Ideas Action Blog

Voting Rights Since 2000: Have We Made Progress?

noreply@blogger.com (Tova Andrea Wang) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:37:00 +0000

Demos Democracy Program Senior Policy Analyst Scott Novakowski contributed to this blog post.

Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar first published his award-winning book, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States in 2000--just months before the nation’s attention was captured by the debacle surrounding that year’s presidential election. Recognizing there was a new chapter that had to be written, in 2009 Professor Keyssar published a revised and expanded edition of the book, featuring some expansions of the earlier material plus a new chapter on what had transpired since the first edition.

At a recent Demos Forum, Voting Rights Since 2000: Have We Made Progress?, Professor Keyssar, joined by Debo Adegbile from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Tova Andrea Wang from Demos, examined the idea that this period has been yet another key era in the history of voting rights in America.

The past decade was indeed a new era of contestation in the history of voting rights with most of the battles now being waged in the states and, in some instances, in the federal courts including the United States Supreme Court. It was a period of partisan fights among state legislators with the help of partisan election administrators over whether to make voting rules more restrictive or to make it easier to vote, with many of the disagreements ending up in the courts.

The news was not all negative: Congress did for the first time appropriate federal funds for elections, and there was progress in getting states to comply with the law requiring public assistance agencies to provide voter registration services and reform of laws that disenfranchise former felons.

At the same time, however, the efforts to make it harder to vote and have your vote counted by states won out in many instances, particularly in the legislatures and, as has been true throughout our history, those efforts were often aimed at African Americans, immigrants and poor people. Post-2000 saw an explosion of laws imposing disenfranchising voter identification and proof of citizenship requirements, bad and often illegal purges of voter registration databases, discarding of votes in the form of provisional ballots, and continued efforts at voter suppression in minority communities.

The next decade looks like it will be just as challenging.

Barack Obama's Story Telling Problems

noreply@blogger.com (Demos) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:17:00 +0000

The following blog post, by Nancy Scola, is cross-posted from techPresident.

The theme of [Tuesday night's] event at the New York Society for Ethical Culture's elegant building just west of Manhattan's Central Park was, officially, the somewhat objective question, "Obama: Change We Can Still Believe In?" But the vibe of the evening turned out to be more about relationships than distanced assessments. Whether by providence or a bit of good stage setting, the song that was playing when panelists Katrina vanden Heuvel and Ari Melber of the Nation, the New York Times Gretchen Morgenson, Politico's Ben Smith, and Demos' Ben Barber took to the stage actually seemed more on point. "You've got a friend..." sang James Taylor. On this night, to consider the future of the Obama years, the question was, well, does he?

He does, was the consensus of the evening. And Barack Obama has the poll numbers to prove it. But the sentiment on stage and in the crowd was still that Obama hasn't been much of a pal to the progressive movement in his first 13 months in office. Of course, we've talked here about this question of whether and why all the considerable momentum of the Obama campaign, ginned up and harnessed by the Internet in large part, was allowed to float off into the ether after Election Day. There was a rehashing of that last night, for sure. (13 million names! And for what!)

But Demos' Barber offered a newish take on the question of just where the grassroots aspect of the Obama enterprise went off course. "Narrative is a way of explaining to ourselves the nature of the world that we live in," he suggested, and argued that Obama has failed to provide one that would give his progressive allies a story book to go by. And the web, in particular, loves a good story.

Or, to be more accurate, in his relative silence, Obama has offered a narrative that runs counter to his campaign's. The Obama '08 effort was, in the campaign and candidate's telling, all about the collective, and the potential of people-powered politics. His was a networked world view, where organized individuals could create meaningful change. Then came the inauguration. Old Washington hands took positions of high-power in his administration. (Is that really Larry Summers?) It started to look like any ol' presidency. "We've bought into the narrative," argued Barber, "that the power of the people is illegitimate, and the power of the corporations, banks, and special interests are legitimate."

(Lest you think this was just one old lefty talking, Morgenson, a Times' financial journalist, attested to the fact that the debate around financial reforms in Washington is shaped almost entirely by the big banks. Where's the public conversation about that weighty issue?, she asked.)

All that said, there was still a considerable level of hope in the crowd, and on the stage. Nation editor vanden Heuvel celebrated the online self-organizing of groups like MoveOn, Democracy for America, and the PCCC to bring the health care public option back into the legislative debate as an example of the "re-mobiliz[ation]" of grassroots left, a reinvigoration driven by a good narrative. But "more spirited, more nimble, more creative, and more disciplined organizing" is going to need to come from progressive quarters, she argued.

And until then, suggested the evening, those on the left would be better off friending themselves than looking for more leadership from the White House. "We are still waiting," said Barber, tweaking an Obama campaign slogan, "for the ones we were waiting for."

LIVE WEBCAST: Obama, Change We Can Believe In?

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:55:00 +0000

Tonight, Demos, The Nation Institute and Common Cause New York invite you to a special public event at the New York Society for Ethical Culture evaluating the progress made under the Obama Administration. Leading journalists and scholars--including Politico.com reporter Ben Smith, New York Times business and financial editor Gretchen Morgenson, The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuval and Ari Melber, and Demos' Benjamin Barber will provide original, incisive commentary on the administration’s 2010 political, economic, and cultural agenda and it’s execution. Tune in tonight at 7PM (EST).

Please Millennials, Save Us from Ourselves

noreply@blogger.com (Patrick Bresette) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:03:00 +0000

It seems like we could use some good news. All around us we see public services and systems being dismantled and downsized in the roiling wake of our national economic catastrophe. States and the federal government are grappling with the worst fiscal outlook in generations, and the public sector's role in the quality of life of our communities is being diminished and undermined. Decades of progress in public health, environmental quality and education are being threatened. And, we watch in dismay as our political institutions seem unable to cope effectively with the many challenges we face.

But, a ray of hope appeared last week in the form of a comprehensive look at the Millennial Generation released by the Pew Research Center. Titled Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next, this report is part of an ongoing project at Pew in partnership with PBS that began with a documentary series called Generation Next. The good news is this: a new generation is coming and they want to fix things. They are confident, tolerant, educated, and connected. They are civic-minded and want to reclaim government as a tool for public good. And, they can’t come soon enough.

The Millennial Generation is generally defined as those born between 1980 and 2000. It is an enormous generational cohort that is set to exceed the Baby Boomers in size and cultural impact. As the authors of Generation We note:

...the Millennials currently include 95 million young people up to 30 years of age--the biggest, most diverse, and best-educated age cohort in the history of the nation. In 2016, they will be 100 million strong and positioned to dominate the American political scene for 30-40 years.

But, more important than the sheer numbers are the characteristics of this generation that will affect our social and political life for years to come. There is much to be learned from the extensive Pew study, but two points are worth highlighting given our current circumstances. Millennials are more hopeful and confident about their future and that of the country than other age groups, and they support an active role for government:

More than half of Millennials (53%) say government should do more to solve problems, while 42% say government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.

