 employees surveyed, 130 identified as Hispanic, 59 as black, 34 as white, 12 as Asian and 11 as mixed race. Employees were also identified by their skin color on a scale of one to four, with one indicating very light skin and four indicating dark skin. There are approximately 1,500 Zara employees in New York, suggesting one-sixth were surveyed.
“We found darker skinned employees were least likely to be promoted, and received harsher treatment from managers,” Razza said.
In some instances, the report claims, managers told employees not to take the survey. On at least one occasion, managers called the police on one of the employees taking the survey, the CPD claims.
A spokesperson for Zara USA denied any of the claims were accurate.
“Zara USA vehemently refutes the findings of the Center for Popular Democracy report, which was published without any attempt to contact the company,” the spokesperson said in a statement to the Guardian.
“The baseless report was prepared with ulterior motives and not because of any actual discrimination or mistreatment,” the statement went on. “It makes assertions that cannot be supported and do not reflect Zara’s diverse workforce. Zara USA believes that the report is completely inconsistent with the company’s true culture and the experiences of the over 1,500 Zara employees in New York City.
“We are an equal opportunity employer, and if there are individuals who are not satisfied with any aspect of their employment, we have multiple avenues for them to raise issues that we would immediately investigate and address.”
Referring to the claims about black customers being disproportionately identified with the code words “special orders”, it said: “We are a global multicultural company serving valued customers across 88 countries, and do not tolerate discrimination of any form.”
In a later statement, a Zara USA spokesperson added: “The expression ‘special order’ is a term used to designate a common situation in which associates are requested to enforce customer service and zone coverage on the floor. It does not designate a person or group of people of any category.”
Referring to claims about discrimination in promotions, the spokesperson said: “In its most recent round of internal promotions at Zara USA, approximately half were Hispanic or African American employees. In addition, approximately half of all hours are regularly allocated to Hispanic or African American employees. These facts clearly demonstrate that diversity and equal opportunity are two of the company’s core values.”
According Zara, approximately half of all Zara USA’s employees are Hispanic or African American.
The report arrives on the heels of a $40m discrimination lawsuit filed earlier this month by Ian Miller, who was general counsel for Zara USA Inc from 2008 until this March. According to the lawsuit, Miller – who is Jewish, American and gay – said he was excluded from meetings, given smaller raises than co-workers and subjected to racist, homophobic and antisemitic remarks because he did not fit the company’s “preferred profile” of Christian, Spanish and straight.
Miller also claimed his harassers were protected from punishment by company founder Amancio Ortega Gaona. He sued Zara, his former supervisor Dilip Patel and former Zara USA CEO Moíses Costas Rodríguez, under various New York state and city laws prohibiting pay discrimination, wrongful discharge, retaliation and hostile work environments.
Razza claimed discrimination pervaded the whole company.
“It’s a corporate culture that’s very problematic,” she said. “The lawsuit brings to light the depth that discrimination pervades Zara USA. Given the revelations of the lawsuit, we felt it was very important to reflect that it happens across all levels.”
The lawsuit and report follow a number of occasions during which Zara was criticized for selling items with racially insensitive designs. A bag embroidered with swastikas was pulled from stores after customers complained in 2007. In 2013, Zara sold necklaces with figurines in blackface.
Last August, the retailer was the subject of a backlash from customers for two different shirt designs — one striped and emblazoned with a gold star that resembled uniforms worn by Jewish victims in Nazi concentration camps and the second a white T-shirt displaying the words “White is the New Black”.
There is a recent history of controversies over alleged racism in the New York retail sector. In 2013, Macy’s and Barneys, two of New York’s most famous department stores, faced investigation from the state attorney general after several customers accused the stores of racially based discrimination.
Macy’s and Barneys both came to settlements for $650,000 and $525,000, respectively, in August 2014.
Razza said the CPD focused on Zara because of the company’s concentration in New York City and recent organization efforts by workers for fair wages at Zara.
Source: The Guardian
Republicans Are Scrambling To Save An Arizona House Seat In GOP Territory
Republicans Are Scrambling To Save An Arizona House Seat In GOP Territory
Tipirneni's biggest individual national booster may be Ady Barkan, an ALS-stricken activist who leads the progressive...
