CPD IN THE NEWS

Top Federal Reserve officials defended their handling of monetary policy in a freewheeling meeting with liberal activists at the annual Fed conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Much of the meeting centered on whether the Fed should raise interest rates, as it's widely expected to do before the end of the year, and the likely impact of a hike on poor and minority communities.

"The economy has recovered for much of white America, but for black and Latino workers it has not," said Rod Adams, of Neighborhoods Organizing for Change in Minneapolis.

"If you decide that we're at maximum employment now and you intentionally slow down the economy, you'll be leaving us behind, pulling up the ladder right after you've climbed it," Adams said.

"In no way do I want to see the economy stall. In no way do I want to see the economy stop growing," said John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Since monetary policy takes a while to have an impact, the unemployment rate is likely to keep falling for a while, even if the Fed raises rates this year, Williams said.

"If we do wait too long, what happens is eventually the economy creates imbalances or overheats and we get into situations somehow where we have to react to that and when we react to that, that often leads to a recession or some other bad outcome," Williams said.

"I think the Federal Reserve is very much committed to having a set of monetary policies in place that achieve maximum sustainable employment over time. Where there are differences are: What's the precise interest rate settings to achieve that goal?" said William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The hourlong meeting was organized by Fed Up, a coalition of some two dozen community groups, labor unions and liberal policy groups that have sought to influence Fed policy.

An unusually large number of Fed officials attended the meeting, including Vice Chair Stanley Fischer, Eric Rosengren of the Boston Fed and Kansas City Fed President Esther George.

While the meeting, which was billed as a "listening session," was mostly cordial, some of the activists made their unhappiness over Fed policy clear.

Fed officials did not object when Kendra Brooks of the Philadelphia group ACTION United called out the central bank for the lack of diversity among its governors, boards of directors and staff members.

"I would be very surprised if anybody in the Federal Reserve system thinks that we've done well on that," Dudley said.

Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Fed, said some progress has been made in diversifying his own staff and board of directors, but conceded more work needed to be done.

By JIM ZARROLI

Source

The U.S. Supreme Court has deadlocked on President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

The 4-4 tie on United States v. Texas (pdf) sets no precedent, but leaves in place a previous ruling by a lower court that blocks the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) order from going into effect, meaning five million undocumented immigrants are now at risk for deportation and being separated from their families.

In a press conference following the decision, Obama said, “This is a very clear reminder of why it’s so important for the Supreme Court to have a full bench,” castigating Republicans for refusing to meet with his Judge Merrick Garland, his nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director at the Center for Popular Democracy, said in a statement Thursday, “Today, we mourn the Supreme Court deadlock on President Obama’s executive order. The lack of a decision allows the politically motivated ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to stand. Millions of immigrant families have lived in limbo for the past 18 months and this decision prolongs their agony.”

“If the highest court in the land cannot find a majority for justice and compassion, there is something truly broken in our system of laws, checks and balances,” she said.

The ACLU’s Immigration Rights Project director Cecillia Wang added, “Today’s non-decision in the DAPA case leaves the legal questions about the president’s immigration authority unanswered. But by leaving in place the injunction issued by the district judge, today’s 4-4 tie has a profound impact on millions of American families whose lives will remain in limbo, and who will now continue the fight.

“In setting the DAPA guidelines, President Obama exercised the same prosecutorial discretion his predecessors have wielded without controversy, and ultimately the courts should hold that the action was lawful,” Wang said.

According to SCOTUS blog, there will be a later appeal, so the Obama immigration policy “will be revived if [Hillary] Clinton wins and a Democratic nominee provides the 5th vote.”

Several cases have deadlocked since Scalia’s death in February.

DAPA was an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which prevented the deportation of undocumented youths brought to the U.S. as children.

Texas led 26 Republican-controlled states in challenging the order, announced in November 2014. The previous ruling by a New Orleans federal appeals court stated that the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield the millions of immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without Congressional approval.

By Nadia Prupis

Source

The movement to help hurricane ravaged Puerto Rico continues. Hundreds of New Yorkers attended a fundraiser at MOMA PS1 in Long Island City Wednesday night.

