Rethinking Communities: An Overview

Jun 30, 2015Roosevelt Institute Networks

The Rethinking Communities Initiative is a Campus Network-wide effort to work with universities and their communities to identify and advance solutions that promote broadly shared economic progress. Students research and diagnose the local drivers of inequality and build strategies and coalitions to enact policies that contribute to shared growth and prosperity. We aim to meaningfully contribute to a movement dedicated to building an economy that works for everyone.

The Rethinking Communities Initiative is a Campus Network-wide effort to work with universities and their communities to identify and advance solutions that promote broadly shared economic progress. Students research and diagnose the local drivers of inequality and build strategies and coalitions to enact policies that contribute to shared growth and prosperity. We aim to meaningfully contribute to a movement dedicated to building an economy that works for everyone.

THE PROBLEM

Economic inequality is one of the defining challenges of our generation. We are experiencing a second Gilded Age, with the promise of economic opportunity far outstripping the reality of how wealth is accumulated.

We need leadership at the national level to regulate Wall Street and address trends in economic mobility, extreme consolidation of wealth, and rapidly shifting job markets. But in addition to legislative and executive fixes, we need bold and innovative local policy solutions that examine and challenge the current framework of rules that guide our institutions and sustain inequality. By working with and, when necessary, confronting the institutions that drive our local economies, there is an opportunity for a robust, multi-layered approach to ensure fair outcomes in our new economic reality.

THE FRAMEWORK

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s students coordinate and communicate with community members and stakeholders to identify the pressing issues facing their towns, counties, and states – an approach that allows for solutions to the seemingly insurmountable challenge of economic inequality to be work-shopped by those with the most at stake.

As a campus-based organization, we are focused on colleges and universities as Anchor Institutions, which are, by definition, anchored to a particular place by mission and infrastructure. Anchors can be drivers of local economies, but they first need to be made aware of their own potential and responsibility. The Rethinking Communities Initiative examines how colleges and universities can be used to create economic systems that grow community wealth, anchor good jobs to place, and address the very specific economic inequalities that exist in the communities around them. If the model and resulting solutions prove viable, the grassroots nature of the initial progressive movement and the ways in which it informed the legacy of the Roosevelts can provide a blueprint for how localized ideas can be scaled into a national agenda.

THE EVOLVING AGENDA

To date, students have taken the Anchor Institution mission in many different directions. We are working with a local Chamber of Commerce to better understand what local business leaders can provide to a school (Amherst College); supporting the development work of a local CDFI (The George Washington University); and examining the ways a school has borrowed money and how that has affected student debt and institutional stability (Georgetown). As the students drive the research and identify the opportunities, we’re seeing a powerful agenda emerge:

THE CHALLENGE: UNDERBANKING

One major problem for many people looking to invest in their future is a basic lack of resources and access to financial institutions. The inability to get access to capital for a business loan or to buy a home effectively restricts large portions of the population from participating in our current economy.

A SOLUTION: MORE MONEY FOR LOANS

George Washington and NYU chapters have led the push for universities to use their banked cash resources proactively by investing in CDFIs that are actively trying to serve the underbanked. Larger pools of money in CDFIs mean more and larger loans, and more ability to expand a local mission of economic justice. While this is connected to the Responsible Endowment movement, it’s a very specific offshoot that focuses on the positive potential of endowment dollars

THE CHALLENGE: UNDERREPRESENTATION IN PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS

Women- and minority-owned small businesses comprise 50 percent of all U.S. businesses but only receive 7.3 percent of business transactions. One of the problems confronting these businesses is an inability to scale to the size needed to take on a university contract. While there are small businesses in and around every Anchor Institution in the country, most of them don’t have the scale needed to provide all of a good or service that a university might need in a timely manner. Small business owners also struggle with jumping through the sorts of hoops that are often needed to become accepted vendors for many Anchors, and women and minority businesses are even more likely to be under-resourced and undertrained.

A SOLUTION: ACCOUNTABILITY AND DIRECTION IN PROCUREMENT

Existing small businesses combined with active equity-focused incubator programs have the capacity to bring an entirely different cross section of the population into our economic debate. Students can do the research to discover what their university’s needs are and match those against local production capacity, creating policy with clear social justice goals in mind. 

THE CHALLENGE: FINANCIALIZATION OF INSTITUTIONS

Wall Street banks are extracting money from some Anchors through shady deals and crooked financialization tools, in the same way that they have been extracting wealth from municipalities.

THE SOLUTION: MAPPING THE DAMAGE

Students (in conjunction with unions and other groups doing research about municipalities and state governments) are completing a series of research questions to map the scope and depth of this problem. Anchor institutions, much like many state and municipal borrowers, have been victimized by the same sorts of predatory lending practices that have crippled other sectors, and this research is mapping the relationship between the spiraling costs of college and the financialization tools many universities are using to fund their capital projects or their budget shortfalls. 

THE BIG PICTURE

These projects have a few things in common: clear connections to a source of economic inequality, clear methods for students to engage, and clear policy ramifications if and when small-scale projects have proven success in reducing economic inequality in the Anchor Institutions’ communities.  By tackling these projects within the RTC framework, they can lend to each other the coherence and logic that has been missing from other collective action efforts around the Network and build the strategies and coalitions we need to achieve shared growth and prosperity. Together, these small projects can meaningfully contribute to a movement to build an economy that works for everyone.

Share This

The Hard Work of Taking Apart Post-Work Fantasy

Jun 29, 2015Mike Konczal

Derek Thompson has a 10,000 word cover story for The Atlantic, “A World Without Work,” about the possibilities of “post-work” in an economy where technology and capital has largely displaced labor. Though Thompson is clear to argue that this isn’t certain, as the “signs so far are murky and suggestive,” he takes the opportunity to describe how a post-work future might look.

There’s been a consistent trend of these stories going back decades, with a huge wave of them coming after the Great Recession. Thompson’s piece is likely to be the best of the bunch. It’s empathetic, well reported, and imaginative. I also hope it’s the last of these end-of-work stories for the time being.

At this point, the preponderance of stories about work ending is itself doing a certain kind of labor, one that distracts us and leads us away from questions we need to answer. These stories, beyond being untethered to the current economy, distract from current problems in the workforce, push laborers to identify with capitalists while ignoring deeper transitional matters, and don’t even challenge what a serious, radical story of ownership this would bring into question.

Unlikely

Before we begin, I think it’s important to note how unlikely this scenario remains. We can imagine the Atlantic of the 1850s running a “The Post-Agriculture, Post-Work World” cover story, correctly predicting farming would go from 70 percent of the workforce to 20 percent over the next 100 years, yet incorrectly predicting this would end work. We don’t think of what happened afterward as “post-work.” The economy managed to continue on, finding new work and workers in the process.

