Daily Digest - October 6: Despite New Rules, Corporations Still Seek Tax Loopholes

Oct 6, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Are Obama's New Corporate Tax Rules Working? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Are Obama's New Corporate Tax Rules Working? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

As guest host, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren moderates a discussion of corporations' attempts to dodge paying taxes through loopholes like inversion.

Unemployment is Finally Under 6 Percent, But Don’t Expect a Raise Anytime Soon (WaPo)

Matt O'Brien says that while the September jobs report was solid, continued "shadow unemployment" and low wage growth will keep the Fed from increasing interest rates just yet.

Facebook’s Bus Drivers Seek Union (NYT)

The drivers who shuttle Facebook employees to their Silicon Valley offices, unhappy with their low pay and difficult split shift schedule, are seeking to unionize through the Teamsters, writes Steven Greenhouse.

The U.S. Has a Jobs Crisis. Here's How to Fix It (The Guardian)

Heidi Moore speaks to four experts – two politicians and two economists – about the best ways to solve the jobs crisis. Common themes include immigration reform and a minimum wage hike.

Huh? Walmart Foundation Battles Hunger As Walmart Workers Turn to Food Stamps (Inside Philanthropy)

David Callahan critiques Walmart for its big charitable push to solve hunger when it has been widely documented that its own workers are relying on the social safety net to eat.

U.S. Restaurant Patrons Support Minimum Wage Hike (Reuters)

Lisa Baertlein contrasts the restaurant industry's lobbying against raising the minimum wage with a new survey that shows broad support for a higher wage among its customers.

New on Next New Deal

A Crisis Turned Catastrophe in Texas

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn explains how the latest court decision on Texas's anti-abortion laws will bring Texas women's access to reproductive health care to the brink of disaster.

The Big Mistake in President Obama’s Economic Pivot: Overlooking the Grassroots

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Director Joelle Gamble says the President would be better served by focusing on local rather than federal initiatives to improve the economy.

Share This

The Big Mistake in President Obama’s Economic Pivot: Overlooking the Grassroots

Oct 3, 2014Joelle Gamble

The president spoke about federal legislation to promote economic opportunity, but real progress is happening at the local level.

Yesterday, President Obama traveled to Northwestern University to give a speech on the new American economy. The speech was touted as a major pivot, both rhetorical and political, from a heavily international focus to a domestic one.

The president spoke about federal legislation to promote economic opportunity, but real progress is happening at the local level.

Yesterday, President Obama traveled to Northwestern University to give a speech on the new American economy. The speech was touted as a major pivot, both rhetorical and political, from a heavily international focus to a domestic one.

Obama’s speech highlighted some of the successes of his administration, pointing to a lowered unemployment rate, a higher rate of insured individuals through Obamacare, and an increase in manufacturing jobs since the 2008 financial crisis. He also laid out some proposed investments the U.S. can make to build a new economy, ranging from clean energy to education to wages.

This isn’t a critique of the President’s speech per se. What he had to say is not wrong; the problem is that his vision of how economic progress happens, like the vision of many other national leaders, does not have enough depth.

For example, President Obama mentions that the U.S. must “measure our success by something more than our GDP, or a jobs report.”

That is very much the right idea if we want to get a clearer picture of middle class opportunity. We already know that wages and incomes for most Americans have stagnated and that our current economic recovery has not produced substantial changes for working families. But what does the policy response look like?

Obama outlined several key solutions: Raising the minimum wage, equalizing pay for women, investing in clean energy, and pursuing college affordability. If we had a functioning Congress, the President would be right on the money, and this would be a productive speech that politicians and advocates could use to push for new legislation. However, we lost that functioning Congress long ago.

So, other than relying on federal legislation, what can be done? We need to build economic prosperity for working Americans from the ground up and create a grassroots economy.

The president says he plans to continue to work with “governors, mayors, CEOs, and philanthropists.” This matters, as local actors are the ones building the new economic future. One can look to the Campus Network’s Rethinking Communities Initiative to see how anchor institutions (major employers that are rooted in a particular community) have the ability to shape positive economic outcomes for towns, neighborhoods, and cities across the country.

