Daily Digest - December 17: The Future of High-Speed Fiber Runs Through City Hall

Dec 17, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The quest for high-speed fiber: a conversation with Susan Crawford (The Verge)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The quest for high-speed fiber: a conversation with Susan Crawford (The Verge)

Russell Brandom and Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford discuss how America can improve its high-speed Internet access. Susan says she's given up on the federal government and is focusing on lobbying mayors as the best option to get high-speed fiber access to the most Americans.

The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted? (NYRB)

Judge Jed S. Rakoff speculates that a major reason for the lack of individual prosecutions for financial fraud is the systemic shift toward prosecuting companies instead of their agents, which saves time and resources but is not, he argues, the most morally sound option.

Secret Inside BofA Office of CEO Stymied Needy Homeowners (Bloomberg)

Hugh Son looks at the various ways that Bank of America prevented homeowners from successfully modifying their mortgages, from repeated requests for paperwork to understaffing the warehouse that all the related mail passed through.

Finally Paying for Wal-Mart’s Sins: Wage Theft Settlement Yields Millions (Salon)

Josh Eidelson reports on a proposed settlement in a wage theft case that would grant one group of warehouse workers $4.7 million. The warehouse was operated by a contractor, which will pay the fine, but there's an ongoing parallel case that names Wal-Mart as a defendant.

Stealing Pennies from Chileros (In These Times)

Joseph Sorrentino reports on green chile farming in New Mexico, where workers' hours are doctored to create the illusion of compliance with minimum wage laws. Even when the workers do report their bosses for violations of labor law, nothing seems to come of it.

The Year in Preview: Paul Ryan's Misguided Poverty Plan (TAP)

Monica Potts examines Paul Ryan as the face of anti-poverty work in the Republican Party. She says that for all that Ryan wants to position himself as a leader in the modern War on Poverty, he appears to have little interest in getting government involved in the fight.

How A For-Profit College Created Fake Jobs To Get Taxpayer Money (HuffPo)

Chris Kirkham looks at Everest College's practice of paying employers to hire their graduates for short stints of work. This raises the school's job placement rate and secures its accreditation, which allows Everest to access federal student loans.

Share This

Abortion Restrictions Are Harming Women's Health and Human Rights in Texas

Nov 25, 2013Andrea Flynn

Abortion restrictions in Texas are hurting low-income women in the Rio Grande Valley, which is proof positive that the U.S. needs to think about human rights locally, not just internationally.

Abortion restrictions in Texas are hurting low-income women in the Rio Grande Valley, which is proof positive that the U.S. needs to think about human rights locally, not just internationally.

Last week the Supreme Court decided to leave in place a Texas law that has essentially closed a third of the abortion providers in that state. On their own, the abortion restrictions are devastating. But in the context of three long years’ worth of family planning and women’s health cuts that violate the human rights of women in that state, they are catastrophic.

Over the summer Wendy Davis launched Texas into the national spotlight when she filibustered the same sweeping anti-abortion laws that were upheld by the Supreme Court. But long before that, women’s health advocates were sounding the alarm bells about the impact of massive family planning cuts that dismantled the state’s health infrastructure, on which millions of low-income women relied.

In order to understand the full implications of this week’s ruling, one must consider the current state of women’s health care – particularly that of low-income women – in Texas. The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) recently released a must-read report that illustrates the devastating human toll of family planning and reproductive health cuts on women living in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley.

The Valley is a marginalized region inside a state with some of the worst health disparities and the highest percentage of uninsured adults in the country. Many women in the Valley live in colonias, unincorporated communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, which often lack clean water, plumbing, electricity, and public transportation.

The report profiles women whose health and lives have changed along with the landscape of health infrastructures and systems in their communities. Women who detected lumps in their breasts four years ago but cannot afford the mammogram to determine if they are cancerous. Women who have received mammograms months ago but cannot get results because of exorbitant doctor’s fees. Women with ovarian cysts and cervical pain who risk their lives swimming across the river and traveling through towns rife with violence to access care in Mexico.

These women – and the thousands more they represent – must decide between paying rent, giving their children food and a roof over their heads, or having a mammogram, a Pap test, or contraceptives. “It’s one or the other, but not both,” they say. They live with a constant din of anxiety and fear, not knowing what disease is or might be growing in their bodies, where they will get care in emergency situations, or what will happen to their children if they become sick (or worse).

