Joining Forces to Win
The Huffington Post - November 21, 2013, by Ana María Archila - As progressives, we need to dramatically increase our...
The Huffington Post - November 21, 2013, by Ana María Archila - As progressives, we need to dramatically increase our scale and reach to win. With the merger of the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and the Leadership Center for the Common Good (LCCG) in January 2014, we are poised to do just that. The stakes are high. The crisis in American society is severe: Inequality is now at the highest level ever recorded. In 2012, the top 1 percent of U.S. households received 19.3 percent of all household income.
The income gap between white and non-white America is growing even faster. Between 2005 and 2009, median white wealth declined by 16 percent, while median black wealth dropped by 53 percent and Latino wealth declined by 66 percent. Increasing economic inequality is being matched by increasing political inequality. Our democracy and the political participation of people of color, young people and the elderly are being eroded by state legislatures, with the tacit support of the Supreme Court.
All this would be much worse of course, if not for the work of the progressive organizations and movements that have fought inequality and racism for decades.
We can, and must, go farther and faster to fight inequality, the erosion of democracy and racial injustice. There is a growing opportunity to challenge the status quo and to build a society characterized by opportunity, equality and inclusion. Increasingly strong and assertive community organizations across the country are stepping up to demand better. Immigrant organizations, worker centers, progressive unions, elected officials and people of faith are envisioning and creating more inclusive and equitable cities and states, even in spite of our failed national politics.
The most successful community campaigns present a new vision for change, a creativity and fearlessness to promote policies many have thought unachievable, as well as a canny understanding of how to navigate local political forces.
My organization, the Center for Popular Democracy, works at the center of this emerging new politics, working to build the capacity and resilience of rooted, democratic, community-organizing institutions. We feel the urgency to grow our movement, to build new strength, to share organizing models and strategies more broadly, and to replicate campaigns and tactics that work to confront racial and economic inequality.
Just as our movement needs more power and reach, so do we. That's why we are merging with the Leadership Center for the Common Good to create a newly powerful Center for Popular Democracy on January 1, 2014. Our organizations' sister c4 organizations, Action for the Common Good and Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund will also merge to create a newly powerful Action for the Common Good. Part campaign center, part capacity builder, part policy shop, our merged and expanded organizations will work together to more effectively build the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda. From recent successes, we have a sense of what is possible when working communities are well organized, resourced and equipped to demand change. In New York, coalitions of community groups, progressive unions, and faith networks came together this year to secure a raft of impressive victories, from a raise in the state's minimum wage, to the adoption of paid sick days' legislation in New York City to the passage of pro-immigrant language access initiatives in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. And, in the face of fierce opposition from outgoing Mayor Bloomberg, CPD and our allies secured passage of new laws to stop the discriminatory policing tactics of the NYPD -- Stop and Frisk. CPD brought our policy expertise, strategy insights, and coalition coordination experience to these fights -- helping drive them to victory.
The New York victories mirror the work we are engaged in across the country -- in 27 states with more than 90 partners nationally. Through strategic and sustained local and state victories, driven by strong community and labor partners, and supported in important ways by CPD, we can secure tangible improvements in working people's lives and generate the upward pressure and momentum necessary to refocus national policy on furthering values of equity, opportunity and democracy for all.
Strong local organizations with a clear vision and an appetite for bold action are well able to scale up to win national victories when strategic opportunities present themselves. Last May, for example, the Home Defenders League, a project of LCCG and many close allies, staged a dramatic week of action which included civil disobedience by foreclosed homeowners at the Department of Justice as well as at other sites. Their actions tied together the simmering public outrage over the lack of prosecutions of Wall Street banks with a need to find relief for the hard hit families and communities. Five months later, reports of a pending $13 billion federal settlement with JPMorgan Chase suggest the long fight may be about to yield results.
The launch of the merged and expanded Center for Popular Democracy and Action for the Common Good is our ambitious move to help increase the strength, scale and reach of community organizing. Together, we are stronger. Together, we can build the power we need to win.
Source
A 'striking lack of diversity' at the Fed distorts economic policy in ways most people don’t consider
![](/sites/default/files/newsdefault.jpg)
A 'striking lack of diversity' at the Fed distorts economic policy in ways most people don’t consider
In a new report from the liberal-leaning Fed Up, a coalition of community groups advocating for continued low interest...
In a new report from the liberal-leaning Fed Up, a coalition of community groups advocating for continued low interest rates from the Fed with a view to helping the country's poorer families enjoy some of the benefits of the recovery, the group says a lot of work remains to be done despite recent progress on diversity under Yellen's tenure.
Read the full article here.
As debate heats up over interest rates, progressive movement mobilizes behind a pro-wages, racial equity agenda
Following the call, participants released the following statements: Dawn O’Neal, teaching assistant and member of Rise...
Following the call, participants released the following statements:
Dawn O’Neal, teaching assistant and member of Rise Up Georgia: Atlanta, Ga.
"When the Fed meets in Jackson Hole to discuss inflation, they will be almost 2,000 miles away from South DeKalb County. Here, the lines of people desperate for even a temporary job at the local work pool stretches around the block – those people include my husband. Together, despite our hard work and best efforts, we still struggle at the end of the month with health and household bills. That’s not just our story, but that of our neighbors and our community. For members of the Fed looking to slow down the economy, I’d invite them to come here to East Atlanta. It’s not easy to live here; for some people the economy means our very survival.”