According to organizers, all the money raised for the Hurricane Maria Community Relief and Recovery Fund will go towards relief work and supplies on the island.

Watch the video and read the article here.

Like many new organizations, Local Progress sprang from the ashes of a crisis.

In 2012, New York City Councilmember Brad Lander, who represents Brooklyn’s Park Slope neighborhood, and Nick Licata, then Seattle council chair, had a phone call about how to deal with the tidal wave of foreclosed homes that had swept the country. A few loosely organized collectives had emerged around the challenge of blight, with some cities trying innovative and legally risky strategies like using the power of eminent domain to seize the foreclosed mortgages. But there wasn’t a place to convene like-minded local officials around that issue — or any other. “It really grew into 'hey, there should be something like this,'” Lander says.

Rather than creating a new organization, Lander reached out to the Center for Popular Democracy, another young outfit that secured grants to support a few staff members for the project. They first gathered in 2012, at the left-leaning Center for American Progress in Washington. The group has grown — with annual convenings and ones that are more ad hoc, like a forum in support of Seattle’s first-in-the-nation vote to raise its minimum wage to $15 in 2014. The show of solidarity helped. “One thing they said was, 'make it look like we’re not crazy,’” Lander says, of Seattle’s council.

Many cities have a klatch of liberal legislators who push for higher minimum wages, paid leave mandates, taxes on plastic bags and the like. By putting them in contact with one another and other community groups, Local Progress has in recent years created a policy feedback loop that’s accelerated the spread of new laws in municipalities across the country. In the absence of federal action on many issues, it’s trying to make local government into something that doesn’t just pick up the trash — but solves some of society’s biggest problems as well.

City-level cooperation, of course, isn’t a new idea.

Its first iteration came about a century ago, during the Progressive era, when urban leaders fought for home rule for cities in order to establish construction codes, health and safety standards, and the architecture of good government through state-based alliances called Municipal Leagues. Later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal created programs that bypassed the more conservative governors and state legislatures, filtering aid for infrastructure projects through local Democratic machines.

That relationship started to weaken through the 1970s and ‘80s, when some Democrats migrated to the suburbs, urban politics became more racialized, and the flow of money slowed to a trickle.

“What’s new in the last 30 years is that federal role has been eroding, and by now it’s really difficult to get anything done,” says Margaret Weir, a professor at UC Berkeley who specializes in urban politics. "The Reagan administration signaled to cities that 'you’re pretty much on your own.’"

Meanwhile, the old Municipal Leagues had evolved into bodies like the National League of Cities and the National Council of State Legislators, which serve as convening entities — but don’t tend to push the policy envelope that much, so as to remain all-inclusive. Licata, in particular, was frustrated that there seemed to be more focus on issues of greater concern to small towns, rather than those of large cities; he also wanted to see more emphasis on issues of social justice and racial equity than the existing organizations were willing to take on.

"The old ones got defined in more nonpartisan terms,” says Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard. “Today’s progressives want a harder edge."

Creating an organization of self-described progressive elected leaders serves another purpose: It creates an easy and fast way for liberal activists to access the people most likely to take action.

"There wasn’t a place where you could find progressive elected officials in the aggregate. You’d find one here and you’d find one there,” says Angela Glover Blackwell, president of Policylink, which focuses on equity for communities of color. Local Progress “was a gold mine.”

So far, Local Progress has appealed to reform-oriented elected officials like D.C. City Councilmember Elissa Silverman, whom the organization recruited last year. In October, she made a quick trip to Los Angeles for the group’s first large convening, where she found about 100 people like her trying to think creatively about what local officials can do within the law — like require predictable schedules for retail employees, for example, or crack down on non-payment of freelancers.

"I was not totally sold on the value of going out there, but I said ‘what the hell,’ and I’m really glad I did,” Silverman says. Now, when she wants to workshop a new policy idea or learn what others had experienced with proposals that crop up in D.C. — like funding a new arena that will be used by a professional sports team, which Silverman opposes — she can tap into the network with one email to a listserv, or look up a policy toolkit that Local Progress’ small staff has put together on the issue.