These women are living the consequences of calculated decisions made by conservative lawmakers to dismantle the state’s health safety net. Over the last two years, they cut the state’s family planning budget by two-thirds, from $111 million to $37.9 million. They established a tiered system and forfeited $30 million in federal funds so they could exclude Planned Parenthood and other organizations affiliated with abortion providers from receiving state or federal resources.

The 2011 policies shuttered 76 family planning clinics across the state (including 9 out of the Valley’s 32) and caused 55 more to reduce hours. Publicly funded clinics served 77 percent fewer patients in 2013 compared to 2011 (202,968 and 47,322, respectively). In the Valley public clinics went from serving 19,595 in 2011 to 5,470 in 2013. These trends are particularly troubling when you consider that even before the cuts, publicly funded family planning programs were providing care to less than 20 percent of the population in need.

As the CRR/NLIRH report describes, women in the Valley – particularly Latina women – experience the grave consequences of living at the intersections of race, class, gender, and immigration in the United States. They are 31 percent more likely to die of cervical cancer than women in non-border communities. In the rest of the country, rates of cervical cancer have been plummeting thanks to early detection and treatment, but among Latinas in the Valley the rate is increasing and cervical cancer deaths among Latinas is nearly twice that of non-Latina white women.

The report exposes the lesser-known consequences of the cuts and regulations on clinics that are still open. Remaining providers have reduced hours, laid off staff, increased fees, and stopped providing the most effective family planning methods all while managing a rapidly growing demand for their services. The average cost of a one-month supply of contraception and the fee for an annual exam has increased three- to four-fold since 2010. Ultrasounds and mammograms, once accessible thanks to subsidized rates, are no longer in reach of most women. Wait times often exceed several months.

For women living in areas where clinics have closed, reaching neighboring providers is often impossible due to transportation barriers. Buses are nonexistent, infrequent, or unreliable. Gas is too expensive. Childcare is hard to find. Taking time off work is not an option. For undocumented immigrants, traveling to other communities requires passing through internal checkpoints and risking deportation.

So what happens? Women purchase unregulated contraceptives off the black market, without consulting a doctor about which form of family planning is best for their bodies. They seek care in Mexico, taking the risk that they will not make it back across the border safely. Or, like many of the women described in the report, they forgo contraception and medical care because they simply cannot afford it.

This is the background upon which the most recent abortion restrictions have occurred. There is not a single abortion provider left in the Valley. At a minimum, women must travel three to five hours each way to access an abortion (and must make that trip multiple times thanks to ultrasound and counseling requirements). For most women, it might as well be outlawed.

Many of the women in the Valley do not reap the benefits of federal programs and policies meant to support low-income women. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for public insurance programs. New immigrants must wait five years before becoming eligible for Medicaid. Texas is not expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, leaving those who aren’t poor enough for Medicaid but are too poor to qualify for subsidies out of luck.

Title X, the nation’s only program dedicated to family planning – which once provided effective and far reaching family planning care for the state’s low-income women – was seriously weakened by the above-mentioned regulations. (Luckily, the Obama administration recently took Title X out of the hands of the state government and endowed it to the Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, which has directed funding back to family planning clinics and even enabled a previously closed facility in the Valley to reopen.)

As the CRR/NLIRH report argues, the state of Texas has done more than just grievously neglect an underserved and marginalized community of women. It has violated the human rights of women in Texas, a duty it is legally obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill. American exceptionalism has relegated human rights to the international development sphere and deemed them unnecessary within our own borders. But for the health and lives of women in Texas and around the country, it is time we think about how we can use human rights to make America exceptional in ways we can be proud of. 

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. She researches and writes about access to reproductive health care in the United States. You can follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Photo via Shutterstock.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 4: No Jobs, Lots of Problems

Sep 4, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

America’s Jobless Generation (NYRB)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative Jeff Madrick argues that policy, not technology, is keeping unemployment high. He's particularly concerned about the effect of these policies on young people.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

America’s Jobless Generation (NYRB)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative Jeff Madrick argues that policy, not technology, is keeping unemployment high. He's particularly concerned about the effect of these policies on young people.