There are other minor problems. Globalization and technological advancement are treated as the same thing, when they are not. There’s also a slippage common in the critical discussion of these articles (you can see it from this tweet from Thompson here) of substituting in the argument that technology has weakened wages and excluded some workers in recent decades for an argument about the long-run trajectory of technology itself. These are two different, distinct stories, with the first just as much about institutions as actual technology, and evidence for the first certainly doesn’t prove the second.

We’ll Still Be Working

But what is the impact of these stories? In the short term, the most important is that they allow us to dream about a world where the current problems of labor don’t exist, because they’ve been magically solved. This is a problem, because the conditions and compensation of work are some of our biggest challenges. In these future scenarios, there’s no need to organize, seek full employment, or otherwise balance the relationship between labor and capital, because the former doesn’t exist anymore.

This is especially a problem when it leaves the “what if” fiction writings of op-eds, or provocative calls to reexamine the nature of work in our daily lives, and melds into organizational politics. I certainly see a “why does this matter, the robots are coming” mentality among the type of liberal infrastructure groups that are meant to mobilize resources and planning to build a more just economy. The more this comforting fiction takes hold, the more problematic it becomes and easier it is for liberals to become resigned to low wages.

Because even if these scenarios pan out, work is around for a while. Let’s be aggressive with a scenario here: Let’s say the need for hours worked in the economy caps right now. This is it; this is the most we’ll ever work in the United States. (It won’t be.) In addition, the amount of hours worked decreases rapidly by 4 percent a year so that it is cut to around 25 percent of the current total in 34 years. (This won’t happen.)

Back of the envelope, during this time period people in the United States will work a total of around 2 billion work years. Or roughly 10,000 times as long as human beings have existed. What kinds of lives and experiences will those workers have?

Worker power matters, ironically, because it’s difficult to imagine the productivity growth necessary to get to this world without some sense that labor is strong. If wages are stagnant or even falling, what incentive is there to build the robots to replace those workers? Nothing is certain here, but you can see periods where low unemployment is correlated with faster productivity gains. The best way forward to a post-work atmosphere will probably be to embrace labor, not hope it goes away.

How Did We Get There?

Another major problem of this popular genre is that it immediately places us at the end of the story, with no explanation of the transition. Work has already disappeared, it’s over, so the only question that remains is how we can envision our lives in the new world. This has two major consequences.

First, by compressing this timeline and making it seem like only capital will be around after a short period, it preemptively identifies the interest of workers with the interests of capital and owners. If post-work is right around the corner, people won’t have any labor (or human capital, if you must) to allow them to survive, so it’s essential to turn them into miniature capitalists immediately. That’s why it’s not abnormal to see descriptions of post-work immediately call for the repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley or the privatization of Social Security.

Secondly, this story also doesn’t explain the transition of labor among workers as it disappears. As Seth Ackerman notes, decreases in the amount of work done can result either from some people leaving the labor force (extensive margin) or from decreasing the amount of work all people do (intensive margin). In other words, do we want some people to leave the workforce entirely, or for us all to work less overall? These are two different projects, with different assumptions and actions necessary to advance them. Resolving these questions would be the fundamental problem of an actual decline in labor force participation, but they tend to be abstracted away in these discussions.

Projecting the Past Forward

Going further, the idea that a post-work economy would involve simply choosing between a handful of quasi-utopias strikes me as completely naive. In Thompson’s piece, for instance, the problem seems to be whether post-work people would spend their time in intellectual pursuits or as independent artisans. But it’s just as likely people would spend their days as refugees trying not to starve.

You can get the sense that something is missing because virtually all of these articles consider radical forms of leisure instead of ownership. (Indeed, in assuming that prosperity leads to redistribution leads to leisure and public goods, it’s really a forward projection of the Keynesian-Fordism of the past.) I rarely see any of these mass media post-work scenarios tackle these issues head-on, much less talk about “post-ownership” instead of just “post-work.” (Friend of the blog Peter Frase is one of the few who does.)

It’s just as likely that the result will be a catastrophe for those who lose the value of their human capital. It seems unlikely that the political economy would become more conducive to redistribution, as these articles usually imply, because the value of capital assets would probably skyrocket. With that value high and ownership concentrated, it would potentially lead to a political economy more favorable to fascism than to robust egalitarianism. Who owns the robots, and what that even means in such a world, will be just as much a question as what we do to occupy ourselves; the first, really, will determine the second.

As a result, discussions of the idyllic robot future give working people a desire that is an obstacle to the actual flourishing of their lived conditions, and it remains an ideology completely divorced from the lived experiences of everyday people. I hereby nominate this as Pure Ideology. Who seconds the motion?

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Derek Thompson has a 10,000 word cover story for The Atlantic, “A World Without Work,” about the possibilities of “post-work” in an economy where technology and capital has largely displaced labor. Though Thompson is clear to argue that this isn’t certain, as the “signs so far are murky and suggestive,” he takes the opportunity to describe how a post-work future might look.

There’s been a consistent trend of these stories going back decades, with a huge wave of them coming after the Great Recession. Thompson’s piece is likely to be the best of the bunch. It’s empathetic, well reported, and imaginative. I also hope it’s the last of these end-of-work stories for the time being.

At this point, the preponderance of stories about work ending is itself doing a certain kind of labor, one that distracts us and leads us away from questions we need to answer. These stories, beyond being untethered to the current economy, distract from current problems in the workforce, push laborers to identify with capitalists while ignoring deeper transitional matters, and don’t even challenge what a serious, radical story of ownership this would bring into question.

Unlikely

Before we begin, I think it’s important to note how unlikely this scenario remains. We can imagine the Atlantic of the 1850s running a “The Post-Agriculture, Post-Work World” cover story, correctly predicting farming would go from 70 percent of the workforce to 20 percent over the next 100 years, yet incorrectly predicting this would end work. We don’t think of what happened afterward as “post-work.” The economy managed to continue on, finding new work and workers in the process.

There are other minor problems. Globalization and technological advancement are treated as the same thing, when they are not. There’s also a slippage common in the critical discussion of these articles (you can see it from this tweet from Thompson here) of substituting in the argument that technology has weakened wages and excluded some workers in recent decades for an argument about the long-run trajectory of technology itself. These are two different, distinct stories, with the first just as much about institutions as actual technology, and evidence for the first certainly doesn’t prove the second.

We’ll Still Be Working

But what is the impact of these stories? In the short term, the most important is that they allow us to dream about a world where the current problems of labor don’t exist, because they’ve been magically solved. This is a problem, because the conditions and compensation of work are some of our biggest challenges. In these future scenarios, there’s no need to organize, seek full employment, or otherwise balance the relationship between labor and capital, because the former doesn’t exist anymore.

This is especially a problem when it leaves the “what if” fiction writings of op-eds, or provocative calls to reexamine the nature of work in our daily lives, and melds into organizational politics. I certainly see a “why does this matter, the robots are coming” mentality among the type of liberal infrastructure groups that are meant to mobilize resources and planning to build a more just economy. The more this comforting fiction takes hold, the more problematic it becomes and easier it is for liberals to become resigned to low wages.