Keesha Moore, intern, job seeker, and member of Action United: Philadelphia, Penn.
“I have been searching for employment for 7 months now. I am 36 years old and I have a family to provide for and a house to maintain. I know I’m not alone when saying that the way the economy is today my household needs dual income in order to maintain and stay afloat. In Philadelphia, mine is a story all too common: We need more jobs available and fair wages. I don’t think that people who do not live here or pay taxes here should be able to take our jobs away from us with the stroke of a pen. At Jackson Hole, we will remind them that our communities also deserve a say in this debate.”
Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute
“The recovery will never reach workers’ wages if the Federal Reserve prematurely slows the recovery. The Fed should at least keep short term rates low until we reach a genuine full recovery from the Great Recession. At a minimum, this means waiting until wage growth is consistent with the Fed’s overall inflation targets and the labor market is back to pre–Great Recession health. And since the pre-Great Recession labor market was likely not at genuine full-employment, we can probably be even more aggressive in that in letting unemployment decline.”
Ady Barkan, campaign director for the Fed Up at the Center for Popular Democracy
“Members of the Fed Up coalition across the country have rallied for a more inclusive Federal Reserve that prioritizes wages and promotes a recovery in all of our communities. Our members have shared their stories with regional Fed Presidents and informed them why raising the rates prematurely would be disastrous in our communities, where many are still mired in a Great Recession. In Jackson Hole, we will put a faces and stories within reach of the Federal Reserve. Before they can have a real discussion of raising interest rates and slowing the economy, they should understand first-hand who it would affect.”
The Fed Up campaign, anchored at the Center for Popular Democracy, will hold a number of teach-ins in Jackson Hole, Wyo. during the Federal Reserve’s symposium from August 27 to 29 to convey why it does not make sense to stop the recovery for America’s families. The teach-ins will be led by workers, economists, and Fed Up allies and will cover an array of topics like the Fed’s role in full employment, the intersection of Black Lives Matter and the Fed, the selection process for regional bank presidents, a historical look at inflation, and more.
###
The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
Metro Phoenix Woman Fights For Toys R Us Workers' Severance Pay
Auerbach got mad and got moving. With the help of two groups, Rise Up Retail and Center for Popular Democracy, she...
Auerbach got mad and got moving. With the help of two groups, Rise Up Retail and Center for Popular Democracy, she joined other former employees to lobby politicians in Washington, D.C., and to march into the lobbies of companies they hold responsible.
Read the full article here.
Economic Sector Bias at the Federal Reserve
In part one of this two-part posting, I looked at the gender bias at the Federal Reserve, showing how men vastly...
In part one of this two-part posting, I looked at the gender bias at the Federal Reserve, showing how men vastly outnumber women in key posts at Federal Reserve Banks throughout the United States despite the Fed's Congressional mandate. In part two of this posting, I want to take an additional look at the Fed's bias; its failure to represent the economic diversity of America.
For those of you that either didn't read part one or who are unaware of the Federal Reserve's organizational setup, here is a graphic from a report by the Center for Popular Democracy showing the link between the Federal Reserve and its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and its district banks known as Federal Reserve Banks:
Here is a map showing the regions covered by each of the 12 district banks (Federal Reserve Banks) and the 24 branches within each district:
Note that Alaska and Hawaii are covered by the San Francisco district.
If we start at the top of the organizational chart, the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 14-year term of office. The President (and Senate) also confirm two members of the Board to be Chair (currently Janet Yellen) and Vice Chair for four year terms. The FOMC consists of 12 members; the seven aforementioned Board members, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and four other regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents on a rotating, one-year term basis. The Federal Reserve Banks form an important link between the Federal Reserve and their local economy and help to dictate the Federal Reserve's monetary policies. Each of the twelve district banks has their own president and boards of directors (nine directors in total for each bank); in addition, each of the 24 district branches has its own directors (seven directors in total for each branch). The Board of Directors for each Reserve Bank are appointed in two ways; the majority are appointed by the Reserve Bank and the remainder are appointed by the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. The directors for each district bank then appoint their own president and vice president. It all sounds rather nepotistic, doesn't it?
By law, under the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, the Boards of Directors of the Federal Reserve are to be
"...elected with due but not exclusive consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers.".
That is, each of the leaders/directors of the world's most influential central bank and its district banking system are to represent a wide variety of each of the economic sectors that make up the American economy.
The report by the Center for Popular Democracy compares the economic sector representation during the period from 2006 to 2010 when the Government Accountability Office examined the composition of the Federal Reserve Bank Boards and the present. Here is a graphic showing the past and present composition:
In both 2006 to 2010 and 2016, directors from the banking sector filled over one-third of the board seats, growing by 3 percentage points over the timeframe of the study. In combination, in 2016, representatives from the commercial and industrial sector and the banking sector filled 68 percent of seats, up from 63 percent in 2006 to 2010. The service sector's representation fell from 26 percent of seats to 18 percent and agriculture and food processing saw their representation fall from 6 percent of seats to 3 percent. Interestingly, even though they are relatively poorly represented compared to the other sectors, the number of directors affiliated with consumer and community organizations rose from 3 percent to 8 percent.