Tipirneni's biggest individual national booster may be Ady Barkan, an ALS-stricken activist who leads the progressive Center for Popular Democracy Action. Barkan, who played a lead role in Capitol Hill protests against the GOP tax cuts, traveled to the district to campaign for Tipirneni ― and press Lesko about her stances on cutting major social insurance programs.
Read the full article here.
Jamie Dimon Steps in It
Jamie Dimon picked one hell of a week to lean in to Donald Trump. On Tuesday, the day after the Washington Post...
Jamie Dimon picked one hell of a week to lean in to Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, the day after the Washington Post revealed the president had shared highly classified information with Russian diplomats and a week after he fired James Comey, the veteran CEO of JPMorgan Chase told investors at the bank’s annual shareholder meeting that he wouldn’t step down from his perch on Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, an advisory council of powerful American executives. “He is the president of the United States. I believe he is the pilot flying our airplane,” Dimon said. “I would try to help any president of the United States, because I’m a patriot.” Dimon surely wishes he’d said something different. Only hours later came the news that according to a memo by Comey, Trump had asked the FBI director to end his agency’s inquiry into former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn—a revelation that has brought Trump’s presidency to its lowest, most tumultuous point yet.
Read the full article here.
More on How Charter Schools Profit from Tax Dollars and Undermine Host School Districts
More on How Charter Schools Profit from Tax Dollars and Undermine Host School Districts
Recent weeks have brought a lot of press about the way charter schools are undermining public school districts and...
Recent weeks have brought a lot of press about the way charter schools are undermining public school districts and diverting tax dollars allocated for education too often to for-profit companies. Capital & Main in California just published a week-long expose explaining how rapid expansion of charters threatens the financial stability of the Los Angeles and Oakland school districts. The Salt Lake Tribune editorialized against for-profit charters after that newspaper’s scathing investigation explained how, “A handful of private companies have banked more than $68 million from Utah taxpayers over the past three years.” And in Ohio, after the legislature ended its spring 2016 session without considering an excellent law that would have required the notorious cyber charters to prove that the students the state is paying for are actually participating in the online program, the Columbus Dispatch editorialized: “The idea was that if student outcomes improved in charter schools, then the schools would continue… But the straightforward experiment went off the rails when some clever operators figured out how to get rich by sponsoring charter schools. And to keep the gravy flowing, they began making major political contributions to the lawmakers who control the gravy.”
This is the context in which the Center for Popular Democracy has just released its third annual report, Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud, and Abuse: “Two years ago, the Center for Popular Democracy issued a report demonstrating that charter schools in 15 states—about one-third of the states with charter schools—had experienced over $100 million in reported fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement since 1994. Last year, we released a new report that found millions of dollars of new alleged and confirmed financial fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in charter schools had come to light, bringing the new total to $203 million. This report offers further evidence that the money we know has been misused is just the tip of the iceberg. With the new alleged and confirmed financial fraud reported here, the total fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in charter schools has reached over $216 million.”
The new report examines fraud and mismanagement across the states and explains that, “State oversight systems are currently reactive by design. While states do require that charter schools submit budgets, financial reports and independent financial audits, most do not proactively monitor for fraud, waste, mismanagement, or other financial abuses.” The Center for Popular Democracy recommends that charter schools be required to institute internal fraud risk management assessments and that oversight agencies like state comptrollers’ offices should regularly audit charter schools.
Of course a huge problem is that charter schools are established and regulated in state law, and experience tells us that political pressures and financial contributions to state lawmakers have exacerbated the states’ failures to oversee charter schools in the public interest. It is for this reason that the Center for Popular Democracy recommends that the U.S. Department of Education should make the awarding of enormous federal grants to states for the expansion of charter schools contingent on states’ passage of laws to strengthen oversight: “Taxpayers invest billions of education dollars in charter schools, yet states offer too few protections to ensure that those taxpayer dollars are benefitting students. Therefore, we recommend that federal funding for charter school education should flow only to states that have… taxpayer protection provisions in place for their charter schools.”
The new report once again points to failed federal regulation of the federal Charter Schools Program. “The federal government alone has contributed over $3.3 billion through several grant programs specifically designed to increase the number of charter schools in the United States. With the recent passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the federal government has signaled its plan to spend another $3.3 billion over the next 10 years, which would double the federal investment in charter schools.”