Because even if these scenarios pan out, work is around for a while. Let’s be aggressive with a scenario here: Let’s say the need for hours worked in the economy caps right now. This is it; this is the most we’ll ever work in the United States. (It won’t be.) In addition, the amount of hours worked decreases rapidly by 4 percent a year so that it is cut to around 25 percent of the current total in 34 years. (This won’t happen.)

Back of the envelope, during this time period people in the United States will work a total of around 2 billion work years. Or roughly 10,000 times as long as human beings have existed. What kinds of lives and experiences will those workers have?

Worker power matters, ironically, because it’s difficult to imagine the productivity growth necessary to get to this world without some sense that labor is strong. If wages are stagnant or even falling, what incentive is there to build the robots to replace those workers? Nothing is certain here, but you can see periods where low unemployment is correlated with faster productivity gains. The best way forward to a post-work atmosphere will probably be to embrace labor, not hope it goes away.

How Did We Get There?

Another major problem of this popular genre is that it immediately places us at the end of the story, with no explanation of the transition. Work has already disappeared, it’s over, so the only question that remains is how we can envision our lives in the new world. This has two major consequences.

First, by compressing this timeline and making it seem like only capital will be around after a short period, it preemptively identifies the interest of workers with the interests of capital and owners. If post-work is right around the corner, people won’t have any labor (or human capital, if you must) to allow them to survive, so it’s essential to turn them into miniature capitalists immediately. That’s why it’s not abnormal to see descriptions of post-work immediately call for the repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley or the privatization of Social Security.

Secondly, this story also doesn’t explain the transition of labor among workers as it disappears. As Seth Ackerman notes, decreases in the amount of work done can result either from some people leaving the labor force (extensive margin) or from decreasing the amount of work all people do (intensive margin). In other words, do we want some people to leave the workforce entirely, or for us all to work less overall? These are two different projects, with different assumptions and actions necessary to advance them. Resolving these questions would be the fundamental problem of an actual decline in labor force participation, but they tend to be abstracted away in these discussions.

Projecting the Past Forward

Going further, the idea that a post-work economy would involve simply choosing between a handful of quasi-utopias strikes me as completely naive. In Thompson’s piece, for instance, the problem seems to be whether post-work people would spend their time in intellectual pursuits or as independent artisans. But it’s just as likely people would spend their days as refugees trying not to starve.

You can get the sense that something is missing because virtually all of these articles consider radical forms of leisure instead of ownership. (Indeed, in assuming that prosperity leads to redistribution leads to leisure and public goods, it’s really a forward projection of the Keynesian-Fordism of the past.) I rarely see any of these mass media post-work scenarios tackle these issues head-on, much less talk about “post-ownership” instead of just “post-work.” (Friend of the blog Peter Frase is one of the few who does.)

It’s just as likely that the result will be a catastrophe for those who lose the value of their human capital. It seems unlikely that the political economy would become more conducive to redistribution, as these articles usually imply, because the value of capital assets would probably skyrocket. With that value high and ownership concentrated, it would potentially lead to a political economy more favorable to fascism than to robust egalitarianism. Who owns the robots, and what that even means in such a world, will be just as much a question as what we do to occupy ourselves; the first, really, will determine the second.

As a result, discussions of the idyllic robot future give working people a desire that is an obstacle to the actual flourishing of their lived conditions, and it remains an ideology completely divorced from the lived experiences of everyday people. I hereby nominate this as Pure Ideology. Who seconds the motion?

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Once Again, the ACA Survived SCOTUS -- But the Fight Isn't Over Yet

Jun 25, 2015Andrea Flynn

Today the Supreme Court decided in favor of the government and the more than 6 million individuals who now have health coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies. The 6–3 King v. Burwell decision—which determined that individuals in all states, not just those that established their own health exchanges, could be eligible for federal subsidies—is a win for President Obama, for the law more broadly, and for the health and economic security of millions of women and their families.

Today the Supreme Court decided in favor of the government and the more than 6 million individuals who now have health coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies. The 6–3 King v. Burwell decision—which determined that individuals in all states, not just those that established their own health exchanges, could be eligible for federal subsidies—is a win for President Obama, for the law more broadly, and for the health and economic security of millions of women and their families. As I described in my recent policy note, the ACA has expanded women’s access to care, improved the quality of their coverage, and in the process increased women’s economic security. Today’s decision ensures that—for the time being—the law will continue to do all of those things and more.

The ACA expanded coverage to 16.5 million people and elevated the floor of coverage for women. Since 2010, 8.7 million women have gained maternity coverage; 48.5 million women with private insurance can access preventive services with no cost-sharing; and as many as 65 million women are no longer charged higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions. In 2013, the number of women who filled their birth control prescriptions without co-pays grew from 1.3 million to 5.1 million, and the share of women who had access to birth control with no out-of-pocket costs grew from 14 percent to 56 percent. This has been a significant improvement over the pre-ACA system in which women had to pay out of pocket for preventive services like pap smears and breast exams, were routinely charged more than men, and many couldn’t afford maternity coverage during pregnancy.

Over the past five years the ACA has begun to ease the financial burdens of health coverage and care for women, who are more likely than men to live in poverty. Today more than two-thirds of low-wage workers are women—half of them women of color—and many work long hours with no health benefits. Wage inequality causes Black and Latina women to lose approximately $19,000 and $23,279 a year, respectively. A loss of subsidies would have been especially harmful to women of color, who represent nearly half of all uninsured women eligible for tax credits in states using the federal exchange. Those subsidies are the only path to insurance for 1.1 million Black women, approximately 2 million Latinas, nearly a quarter-million Asian women, and more than 100,000 Native American women. Many of those women live in one of three states: Florida, Georgia, or Texas.

When women have good coverage and access to care, they are better able to make decisions about the timing and size of their families. They are able to prevent illnesses that cause them to miss work force them to lose a paycheck, and threaten their employment. They have healthier babies and children. Fewer out-of-pocket medical costs free up more money for food, childcare, education, housing, transportation, and savings. Health coverage won’t singlehandedly solve the serious challenges facing low-income women and families. Indeed, our country’s soaring inequality and persistent injustices demand sweeping social and economic reforms. But without the very basic ability to care for their bodies, visit a doctor, plan the timing and size of their families, and make independent reproductive health decisions, women will never be able to take full advantage of other economic opportunities.

Today’s decision is especially important for women considering conservative lawmakers’ relentless attempts to roll back access to reproductive health care. Consider that just yesterday House Republicans voted to completely eliminate Title X (the federal family planning program), to expand religious exemptions allowing employers and insurers to opt out of covering anything they find morally or religiously objectionable, to implement new abortion restrictions with no exception for the life or health of pregnant women, and to renew the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Medicaid coverage of abortion.