To cite another example, the president points to Dodd-Frank as an important milestone in improving the American economy post-recession. But that raises the question of how advocates can continue to build on financial reform in this current political climate. Here’s one way: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti provides a new model for improving municipal finance that connects to grassroots work in communities.

To achieve the President’s vision for economic stability for America’s middle and working class, we need to start from the bottom, not the top. Grassroots economic change is the new engine for widespread economic prosperity. And once our leaders in Washington recognize that, we might see a real pivot in our political conversation.

Joelle Gamble is the National Director of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

Photo: White House

Share This

A Crisis Turned Catastrophe in Texas

Oct 3, 2014Andrea Flynn

The Texan legislature created a crisis of women's health care with House Bill 2, and the latest decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will bring Texan women to the brink.

The Texan legislature created a crisis of women's health care with House Bill 2, and the latest decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will bring Texan women to the brink.

Last night, a decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals left Texas with no more than eight remaining abortion clinics. You would think by now the willingness of state lawmakers to deliberately create a health crisis among their constituents – and the willingness of the courts to allow it – would be of no surprise. But I continue to be shocked.

"All Texas women have been relegated today to a second class of citizens whose constitutional rights are lesser than those in states less hostile to reproductive autonomy, and women facing difficult economic circumstances will be particularly hard hit by this devastating blow,” said the Center for Reproductive Right’s Nancy Northrup.

House Bill 2 could be the grand finale in Texas's efforts to completely dismantle its reproductive health infrastructure on which women – particularly poor women, women of color, young women, and immigrant women – have relied for decades. Pretty soon there won’t be any clinics left to close. Just three years ago, conservative lawmakers gutted the state’s family planning program, which closed approximately 80 family planning providers across the state, caused 55 more to reduce hours, and left hundreds of thousands of women without access to reproductive healthcare. Even before those programs were eviscerated, they provided care and services to only 20 percent of women in need.

And as if that wasn’t enough, lawmakers introduced HB2, a bill that imposes onerous restrictions on abortion providers and demands that all clinics meet costly – upwards of $1 million – building requirements to qualify them as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). Lawmakers claimed these regulations were critical to protecting the lives and health of Texas women, but that’s simply not the case. Currently more than three-quarters of the state’s ASCs have waivers that allow them to circumvent certain requirements: unsurprisingly, abortion providers are prohibited from obtaining those same waivers. HB2 quickly closed the majority of the state’s 41 clinics that offered abortion services – clinics that also provided birth control, pap smears, breast exams, pregnancy tests, and a host of other services. There are few, if any, providers to take their place.

These new restrictions add an unbearable weight to the burdens that too many of Texas’ women already shoulder. Texas has one of the nation’s highest unintended and teen birth rates. The nation’s lowest percentage of pregnant women receiving prenatal care in their first trimester. The highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. High rates of poverty and unemployment and a woefully inadequate social safety net. And lawmakers who refuse to expand Medicaid, leaving nearly 700,000 women who would qualify for coverage without it.

Just a few weeks ago, Judge Lee Yeakel of the United States District Court in Austin gave health advocates an iota of hope when he ruled HB2 to be an undue burden on women’s constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion. Yeakel’s decision wasn’t just significant because it delivered a win for humanity in Texas after countless losses, or because the concept of an undue burden was finally being used to protect – not erode – women’s right to chose, but because it was based on facts. Facts! Judge Yeakel relied on incontrovertible data to call bullshit on a law that purports to protect women, but has only ever been about abolishing abortion access.  

He argued that for many women, HB2 might as well be an outright ban on abortion. He asked how the eight (at most) providers left could ever each serve between 7,500 and 10,000 patients. How would they cope with the more than 1,200 women per month who would be vying for limited appointments? “That the State suggests that these seven or eight providers could meet the demand of the entire state stretches credulity,” he said.