And yet, according to Center for Popular Democracy’s new report, “In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a memorandum to the Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement. The OIG stated that the purpose of the memorandum was to ‘alert you of our concern about vulnerabilities in the oversight of charter schools.’… In September of 2012, the OIG audited the Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement’s (OII) Charter Schools Program and found that OII did not adequately monitor the federal funds. Specifically, the audit report states that: ‘We determined that OII did not effectively oversee and monitor the SEA (State Educational Agencies) and non-SEA grants and did not have an adequate process to ensure SEAs effectively oversaw and monitored their subgrantees. Specifically, OII did not have an adequate corrective action… process in place to ensure grantees corrected deficiencies noted in annual monitoring reports, did not have a risk-based approach for selecting non-SEA grantees for monitoring, and did not adequately review SEA and non-SEA grantees’ fiscal activities.'”
In other words, the U.S. Department of Education has been giving billions of dollars to states to promote the expansion of charter schools and to other charter school sponsors without any kind of adequate tracking of how the money is being used. This allegation is certainly consistent with the findings of a new report released in Ohio last week by Innovation Ohio and the Ohio Education Association. Ohio has been a big recipient of federal Charter Schools Program Grants over the years, receiving CSP grants of $99.6 million since the 2006-2007 school year. Belly Up: A Review of Federal Charter Schools Program Grants explains that in Ohio, “At least 108 of the 292 charter schools that have received federal CSP (Charter Schools Program) funding (37 percent) have either closed or never opened, totaling nearly $30 million.” “Of those that failed, at least 26 Ohio charter schools that received nearly $4 million in federal CSP funding apparently never even opened and there are no available records to indicate that these public funds were returned.”
By janresseger
Source
New Video: Preying on Puerto Rico, The Forgotten Citizens of Hedge Fund Island
New Video: Preying on Puerto Rico, The Forgotten Citizens of Hedge Fund Island
Last month I returned to my native Puerto Rico to attend a wedding and was catching up with family still on the Island...
Last month I returned to my native Puerto Rico to attend a wedding and was catching up with family still on the Island one evening. A couple of sips of whiskey in, and the truth came out: My wife’s father reported that he hadn’t received a paycheck in 3 months.
He is a doctor. A highly specialized one, And, with most of his patients coming through government insurance, he hadn’t seen a dime in payment.
Most Puerto Rican health care professionals try to hang on as long as possible. They want to stay in their homeland, be with their families and help make things better. But increasingly, they have no choice. Now many doctors are among the hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who have become economic migrants, forced to flee from home because they simply cannot survive on patriotism and hope.
In 2014, 364 doctors left the island, the Puerto Rican Surgeons and Physicians Association reported. Last year, 500 practitioners packed up and got out.
“Don’t get hurt on a Sunday or a holiday,” one man recently told CNN after his uncle died because only 2 neurologists were on duty to serve the island’s 3.5 million “forgotten citizens.” (His family now calls the lines at the hospital “the walking dead.”)
Behind those staggering numbers is rapacious, hungry, heartless greed as embodied by two simple words: Hedge funds.
Just like Detroit, Greece and other places rocked by the recession and government mismanagement, Puerto Rico’s debt ballooned over the last decade, further exacerbated by colonial status and expiring tax incentives.
In 2012, hedge fund managers began to circle the Commonwealth, looking to reap billions – and experiment with new wealth extraction strategies that could be imported back to the American mainland. The short version: They bought Puerto Rican bonds after the price fell.
Now these “vulture” managers (as they are literally called for their creditor and distressed buying schemes – los buitres in Spanish) insist that any package from Washington that allows Puerto Rico to renegotiate its $72 billion debt puts Wall Street investors at the front of the line to get paid.
A handful are holding out for even more; refusing to accept any restructuring and demanding even more severe austerity measures and suffering so they don’t have to take any losses on their risky investment.
These carrion feeders are in fact, real human beings, acting in inhumane ways: Mark Brodsky, of the $4.5 billion Aurelius Capital and Andrew Feldstein, of the $20 billion BlueMountain Capital are two leaders of the vulture flock of hedge fund billionaires circling Puerto Rico trying to make huge profits from what’s turning into a full-scale humanitarian crisis.
Brodsky bought up the Island’s debt for as low as 29 cents on the dollar and now is demanding full repayment (Think Greece, and Argentina). He is helping fund economists who argue that vital government services must cease – and schools and hospitals must close - to extract full payment.