So the ACA is safe for now, and the Supreme Court’s ruling will allow the law to become even more ingrained in our social and political fabric. However, we can be sure the vitriolic political opposition is not over. The GOP presidential hopefuls didn’t waste any time letting their constituents know today’s decision wouldn’t stop their attempts to undermine the law. And conservative lawmakers on the Hill will continue to push budget proposals that would unravel the law’s most important components and reduce funding for social programs critical to the wellbeing of low-income families. We should celebrate the King v. Burwell decision, but we must not stop making the case that for women and families, comprehensive, affordable health coverage—and by extension, care—is as much a matter of health as it is economic security.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter at @dreaflynn.

Share This

NYC Taxi Owners Are Denying Benefits to Drivers. The City Council Can Stop Them.

Jun 25, 2015Richard Kirsch

Earlier this month, the New York City Council enacted basic protections for workers at car washes, one group of exploited, largely immigrant workers. Next up on the City Council’s to-do list should be reversing a court decision that robbed taxi drivers, another group of mostly immigrant workers, of health and disability benefits.

Earlier this month, the New York City Council enacted basic protections for workers at car washes, one group of exploited, largely immigrant workers. Next up on the City Council’s to-do list should be reversing a court decision that robbed taxi drivers, another group of mostly immigrant workers, of health and disability benefits.

New York City’s taxi drivers are one more group of workers who decades ago were legally considered employees but now are classified as independent contractors, with low and unpredictable wages, long work hours, and no benefits. Over the last two decades, taxi driving has become a career for many new immigrants.

Starting in 1996, drivers began organizing together, through the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, to win an increased share of cab fares and other protections. Two years ago, the Taxi Workers Alliance organized successfully to get the Taxi and Limousine Commission, which regulates the industry, to designate six cents from every cab ride to a fund to pay for disability and health benefits for drivers.

The Taxi Workers Alliance, through an RFP process, won a contract to set up a fund that would provide a modest disability payment of $350 for 26 weeks, plus other benefits, such as vision, dental, and hearing. Drivers would still be responsible for their own health insurance, with many relying on the Affordable Care Act.

Even though the fund does not cost the taxi owners a dime, they still sued to stop it, arguing that the commission overstepped its authority, and earlier this month a New York State appeals court agreed. As Bhairavi Desai, the Executive Director of the Taxi Worker Alliance, told me, the owners saw the health and disability fund “as a basis for the union…They were hell-bent on stopping the union and having the drivers have any benefits.”

An irony of the court’s ruling is that one reason that taxi drivers are considered to be independent contractors by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is that they work in a highly regulated industry, in which many of their pay and working conditions are regulated by the Taxi and Limousine Commission. But when the commission acted to fund a much-needed benefit, the court, at the behest of the owners, blocked the way. The court said that it was up to a legislative body to decide on a new policy like using fares to finance a health and disability fund.

The other reason that the NLRB considers the drivers to be independent contractors is that they cruise for riders instead of being dispatched by the taxi companies. This in contrast with drivers of “black cars” in New York, who are dispatched by the limousine companies and therefore legally under their control. Some of the limousine drivers have joined the machinists union (IAMAW).

Looking into the future, competition from services like Uber may push New York’s cab companies to adopt an app for riders to call cabs. Earlier this month, the California Labor Commissioner’s office ruled that an Uber driver there was an employee, in part because of Uber’s reliance on apps.

For now, the court’s decision puts the issue squarely in front of the New York City Council. Since their election in 2013, both New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the new progressive majority on the council have made bolstering the ability of low-wage workers to care for and support their families a hallmark of their policies. One of their first actions was to strengthen a new law requiring that workers receive paid sick time. The new regulations establishing worker and environmental protections at car washes are the latest such action.

Laws that improve wages and benefits for New York’s working families are not only fair, they are a fundamental strategy to move New York’s economy forward. The more New Yorkers have the ability to care and support their families, the more New York will build a middle class that is the basis for strong communities and an economy not wholly dependent on Wall Street.

With some $2 million already collected and a contract with the Taxi Worker Alliance signed, passing an ordinance to approve using the six cents per fare for the health and disability fund should be an easy fix. But the taxi industry in New York is profitable and powerful and finances election campaigns. Still, that’s why New York City has public financing of campaigns and a pro-worker and pro-community mayor and City Council. Hopefully, they’ll quickly step up to the plate so that New York City’s taxi drivers can have their own organization provide essential benefits for their and their families’ health. 

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

Share This

Millennials Are Not Post-Racial: An Ivy League Education

Jun 24, 2015Riley Jones

“I don’t see race” is the oft-heard refrain of many Millennial men and women. Surveys have shown that people of this generation believe themselves to be more tolerant of racial differences than older Americans. These are young people who see the progress America has made in addressing racial disparities as irreversible.

“I don’t see race” is the oft-heard refrain of many Millennial men and women. Surveys have shown that people of this generation believe themselves to be more tolerant of racial differences than older Americans. These are young people who see the progress America has made in addressing racial disparities as irreversible. This sense of finality stems from a belief—proliferated in the 1980s and 1990s—that federal, state, and local governments have made a concerted effort , through measures including the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and affirmative action, to eliminate racial injustice in our society. To some, the election of a Black president in 2008 further symbolized a national transcendence of past prejudices. Because of these assumptions, many Millennials have failed to critically analyze the condition of African-Americans, who continue to face discrimination and inequality. This failure, in turn, has led to a dearth of substantive policy solutions to change the structural foundations of a system that has underserved too many for much too long.

As a low-income Black student at Columbia University from the South Side of Chicago, I am well assured that the breadth and depth of my experiences are not immediately relevant when compared to the experiences of my peers from more affluent places. Discussing Greece based off a literary interpretation is daunting when a majority of the class has seen the islands firsthand. However, I am certain that I belong here just as much as the next person. The influx in recent years of low-income students, most of whom happen to be racial minorities, in elite and selective college environments has provided for a mixture of class and race that has never been experienced on so massive a scale. From 2000 to 2011, the National Center for Education Statistics has measured a 12 and 14 percent increase in college enrollment for Black and Hispanic students, respectively. The wealth of difference between these groups has catalyzed the belief, in Millennial circles, that this is a post-racial generation.

There is a tendency, in the logic of post-racial America, to equate interpersonal racism (i.e. “I don’t like you because you’re Black”) with the racial barriers that structures and institutions have created (i.e. white students graduate from elite and selective colleges at significantly higher rates than Black students). Thus the students of the Millennial generation, and the schools that facilitate their interactions, are treading in uncharted waters when it comes to dealing with subtler racial disparities, and the results have been mediocre at best. The racism of our forefathers took the form of bricks and billy clubs, while today’s prejudices move more like an “invisible hand,” guiding young people—mostly Black and Latino—from urban ghettos to prisons and from impoverished schools to massive student loan debt.

Only by interrogating the structural foundations of American political and economic institutions does one begin to understand the fault in post-racial logic. For example, Columbia explicitly accepts qualified students on the basis of their economic indigence through certain programs. The retention rate, much less the graduation rate, does not even begin to rival that of wealthier students, who also tend to be whiter What is lost is that these students need different kinds of support than the university is used to giving. To say that race plays a role is to draw the ire of administrators who earnestly believe that the system is absolved of doubt because they are not personally racist. This is the work of structural racism: a demonstrated inequality cannot be labeled racial unless there is tangible proof of intent to discriminate based on race.