([L]arge numbers of young adults (67%) say they would prefer a bigger government that provides more services over a smaller government that provides fewer services. Among older Americans, only 41% feel this way.)

The News Hour on PBS ran a segment about the Pew report and their conversations with Millennials reflected the survey findings:

I think, after seeing some of the stuff that happened in the previous administration, I really feel there's a lot we can do this time around. And it's not necessarily all going to be private sector. It's going to be the government. There's only so much Microsoft, Google, as an individual company, can say, vs. America as the aggregate.

The new Pew research reinforces other recent findings and observations about this generation. Generation We: How Millennial Youth Are Taking Over America and Changing Our World Forever is another cultural analysis of the Millennials. Among its observations:

Generation We is non-cynical and civic-minded. They believe in the value of political engagement and are convinced that government can be a powerful force for good.

Generation We believes strongly in the potential of government to do good. They don’t see government as a panacea for all problems and reject socialist doctrine as outdated and discredited. But they believe in the power of the collective—including government—to achieve the greater good for society as a whole.

They believe in our American system, but fear it is being hijacked by special interests and self-serving power elite. Generation We endorses ambitious problem-solving goals for our nation on a scale that can only be achieved with government playing a large role.

In Millennials Rising, authors Neil Howe and William Strauss make a convincing case that the Millennials are America’s next “civic” generation. The generational analysis they employ suggests that civic generations follow ideological generations--the Boomers in this case. Civic generations are less interested in fighting over competing values and are more interested in finding pragmatic solutions to society’s challenges:

Where the boomer upheaval focused on issues of self, culture, and morals, the Millennial upheaval will focus on issues of community, politics, and deeds. They will rebel against the culture by cleaning it up, rebel against political cynicism by touting trust, rebel against individualism by stressing teamwork, rebel against adult pessimism by going positive, and rebel against societal ennui by actually getting things done.

In Millennial Makeover, authors Winograd and Hais echo these observations. In February 2008 they penned an influential Washington Post column titled “The Boomers Had Their Day. Make Way for the Millennials":

American history suggests that about every 80 years, a civic generation emerges to make over the country after a period of upheaval caused by the fervor of an idealist generation. In 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932 and 1968, as members of new generations--alternately idealist and civic--began to vote in large numbers, the United States experienced major political shifts. Civic generations react against the idealist generations' efforts to use politics to advance their own moral causes and focus instead on re-energizing social, political and government institutions to solve pressing national issues.

Given the many challenges our country faces today and the contentious wrangling over the proper role of government in this new century I take hope in these findings. At the heart of all our biggest challenges in coming years--whether they be environmental or fiscal, social or political--will be the need for an active and focused government. We will need civic-minded pragmatists at the helm.

The Pew study is also an important reminder. For those who are working every day to protect public services and systems in these tough times and who are struggling to assert the essential role of government in the life of our country and economy, we must consciously and deliberately engage our 20-somethings in this debate. In our field work over the past several years, Public Works has had the privilege to work with a number of coalitions who are taking this challenge seriously and it has been heartening to see more and more Millennials in our trainings and meetings.

Reading the Pew Research also gave me some perspective. America is always and forever remaking itself. And in the past, civic-minded generations have played a central role in reshaping the American story and how we address our challenges and create new opportunities. Much of today’s social and political debate feels stuck in the well-worn ruts of the past 30 years. But the front edge of the Millennial generation is now entering positions of leadership and decision-making. Given what the research says about the way they view the world and what they want to do about it, Generation Next is about to reshape us again. Change is coming.

A footnote:
As I was working on this post I could not help but think about the contrast between this hopeful portrait of our next generation and the average ages of those who are making so many fateful decisions today:

Average age of the US Senate: 63.1*
Average age of US House Member: 57.2*
Average age of US Governor: 58

*The grayest Congress ever.

VIDEO: Saving State U: Why We Must Fix Public Higher Education

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:45:00 +0000

Learn More

The Credit CARD Act and the Need for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:31:00 +0000

Today marks an important step in the right direction for credit card reform--the first such move in nearly two decades. The Credit CARD Act (signed by President Obama last May) puts an end to at least ten abusive practices, which, as research has shown, have become a major source of revenue & profit for credit card companies.

Those reforms include requirements to give 45 days notice of any change in terms (such interest rate increases, fees, or credit limits), as well 21 days notice before payment is due.

Among the reforms, the law bans any interest rate increases within the first year (albeit with exceptions) and any subsequent rate increases will be applied to new (not existing) charges.

Particularly important are new restrictions on student credit cards, requiring those under the age of 21 to apply with a co-signer or demonstrate income eligibility and ability to make on-time payments. Card companies also can no longer market cards on college campuses.

For highlights of the new credit card rules, what they do and don’t do, click here.

But as both Demos’ Tamara Draut (appearing on CBS Evening News this weekend) and TARP Chair Elizabeth Warren (appearing on Realtime with Bill Maher last Friday) point out, credit card companies are are already at work exploiting loop-holes and finding new and innovative ways around the “fence posts” of the law.

As a recent report by our friends at the Center for Responsible Lending points out, credit card companies are "gaming" interest rates, using a combination of deceptive penalty fee structures and padding of miscellaneous fees to get around reforms.

(See this table outlining key practices).

Demos, along with a coalition of over 200 think tanks and advocacy groups, are calling for the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would consolidate authority to regulate and enforce consumer protection, as well as:

Ensuring that credit and payment products do not have predatory or deceptive features; banning products which don’t meet certain safety requirements; conducting research and investigations into credit industry products and services; staying on top of market innovation to make sure new products meet safety requirements, providing consumers with high quality information about how to avoid abusive lending and credit problems.

Don’t Throw Stones from a Glass House--Especially at an Independent Watchdog Like Elizabeth Warren

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:07:00 +0000

The following blog post, by Heather Booth, Executive Director of Americans for Financial Reform, is cross-posted from new deal 2.0.

Heather Booth defends Elizabeth Warren against Ryan McKee’s attacks.

Over at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s website, Ryan McKee has been slamming Elizabeth Warren’s recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal for, among other things, toxifying the political debate around financial regulatory reform by using the words “Wall Street CEOs” nine times.

You may remember McKee as the most vocal spokesperson for the Chamber’s effort over the past year to tow the financial industry’s line whenever and wherever possible — but particularly in its flashy, well-resourced campaign to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).

The CFPA is the part of the financial regulatory reform package that Congress is considering that would be protect working families and small businesses. It would prevent the kinds of abuses that have stripped so much money from the pockets of families, and that also cost millions of Americans their jobs. The agency would do this mostly by getting rid of fine print, increasing competition for financial products, and making the market work properly again. By allowing the market to function better, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency would increase stability and so decrease some profits and bonuses in the financial industry-and so a lot of industry executives don’t much like it.