A few months later, while introducing a proposal for public financing of municipal elections, she mentioned the experiences of three young council members she met at the conference: Antonio Reynoso, Ritchie Torres, and Carlos Menchaca of New York, all of whom had triumphed in unlikely campaigns against powerful opponents.

"Antonio in particular said 'Hey Elissa, if it wasn’t for public financing, I wouldn’t have been able to win,’ and that was very important for me to hear,” Silverman recalls. ”I was already convinced, but to have all three of them say that made a big impact.”

In trying to push a progressive agenda in cities, Local Progress hasn’t escaped opposition.

Some of the most formidable comes from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative membership organization that helps Republican state senators and representatives pass laws confining the size of government,often to tremendous effect. In 2014, liberals formed the State Innovation Exchange to try to serve as a counterweight, but its influence is so far fairly limited.

ALEC doesn’t have to fight Local Progress’ members directly. Instead, the group has favored “pre-emption” laws that enforce uniform rules across a state -- preventing a city on its own from passing stricter gun laws, or higher minimum wages. Pittsburgh’s new paid sick days ordinance, for example, was just thrown out by a court on the grounds that the city didn’t have the authority under state law to enact it.

“As cities step out and move the ball forward, states have come in to take away their power to do just that,” says Andrew Friedman, co-director of the Center for Popular Democracy, where Local Progress is housed.

About a year after Local Progress had its first meeting, ALEC formed the American City and Council Exchange, also focused on local jurisdictions. The group’s director, Jon Russell, met with LocalProgress co-founder Nick Licata, who had joined as a member to learn more about the group. Russell thinks they could find common ground on some issues, like openness and transparency in local government. But that doesn’t usually include the question of what cities should control, and what should be left to the state.

“There’s some situations where the state does a better job, and wants to have consistency,” Russell says. “What we tend to tell our members is to focus on what we do best — making sure our budgets are effective and efficient. Don’t get tied up in these political issues that more recently have crept into local government.” He thinks that local officials shouldn’t listen to environmental groups, for example, trying to ban fracking or keep coal trains from coming through town.

“If they want to work on state issues, they should run for state government,” Russell said, of the policy entrepreneurs. "People want their trash picked up. They want their police to respond to calls.  They want their fires put out.”

The central idea of Local Progress, however, is that no issue is out of bounds for city government. Besides environmental groups, it has heavy involvement from the labor movement; an AFL-CIO vice president sits on the organization’s board, and the conference in October had a session on the Service Employees International Union’s Fight for $15 minimum wage campaign, along with numerous appearances by union officials. Those outside groups are essential to getting new policy ideas into practice.

In time, Lander sees the direction of policy innovation starting to flow in reverse: From pioneering cities up to state and federal lawmakers, who might take cues from what appears to be a groundswell of support. He recently wonthe passage of a bill banning credit checks for employment, for example.

“Eventually that should be a national law or a CFPB regulation. That’s not going to happen until a lot of cities and states do it,” Lander says. “And if there’s a competition for who can do the strongest law, eventually it’ll make sense for businesses to say 'we should have a national law.'"

But right now not all cities are able to adopt the kinds of path-breaking new laws that councils can pull off in liberal enclaves on either coast. Take something like allowing Uber drivers to unionize, which could entail years of litigation while courts decide whether it’s kosher — as the mayor of Seattlepointed out in a letter to council members after they voted unanimously in favor of it. Being the first takes both political will and financial resources to enforce new mandates and weather the inevitable legal hiccups or unforeseen consequences that might require adjustments down the road.

That’s also where the leaders of Local Progress think a central clearinghouse of information could come in handy: It might help a city councilperson in Terre Haute, Ind., or Tempe, Ariz., avoid having to design an inclusionary zoning ordinance from scratch. Moreover, it makes members feel connected to a larger movement, rather than just slogging away in the trenches.

“It’s a question of looking at a progressive issue, and understanding that progressive issues do reflect the interests of everyone,” Licata says. “As an additive to the gas, we’re able to get more mileage and oomph on this issues.”

Source: Washington Post