White Millennials, unlike their forebears, are not typically characterized by active interpersonal racial animosity; they are characterized by their silence in the face of the oppressive structural conditions that society engenders. It is not that people say that they accept me despite the color of my skin; it is that they openly express fear about walking in Harlem in the middle of the day even though the people they fear look like me. It is their acquiescence to and wholesale endorsement of a school that has made gentrification a commodity ready to be sold. The only way to truly root out this inequity is to call racism what it is.

Once the underpinnings of an actively unjust structure are called into question, progress can be made. Perhaps more accurately, policy can be made. The Civil Rights Movement used policy to effectively ban segregation in the United States. Ferguson and Baltimore have shown that the tradition of advocating for justice at the grassroots level has not waned; the challenge moving forward will be creating solutions that ensure unjustified police homicides will be prevented and not go unpunished. The outdated policy measures of the past will not suffice to rid the United States of its racial ills; we must show Millennials—the leaders of today and tomorrow—that racism still exists so they can press on ever more firmly toward its extinction.

Riley Jones is a Roosevelt Institute Campus Network member and a rising junior at Columbia University.

Share This

Why an Inequality Agenda Matters: A Response to John Judis

Jun 24, 2015Mike Konczal

John Judis believes that Democrats are on the wrong path and the Roosevelt Institute is partially to blame. In his recent piece, “Dear Democrats: Populism Will Not Save You,” he attacks the growing liberal consensus on economic issues, using our recent Rewriting the Rules report as an example, on both substantive and electoral grounds.

Judis’s core argument is that it is crucial “to develop a sophisticated politics” to turn economic appeals into electoral success. I couldn’t agree more, though I feel this issue is caught in the crossfire of Judis walking back his previous Democratic demographic triumphalism. His second point is that the economic platform we’ve outlined is a terrible basis for a Democratic majority because voters are “fearful of big government, worried about new taxes, skeptical about programs they think are intended to aid someone else,” and otherwise not motivated by inequality and turned off by economic “populism.”

As a coauthor on our report and as someone involved throughout its creation, I’d like to address these criticisms. I can only speak to our report, which argues that public policy and the rules of the economy are more responsible for our tough economic situation than technology, globalization, sociology, or any of the other factors normally cited. Judis, I think, misses how robust this approach can be, how much it diverges from caricatures of big government liberalism, and how a lot of forces brought us to this point.

A Broader Vision

Roosevelt’s Rewriting the Rules plan isn’t simply centered around fighting inequality, and it’s not just about fairness, which is an argument that Judis says tends to turn off voters. Instead, we view it as tackling central concerns over investment, growth, opportunity, shared prosperity, and economic security. The subtitle of the report is “An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity.” During the creation process, we kept two specific things in mind: First, nobody cares about inequality abstractly, they care about specific economic issues; and second, our vision can’t be simply returning to the past.

We do argue that you can’t address the economic concerns I mentioned without going big. You can’t tackle investment without looking at the financial sector, you can’t address opportunity without looking at structural discrimination, you can’t view economic security without looking at the labor market, and you don’t get growth without doing all of the above. But the liberal economic consensus isn’t about adjusting this or that statistical abstraction, or about building a time machine to return to an era that probably didn’t exist: It’s about solving real problems with long-term consequences for our future.

This is hard to balance, especially for an economic report that wants to highlight the latest research in inequality across fields. The team is full of economists, not political messengers. But since a forward, positive agenda is built into the DNA of these arguments, it is not hard for a talented political movement to use these economic arguments to talk about how Democrats can deliver the goods people care about when it comes to the future of the economy.

Deeper Dive into Markets

But isn’t it all just tax-and-spend and big government liberalism? As a second point, we think looking at the market structures that generate inequality in the first place is a way to both meaningfully address inequality and also move us in a different policy direction. The idea that the rules are rigged isn’t in the current dialogue, and it’s one worth testing out with the public as part of a comprehensive argument about the economy.

The policy section of the report is a call for further discussion (some of which will be elaborated on in future Roosevelt products), but what I think is important is that, in addition to higher top marginal tax rates and income support, there’s an entire suite of policies focused on the rules of the economy itself.

These are not trivial. We examine how changes to corporate governance encourage short-termism, how the ramp-up of the criminal justice system reduces wages and opportunities for people of color, and how the falling value of the minimum wage increases poverty. These “market conditioning” effects complement whatever emphasis political leaders put on tax-and-spend issues.

I think that’s worthwhile, because it gives Democrats an in to talk about economic problems with people who want to become rich or don’t think of themselves as class warriors, but do care about promoting broadly shared opportunity. It also short-circuits many of the libertarian arguments about the state, because people get that the economy needs rules—and that not having rules is still a form of rules.

(Ironically, by calling upon the work of Stephen Rose, who argues everything is fine with the macroeconomy because government transfers can just take care of any weaknesses, Judis is far more reliant on tax-and-spend liberalism that he accuses us of being. I’m fine with transfers, of course, as income support was crucial to fighting the Great Recession. But there are also electoral limits to this strategy.)

As for the electoral appeal, these ideas aren't part of the normal policy discussion, but to the extent that they are, they are quite popular. The minimum wage is winning in red states, and financial reform is broadly popular as a topic.

The Natural Next Step

Judis’s narrative is focused on the idea that the Democrats have been hijacked (with ACORN a culprit, no less) with this agenda. At times, he forces this story into a symmetry with what is happening on the right to get some easy “pox on both houses” points.

But this doesn’t reflect the actual path we’ve taken to get here. One thing we tried to demonstrate in Rewriting the Rules is that the research has been moving in this direction for the past decade. Many of these policy items build on or expand what President Obama has proposed (infrastructure, financial reform, minimum wage, etc.)—proposals that still remain good ideas in 2016. The political success of the Fight for 15 workers has also shown that there’s energy at the local level that people are looking to help scale.

The other reason this agenda has gained traction is that the other approaches have collapsed in the past year. Education doesn’t look like the silver bullet people had believed it to be in the past. The idea that the Great Recession would be a minor hiccup and we’d be back on track has proved false. Centrist claims about the need for immediate austerity and a Grand Bargain have also failed to pan out.

Oddly, I’m not sure I’ve heard a compelling counter-strategy about how to describe the economy, and Judis proposes no such thing. The 2016 nominee won’t be able to run on an “overcoming partisanship” strategy like President Obama in 2008 or a “let’s give Obamacare and the recovery a chance” strategy like in 2012.

One could just downplay the economy, of course, and if next year gives us a large increase in wages the story will change with it. But polls now show economic issues are coming to dominate the discussion, median family incomes are down 7 percent since 2000, and the argument that President Obama pulled us back from an economic collapse and rebuilt jobs, and now we need to turn to a more secure future with better wages, investment, and security, seems the most natural transition.