I haven’t given McKee much credit over the past year. He’s the embodiment of “say-anything-do-anything” efforts to kill any type of reform, including reforms that could have prevented the economic crisis. But I’ll give him credit for this: at least he practices what he preaches.

Wall Street CEOs may be contributing enormously to the Chamber’s budget and strategy sessions, but they’ve been conspicuously absent from McKee’s talking points. Instead, McKee spends the vast majority of his effort pushing the myth that financial reform will hurt small businesses. And he’s used small business owners as window dressing for a massive, industry-fueled campaign to kill sensible reform.

What makes this particularly painful to listen to is the fact that the CFPA and other reforms would actually help small businesses. In fact, small businesses use consumer credit products, like credit card and home equity lines of credit routinely, especially when they’re starting out. These businesses would benefit from fair and transparent practices as much as anyone. It’s not easy to write a business budget and plan when your lender can jack up interest rates or cut your line of credit at any time for any reason. Small businesses have also really suffered from the lack of stability in our economy - and a more stable system allows businesses to predict their funding levels and plan for the future.

So maybe McKee is drawing the wrong lessons from Elizabeth Warren’s opinion piece. Instead of asking Elizabeth Warren to stop saying “Wall Street CEO” so much, maybe he should start saying it more often. Start being upfront about the extent to which they have funded your operation. And start being upfront about who your campaign against reform will really help.

Since the financial collapse, we have learned two incontrovertible facts. First, that Professor Warren is maniacally focused on bringing reforms to Washington that will help working families better protect themselves against abusive and deceptive practices. And second, that McKee is maniacally focused on blocking reforms in Washington to continue to help line the pockets of Wall Street executives. It takes a lot of gall for him to accuse others of taking integrity out of the process.

Heather Booth is Executive Director of Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of over 200 national, state and local consumer, labor, retiree, investor, community, business, and civil rights organizations who are campaigning for real reform in our nation’s financial system.

VIDEO: The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Tonight, Demos welcomes longtime civil rights advocate and litigator, Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, a new book that looks at America's racial caste and its evolution from Jim Crow and legal racial segregation to mass incarceration, exacerbated by a system that legally permits the formerly incarcerated to be discriminated against for the rest of their lives, and leaves them without adequate employment, housing, education, and public benefits.

A Tribute to Our Dear Friend Beth Shulman

noreply@blogger.com (Miles Rapoport) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:07:00 +0000

Demos is deeply saddened at the passing of our dear friend Beth Shulman. Beth, who was a Senior Fellow at Demos, had been a lifelong advocate for working people, a leader in the movement to expose abusive employment practices, and a core figure in a national campaign to implement a fair, living wage. Her book, The Betrayal of Work, exposed the inequities of America's economy, and humanized the struggles of millions of working men and women. With Beth's passing we have lost one of the strongest voices for working Americans. But her organizing, writing, and leadership leave us with a legacy of progress we must continue to pursue.

Friday Feature: Oregon Votes Yes! for Oregon

noreply@blogger.com (Patrick Bresette) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:25:00 +0000

On Tuesday the people of Oregon voted Yes! They voted yes not just for the specific tax measures on the ballot but yes for their state and its future. There are lessons in this vote; just not the ones you are hearing most about.

Voters on Tuesday supported two tax increases that had been passed by the legislature as part of a balanced approach of cuts and new revenues to address a deep budget shortfall. These two tax increases were immediately challenged by business and anti-tax groups and placed on the January 26th ballot.

A superficial reading of the outcome might suggest that this vote in favor of taxes on high incomes and corporations is merely an example of populist anger at the wealthy and big business. But the story of success on Tuesday is richer than this analysis. The energy that fueled months of hard work by a broad and deep coalition of concerned organizations and individuals, with thousands of volunteers, endless door knocking, phone calls and conversations with neighbors was not merely a "soak the rich" anger, it was a deep concern for the future of the state. In the months leading up to the vote on Tuesday these individuals, advocates and organizations made a compelling and affirmative case for the role of government in Oregon. This is the lesson that other states should learn.

The two proposals on the ballot--known as Measures 66 and 67--increased marginal taxes on high income households and raised the corporate income tax. Measure 66 raises income taxes on individuals who earn more than $125,000 a year and households that earn more than $250,000 a year, generating $472 million. Measure 67 raises $255 million by increasing from $10 to $150 the minimum corporate income tax that has not changed since 1931 and creating a graduated system based on sales and taxable income.

The vote to support these two tax measures was a stunning reversal of decades of anti-tax votes in Oregon. As the Los Angeles Times noted:

Over the years, voters here have capped property taxes (saddling the state with two-thirds the cost of running the schools) and passed a constitutional amendment requiring rebates whenever tax receipts come in 2% over budget. Nine times they have been asked to OK a sales tax--and said no. Proposals to increase the state income tax? Down in flames twice.

In the wake of the vote, observers and pundits--both in support of and against the measures--have focused their attention on the fact that these tax increases fall on the wealthy and corporations. They assert that the vote is additional evidence of an emerging populism that is ready to "soak the rich and greedy businesses."

Huffington Post:

Oregon's Sherwood Forest, take-from-the-rich strategy might appeal to legislators in other states struggling to bandage their budgets...

The Wall Street Journal:

One national consequence of the Oregon vote is that we are likely to see unions finance more of these tax-the-rich campaigns in other states with big deficits.

Similar themes were echoed by the Oregonian, the Atlantic, Daily Kos, and many others.

Unfortunately, the deeper story behind this historic vote is not getting the attention it deserves. It is true that polling by the Vote Yes! campaign showed deep public support for increasing the ridiculously low minimum tax on corporations and a willingness to raise taxes on those most able to afford them. But Americans do not vote for taxes on wealth just because. In fact, important research by Larry Bartels of Princeton shows that more often than not average Americans side with businesses and the wealthy in tax debates--voting for tax cuts they will never receive and against tax increases they will not pay. In his groundbreaking paper "Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind,” Bartells dissects the deep anti-tax sentiments that undermine even the most logical revenue proposals.

Getting the public to support tax increases requires more than pointing a finger at someone else who should pay. It requires reconnecting taxes to their purposes. The Public Works team at Demos spent a good deal of time in Oregon in the fall and winter working with a number of key campaign supporters. We helped them think about ways to engage the public in the larger public purposes that were at stake, not just the particulars of the tax package. And this is the part of the successful effort in Oregon that deserves more attention. In a subtle but important and consistent manner the campaign and its many advocates worked hard to reconnect Oregonians to what was at risk--the fundamental public systems and structures that the state depends on and that are essential to their shared quality of life.