Yeakel acknowledged the complex intersections of women’s health and economic (in)security:

The record conclusively establishes that increased travel distances combine with practical concerns unique to every woman. These practical concerns include lack of availability of child care, unavailability of appointments at abortion facilities, unavailability of time off from work, immigration status and inability to pass border checkpoints, poverty level, the time and expense involved in traveling long distances, and other inarticulable psychological obstacles. These factors combine with increased travel distances to establish a de facto barrier to obtaining an abortion for a large number of Texas women of reproductive age who might choose seek a legal abortion.

Yeakel warned that the stated goal of improving women’s health would not come to pass. And it won’t. The increased delays in seeking early abortion care, risks associated with longer travel, the potential increases in self-induced abortions “almost certainly cancel out any potential health benefit associated with the requirement,” he said.

But Yeakel’s arguments were not compelling enough for the 5th Circuit, which finds it perfectly acceptable that more than one million women now need to travel more than 300 miles (and many women even further) to access health care that is constitutionally guaranteed to them.

This decision will have a ripple effect. Other anti-choice lawmakers across the country are following Texas’ lead, imposing similar restrictions on clinics and physicians who provide abortions. The vindication of Texas lawmakers who have used their legislative power to wreak havoc on the lives of women and families will only continue to embolden other states seeking the same goals.

Conservatives like to argue that they are not waging a war on women. Today there are a whole lot of us who find it impossible to argue otherwise. 

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

Share This

Daily Digest - October 3: Will the Senate Deny Minimum Wage to Home Care Workers?

Oct 3, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

GOP Senators: Don’t Raise Home Care Worker Wages (The Hill)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

GOP Senators: Don’t Raise Home Care Worker Wages (The Hill)

Ramsey Cox reports that this group of Senators claims giving home care workers minimum wage is unaffordable because of increased costs for Medicaid.

S.F., Oakland at Forefront of U.S. Minimum Wage Movement (SF Chronicle)

A proposition on the ballot this November will raise San Francisco's minimum wage to $15 an hour by July 2018, and it's expected to pass by wide margins, writes John Coté.

Americans Have No Idea How the Government Spends Money (WaPo)

Christopher Ingraham reports on a quiz given by the Pew Research Center. The results show that a third of Americans incorrectly think the government spends more on foreign aid than Social Security.

What to Watch on Jobs Day: Nominal Wages, Teacher Gap, and Upward Revisions (Working Economics)

Elise Gould explains why these three data points will be her focus in analyzing the jobs report, and says this month is a good time to look at the teacher gap to see whether public education jobs have bounced back.

People Who Warned the Fed Are Very Smart and Very Wrong (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Peter Coy looks back at a 2010 letter from a group of economists to the Federal Reserve, which warned against quantitative easing. He shares some of the writers' explanations for their incorrect predictions.

Poverty Isn't Just About Not Having Much; It's About Never Knowing How Much You're Going to Have (Vox)

Danielle Kurtzleben looks at data on the vast swings in monthly income that low-to-moderate-income households experience, which make it nearly impossible to plan ahead.

Chart: The Typical White Family Is 20 Times Wealthier Than the Typical Black Family (Mother Jones)

Dave Gilson explains that while the income gap between white and Black households is significant, the wealth gap is even greater – and it's the wealth gap that sustains generational inequality.

 

Share This

Daily Digest - October 2: Democracy Has Become a Luxury Purchase

Oct 2, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

This Edition: K. Sabeel Rahman, Four Freedoms Center (Eldridge & Co.)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

This Edition: K. Sabeel Rahman, Four Freedoms Center (Eldridge & Co.)

Ronnie Eldridge speaks with Roosevelt Institute Fellow Sabeel Rahman about why democracy isn't working right now. He says public policy is mostly responding to the needs of the wealthy.

Not Enough Taxation and Too Much Representation (AJAM)

Amy B. Dean says the trend of companies moving abroad is just the latest strategy in tax avoidance. She argues that as companies further disconnect from American life, their influence on politics should be limited.

  • Roosevelt Take: On Next City, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Director Joelle Gamble argued for a stakeholder model of corporate governance to force companies to pay more attention to local communities.