For your illumination, here are a few of the Directors for each of the Federal Reserve Banks that you can get a sense of who is dictating America's monetary policies:
If you are interested in who is on the boards of the other Federal Reserve Banks, please see the original report.
Interestingly, during the "financial crisis" of 2008, there was some question about directors' independence and actions taken by the Federal Reserve banks since there was at least the perception of conflicts of interest when director-affliated institutions took part in the Federal Reserve System's emergency programs. With a preponderance of representation from the banking and commercial sectors, it certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out which sectors of the economy will likely be favoured by Federal Reserve policies should there be another "financial crisis", does it?
By A Political Junkie
Source
Should state be allowed to take over chronically failing schools?
![](/sites/default/files/newsdefault.jpg)
Should state be allowed to take over chronically failing schools?
Georgia voters are being asked to approve a new and controversial way to improve public education. The proposal would...
Georgia voters are being asked to approve a new and controversial way to improve public education. The proposal would empower the state to take over chronically failing schools or convert them to charters or even close them.
It’s called Amendment 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot, and it’s called the Opportunity School District in the legislation that authorized it. The Georgia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 133 during this year’s session with the required two-thirds majority in both chambers. The referendum now needs a simple majority from voters to become law.
Then it asks voters this question:
“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the state to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance?”
Gov. Nathan Deal’s OSD proposal, based on similar initiatives in Louisiana and Tennessee, would allow Georgia’s governor to appoint an OSD superintendent, separate from the Georgia Department of Education superintendent, who is elected by voters. The OSD superintendent could take over as many as 20 eligible schools each year and control no more than 100 such schools at any time. The OSD superintendent could waive Georgia Board of Education rules, reorganize or fire staff and change school budgets and curriculum. The state also could convert OSD schools to nonprofit or for-profit charter schools or close them if they don’t have full enrollment.
The state would use the College and Career Ready Performance Index to determine which schools are eligible for takeover. Schools that score below 60 on the 100-point CCRPI for three straight years could be included in the OSD. Those schools would stay in the OSD for no less than five years (or, if they are an OSD charter school, for the length of the initial charter’s term) and no more than 10 years before returning to local control. Opportunity Schools could be removed from the OSD whenever they are graded above an F in the state’s accountability system for three straight years.
Muscogee County had 10 of the 141 schools on the state’s original list of chronically failing schools released last year. Georgetown and Rigdon Road elementary schools, however, improved enough with other schools in the state on the 2015 CCRPI to move off the list. That leaves 127 schools in Georgia and these eight in Muscogee on the current list: Baker Middle School and Davis, Dawson, Forrest Road, Fox, Lonnie Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr. and South Columbus elementary schools.
The case for Yes
OSD proponents cite the number of chronically failing schools as the most obvious reason to try something drastically new. They also note the reduction in the number of chronically failing schools since the threat of state takeover became possible after Senate Bill 133 passed.
Deal says on his proposal’s website, “While Georgia boasts many schools that achieve academic excellence every year, we still have too many schools where students have little hope of attaining the skills they need to succeed in the workforce or in higher education. We have a moral duty to do everything we can to help these children. Failing schools keep the cycle of poverty spinning from one generation to the next. Education provides the only chance for breaking that cycle. When we talk about helping failing schools, we’re talking about rescuing children. I stand firm on the principle that every child can learn, and I stand equally firm in the belief that the status quo isn’t working.”
Alyssa Botts, spokewoman for the pro-Amendment 1 campaign committee Opportunity for All Georgia Students noted, “The graduation rate for students attending failing schools is an abysmal 55.7 percent,” compared to the most recent statewide figure of 78.8 percent in the class of 2015.
“A school that fails to properly educate its students perpetuates cycles of poverty and increases the likelihood of incarceration,” Botts said in an email to the Ledger-Enquirer. “For many students, educational opportunities provide the best chance to break out of these cycles. … Voting ‘yes’ for the Opportunity School District amendment is a vote to ensure that future generations of Georgians will have the best opportunities available. No child in Georgia should be forced by law to attend a failing school.”
The governor-appointed Georgia Board of Education and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce have endorsed the OSD referendum.
Michael O’Sullivan, executive director of the Georgia Campaign for Achievement Now, part of the 50-state CAN nonprofit organization advocating “a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address,” has successfully fought a similar political battle, helping to convince voters to approve the 2012 Georgia charter school amendment. And the OSD is the next logical step, he figures.
“What this has done is create a sense of urgency for districts to act,” O’Sullivan said in an interview with the Ledger-Enquirer. “Voters should be asking what’s being done now? What plans are in place to improve our schools? That’s the ultimate goal. How can we ensure that every student in the state has access to quality education? Right now, 68,000 students attend a school that has failed at least three years or more.”
The opposition is based on being “afraid of loss of control,” O’Sullivan said. “… It’s my hope that opponents would be putting as much effort into fixing their schools so they aren’t eligible for the OSD. I can tell you which option will be best for schools.”
O’Sullivan emphasized that state takeover is only one option for intervention in the OSD.
“There is the ability for the state to assist schools that are failing for one year or two years, and then, after three years, there is a multiple intervention model,” he said. “One is a joint governance structure, with the OSD and the local school district working together to turn around the school.”