This was different than merely offering a laundry list of the dire cuts that would ensue without new revenue. It was a coherent narrative about Oregon and its future. This excerpt from a letter to the editor by State Representative Chris Harker is emblematic:

As a small-business owner, I'm convinced that in order for Oregon to prosper we need to have the courage and the will to create an environment that's profitable both for businesses and for the communities on which our businesses rely. Unless we properly fund our education system and protect working families and the services they need, we're going to struggle to compete in the growing global economy. The days in which low skills could generate high pay are disappearing. These tax measures are the next necessary steps to promoting the health and well-being of our state as a whole.

Other supporters and observers have recognized that this aspect of the campaign was part of its success. Dick Hughes in his Statesman Journal column remarked: On the one hand, it could be dangerous to read too much into the measures' passage.

By accepting higher taxes, Oregonians maintained their national reputation as mavericks. But these were taxes on "the other guy" — well-to-do Oregonians and businesses — so most voters wouldn't directly pay them. But it also would be a mistake to disregard what the measures indicated about the voters' perceptions. Oregonians showed their faith in Oregon government, believing the tax money was necessary to support state services and schools (emphasis added).

In an Oregonian article, Steve Novick, a key spokesman for the Vote Yes! campaign noted:

We ran a campaign that reminded people of the value of those government services

On the eve of the victory a spokesman for the Oregon PTA talked about the meaning of the win this way:

Tonight’s victory is one for all Oregonians--especially students and middle class families," said Otto Schell, of the Oregon PTA. “Strong schools and preserving public services are critical to our children’s future and key to our economic recovery. Today, Oregon voters have laid the foundation for a strong future.

In a post campaign thank you to supporters, Senator Peter Courtney (President of the Oregon Senate) stated that:

Pundits will argue that the lesson from Tuesday’s vote was either (1) that progressives rebounded quickly from the shocking loss of a once “safe” Democratic U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts or (2) that Oregon voters are on the leading edge of a populist revolt against big corporations and their wealthy CEOs.

If those who have watched us so closely only consider those things, however, they will miss the most important point. Oregon voted to keep funding our schools, health care for our children and to keep criminals locked inside prison walls because of a super-human effort by everyday people...

The lesson Oregonians should remember and other states should learn from Tuesday’s vote is that we did not succeed because of the structure of the revenue measures alone. It was also an incredible collaborative spirit and tireless work ethic that saved Oregon, my Oregon.

As we all digest the results of this historic vote in Oregon, let’s make sure we give attention to all of its lessons. States across the country are facing budget challenges of a scale and scope they have never seen before. What is at risk are the public systems, services and structures that are essential to our very quality of life and our economic future. Any responsible approach to this challenge should include an examination of new revenue options, not just budget cuts. This means we need to create a more productive conversation about taxes and their purposes. The good news coming out of Oregon is that this is a conversation we can have and can win.

Obama's State of the Union: No Time to Turn Back

noreply@blogger.com (Miles Rapoport) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:09:00 +0000

In last night’s speech, President Barack Obama confronted an incredibly difficult challenge. His agenda for change has been stymied by an implacable Republican opposition, a set of democracy-defying rules in Washington in the filibuster and the drenching of the system with money (even before the horrendous Citizens United decision), and a startling amount of self-serving politics among some Democratic colleagues.

President Obama was right to acknowledge his difficulties, right to challenge those who have hamstrung legislative progress and those Democrats seeking to trim the sails and tack to the right, and right to call out the super-activist Supreme Court Majority. I was glad he pledged not to quit and not to give up on really making change, even if the specifics of the move forward were generally sketchy.

The proof will be in the follow-through. If he really takes his challenge of serious financial reform to the mat; if he puts flesh and serious investment behind the call to create new jobs; if he fights to make education affordable and retirement secure despite the warnings of the deficit-hawks; and if he really fights to change Washington and enliven our democracy, not just with lobbyist postings but with public financing of elections and reforms to bring every eligible voter into the process and into the conversation; then this speech will have marked a new beginning of hope and change.

I want that to be the case, and I’m dismayed by some of the premature dismissals of the possibilities and the predictions of failure while the wheel is still in spin. And it’s not President Obama’s job alone. Those of us who want the kind of change he continues to promise need to speak, rebut, and march, all to push out the space of possibility, in which he can move forward and from which our country can achieve the kind of economic opportunity for all and democracy with meaning that we so desperately seek.

Obama's Spending Freeze is More Politics Than Purpose

noreply@blogger.com (Tamara Draut) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:17:00 +0000

The national temper tantrum displayed on the fringes of our political debate--personified by tea parties and the squawking of the deficit hawks for a budget commission--have led the Obama Administration down a political path of no good return.

At tomorrow's State of the Union Address, President Obama will propose a 3-year freeze on spending on domestic programs other than defense, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. On the same day the Administration announced this freeze, the New York Times ran an article about widespread food insecurity in the United States.

One in five Americans did not have enough money to buy food at some point in the last year. The level of food insecurity decreased slightly this year thanks to increased spending for the nation’s food stamp program, with a record 38 million Americans now using food stamps to feed themselves and their families. It's the kind of stimulus spending vital during an economic downturn, and a safety net that ensures our humanity doesn’t get thrown out the window every time the Dow takes a nosedive. But Obama's new plan would force states facing increasing need to do more with less.

Yet, the story of mass food insecurity is just one indication that the path our nation needs to follow is one of greater social investment, not disinvestment. With the unemployment rate in double-digits and foreclosures still mounting, our government needs to focus on paving the way toward an economy of shared prosperity. The great challenges confronting our nation are recovery in the short-term, and rebuilding in the long-term. Paying down the deficit is not inconsistent with either of these goals, but a broad freeze on domestic spending is political pandering masquerading as political leadership.

As Demos Senior Fellow Robert Kuttner argues in the American Prospect, we need more deficit spending on public investment and jobs now--we can turn our attention to deficit reduction once recovery comes. This is the prescription for long-term prosperity, and as important in an election year, it’s the right decision politically.

Fueling the debate and public anxiety about our nation's fiscal health is the sense that our government is no friend of the people. As low- and middle-income households have struggled to stay afloat, bad policymaking has only cemented this perception. For the past decade, Congress and state legislatures have chosen tax cuts for the wealthy over broad-based investments in education, research and technology or basic infrastructure. And now, with the insecurity deepening and growing in the recession, the American people are angry about spending trillions of dollars to save the very banks that brought us to the brink of another depression. Serving up a freeze on discretionary domestic spending will only further damage the government's ability to serve the common good, and really won’t make a serious dent in the long-term deficit picture.

According to the New York Times, the Administration says that by 2015 the spending freeze will result in the share of discretionary domestic spending being at its lowest level in a half-century relative to the size of the economy. This is hardly a recipe for building a competitive and prosperous economy for the 21st century, but it’s the bragging rights the Administration thinks it needs to make politically. It’s both wrong politically and substantively, a self-inflicted vise that will further constrain our nation’s ability to recover and rebuild the economy.