Economic issues will dominate on the right, and while they mimic our language, their proposals will likely be very regressive. Even the GOP’s leading reformer, Marco Rubio, is calling for eliminating all taxes on capital and inheritances. Whoever wins the Republican nomination is going to be controlled by a base that wants the Ryan Plan immediately. But rather than simply calling out what’s wrong with the right’s approach, it will be essential for liberals to have their own vision of opportunity, investment, growth, and security. We think our report is a crucial building block for this.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

John Judis believes that Democrats are on the wrong path and the Roosevelt Institute is partially to blame. In his recent piece, “Dear Democrats: Populism Will Not Save You,” he attacks the growing liberal consensus on economic issues, using our recent Rewriting the Rules report as an example, on both substantive and electoral grounds.

Judis’s core argument is that it is crucial “to develop a sophisticated politics” to turn economic appeals into electoral success. I couldn’t agree more, though I feel this issue is caught in the crossfire of Judis walking back his previous Democratic demographic triumphalism. His second point is that the economic platform we’ve outlined is a terrible basis for a Democratic majority because voters are “fearful of big government, worried about new taxes, skeptical about programs they think are intended to aid someone else,” and otherwise not motivated by inequality and turned off by economic “populism.”

As a coauthor on our report and as someone involved throughout its creation, I’d like to address these criticisms. I can only speak to our report, which argues that public policy and the rules of the economy are more responsible for our tough economic situation than technology, globalization, sociology, or any of the other factors normally cited. Judis, I think, misses how robust this approach can be, how much it diverges from caricatures of big government liberalism, and how a lot of forces brought us to this point.

A Broader Vision

Roosevelt’s Rewriting the Rules plan isn’t simply centered around fighting inequality, and it’s not just about fairness, which is an argument that Judis says tends to turn off voters. Instead, we view it as tackling central concerns over investment, growth, opportunity, shared prosperity, and economic security. The subtitle of the report is “An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity.” During the creation process, we kept two specific things in mind: First, nobody cares about inequality abstractly, they care about specific economic issues; and second, our vision can’t be simply returning to the past.

We do argue that you can’t address the economic concerns I mentioned without going big. You can’t tackle investment without looking at the financial sector, you can’t address opportunity without looking at structural discrimination, you can’t view economic security without looking at the labor market, and you don’t get growth without doing all of the above. But the liberal economic consensus isn’t about adjusting this or that statistical abstraction, or about building a time machine to return to an era that probably didn’t exist: It’s about solving real problems with long-term consequences for our future.

This is hard to balance, especially for an economic report that wants to highlight the latest research in inequality across fields. The team is full of economists, not political messengers. But since a forward, positive agenda is built into the DNA of these arguments, it is not hard for a talented political movement to use these economic arguments to talk about how Democrats can deliver the goods people care about when it comes to the future of the economy.

Deeper Dive into Markets

But isn’t it all just tax-and-spend and big government liberalism? As a second point, we think looking at the market structures that generate inequality in the first place is a way to both meaningfully address inequality and also move us in a different policy direction. The idea that the rules are rigged isn’t in the current dialogue, and it’s one worth testing out with the public as part of a comprehensive argument about the economy.

The policy section of the report is a call for further discussion (some of which will be elaborated on in future Roosevelt products), but what I think is important is that, in addition to higher top marginal tax rates and income support, there’s an entire suite of policies focused on the rules of the economy itself.

These are not trivial. We examine how changes to corporate governance encourage short-termism, how the ramp-up of the criminal justice system reduces wages and opportunities for people of color, and how the falling value of the minimum wage increases poverty. These “market conditioning” effects complement whatever emphasis political leaders put on tax-and-spend issues.

I think that’s worthwhile, because it gives Democrats an in to talk about economic problems with people who want to become rich or don’t think of themselves as class warriors, but do care about promoting broadly shared opportunity. It also short-circuits many of the libertarian arguments about the state, because people get that the economy needs rules—and that not having rules is still a form of rules.

(Ironically, by calling upon the work of Stephen Rose, who argues everything is fine with the macroeconomy because government transfers can just take care of any weaknesses, Judis is far more reliant on tax-and-spend liberalism that he accuses us of being. I’m fine with transfers, of course, as income support was crucial to fighting the Great Recession. But there are also electoral limits to this strategy.)

As for the electoral appeal, these ideas aren't part of the normal policy discussion, but to the extent that they are, they are quite popular. The minimum wage is winning in red states, and financial reform is broadly popular as a topic.

The Natural Next Step

Judis’s narrative is focused on the idea that the Democrats have been hijacked (with ACORN a culprit, no less) with this agenda. At times, he forces this story into a symmetry with what is happening on the right to get some easy “pox on both houses” points.

But this doesn’t reflect the actual path we’ve taken to get here. One thing we tried to demonstrate in Rewriting the Rules is that the research has been moving in this direction for the past decade. Many of these policy items build on or expand what President Obama has proposed (infrastructure, financial reform, minimum wage, etc.)—proposals that still remain good ideas in 2016. The political success of the Fight for 15 workers has also shown that there’s energy at the local level that people are looking to help scale.

The other reason this agenda has gained traction is that the other approaches have collapsed in the past year. Education doesn’t look like the silver bullet people had believed it to be in the past. The idea that the Great Recession would be a minor hiccup and we’d be back on track has proved false. Centrist claims about the need for immediate austerity and a Grand Bargain have also failed to pan out.

Oddly, I’m not sure I’ve heard a compelling counter-strategy about how to describe the economy, and Judis proposes no such thing. The 2016 nominee won’t be able to run on an “overcoming partisanship” strategy like President Obama in 2008 or a “let’s give Obamacare and the recovery a chance” strategy like in 2012.

One could just downplay the economy, of course, and if next year gives us a large increase in wages the story will change with it. But polls now show economic issues are coming to dominate the discussion, median family incomes are down 7 percent since 2000, and the argument that President Obama pulled us back from an economic collapse and rebuilt jobs, and now we need to turn to a more secure future with better wages, investment, and security, seems the most natural transition.

Economic issues will dominate on the right, and while they mimic our language, their proposals will likely be very regressive. Even the GOP’s leading reformer, Marco Rubio, is calling for eliminating all taxes on capital and inheritances. Whoever wins the Republican nomination is going to be controlled by a base that wants the Ryan Plan immediately. But rather than simply calling out what’s wrong with the right’s approach, it will be essential for liberals to have their own vision of opportunity, investment, growth, and security. We think our report is a crucial building block for this.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

King v. Burwell Could Turn Back the Clock for Women's Health

Jun 23, 2015Andrea Flynn

In the coming days the Supreme Court will decide King v. Burwell, a case on which the health coverage of more than 6 million individuals—and in some ways the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—hinges. As we anticipate that ruling, and as conservative lawmakers propose potential solutions to the crisis that will ensue should they “win,” we should pause and remember that the ACA has profoundly improved the quality of women’s health coverage, expanded women’s access to care, and increased women’s economic security.