Addressing concerns that OSD schools would receive less funding, O’Sullivan said, “Whatever amount that would have been dedicated to that school remains in that school.”
Louisiana enacted the Recovery School District in 2003. The RSD comprises 62 autonomous charter schools in Orleans, East Baton Rouge and Caddo parishes with a total enrollment of more than 32,000 students, according to the RSD’s 2015 annual report. The percentage of RSD schools considered to be failing has been reduced from 44 percent in 2011 to 19 percent in 2015, the report says.
According to the RSD’s 2014 annual report, the percentage of students performing at the basic level or above increased 29 percentage points from 2008 to 2014, while the state average increased 9 percentage points.
In New Orleans, 63 percent of the public school students are in the RSD. According to a June 2015 study by Patrick Sims and Vincent Rossmeier of the Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives at Tulane University, “the percentage of (New Orleans) students at the basic level or above has increased 15 percentage points over the past six years. That growth has largely come from the RSD, which has improved by 20 percentage points.”
In Tennessee, as of the 2015-16 school, there were 29 schools in the Achievement School District, enacted in 2010 with the goal of moving the state’s bottom 5 percent of school into the top 25 percent of student achievement. The ASD has made progress, according to its July 2015 report.
“Over a three-year period, ASD students have earned double-digit gains in math and science proficiency and have grown faster than their state peers,” the report says.
The ASD reading scores, however, declined along with the state average.
“We know from national research and our own experience that reading growth tends to lag behind other subjects in a school turnaround setting,” Malika Anderson, then the ASD deputy superintendent and now its superintendent, says in the report.
The case for No
Georgia Federation of Teachers president Verdaillia Turner, a retired Atlanta educator, has seen the statistics that indicate state takeovers improved student achievement, but her organization touts evidence that argues otherwise.
The federation says in its campaign literature that the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against the state-created school district in New Orleans on behalf of 4,500 students for denying appropriate services. A July 2015 SPLC fact sheet notes that, while an average of 19.4 percent of students with disabilities graduated high school in Louisiana, only 6.8 percent of them graduated in the Recovery School District.
A February 2016 report titled “State Takeovers of Low-Performing Schools: A Record of Academic Failure, Financial Mismanagement and Student Harm” from the Center for Popular Democracy, a liberal-leaning nonprofit advocacy group, found that state takeovers of schools in Louisiana, Michigan and Tennessee produced:
▪ “Negligible improvement — or even dramatic setbacks — in their educational performance.”
▪ “A breeding ground for fraud and mismanagement at the public’s expense.”
▪ “High turnover and instability” among staff, “creating a disrupted learning environment for children.”
▪ “Harsh disciplinary measures and discriminatory practices” for students of color and those with special needs.
Turner fears too much of the motivation for the OSD proposal is about creating profit opportunities in public schools for private charter school companies.
“The bottom line here is that this is a new business at the public’s expense,” Turner said in an interview with the Ledger-Enquirer. “The only thing public about these schools is our tax dollars.”
The federation notes the OSD may retain 3 percent of state funds for administrative operations, reducing the amount of money available for instruction.
“I love my state, and I respect the office of the governor and all of government,” Turner said. “However, this is still a democracy, and we believe that educators and the public need not be misled by what’s about to happen.”
That includes the OSD superintendent’s authority to “get rid of people at will” at any OSD school, Turner said. “The law says, the last line in Senate Bill 133 says, all laws in conflict with this act are repealed.”
Turner noted the state’s standardized testing system has changed the past five consecutive years. “Therefore, we know it’s not reliable,” she said.
In many chronically failing schools, Turner said, “children end up going to jail. But in many of these same schools, children go to Yale. So we need to have a real conversation about what makes schools work.”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported that a political group called the Committee to Keep Georgia Schools Local has a TV ad campaign opposing the OSD referendum. The group includes the Georgia Association of Educators, Georgia AFL-CIO, the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, Georgia Stand-Up, the Coalition for the People’s Agenda, Public Education Matters, Southern Education Foundation, Working America, Pro Georgia, Better Georgia, Georgia Federation of Teachers and Concerned Black Clergy of Metro Atlanta, according to the AJC.
The Georgia School Boards Association’s board of directors voted to oppose the amendment. School boards representing the counties of Bibb, Chatham, Cherokee, Clayton, Fayette, Henry, Richmond and Troup have expressed opposition.
The Muscogee County School Board was scheduled to join them last month, but the proposed resolution was deleted from the agenda between the Sept. 12 work session and the Sept. 20 meeting. Neither superintendent David Lewis nor board chairman Rob Varner has responded to the Ledger-Enquirer’s requests for an explanation.
Responding on their behalf, MCSD communications director Valerie Fuller also didn’t explain the sudden change in thinking, who proposed the resolution, who rescinded it and why. Here is her statement in an email to the Ledger-Enquirer:
“The Muscogee County School District is a public school system, which is supported by taxpayer money. All of our stakeholders (taxpayers, students, parents, teachers administrators and staff) have different opinions on this proposal. Although we believe, and the results indicate, that we are making progress with our challenged schools, to take a side could anger supporters, who might say the BOE is opposed to helping ‘failing’ schools.