Will Scott Brown's Victory and the Decision in 'Citizens United' Kill Climate Legislation?

noreply@blogger.com (Cristina Vasile) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:31:00 +0000

If the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts last week wasn't bad enough for the prospects of passing climate legislation, the Supreme Court ruling to overturn campaign limits for corporations may be the final nail in the coffin for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

The blogosphere and opinion pages have been abuzz analyzing the shockwaves coming from Brown’s victory. The implications for climate change legislation are dire.

Brown opposes a national cap and trade program (even after voting in favor of a regional-level cap-and-trade program while a state senator). When asked whether he thought global warming was a fraud last week, Brown responded:

“It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling. It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information...I just want to make sure if in fact...the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and if its unbiased by scientists with no agenda.”

Brown has already promised to block health care legislation--and as one research firm put it:

“If an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill was unlikely before, we think a Republican win in Massachusetts would put it on life support.

However, if you think that’s bad, then prepare yourself for even worse news: the Supreme Court ruling to overturn campaign limits for corporations. President Obama issued a statement Thursday, saying that:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street Banks, health insurance companies, and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

By opening the door for oil, coal and manufacturing interests to exercise their influence, we may be signing the death warrant for ACES. The swollen river of private money has already made climate change legislation an uphill battle. Now that river will grow even more unstoppable. The oil and gas industry contributed over $35 million to campaigns in 2008 (not to mention $132.2 million on lobbying efforts in the same year).

The Sierra Club also issued a statement on the ruling:

“Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and other special interests have a stranglehold on the Congress and today’s ruling will further endanger the ability of citizens to influence the political process….We already have very clear indications of the dangers that lie ahead. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been involved in today’s case, reported just yesterday that it spent a record-breaking $71 million on lobbying last quarter. Even before today’s decision it has already been laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate cash, most notably for the health insurance industry and polluters, and has pledged to spend tens of millions of dollars in this year’s elections. Now it and the special interests that fund it will be allowed to spent limitless amounts not only in the legislative process, but to support or oppose individual candidates.”

While the election of Scott Brown is clearly a setback for the climate change battle, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has the potential to impede climate legislation, long after Brown leaves office.

The Anatole France First Amendment of Citizens United?

noreply@blogger.com (Brenda Wright) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:41:00 +0000

This blog is cross-posted from ACSblog, where Democracy Program Director Brenda Wright is a guest blogger, in response to yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

With today's decision in Citizens United, the Roberts Court has proudly unveiled the Anatole France First Amendment. "The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and beg in the streets," Anatole France famously wrote. After today, the First Amendment, in its majestic impartiality, will allow ordinary citizens and massive corporations alike to spend as much as they desire to elect their preferred candidates to office.

In a pre-argument blog on Citizens United, I pointed out how radically the scale of money in politics would change if the Court were to hold that the First Amendment outlaws any distinction between giant corporations and individuals when it comes to electoral spending. As the Solicitor General's supplemental brief in Citizens United explains:

During the 2007-2008 election cycle...FEC-registered political parties spent $1.5 billion, and federal PACs spent $1.2 billion, while the Fortune 100 companies had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of $605 billion. If those 100 companies alone had devoted just one percent of their profits (or one-twentieth of one percent of their revenues) to electoral advocacy, such spending would have more than doubled the federally-reported disbursements of all American political parties and PACs combined.

One of the most striking features of the majority opinion is thus the disconnect between its rhetoric - which frames the ideal of protecting the political arena from the terrible dangers of public oversight - and the reality - namely, the massive damage the decision itself will do to the political arena and the ideal of self governance by unleashing for-profit corporate treasury funds in the electoral sphere. At the heart of this disconnect is the deeply flawed assumption that political spending by an artificial, entirely state-created entity such as a for-profit corporation serves precisely the same function of self-expression and political actualization as it does for an individual person. The amicus brief that I helped author for the American Independent Business Alliance summarized the problems with that assumption as follows:

The governance system of...corporations is highly successful for the pursuit of profit, making them important instruments in the economic sphere. But the very factors that make the corporate form an effective instrument of wealth accumulation are the factors that make it inappropriate for corporations to claim the full panoply of First Amendment protections for political speech and participation that are enjoyed by natural persons. Because of the way corporations are structured, corporate speech does not express the political views of any individual or group of individuals associated with the corporation. Moreover, the constraints that drive a corporation's political speech - the requirement that corporate actions all must be calibrated toward profit - directly undermine the notion that a corporation can be a free participant in the marketplace of ideas. And precisely because a corporation enjoys significant state-created economic advantages designed for the narrow purpose of furthering wealth-accumulation, corporate participation in candidate campaigns promotes market entrenchment and corrupts the political marketplace in a fundamentally undemocratic manner.

Justice Stevens' dissent picks up on these themes (and even quotes our amicus brief, the only kind of comfort the reform side is getting from campaign finance opinions these days). In Justice Stevens' words "the fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it." He continues:

Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

But the majority's decision to overrule decades of precedent in order to unleash for-profit corporate participation in the political marketplace displays an even more striking disconnect when we think about the timing of the decision. The notion of perfecting our democracy by casting off all restrictions on corporate political spending comes on the heels of massive and appalling failures of corporate governance in the economic sphere itself - the very sphere for which the corporate form was created. Unrestrained and under-regulated pursuit of corporate profit helped spark a financial meltdown that wiped out $2 trillion in retirement savings in 15 months, lost 2 million homes to foreclosure over the past two years; and saw the disappearance of 7.2 million jobs. In the wake of all this, the Roberts Court's response is to ask "What could possibly go wrong from putting corporations in charge of politics too?"

The reform movement is gearing up quickly to move from outrage to action. The responses vary. Many are calling on a renewed push for public financing of congressional elections to help give citizens a place at the table; others are urging the need for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision; and others are proposing shareholder protection measures that would give shareholders greater control over political spending by corporations. All of these approaches have promise and should be widely debated in the coming days.

[image via www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org]

WATCH: The Future of Philanthropy: Will Market-Based Models Save the World? Live Webcast Tonight

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:36:00 +0000

A new movement called philanthrocapitalism promises to save the world by applying a market-based perspective to various social and economic challenges. How well can this approach solve the complex and nuanced goals of fundamental social transformation? Some argue that philanthrocapitalism is a new and innovative way to breathe life and resources into the causes for which we advocate. Others maintain that business-based solutions are based on an entirely different set of principles, and will never inspire the collaborative spirit necessary for true change.

Tonight, Demos will host the book launch of Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World by Distinguished Senior Fellow Michael Edwards. Edwards will be joined by The Economist's Matthew Bishop, author of Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World and the upcoming The Road from Ruin: How to Revive Capitalism and Put America Back On Top. The authors will draw upon their recent books to discuss and debate the costs and benefits of philanthrocapitalism in tackling our toughest social problems, both in the US and globally.