In the coming days the Supreme Court will decide King v. Burwell, a case on which the health coverage of more than 6 million individuals—and in some ways the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—hinges. As we anticipate that ruling, and as conservative lawmakers propose potential solutions to the crisis that will ensue should they “win,” we should pause and remember that the ACA has profoundly improved the quality of women’s health coverage, expanded women’s access to care, and increased women’s economic security. As I describe in a policy note released today by the Roosevelt Institute, if policymakers are serious about the health and financial wellbeing of women and families, they should expand and strengthen the ACA, not reverse or repeal it.

The ACA expanded coverage to 16.5 million people and elevated the floor of coverage for women. In the pre-ACA system, women were routinely charged more than men, had to pay out of pocket for preventive services like pap smears and breast exams, and many couldn’t afford maternity coverage while they were pregnant. But since President Obama signed the ACA into law, 8.7 million women have gained maternity coverage; 48.5 million women with private insurance can access preventive services with no cost-sharing; and as many as 65 million women are no longer charged higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions. In 2013, the number of women who filled their birth control prescriptions without co-pays grew from 1.3 million to 5.1 million, and the share of women who had access to birth control with no out-of-pocket costs grew from 14 percent to 56 percent .

For millions of women, the ACA has begun to ease the financial burdens of health coverage and care. Before the ACA, women were far more likely than men to have to forgo care because of cost concerns, and for all women—but especially those without coverage—cost was a major barrier to care. Many women had difficulties paying their medical bills (52 percent of uninsured women and 44 percent of low-income women, compared to 28 percent of women overall). This should be no surprise, given that it’s more likely for women—particularly women of color—to live in poverty. Today more than two-thirds of low-wage workers are women—half of them women of color—and many work long hours with no health benefits. Wage inequality causes Black and Latina women to lose approximately $19,000 and $23,279 a year, respectively.

A loss of subsidies would be especially harmful to women of color. In states that are using the federal exchange, women of color represent nearly half of uninsured women eligible for tax credits. Those subsidies are the only path to insurance for 1.1 million Black women, approximately 2 million Latinas, nearly a quarter-million Asian women, and more than 100,000 Native American women. Many of those women live in one of three states: Florida, Georgia, or Texas.

Comprehensive, affordable coverage—and by extension, care—is as much a matter of health as it is economic security. When women have good coverage and access to care, they are able to prevent illnesses that take them out of work, threaten their employment, and force them to lose a paycheck. They are better able to make decisions about the timing and size of their families. They have healthier babies and children, fewer out-of-pocket medical costs, and more money for food, childcare, education, housing, transportation, and savings. Health coverage won’t singlehandedly solve the myriad challenges facing low-income women and families; indeed, the United States’ soaring inequality demands sweeping social and economic reforms. But without the very basic ability to care for their bodies, visit a doctor, plan the timing and size of their families, and make independent reproductive health decisions, women will never be able to take full advantage of other economic opportunities.

The political vitriol of the past five years has blurred our collective memory of just how badly we needed health reform before we got it. Opponents of the ACA argue that we cannot afford for the law to prevail. But the truth is we can’t afford for it not to. In most other countries families are not driven into poverty because they seek needed care, and they don’t avoid seeking care out of fear that doing so will drive them into bankruptcy. The United States is unfortunately exceptional in this regard. For too long the right to health has been unfulfilled in the United States, and the ACA has begun to change that for millions. Neither the Supreme Court nor conservative lawmakers should turn back the clock now.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter at @dreaflynn.

Share This

Texas's New Gun Law Won't Make Campuses Safer for Women

Jun 23, 2015Emma Copeland

Texas recently passed some of the most conservative, pro-gun legislation in the country, which drastically liberalizes open carry laws on college campuses.

Texas recently passed some of the most conservative, pro-gun legislation in the country, which drastically liberalizes open carry laws on college campuses. With the aid of lobbyists and lawmakers backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the legislation is now moving forward in more than fourteen other states as well.

Student policymakers are a vital intellectual constituency, and it is imperative to include them in discussions and decisions regarding student life. The Texas open carry law virtually eliminates any semblance of student control over this issue and their campus environment. Although changes may be made on a campus-by-campus basis, the law expressly states that schools "may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have [that] effect [on] license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution.” This is a limitation only on Texas's public colleges and universities, meaning students who can afford a private school can also afford personal safety and political choice. Those who enroll in public universities have those rights stripped from them from the start.

The absence of student input and the overwhelming presence of huge financing and pressure from the pro-gun lobby in the state’s original policy proposal is evident. These lobbying firms’ analyses include studies from pro-gun advocacy groups and anti-rape groups, yet students are left out completely.

I come from Virginia, a state with extremely loose open carry laws, and am therefore unfazed by a passing rifle or a handgun in the belt loop of my taxi driver. But as a student, I view my public college campus as a kind of sanctuary from the innate danger and threat that comes with a firearm in the street. New open carry laws on college campuses intended to decrease overall crime or “prevent sexual assault” simply increase the probability of deadly accidents with little hope of decreasing the likelihood of these heinous crimes. There is no evidence from city campuses in states with open carry laws that students are safer from sexual violence as a result of pro-gun legislation.

Constituents and legislators must ask themselves: is this truly responsible legislation? Studies have shown that upwards of 89 percent of sexual assaults occur under the influence of alcohol, and many others involve sedation drugs. Adding guns to an environment of drunkenness, recreational drug use, and violent assault is likely to have deadly consequences.

The Texas law and other bombastic proposals from groups like the NRA are taking advantage of sexual assault survivors and their traumatic stories and experiences. The NRA continues to engage in victim-blaming and guilt instead of responsible advocacy and after-care for survivors of these crimes. This kind of reckless lawmaking only leads to more long-term problems that necessitate further action in the future.

The idea that students need concealed weapons to prevent sexual assault on college campuses is a reminder that right-wing legislators are more concerned about financing their next campaign than creating meaningful and imperative policy for their collegiate constituents. Urging states to adopt these senseless open-carry laws connotes sexual assault as a natural occurrence in a woman’s college career—one that she must simply learn to fend off with a firearm. These pundits and politicians should spend more of their time producing progressive policy concerning the education, prevention, or after-care of students who will most likely encounter sexual assault in college, especially given that one in five collegiate women already have.

I have seen firsthand the ineffectiveness of my university’s efforts to educate and engage students and faculty on sexual assault as well as the failure of student health services in providing after-care to survivors. Inviting weapons onto campus shifts blame to survivors of sexual assault, perpetuating the idea that they are at fault for failing to protect themselves. The propensity for emotional damage to young college minds is astounding.

It is imperative to call for increased education instead of increased armament on campus. It has been proven time and time again that the right preventative measures achieve the desired result more effectively than defensive measures alone. The cycle of violence among students will never stop unless we truly change the policies surrounding our collegiate lives. In order to do that we must be part of the policymaking process.