“Payment on an Unpaid Basis” (The Baffler)

Charles Davis looks at the entertainment industry's reliance on unpaid work. Many companies he called for comment responded by taking down unpaid listings, but that's not an efficient way to fight back.

Lies, Fear and Tragedy: Maria Fernandes and the Crisis of Part-Time Work (The Guardian)

The death of Maria Fernandes, a part-time employee at three different Dunkin' Donuts stores, highlights the crisis created by low-paying employers, writes Jana Kasperkevic.

Loan Fraud Inquiry Said to Focus on Used-Car Dealers (NYT)

Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery report on new investigations into fraudulent subprime auto loans. The loans are smaller, but could create the same problems as mortgages in 2008.

Make No Mistake: Eric Holder Chose Not to Jail the Bankers (Medium)

The Department of Justice had the power to send bank executives to jail, writes Alexis Goldstein, but chose a more passive approach instead of pushing through real change in the industry.

Voter Suppression: How Bad? (Pretty Bad) (TAP)

Wendy R. Weiser highlights the variety of new voting laws which will serve to suppress the vote in 2014, pointing at North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin as the most important states to watch.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 1: State Law Puts Profits Ahead of Primary Education

Oct 1, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Arkansas Internet Law Gouges Schoolkids (Bloomberg View)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Arkansas Internet Law Gouges Schoolkids (Bloomberg View)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says support for the current law, which prohibits Arkansas from connecting K-12 schools to its high-speed fiber network, puts telecoms' profits ahead of kids.

Long-Term Jobless Perfectly Employable, New Report Finds (WSJ)

Pedro da Costa looks at a new study from the Economic Policy Institute, which says that while any unemployment creates serious setbacks, long-term unemployment doesn't create special skill loss.

The Hole in Holder’s Legacy (NYT)

Eric Holder had some real successes as Attorney General, but his efforts to prosecute the crimes of the financial crisis were "notoriously laggard," writes Joe Nocera.

The A.I.G. Trial Is a Comedy (New Yorker)

John Cassidy asks why this case, in which former American International Group CEO Hank Greenberg claims the company's bailout violated the Constitution, was even allowed to get to trial.

Prison Bankers Cash in on Captive Customers (Center for Public Integrity)

Daniel Wagner reports on how financial services companies profit off the families of prison inmates, who use these high-fee services so their relatives can buy basics like warm winter clothing.

Trust Is Waning, and Inequality May Be to Blame (Pacific Standard)

A new study examining what circumstances impact people's trust in institutions and one another finds that trust in other people drops as inequality rises, writes Nathan Collins.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 30: Incarceration Keeps Growing, No Matter the Cost

Sep 30, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Score: Why Prisons Thrive Even When Budgets Shrink (The Nation)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Score: Why Prisons Thrive Even When Budgets Shrink (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert look at the growth of incarceration even in times when presidents preach against "big government," which the prison system certainly is.

Europe’s Austerity Zombies (Project Syndicate)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz says that European countries' continued push for austerity, which isn't fixing their economies, is tragic in light of the people who suffer without work.

Revisiting the Lehman Brothers Bailout That Never Was (NYT)

James B. Stewart and Peter Eavis report on previously unknown analysis from the New York Federal Reserve suggesting that the Fed could bail out Lehman Brothers. The analysis never reached top officials.

It’s the Inequality, Stupid (In These Times)

Emphasizing inequality is the best chance that Democrats have of engaging working-class voters who swing elections, writes David Moberg.

New York Mayor de Blasio Plans Expansion of Living Wage (Reuters)

De Blasio plans to sign an executive order that will expand the law to cover an additional 18,000 jobs and increase the living wage to $13.13 for workers without benefits, writes Alex Dobuzinskis.

California Pension Fund Gives the Boot to Hedge Funds (AJAM)

Dean Baker praises California's public pension fund for ending investments in hedge funds, which charge high fees. He says that funds should make the contracts that lay out these fees public.

Killing the "Nuclear Option" Will Not Save the Senate. It Will Ruin Obama's Final Two Years. (TNR)

When Senate Republicans say that they want to revoke the Democrats' "nuclear option," which eliminated filibusters on presidential appointments, they're planning a blockade, writes Brian Beutler.