If MLK Were Around, He Wouldn't Care About Racial Brushfires in the Media--He'd Be Talking About Poverty

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Benjamin) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:55:00 +0000

The following blog is cross-posted from AlterNet.

What a tangle of racial controversies to embroil politicians, the media, and the public in recent days: Glenn Beck insisted that African-American is a "bogus, PC-term," the Census bureau insisted on keeping "Negro" among its list of racial categories, and Senator Harry Reid confessed to saying the President's appeal derives from his (relatively) fair skin and Negro-free dialect.

Forgive, for a moment, some biographical speculation: Had he lived, Martin Luther King, Jr. would not likely be bothered by these racial brushfires. Instead, he would be appalled by the larger afflictions engulfing this nation, all of which threaten the realization of his dream--not the therapeutic, saccharine dream peddled to us in candle-lit commemorations, but the urgent dream anchored by his gritty work.

The just-released jobs report shows 85,000 more jobs lost in December, with startling unemployment across the board: Teenagers (27 percent), Blacks (16.2 percent), Hispanics (12.9 percent), Whites (9 percent), and the general population at 10 percent and rising.

Socio-economic progress in the United States is no better today then during the latter years of Dr. King's life. America faces the same poverty rate today (13.2 percent) that Dr. King denounced in 1968 (12.8 percent). Meanwhile, the number of people living in poverty in that time span has grown from 25 million to a whopping 40 million, including 12 million children.

As the House and Senate dither over healthcare reform, and tens of millions of Americans hover on the brink of poverty, Martin Luther King's Dream remains more pressing and relevant than at any point since his assassination.

Rather than thoughtfully discussing our political problems, including race, Americans love to reduce the conversation to feelings and etiquette. It's the personal and dramatic aspects of race that obsess us, not the deeply rooted and currently active, political inequalities. That's our predicament: Racial debate, in public and private, is trapped in the sinkhole of therapeutics.

On the airwaves, in the legislatures, around the kitchen tables, and at the water cooler, we would serve our country better with a conversation about class and racial inequalities than with chitchat about how any given person "feels."

We live in a nation that worships Latino baseball players, black presidential candidates, and Asian classical musicians, even as it diminishes, or neglects, the average non-white citizen -- overwhelmed moms, factory workers, prisoners. So, instead of asking Does Topher like Asian women? Will LaShonda marry her Latino beau? Why does Glenn have no black friends? why not ask how we can expand middle-class stability -- earnings, savings, homeownership -- to the hordes of Americans, among all races, who are one pink slip, one lapsed mortgage payment, one cancer diagnosis, one car wreck away from destitution?

Modern-day King would not be bothered by Harry Reid -- almost King's historical contemporary -- and his anachronistic gaffe. Modern-day King would be perturbed, however, by the Senate Majority Leader's inability, so far, to marshal the requisite Senate support for a public option in healthcare reform. And the intransigence of both war and economic depravation would pique the slain leader.

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane," King declared in 1966. Two years later, the year he was assassinated, King launched his Poor People's Campaign, "a multiracial army of the poor," that marched on Washington to demand an Economic Bill of Rights from Congress.

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar," Dr. King maintained. "It is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." Recounting the Biblical parable of the beggar on the Road to Jericho, King called for sweeping changes to the conditions that cause economic suffering. What does fixing the Road to Jericho mean today?

Forget about Negros, Avatar's alleged racial insensitivity, and Glenn Beck's melanin-deficient friends. To help realize King's dream, let's start by ensuring meaningful healthcare and financial industry reform, not the mostly haphazard, cosmetic measures flung about so far.

Dr. King did not view poverty as a natural or inevitable condition of humankind. Instead, he believed it was the result of unjust economic policies and a lack of government investments that help people realize their potential. King's actual legacy teaches Americans and political leaders a great deal about implementing an equitable, purposeful, and long-term economic recovery.

Video: Why U.S. Families Need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:58:00 +0000

Our friends over at the Center for Responsible Lending have put together this brief, poignant video outlining the reasons why a Consumer Financial Protection Agency is urgently needed:

Video Roundup: Rich Benjamin’s "Searching for Whitopia”

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:52:00 +0000

The following was originally posted by Chris Chuang at the Progressive Book Club on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

Check out these videos of author and journalist Rich Benjamin promoting his new book Searching For Whitopia: An Improbable Journey to the Heart of White America, which explores the social and political implications of the startling rise of "Whitopias"-small towns and exurbs without diversity.

Benjamin's book covers a wide range of topics, from illegal immigration to unfair housing practices, as he travels to and from white enclaves in the heart of America. His journey is filled with moments of humor and insight, as he holds up a mirror to America as it's shaping up in the 21st century.

How EDR and EV Are Like PB & J

noreply@blogger.com (Tova Andrea Wang) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:52:00 +0000

We have known for years now that the one statistically proven method of increasing the number of people who participate in elections is to give them the ability to register and vote on the same day. This is especially true among young people. At the same time, the research has fairly consistently shown that early voting does not bring many new voters to the polls but rather makes it easier for people who would have voted, including a recent study done by Jonathan Nagler and Jan E. Leighly just in the last few months.

And yet early voting is all the rage--bills have passed like wildfire in state legislatures over the last few years. In the meantime, Election Day Registration is the policy in nine states but many state legislatures resist it. What gives?

In part it is a matter of supply and demand. Existing voters tell election administrators and their elected representatives they want early voting and they are responding. Convenience in voting is not a bad thing, and providing it is something that should certainly be encouraged. But when it comes to voters who have been less engaged, they have less of a power base. Yet isn’t getting the dismal rate of voter participation up among the most important goals of reforming the election system?

Ah, but there is an answer. How about both? Why not support the values of convenience and turnout and take measures to accomplish both?

That's where a recent study by a group of scholars at the University of Wisconsin, as well as real life evidence from the 2008 election come in. Barry Burden, David C. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer and Donald P. Moynihan have just issued a groundbreaking study demonstrating that while early voting in itself does not increase participation--in fact, they find that it actually decreases turnout--when early voting is combined with Election Day Registration and Same Day Registration (the ability to register and vote during early voting as well as on Election Day) the turnout increases can be significant.

Using a number of different statistical models, these researchers find consistently that when you combine early voting with Election and Same Day Registration, voter participation increases. At the same time if you just implement early voting alone, it actually has "a strong negative effect on turnout,” perhaps, they speculate, because early voting takes away from the focus on a single Election Day as a moment of collective action. The only way that early voting in any scenario brings new voters to the polls is when it is combined with Election Day Registration, possibly because EDR acts as an equalizer by providing a separate vehicle for increased voting on the day of the election. As the researchers put it, “the results suggest that creating the opportunity for voters to ‘one stop shop’ offers a way to turn the negative of early voting into a net positive.”