Emma Copeland is a student at George Mason University, a 10 Ideas author, and a member of the Campus Network's Braintrust.

Share This

Hillary Clinton's Rooseveltian Challenge: Carrying Forward the Four Freedoms

Jun 19, 2015Anna Eleanor Roosevelt

It’s important that Hillary Clinton chose a place that honors my grandfather to officially launch her campaign and unveil her vision for our nation. In doing so, she sought to claim the Rooseveltian style of leadership and to position herself as the person who will carry forward the Roosevelt legacy of action, insight and advancement.

Now that the crowds have gone home, can she live up to the challenge she is setting for herself?

It’s important that Hillary Clinton chose a place that honors my grandfather to officially launch her campaign and unveil her vision for our nation. In doing so, she sought to claim the Rooseveltian style of leadership and to position herself as the person who will carry forward the Roosevelt legacy of action, insight and advancement.

Now that the crowds have gone home, can she live up to the challenge she is setting for herself?

My grandparents shaped our nation and the world in ways that were deeper and further reaching than almost any other figures of the 20th century. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt took America from the brink of total economic collapse and laid the groundwork for the greatest stretch of prosperity we’ve ever experienced.

They fought for democracy and against horrific regimes the likes of which the world may never have recovered from and used that moment to form a strong global alliance that is still in place today. They did all of this through the New Deal—by rewriting the rules of our capitalist system so that it works for everybody, and by building the postwar international system linking our economic and security interests as one global family.

They put rules in place to make capitalism work for the many as opposed to a few at the top—including rules for our financial system to protect consumers and control risk. The New Deal invested in America’s future through roads, bridges, modern electric systems, schools, and other essentials of a modern society. The Roosevelt administration expanded protections and rights for workers and families and gave them a seat at the bargaining table and ensured their security after retirement. They created a path to the middle class for millions of Americans.

But the Roosevelt record and so many of the strides we made through the New Deal have been undermined over the past 35 years as so many of those rules, investments, and protections have been rolled back. As a result, the American middle class lifestyle is almost as far out of reach today for most Americans as it was when my grandfather took office, and the future looks dim.

My grandparents took office four years after the Great Depression hit; our next president will be sworn in less than a decade after the Great Recession hit. The gap between those at the top and the rest of us is at a point last seen before the New Deal. Workers and America’s families face an entrenched wealthy class seeking to control who benefits from our economy and our political process. And there is growing unrest in the world as radical militants seek to undermine and destroy the very concept of democracy by taking advantage of our dysfunction.

Just as they were 83 years ago, the American people are desperately hungry for action and leadership to fix the imbalances in our economy and society.

A recent CBS/New York Times poll showed that the majority of Americans—rich and poor, men and women, Republicans and Democrats—agree that income, opportunity, and influence are unfairly concentrated at the top and that these disparities are growing. Further, Americans support government action to address this inequality and rewrite the rules of our economy.

For all my grandparents accomplished, so much of their work is still left unfinished. The beautiful park from which Secretary Clinton spoke celebrates the fundamental Four Freedoms my grandfather laid out in his 1941 speech as essential to democracy and to all of humanity: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. Yet for many in our own nation and across the world, those essential freedoms have yet to be fully realized. Another unfinished act proposed by my grandfather was a second bill of rights guaranteeing every American access to the central pillars of economic security—employment and a living wage, decent housing and medical care, public education, adequate food and clothing, and healthy leisure. The work of ensuring that the good ideas of the New Deal are equally available to women and to communities of color also remains incomplete.

Now is truly the time to hand the baton to the next great leader committed to completing this work.

If Hillary Clinton wants to follow in the footsteps of Franklin and Eleanor, then she must not just reflect on their legacy but carry forward their energetic leadership and relentless pursuit of bold solutions.

Clinton must summon the courage to once again fundamentally rewrite the rules of our economy, restore balance, challenge entrenched power, and seek a New Deal for the 21st century.

The American people will follow that kind of leadership.

Anna Eleanor Roosevelt is Chair of the Roosevelt Institute's Board and President and CEO of Goodwill NNE.

Share This

Bail Reform is Key to Addressing Inequality in the Justice System

Jun 18, 2015Jessica Morris

On June 9, 2015, Campus Network Senior Fellow Jessica Morris testified before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary of the Massachusetts General Court on an act reforming pretrial process (H. 1584/S. 802). Her written testimony is reproduced below.

Good afternoon Joint Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Jessica Morris and I am the Senior Fellow for Equal Justice at the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network. I am also a recent graduate of Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley of Western Massachusetts.

On June 9, 2015, Campus Network Senior Fellow Jessica Morris testified before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary of the Massachusetts General Court on an act reforming pretrial process (H. 1584/S. 802). Her written testimony is reproduced below.

Good afternoon Joint Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Jessica Morris and I am the Senior Fellow for Equal Justice at the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network. I am also a recent graduate of Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley of Western Massachusetts.

The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network is a progressive think tank that empowers young people across over 120 college campuses and 38 states to civically engage with policy. As a Senior Fellow, my focus has been devoted to the issues with the money bail system in Massachusetts. I have compiled research on pretrial and bail reform in a white paper, which you can find attached. Thank you for offering the opportunity to consider alternatives to the state’s current criminal justice system, including pretrial and bail reform.

As of January 1, 2015, 606 men and women are awaiting trial in Massachusetts. They have not been convicted, but often because they could not afford the cost of their set bail, they are detained. There are serious consequences to this system. There is risk of losing custody, public housing, drug treatment, and jobs. Nationally recidivism rates are six times higher than those incarcerated during the pretrial period. Even when the defendant is held for only two or three days, they are nearly 40 percent more likely to commit new crimes before their trial compared to those held for just one day. In Massachusetts, pretrial detention is costly to taxpayers. The average cost per year to house an inmate last year is $53,040.87. Additionally, the overcrowding of DOC facilities is at 130%.

This legislation proposes a solution that ensures the Massachusetts justice system remains just. By shifting the otherwise wealth-based bail system into a risk-based system and including a Pretrial Services Division, there are more opportunities for people to transform their lives. Defendants should be assessed for their level of risk and not be disadvantaged if they cannot afford their freedom. The court must maintain the principle of innocent until proven guilty, for Massachusetts people’s lives and well-being are dependent on it.

Last Saturday, 22-year-old Kalief Browder committed suicide in his home in the Bronx. Kalief was an inmate at Rikers Island prison who waited for three years without trial. He was accused of stealing a backpack, which he denied. Because he could not afford his set bail of $10,000, he was detained at the prison. Kalief's tragic death teaches us that as a country we still have a long way to go. Massachusetts must lead the way toward a more just justice system with reasonable risk-based bail reform.

I urge you to pass bill H.1584 as a step toward a more effective and community-driven criminal justice system. Thank you for your time.

Jessica Morris is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Equal Justice.

Share This

Pages