“We don’t think it would be wise for a publicly elected body to pass a resolution in opposition of this amendment that might result in controversy, causing unnecessary distractions from the work being done on behalf of these schools. Because this could result in a change to Georgia’s Constitution, we do believe it is important for voters to read and be fully informed about the amendment and its implications.”
In a letter Tuesday to school district superintendents and Regional Education Service Agency directors, Georgia Department of Education deputy superintendent for external affairs and policy Garry McGiboney reminded public school officials that the Georgia Office of the Attorney General advised the GaDOE in 2012, “Local school boards do not have the legal authority to expend funds or other resources to advocate or oppose the ratification of a constitutional amendment by the voters.”
Regardless of whether the proposed OSD is good for Georgia, the referendum’s wording doesn’t accurately explain it, some folks insist. The Georgia PTA called it “deceptive.”
“If the governor and state legislators believe the best way to fix struggling schools is to put them under state control and either close them or turn them over to charter schools, then let the language on the ballot reflect this initiative,” Georgia PTA president Lisa-Marie Haygood said in a news release. “As it stands, the preamble, and indeed, the entire amendment question, is intentionally misleading and disguises the true intentions of the OSD legislation.”
To that end, a class-action lawsuit was filed Sept. 27 against the governor, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. The three lead plaintiffs, all from metro Atlanta — parent Kimberly Brooks, First Iconium Baptist Church senior pastor Timothy McDonald III and Coweta County teacher Melissa Ladd — allege in the complaint that the wording is “so misleading and deceptive that it violates the due process and voting rights of all Georgia voters.”
Gerry Weber, an Atlanta lawyer representing the three lead plaintiffs, told the Ledger-Enquirer in an interview the Georgia Supreme Court ruled about 10 years ago that a challenge to the wording of ballot measures must be decided after the vote because the lawsuit would be moot if the proposal fails.
The Ledger-Enquirer asked Deal spokeswoman Jen Talaber Ryan for the governor’s response to the allegation about the referendum’s wording. Ryan replied in an email, “The opposition didn’t attend the publicly announced constitutional amendment meeting where the language was discussed and approved. Why don’t you ask them why? And the preamble and question say exactly what the OSD will do — provide a lifeline for children forced by law to attend a failing school. The only thing misleading here is the fact that national, outside special interest groups are spending money instead of local groups. After all, their go to line is about ‘local control.’ Hypocritical, don’t you think?”
Keep Georgia Schools Local campaign manager Louis Elrod told the Ledger-Enquirer in an email from media relations manager Michelle Davis, “It’s unbelievable that pro-school takeover advocates would make this charge. They are grasping at straws because they’re desperate and losing this fight.
“They know full well that many members of our bipartisan coalition of parents, teachers and public school advocates actively petitioned for changes to both the amendment and the ballot question at multiple hearings. The even more deceptive preamble language was drafted at a separate meeting in Deal’s office. Janet Kishbaugh of Public Education Matters Georgia says she and other opponents called and searched online daily to find an announcement of this meeting. It was later revealed that the preamble was written in Deal’s office in a meeting attended only by the three men who drafted the words.
“The pro-takeover campaign’s political maneuvering just confirms what we know about their intentions — this amendment is designed to silence parents and strip away local control.”
Do your homework and vote
The Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education has taken a neutral position on the OSD referendum, but the partnership’s president, Steve Dolinger, is advocating this:
“The important thing is Georgia voters do their own homework on this issue and make their decision based on solid research and fact-finding, not emotion,” Dolinger, who was superintendent of Fulton County Schools (1995-2002), said in an email to the Ledger-Enquirer from Bill Maddox, the partnership’s communications director. “Both sides make compelling arguments, but it should always come down to what the voter feels is right for the children of our state.”
BY MARK RICE
Source
Jeb and Hillary’s opportunity on workweek fairness
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have been trading barbs about whether Americans are working hard enough, but behind the...
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have been trading barbs about whether Americans are working hard enough, but behind the give-and-take is a real emerging issue that has a dire impact on our country’s 75 million hourly workers and their families: the 40 hour workweek is no longer something we can count on. The candidates have a chance to move beyond the gamesmanship and support concrete solutions at the national and local level to show their commitment to the stability of working families.
To summarize the exchange, Bush said that “people need to work longer hours.” Clinton quickly responded on Twitter, “Anyone who believes Americans aren't working hard enough hasn't met enough American workers.” Bush retorted, referencing the number of people who are involuntarily working part time and seeking full time work that, “Anyone who discounts 6.5 million people stuck in part-time work and seeking full-time jobs hasn’t listened to working Americans.”
Taken at their word, neither of them is wrong; both sides of the argument resonate in the lived experiences of the millions of people working by the hour. For hourly workers trying to work enough hours to earn enough to get by, it can mean taking the hours they can get –sometimes working short four-hour shifts, putting their lives on hold for a last-minute on-call shift, or working the late night shifts followed by too little sleep because of an early morning shift the next day – also known as a “clopen.”
This is reality for millions of Americans all across the country. Strained, exhausted, and without seeing their families some days. Their rent and bills are predictable, but the work hours they need to pay them are not.
Many of these workers both want more hours, like Bush says, and are working hard, like Clinton says. The American workforce is rapidly changing, and millions of people are caught in a cycle of too few hours, too little control of when their hours occur, and not getting paid for the time they make available to their employers. For part-timed hourly workers, there’s often no way to get ahead.