In some ways this finding is not surprising--we saw this phenomenon in action in 2008 in North Carolina. By combining Same Day Registration with early voting for the first time, North Carolina had the largest increase in voter turnout in the country. Voting rose 8 percentage points over the 2004 vote, the greatest presidential vote increase in the nation. 253,000 individuals used SDR in the run-up to the November 4, 2008 election. 105,000 were first-time voters in their counties; the balance used SDR to update their voter registration records and avoid the need to vote by provisional ballot. More than 5% of the 4.2 million voters in the North Carolina 2008 election registered when they went to vote. 691,000 African Americans voted during the early voting period—51% of the 1.32 million black registered voters in North Carolina.

There's certainly value in making it easier for existing voters to cast their ballot. But it is critical for the health of our democracy to get more people from various walks of life to take part in our electoral system. This research from Wisconsin makes the critical argument that we can do both. And we should.

Proposed Student Tax Hurts Local Economies

noreply@blogger.com (Viany Orozco) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:18:00 +0000

This post originally appeared on WireTap.

In this recession the highest priority in higher education among political leaders should be college access and affordability. Anything short of this will exclude low and moderate income students from gaining the preparation they need to not only to gain better salaries but also to contribute more to their communities.

Research by CEOs for Cities found that if each of the nation's 51 largest metropolitan areas improved their educational attainment by just 1 percentage point, the nation would realize a $124 billion annual dividend.

Yet as students are struggling to pay for rising tuition costs resulting from severe cuts in higher education funding by the states, the mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl, has proposed a one percent tax on the college tuition of students in Pittsburgh. Student throughout the state are already sacrificing financially to pay for their college educations.

Half of Carnegie Mellon students who graduated in 2008 had debt of an average of $29,346. At the University of Pittsburgh-Bradford, 92 percent of its 2008 graduating class had debt averaging 26,463. This tax will not only translate into more debt but it will significantly impact the ability of low and moderate income college students to enter college or stay enrolled.

There is no question the recession exacerbated Pittsburgh's tenuous financial landscape but students cannot be the scapegoat of these financial troubles, not only because its wrong but it makes no economic sense.

Even before the recession, students throughout the state were already paying the price of stagnant financial aid and increasing tuition. In the long run, Mayor Ravenstahl's strategy will certainly hurt the interests of Pittsburgh residents, especially its middle class.

A Holiday Gift for Ohio's Low-Income Voters

noreply@blogger.com (Lisa Danetz) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:56:00 +0000

Just in time for the holidays comes a gift for Ohio's low-income citizens: an increased opportunity for political participation. Specifically, Demos and our partners have negotiated a litigation settlement that should ensure the state's public assistance offices offer and assist their clients with voter registration.

More than three years ago, Demos, Project Vote, and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law began looking into the voter registration practices at public assistance offices in Ohio, as we have in many other states, to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act. What we found in the Buckeye State at that time was not pretty:

Interviews conducted in the three largest counties revealed that virtually no individuals were offered the opportunity to register at public assistance offices within those counties, and a separate investigation of six counties showed lack of compliance in all six (five of which did not even have one voter registration application on the premises).

Public assistance offices in ten counties did not register a single person from 2003-2004, and another 17 counties registered fewer than ten persons during that time frame.

The Secretary of State’s office told a researcher that its entire voter registration program for public assistance offices consisted of providing a toll-free number for local public assistance agencies to call to order voter registration applications.

The state entity overseeing the local public assistance offices, the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services, contended it had no authority to ensure the provision of voter registration by its local offices.

In response to a letter notifying it that voter registration was not being provided at public assistance offices, the Secretary of State’s office essentially indicated that Ohio already had enough registered voters.

These facts, among others, gave rise to a lawsuit whose point was to give citizens, like client Carrie Harkless, an opportunity to participate in the political process. The case was hard-fought on both sides for over three years.

Through twists and turns, ups and downs--including a dismissal, a trip to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a return to the district court, the case was finally settled on the eve of Thanksgiving.

To our happy surprise, we were supported by the Bush Department of Justice and we won in a unanimous panel opinion that included two Bush-appointees.

In the beginning, there was no state official who took responsibility to ensure the provision of voter registration services. Now, both the Secretary's office and the Department of Jobs and Family Services will play active yet distinct roles in ensuring such services. Significantly, to a large degree, the voter registration will be institutionalized within agency procedures so that voter registration is treated just like another agency function. Among other things:

The state will implement an extensive and regular training program for those employees with voter registration responsibilities, which will ensure that turnover does not eliminate the positive efforts made by the state as time goes by;

A notice of the availability of voter registration and a voter registration application will be integrated within each agency’s benefits forms, which will ensure that public assistance recipients actually receive the voter registration forms;

The provision of voter registration, and its details, will be incorporated into the ODJFS statewide computer system used by all frontline caseworkers, which will ensure both the offer of voter registration as well as record important information about its provision; and

There will be regular reporting, monitoring, and follow-up regarding performance by the local agencies, and this will occur by several different mechanisms, which will ensure that local agencies actually follow state policy.

It is a new day, and one in which we expect to see great things in Ohio--including hundreds of thousands of registered low-income citizens.

The Millennial Economy: Quick Hits Week in Review

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:14:00 +0000

Pew Research: The Millennial Generation, Who Are They?

Washington Post: Majority of College Dropouts Cite Financial Struggles as Main Cause, according to this new report from Public Agenda.

Kansas.com: Overdraft Fees Affect Student Finances.

Philadelphia Inquirer: "It’s time to end a college-loan system that's more about putting coins into bankers' pockets than making higher learning accessible.”

House Committee on Education & Labor: Sets record straight on the myths being propagated about the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Huffington Post: AFL-CIO Secretray-Treasurer Liz Shuler--first woman and the youngest person to hold the position, on need for an economy that works for young people.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Student Loan Bill Could Save Billions of Dollars."

Campus Progress: takes a bird's eye view of the issues involved in passing a student loan bill that ends wasteful subsidies to private lenders and opens access for low-to-middle income students. Is College Only for the Rich?

The Nation: Center for American Progress' Pedro de la Torre calls out the disingenuous claims about job losses made by Sallie Mae.

WATCH: SAVE (Student Association for Vote Empowerment) Executive Director Matthew Segal on CNN talking jobs.

Spotlight on Financial Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Gennady Kolker) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:27:00 +0000

This week, the U.S. House is expected to vote on comprehensive financial regulatory reform legislation, incorporating at least nine pieces of legislation that address key failures within the U.S. financial system--everything from stronger consumer protections to measures to end “Too Big to Fail” and prevent future bailouts.

Key elements in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 4173) include the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to regulate consumer products like credit cards and mortgages; reform of specific industries like derivatives markets, credit rating agencies, insurance companies and hedge funds; and developing structures to deal with systemic failures that would put an end to the notion of “too big to fail”. Demos has been working in partnership with over 200 groups in a coalition called Americans for Financial Reform, to ensure passage of a robust bill.