Share This

New The Score Column: The Rise of Mass Incarceration

Sep 29, 2014Mike Konczal

I have a new column at The Score: Why Prisons Thrive Even When Budgets Shrink. Even as the era of big government was over, the incarceration rate quintupled over just 20 years. It had previously been stable for a century. Logically, three actors set the rate of incarceration: here's how they made this radical transformation of the state.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

I have a new column at The Score: Why Prisons Thrive Even When Budgets Shrink. Even as the era of big government was over, the incarceration rate quintupled over just 20 years. It had previously been stable for a century. Logically, three actors set the rate of incarceration: here's how they made this radical transformation of the state.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Democracy, Economic Crisis, and “Rethinking Communities”

Sep 29, 2014Sabeel Rahman

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's Rethinking Communities initiative is emblematic of the model for democratic and economic reform needed in this New Gilded Age.

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's Rethinking Communities initiative is emblematic of the model for democratic and economic reform needed in this New Gilded Age.

As the latest Census report highlights, economic inequality continues to worsen. With a sluggish economic recovery, continued economic insecurity for many Americans, and ongoing political gridlock, it is increasingly clear that we live in a New Gilded Age. To successfully challenge this status quo, we must look to the lessons of past democratic reform movements as well as the innovative work that is being done on the ground even now in our communities.

Over a hundred years ago, the first Gilded Age witnessed a similar confluence of economic and political crises. It was the era of the rise of mega-corporations and trusts like Standard Oil. Not coincidentally, it was also an era of economic upheaval, recurring financial crises, and a growing anxiety about the ways in which economic inequality and concentrated private power would contaminate and corrupt politics, making it serve special and elite interests rather than the public good.

These crises provoked what became some of the most transformative reform movements in American history: the labor movement, the anti-trust movement, the Populist movement, and the Progressive movement. The common thread throughout these reform efforts was the desire to reclaim some form of popular sovereignty, whether through the creation of local-level policymaking powers for municipalities, the direct election of senators, the creation of national regulatory bodies to check corporate power, or the spread of direct democratic referenda procedures.

The ferment of these decades created the intellectual inheritance of the New Deal. When FDR came into office in the midst of the Great Depression, the members of his administration turned to policies initially pioneered by their Populist and Progressive precursors, especially when it came to banking, financial, and social safety net reforms.

But where the New Deal had decades of Populist and Progressive experimentation to build on, our current context is quite different. The present moment is similar to the early twentieth century in that our fundamental problem is one of dysfunctional democracy. To address economic inequality, we must first reform our democracy to make it more accountable and responsive. But this is not so easily done now that decades of political attacks have dismantled both the public’s faith in and the actual efficacy of democratic governance and the social safety net. The challenge of our generation is three-fold: address our ongoing economic crisis, rebuild the viability of and faith in democratic governance, and do so in a way that develops innovative models of democratic economic policymaking that we can spread and build on.

Cities represent a key frontline in this effort. There is a growing interest in the city as a unit of governance, and cities are unique economic engines whose population density and diversity make them critical drivers of innovation and economic growth. They are at the forefront of economic and policy innovation. They also represent one of the best hopes for reviving a genuine, grassroots democracy. Already participatory budgeting is starting to gain traction in U.S. cities as a way to create more robust grassroots participation while also improving the allocation of resources to underserved groups.

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s Rethinking Communities initiative represents an exciting effort to drive this movement forward. By focusing on their own universities, Campus Network chapters can help reinvest in their local communities by pressing administrations to direct their investment or procurement policies to local businesses, or by broadening access to universities and community colleges by accepting public assistance, such as food stamps, on campus.

There are two particularly innovative dimensions to the Rethinking Communities initiative:

First, it represents a grassroots, democratic effort. The initiative itself was devised through a participatory strategy process within the Campus Network, through a series of bottom-up meetings and discussions in campus chapters and through a nation-wide convening at the FDR Library in Hyde Park. Campus Network chapters working with local stakeholders in their advocacy efforts further accentuate this democratic ethos.