Feldstein has teams of lawyers fighting basic protections for Puerto Ricans in court and lobbyists taking the same case to Congress. On his dime they have launched a high profile and highly fraudulent media campaign to make sure Congress keeps working for the billionaires – and against teachers, students, the elderly… and my former neighbors and relatives.
Together with John Paulson – who literally bragged to his bros that together they could create the “Singapore of the Caribbean” and create a tax haven for themselves – these vulture investors are consuming the living, for their greed.
That’s why I’ve been working with Brave New Films and a large coalition, including Make the Road, New York Communities for Change, Organize NOW, Florida Institute for Reform & Empowerment, AFT, SEIU, NEA, New Jersey Communities United, Grassroots Collaborative , Center for Popular Democracy, Strong Economy for All, and Citizen Action, under the campaign banner Hedge Clippers, to help ordinary Puerto Ricans expose the truth about these bad actors and their flock.
Preying on Puerto Rico: Forgotten Citizens of Hedge Fund Island is a series of short film videos that Puerto Rican activists helped create to kick off an escalated series of large actions calling on those with the power to help to stand up for Puerto Ricans and stand up to los buitres.
These same leaders are behind a growing wave of protests on Capitol Hill, Wall Street, the Trump Towers and at the Federal Reserve Board offices in cities across the U.S.
They are getting attention and being heard, but the path forward is uphill. We need your help. With unemployment at 14% and 45 percent of Puerto Ricans living below the poverty line Puerto Rico is in a humanitarian crisis. PROMESA, the bill that just passed out of the US House and is on its way to the Senate, is a bad deal that will help the hedge funds, but not the Puerto Rican people.
Preying on Puerto Rico: Forgotten Citizens of HedgeFund Island is only the beginning of how we can use our voices and votes to help my father in-law remain on the Island to help save lives – and end this suffering caused by these vultures and the politicians that do their bidding.
Join us today to share these films – and call Feldstein and Brodsky to ask them: how many more billions do you need to make before you stop pillaging the poor?
By Julio López Varona / Brave New Films
Source
Don't Raise Rates, Protesters Tell St. Louis Fed
St. Louis Post-Dispatch - March 5, 2015, by Jim Gallagher - About a dozen chilly protesters gathered outside the...
St. Louis Post-Dispatch - March 5, 2015, by Jim Gallagher - About a dozen chilly protesters gathered outside the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on Thursday to complain that the Fed may soon make it harder to find work.
The Federal Reserve is widely expected to raise interest rates later this year, a move intended to prevent inflation in years hence. The protesters complained that higher interest rates can also cut off the jobs recovery.
The Fed represents “the 1 percenters,” said Derek Laney, an organizer with Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment. “They are the big banks, the big corporations, and their mandate is to keep inflation low at all costs.”
People at the bottom of the economic ladder would trade some inflation for jobs, he said.
The protesters complained that the Fed has set a target for inflation at 2 percent — slightly above the current inflation rate — but has no target for reducing unemployment.
Rising rates tend to slow an economic rebound eventually, although there is usually a long lag.
The protest was timed for release of a report by three national advocacy groups, including the Economic Policy Institute, the Center for Popular Democracy and Fed Up: The National Campaign for a Stronger Economy.
The report complained that the boards of the Fed's 12 regional banks, which influence national decisions, are heavy on banking and business executives, but light on representatives of other citizens, such as labor and clergy.
The boards also don't fully reflect their community's racial mix, the report said. For instance, the St. Louis Fed's board is 10 percent black while its multi-state region is 17 percent black, according to the report.
The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis did not immediately provide a comment.
Source
Demonstrators bring Dreamers, TPS cause to Trump’s doorstep
Demonstrators bring Dreamers, TPS cause to Trump’s doorstep
Several dozen demonstrators, organized by progressive groups and chanting in Spanish, brought the cause of the Dreamers...
Several dozen demonstrators, organized by progressive groups and chanting in Spanish, brought the cause of the Dreamers and Temporary Protected Status refugees—both groups targeted for eviction from the U.S. by Donald Trump—to the doorstep of the GOP president and his Republican backers on the evening of Feb. 1.
Read the full article here.
2 days ago
3 days ago