As the Washington Post reported last week, the legislative process to bring the critical legislation to a vote has been anything but smooth. Various provisions have been met with fierce opposition from industry groups and lobbyists, particularly efforts to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

As on Monday night, a total of 52 amendments were filed with the Rules Committee as the legislation moves toward a vote. Recent research has shown, however, that efforts to weaken to Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and financial reform in general could have disastrous results.

A massive loophole, created by a committee amendment from Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) would exempt dealer-issued auto loans from the CFPA’s authority. At over $850 billion in outstanding balances, auto loans now comprise almost as large a share of outstanding consumer debt as credit cards, and dealer loans make up 80 percent of this market. Loans from dealers are the number one source of state and local consumer complaints; they often come with hidden fees, kickbacks and markups. Dealer markups alone cost car buyers $20 billion a year, and have been linked to racially discriminatory pricing. The auto dealer-loan industry's exemption from CFPA oversight leaves millions of car buyers vulnerable to widespread financial abuse.

The Hinchey-Inslee-Conyers-DeFazio-Tierney amendment, would reinstate the essence of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933--a set of reforms passed during the New Deal that essentially erected a firewall between commercial banks, which take deposits and make loans, and investment banks, which organize the sale of bonds and stocks. The legislation was repealed in 1999, and led to a sharp rise in bank risk taking, a speculation bubble, and ultimately the recent near-collapse of the industry.

As comprehensive financial reform legislation moves toward a vote, Congress must be reminded that patchwork, piecemeal reform will not suffice if we are to avert another disastrous financial crisis. The household economy, as well as the financial health of U.S. is at stake.

Trade Preferences Should be Tied to Environmental Standards

noreply@blogger.com (Cristina Vasile) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:00:00 +0000

The United States has long granted trade preferences to developing countries that meet various criteria. These criteria, which are stipulated by the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) have changed with time--reflecting U.S. economic and foreign policy priorities. While the criteria include non-support for terrorism, enforcement of intellectual property rights, and respect for international labor standards, the GSP does not include an environmental provision.

With the current U.S. GSP program set to expire at the end of December and environmental issues taking on growing urgency, now is the time to correct that omission.

In November, the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways & Means Committee held a hearing to evaluate the operation and impact of the U.S. preference programs to date. In partnership with the Sierra Club and a number of other environmental organizations, Demos prepared testimony arguing for the inclusion of environmental standards in the GSP. The specifics of this proposal are laid out in a Policy Brief produced by Demos and a number of other environmental organizations.

Since the hearing, Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) has developed an amendment that includes language calling for an environmental criteria in the GSP.

Including environmental standards in U.S. trade policy is a vital tool to encourage developing countries to adhere to their domestic and international environmental obligations. According to Chairman Levin, “The preference programs have been an important part of the effort to expand and shape trade so that its benefits can be more broadly spread. We need to make sure that the framework of these programs plays a role in promoting economic growth and development.”

As long as our preference programs do not include environmental standards, they cannot truly be said to advance sustainable development--which is the purpose of the GSP according to the Enabling Clause which provided its legal framework. The world faces interwoven challenges of alleviating extreme poverty and protecting our natural environment. Achieving these goals in unison by including environmental standards in the GSP is the only way to improve human developing while ensuring the continued prosperity of future generations.

Rather than help the global community fight climate change and other pressing environmental concerns, our current trade rules have institutionalized harmful and unsustainable production and consumption patterns globally. These rules have allowed companies to move operations to wherever labor and environmental standards are weakest, abandoning communities and workers in the U.S. and wreaking havoc abroad.

The American public has come to expect U.S. trade policies to advance the goal of environmental protection--and also to ensure that American workers are competing on a level playing field with other countries--and the GSP should be updated to reflect these concerns. Including environmental criteria in the GSP will align this program with the U.S.’s broader trade policy, which has given environmental issues increased attention in the context of recent bilateral agreements.

The climate change crisis, and the prospect of a new multilateral agreement to address this crisis, adds greater urgency to the task of updating the GSP. New environmental criteria in the GSP will give developing countries added encouragement to uphold a new climate treaty, as well as other key multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). It will provide much needed support for environmentalists in developing countries where steps toward sustainable development may not be popular or seen as necessary.

It is time for the Administration to send a strong message to the international community: The United States is serious about protecting the environment and is ready to take action to do so.

College Cuts Hit Low Income Students Hardest

noreply@blogger.com (Viany Orozco) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:00:00 +0000

(Originally Posted at WireTap Magazine)

Community colleges across the country have limited their enrollment, closing their doors to new students. These policies disproportionately hurt first generation college students and low income students who attend these institutions at higher rates than wealthier students. New York City's community colleges had to abandon their "admission to all" policies for the first time and turn away thousands of aspiring low-income students with no other options. Even before the recession, however, several community colleges across the country had already removed their open door policies.

Recently, the University of California system announced increases in tuition in the range of 30 percent by fall of 2010. While students from families making less than $70,000 will not be impacted by this change as the system will cover their fees if they qualify for financial aid, the price hike will hurt thousands of middle income students, who already struggle with high tuition costs and dwindling aid. A UC student working two jobs, for example, reported to the New York Times that she "might have to take a quarter off to make money to afford tuition."

Like many unemployed workers, then, low and moderate income college students (many of whom are also workers) across the country are continuing to experience the consequences of irresponsible actions by the financial sector that led to the recession. While federal stimulus funds helped allay reductions in higher education right after the recession, these funds were only temporary. They were also inadequate and inequitable, since funding for community colleges has traditionally being less compared to four year institutions.

As a result, low income students are hurting the most as they get crowded out of community colleges. Unless further action is taken, students will likely experience less access to community colleges and another wave of tuition increases at a time when such training has become the minimum bar for well rewarded employment opportunities.

Yet in the midst of this funding crisis for students and their families, private lenders are advising colleges and universities to not switch to the Direct Lending program. Essentially, private lenders want to continue profiting at the expense of students' education for as long as possible through the Family Federal Education Loan (FFEL) program, which gives government subsidies to private lenders that issue loans to students.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), passed by the House of Representatives in September and awaiting approval in the Senate, would end this wasteful program. Such action would generate nearly $70 billion dollars to be invested in community colleges, financial aid for students and early childhood education among other educational programs.

How can institutions say not to these savings? By not switching to the Direct Loan program, however, colleges and universities are supporting an unfair subsidy to key perpetrators of some of their financial troubles.

Logistical arguments do not withstand scrutiny as most colleges that have made the transition to direct lending have done so within four months and have found it to be a smooth transition.

Colleges should also be at the forefront in opposing the extension of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act, which expires on June 30, 2010. If renewed, this policy would continue to back up the FFEL program with federal funds.

Even before the recession, the rising cost of a college education kept many low and moderate income students and first generation college students from enrolling or graduating. Even before the recession, then, these wasteful subsidies should not have been in place. Colleges have no need to wait for legislation to do what's right for their students.