Second, the initiative also reflects a growing push in economic development circles to reorient local economic development in a more community-oriented direction.

One conventional view of local economic development is that it is a competitive process in which the city is a product to be sold on the international marketplace. Residents and businesses alike, in this view, will choose to settle in the city that offers their preferred “bundle” of goods, services, opportunities, and tax policies. But this view tends to overstate both the degree of policy flexibility that cities have to tailor their “pitch” to outsiders, as well as the degree to which a city’s lifeblood depends purely on attracting an influx of outside dollars, talent, and investment. An opposing view is that local economic development is fundamentally parochial and redistributive, and its purpose is to meet the needs of the residents and businesses that are already part of the fabric of the city. This view has its own limits, underemphasizing the ways in which a locality’s prosperity and well-being are interrelated with regional and even global trends and flows.

More recently, however, a third view of economic development has emerged, which combines aspects of these two accounts. As Richard Schragger argues, we should view cities not as products to be sold on a competitive marketplace, nor as purely closed systems in which to pursue redistributive policies, but rather as path-dependent processes. In other words, cities evolve dynamically, through an interplay between already-existing local conditions and inheritances, and regional or global forces. The task of economic development policy, then, is to find a way to tap into the rooted, existing features of a city, and leverage those local resources.

Anchor institutions like universities are the quintessential lever for economic development in this process-oriented view. These institutions are fundamentally rooted in their communities; they cannot simply leave town the way other kinds of businesses can. They also have large ripple effects on their local communities based on who they hire, who they contract with, and how they employ their own resources. Anchor institutions thus represent valuable engines for local economic development—engines that, if redirected strategically, can help lift up the larger communities in which they are based.

These two features of Rethinking Communities – its democratic and participatory origins, and its focus on leveraging anchor institutions to accelerate local economic development – make it one of many contemporary heirs to the kind of innovation that came out of the first Gilded Age. Now, as then, there is an effort to take a more purposeful and directed approach to economic policy to help create the conditions for collective well-being. Now, as then, there is a desire to approach this task in a self-consciously democratic and participatory manner. And now, as then, it is likely that the lessons learned from (and the activists inspired by) this effort can contribute to a longer-term and larger movement for democratic and economic reform – which is precisely what we need to navigate our way out of the challenges of this New Gilded Age.

Sabeel Rahman is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 29: Local Investing for Local Community Growth

Sep 29, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

GWU Students Tackling Income Inequality in Their Own Backyard (USA Today)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

GWU Students Tackling Income Inequality in Their Own Backyard (USA Today)

Campus Network Northeast Regional Coordinator Areeba Kamal profiles the George Washington University chapter's Bank on DC initiative, which asks the university to invest at least $250,000 in a community development bank.

Failing the Midterms (In These Times)

Chris Lehmann considers why the Democrats lack a solid midterm agenda. Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Tom Ferguson places the blame on the power of wealthy donors in finance and Silicon Valley.

Inside the New York Fed: Secret Recordings and a Culture Clash (ProPublica/This American Life)

Jake Bernstein reports on recording made by a New York Federal Reserve bank examiner embedded at Goldman Sachs, which show the Fed's reluctance to take risks and push back on the banks.

Goldman Bans Employee Stock Trading Following “This American Life” Broadcast (Buzzfeed)

Matthew Zeitlin reports on Goldman's new policies, which appear to respond to concerns about conflict of interest policies raised in the ProPublica/This American Life report.

Bad Tech Helped Banks Screw Homeowners (Medium)

By choosing not to update their technology, mortgage servicers have an easier time covering up the illegal foreclosures that boost their profits, writes Alexis Goldstein.

Obamacare’s Good News Week (MSNBC)

Suzy Khimm highlights new evidence of the Affordable Care Act's success, including hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid seeing fewer uninsured patients, which reduces costs.

New on Next New Deal

Democracy, Economic Crisis, and “Rethinking Communities”

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Sabeel Rahman looks at the Campus Network's Rethinking Communities initiative as a successor to post-Gilded Age reforms, focusing on local power and participatory democracy.

Share This

Pages