The issue missing from Jeb and Hillary’s exchange is how underemployment and unpredictability go hand in hand. The one thing these workers can count on is that their schedules will change each week, sometimes with just minutes’ notice. This last minute notice is typical of part-time hourly workers across the economy, especially in fast food and retail, by employers like Target, Starbucks, the Gap, Victoria’s Secret, and others. It’s impossible to pick up more hours at another job if you don’t know day to day what your schedule will be.
If Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are looking for real solutions to these issues, a new movement being led by working moms has some concrete policy solutions to offer. Last week, Congress introduced the Schedules That Work Act, a path-breaking bill addressing these underlying problems of part-time work that Bush and Clinton are debating. The bill is a result of workers calling for schedules they can predict, more stable hours they can count on, and the right to have a say into the hours they work without retaliation. The Schedules That Work Act has garnered a wave of support, in both the House and Senate, and comes after a year when legislators in 12 states introduced policies to guarantee a fair workweek, including active municipal campaigns that includes Minneapolis, Albuquerque, and Washington DC.
Clinton launched her campaign and declared, “I believe you should receive your work schedule with enough notice to arrange childcare or take college courses to get ahead” and Bush’s recent statements on involuntary part-time work show that even the GOP can’t ignore the under-employed. But the chaos that under-employment and unpredictable scheduling sows into workers lives is not just fuel for rhetoric, it’s real. And it requires real policy solutions. Hillary and Jeb have the chance to go deeper than their back and forth, address the common underlying problems they’ve both identified, and stand in favor of federal and local legislation that builds a fair workweek.
Gleason is the director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy
Source: The Hill
Two Reports Detail Wide Discrimination Against Transgender Americans
Windy City Media Group - February 18, 2015, by Gretchen Rachel Hammond - When the Supreme Court of the United States...
Windy City Media Group - February 18, 2015, by Gretchen Rachel Hammond - When the Supreme Court of the United States rules on the issue of same-sex marriage later this year, many of the advocacy organizations and groups nationwide that have fought for a resolution to the issue are hopeful that LGBTQ equality will take a giant leap forward. However two reports released February 18 by the Denver-based LGBT think tank The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) starkly demonstrate that the transgender community remains snared in disproportionate inequity, discrimination and oppression in almost all areas of American life—employment, housing, K-12 and higher education, healthcare, pensions, the criminal justice system, immigration, obtaining credit, loans, financial aid or identification documents and even marriage.
The ramifications to the community in terms of poverty, societal attitudes and manifestations of violence against transgender individuals have been bluntly illustrated with the deaths of eight transgender women across the United States in the first seven weeks of 2015.
The data, stories and issues raised in the reports entitled Understanding Issues Facing Transgender Americans and Paying and Unfair Price: the Penalty for Being Transgender in America were assembled and co-authored by MAP alongside the Center for American Progress, the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), and the Transgender Law Center, in partnership with Center for Community Change, Center for Popular Democracy, GLAAD, National Association of Social Workers, and the National Education Association.
Understanding Issues Facing Transgender Americans details each sphere of society in which transgender Americans face daily discrimination and offers brief recommendations on a local, state and federal level. The figures are sobering.
The report states that one-in-five transgender people have been refused a home or an apartment with laws protecting them on the books in only 18 states and D.C. In schools, 40 percent of gender non-conforming youth have reported some level of harassment with only 13 states offering laws against discrimination because of their gender identity. An astonishing 78 percent of transgender individuals reported being "mistreated or discriminated against at work" while up to 47 percent noted being unfairly denied a job at all. In terms of income, the report cited National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) figures which stated transgender Americans are "four times more likely to have a household income under $10,000 per year than the population as a whole."
Within the criminal justice system, the report notes that one-in-six transgender people will have been incarcerated at some point in their lives. For Black transgender individuals that figure stands at 47 percent. "Reports from the Bureau of Justice Statistics find that 35 percent of transgender prisoners report experiencing sexual abuse in the last twelve months, compared to 4 percent of all prisoners," the document states while indicating that the disproportionate numbers of low-income transgender people has led to a far greater frequency of police interactions and "higher levels police harassment, imprisonment and violence."
Unfair Price: the Penalty for Being Transgender in America examines that poverty in greater detail. The report lists what it calls two "primary failures of law' as the reason "transgender people in the United States face clear financial penalties and are left economically vulnerable"—pervasive discrimination and a lack of clear legal protections along with hostile educational environments.
The results are denial of employment or harassment while on the job, lower wages, denial of housing and even difficulty accessing homeless shelters, inordinate healthcare costs due to discrimination by insurance companies and healthcare providers and increased difficulty obtaining credit such as a credit card or student loan.
MAP Policy Specialist and Policy Researcher Naomi Goldberg was the lead author on that report while LGBT Movement and Policy Analyst Heron Greenesmith piloted the creation of Understanding Issues Facing Transgender Americans.
Goldberg told Windy City Times that both reports received their genesis from earlier and exhaustive research released by MAP detailing issues facing the LGBT community as a whole. "Beginning last year, we starting releasing issue-specific guides," she said. "Heron released one about the disparities that bisexual face in this country. Often both they and the transgender community are ignored when talking about LGBT people. So this guide about transgender [individuals] is meant to be used as an entry point for people to understand the key areas in which transgender people face challenges."
Goldberg hopes that the reports will be used in multiple areas and across a spectrum of audiences including the media, policy makers and advocacy groups. "It's meant to be another articulation of why protections are needed," she said. "As we see the transgender community gain visibility, a lot of people are coming to understand what it means to be transgender in a new way and I think this guide can be an easily accessible tool for people to talk about the real challenges transgender people face. There's a real opportunity here to articulate the concerns and the needs of the transgender community that is accessible and demystifying."
As a cisgender woman, Goldberg acknowledged that as she began to piece the report together she was surprised at the sheer breadth of discrimination against the transgender community. "It was the ways in which discrimination affects all aspects of life," she said. "In my opinion this is where the work really needs to be focused. We need to understand how to talk about the issues that transgender community face, how to provide recommendations to advance them in the policy sphere and also look at movement capacity—organizations that are doing the work and how to support [them]."
However Goldberg stressed that lack of data concerning the transgender community remains a huge obstacle in creating policy change. "We can probably say that the 2020 census will not be including questions of gender identity and expression," she stated. "There's going to be another fielding of the Transgender Discrimination Survey which uncovered and provided all of us with statistics to pair with people sharing their own stories. Gathering the data is going to be the long game but that is the path forward."
"It's not enough to say 'we're done' when we pass laws," Goldberg added. "This is something the LGBT movement post marriage-equality is going to have to address.
Source
What The Federal Reserve Would Look Like If Progressives Had Their Way
![](/sites/default/files/newsdefault.jpg)
What The Federal Reserve Would Look Like If Progressives Had Their Way
The progressive Fed Up coalition released an ambitious Federal Reserve reform plan on Monday designed to increase...
The progressive Fed Up coalition released an ambitious Federal Reserve reform plan on Monday designed to increase discussion of Fed policy in the presidential campaign.
The reforms, which would require the passage of new legislation, would turn the Federal Reserve into a public entity akin to other federal agencies, with the goal of dramatically increasing the accountability of the world’s most powerful financial body.
Currently, the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are owned by private commercial banks. As a result, financial executives dominate the regional Fed banks’ boards of directors, giving them an outsized role in key decisions like the selection of the banks’ influential presidents.
Four of the current presidents are alumni of Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs.
Fed Up and other progressives argue that the present governance structure undermines the Fed’s role as a regulator of the country’s financial institutions. These critics also argue that the influence of big banks tends to make Fed officials more sensitive to concerns about inflation, even as they hear little from ordinary workers affected by nominal changes in the unemployment rate.
Andrew Levin, a Dartmouth economist and former adviser to the Fed chair, who authored the proposal, said on a call with reporters that the changes would bring the Fed’s structure into line with major central banks in other countries. He mocked the plain conflict of interest inherent in giving the financial industry so much power over an institution charged with regulating it.
“It should be amazing for people in the public that banks actually own shares in the Fed. A lot of people would be shocked to hear that,” Levin said.
“It would be like if lawyers owned shares in the FBI,” he added.
In the new system Levin devised, the selection process of the regional banks’ directors would be supervised by the Washington-based Federal Reserve Board of Governors, with involvement from individual governors and members of Congress in the relevant Fed bank’s jurisdiction. The majority of each bank’s directors would need to come from small businesses and nonprofits. These more diverse boards, in turn, would have to make public their process for selecting a bank president.
Members of the Fed Board of Governors, unlike the regional Fed banks, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, which is one reason why Fed reform advocates consider them more accountable to the public.
Levin and Fed Up made clear that they view the new governance structure as a way of generating greater ethnic and racial diversity among Fed officials as well. Levin noted that in the Fed’s existence of more than a century, not one of the regional Fed presidents has been African American.
Levin called the statistic “clear evidence that something is broken.”
In making the Fed a public institution, the modified system envisioned by Levin would subject the regional Fed banks to the Freedom of Information Act and the oversight of the Fed Board of Governors’ inspector general.
The entire Fed, including the Fed Board of Governors, would also undergo an annual review by the Government Accountability Office, a government body tasked with evaluating the efficacy and accountability of federal agencies.
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors declined to comment on the new plan, but chairwoman Janet Yellen has opposed past efforts to audit the Fed.
In addition, Levin’s plan changes the terms of both regional Fed bank presidents and Fed governors to seven years. Currently, regional Fed presidents serve for five years, and can be reappointed to a second term — which almost always occurs, thanks to a process that Levin and Fed Up say is typically no more than a formality. Fed Board governors now serve 14-year terms.
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors declined to comment on the reform plan. But Fed chair Janet Yellen has condemned legislation in the past that would audit the Fed’s finances, claiming it would “politicize” the institution’s decisionmaking. Yellen’s stance suggests she would likely oppose the even broader GAO review.
Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who was a top economist at the Fed for many years, said of the reform plan that he is “more concerned that there are already too many limits on the Fed’s power to help the economy.”
Gagnon nonetheless said he views most of the new proposals favorably. His biggest specific objection is to the plan’s seven-year term limits, which he worries would open the Fed up to more political pressure by allowing a single president to decide its makeup.
The rollout of the Fed Up-backed proposal is timed — and packaged — to encourage presidential candidates to speak out. The coalition sent out model questions for the candidates to accompany the release of the reform proposal.
“It is important that we have a president who sees the need for sensible, pragmatic, nonpartisan reforms that will put the Fed on a path to serve the public for the next hundred years,” Levin said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has released his own plan to make the Fed more accountable to the public. His campaign expressed support for the spirit of Fed Up’s reform proposal.
Warren Gunnels, top policy adviser for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), joined the call to express support for the spirit of Fed Up’s proposed reforms.
Sanders “believes we need to structurally reform the Fed so that it is a democratic institution that is responsive to ordinary Americans not just CEOs on Wall Street,” Gunnels said.
Gunnels would not say if Sanders endorsed the proposal, however, claiming the senator needed more time to review it.
He instead pointed to the Federal Reserve platform Sanders laid out in a Dec. 23 New York Times op-ed. In the column, Sanders says he would bar financial industry executives from serving on the boards of regional Fed banks altogether, make Fed assistance to banks contingent on concrete measures of service to the public, such as lending to low-income workers, and preclude the Fed from raising its benchmark interest rate until unemployment is below 4 percent.
Ady Barkan, Fed Up’s campaign director, said that the coalition had invited all five presidential candidates to join the press call, but only Sanders’ campaign had agreed to participate.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a HuffPost request for comment on Fed Up’s proposal, nor did the remaining Republican presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Donald Trump.
Getting Democratic politicians, in particular, to make the Fed a policy cause could prove a difficult task for a number of reasons.
In recent years, Fed reform has tended to be the province of conservative lawmakers eager to rein in the Fed’s unprecedented efforts to aid financial institutions and stimulate economic demand in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Democrats have cast themselves as defenders of the Fed in those circumstances, since the central bank’s actions were viewed as crucial to the recovery.
It doesn’t help matters that the Fed is an issue that’s simply not on the public’s radar.
And there is also the risk of being seen as breaching protocol by commenting on an independent, nonpartisan institution.
“I don’t think many voters understand enough to care about it,” Ari Rabin-Havt, a progressive radio host and onetime aide to Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said in an interview earlier this month. “The people who do care about it somewhat, view it as a ‘temple.’”
But economists and policy experts argue that it would be a mistake for Democrats to ignore the Fed. “Central banks became and still are the only game in town” when governments want to boost economic demand and employment, according a column by New York University economist Nouriel Roubini. That’s partly as a result of the ideological backlash across the developed world against using public spending as a fiscal stimulus, and the delayed effect of other reforms.
And the Fed is especially important in the American context, because the government is likely to remain divided regardless of who wins the presidency, narrowing the possibilities of ameliorative fiscal measures.
“If the economy starts to weaken again, we cannot trust Congress to act,” Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, said earlier this month. “We will need a Fed that is ahead of the curve.”
Short of embracing reforms to the Federal Reserve’s governance, Democrats could make a bigger issue out of the two empty Fed governor seats. President Barack Obama named nominees for the positions many months ago, but Senate Republicans have failed to give them hearings.
Tim Duy, an economist at the University of Oregon, said he is “wary” of the candidates even articulating what kind of people they would nominate to the Fed Board of Governors lest they jeopardize the central bank’s independence. But he said calling for filling the empty governor seats is fair game.
“I would like [the presidential candidates] to at least say that we should have a Fed at full power, because that’s what makes for effective monetary policy,” Duy said earlier this month. “That should be a priority for Democrats and Republicans.”
By Daniel Marans
Source
Fed Up Coalition Complains About Jackson Hole Room Cancellations
![](/sites/default/files/newsdefault.jpg)
Fed Up Coalition Complains About Jackson Hole Room Cancellations
A group of activists planning to attend the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual economic symposium in Jackson...
A group of activists planning to attend the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo., has filed a complaint with the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General’s Office and the Justice Department after the conference hotel canceled the group’s room reservations.
The Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up Coalition said in an Aug. 9 letter that it booked 13 rooms in May at the Jackson Lake Lodge for its members for the nights of Aug. 24, 25 and 26. Last month, the lodge informed the group that their reservations had been canceled because of a “computer glitch,” according to the letter.
But the lodge didn’t cancel the reservations for other guests who booked after Fed Up did, said the letter written by Ady Barkan, campaign director of Fed Up, a left-leaning group that has lobbied for more diversity among Fed officials and more openness about the selection of regional Fed bank presidents.
“It is very hard for me to interpret the Company’s actions as anything other than a specific targeting of the Fed Up coalition,” he wrote in the letter.
Mr. Barkan said the group booked rooms at other hotels farther away from the conference, which will make it difficult for activists to attend events.
The Jackson Hole conference draws central-bank officials and economists from around the world who gather near the Grand Tetons to discuss monetary policy.
Fed Up members have been attending the conference for the past two years to urge Fed officials to hold off on raising interest rates, arguing that higher borrowing costs will slow economic growth and hurt low-income households. The group’s members often hold events and rallies near Fed events, wearing their signature green T-shirts.
A spokesperson for the Jackson Lake Lodge didn’t return a call for comment. Kathy Kupper, a spokeswoman for the National Parks Service said the lodges are run by independent contractors who are responsible for their day-to-day operations.
Mr. Barkan said he was writing the letter “to file a formal complaint regarding improper and potentially illegal behavior,” by the company.
By David Harrison
Source
6 days ago
11 days ago