Why This Particular Recovery Is So Bad at Creating New Jobs (Pacific Standard)

Timothy Noah looks at various reasons that our recovery isn't solving unemployment. He suggests that the economy is following Walmart, which doesn't seem to want to hire anyone in a permanent position these days, preferring "flexible" temporary workers.

401(k)s are Replacing Pensions. That’s Making Inequality Worse. (WaPo)

Lydia DePillis argues that the growth of 401(k)s is going to increase inequality among the elderly. Pensions aren't perfect, but at least they didn't require low-income workers to decide between today's bills and tomorrow's retirement.

Justice Department Tackles Quality Of Defense For The Poor (All Things Considered)

Carrie Johnson reports on a Department of Justice filling in a case on the quality of public defense in two cities in Northern Washington. Overburdened defense attorneys agree that an independent monitor's oversight would help.

In Budget Cuts, Low-Income Students Suffer More Than Wealthy Ones (MSNBC)

Suzy Khimm explains why poorer school districts are being hit harder by sequesteration then wealthier districts that could presumably absorb some cuts. With straight cuts across the board, the more federal funds a district typically needs, the more it loses this year.

What's Killing Poor White Women? (TAP)

Monica Potts examines the decreasing life expectancy of uneducated white women. Weaving facts about the demographic into the story of one such woman's early death, she tells a harrowing tale about how much these factors effect a life.

New on Next New Deal

How Ronald Coase Demolished Current Libertarian Ideas About Property

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal argues that Ronald Coase's work helps to prove that "self-ownership" can't solve all our problems. Property rights overlap, and social arrangements (like government) must prioritize one owner over others.

Share This

How Ronald Coase Demolished Current Libertarian Ideas About Property

Sep 3, 2013Mike Konczal

Property isn’t a vertical relationship between a person and an object, but instead is a horizontal, reciprocal relationship of exclusions between people. Since the benefit of one person in regard to property comes at the expense of someone else, there’s no logical or coherent way to invoke liberty or classical liberal principles of “do no harm” when it comes to how the law determines the shape of property. All we can do is pick among competing systems that try to achieve shared social goals.

That’s not an idea normally associated with the economist Ronald Coase, who died yesterday at 102. But it’s a very important part of his landmark paper, ”The Problem of Social Cost (1960), that goes missing when the right-wing celebrates his legacy. Let’s unpack it.

The paper is meant to address the issue of externalities, or when a third party pays a price (or get a benefit) as a result of market transactions he or she isn’t engaged with. Pollution is the classic example.

The normal Coase Theorem argues that in the ethereal world of perfect markets, clear property rights, and no transaction costs, legal regulations would only impact the distribution but not the outcomes of externalities.

Obligatory example, this one from Coase: someone purchases land next to a train to farm. The train throws off sparks, which damage the crops. The railroad company could remodel the train to stop the sparks. What difference would liability law and regulations make?

Let’s say it cost $100 to put on spark guards that would stop $120 worth of crop damage. In this case, the spark guards would get installed. If liability fell on the train company, they’d pay the $100. If it didn’t, the farmer would pay the train company $100 to install the spark guards. If those numbers were reversed, the spark guard wouldn’t get installed. The train company would just pay $100 for the crop damages to prevent the lawsuit if they faced liability. If they didn’t, the farmer would eat the $100 loss. In both cases, the law didn’t change what decision would be made if they just bargained together. The only thing that would change would be the cash payments. (This does not pan out well in the real world [1].)

What does this have to do with libertarianism? As Barbara Fried notes, Coase is defining the social costs as being “the joint costs of conflicting desires in a world of scarce resources.” This move brings the progressive legal realism of the early 20th century law into the economics field.

What Coase is overturning is the idea that the scenario above is simply the railroad damaging the crops, and thus the issue is how to stop or punish the railroad company. Instead, there are multiple, valid claims, claims that necessarily put restrictions on others, and the issue is how to balance them.

As Coase says early on about externalities, “The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong. We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature. To avoid the harm to B would inflict harm on A. The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A?”

Indeed, the very first thing Coase does in the paper is to argue the “reciprocal” nature of social cost. The cost of the crop damage isn’t a question. The problem comes out of two people’s desire to utilize their property rights: for the train to run as is, and for the farmer to grow crops near the tracks. The question is, whose property rights do we privilege: the railroad’s or the farmer’s? People in law and economics usually dodge this by arguing that bargaining will take care of the (non-distributional) issues, but in the regular world, which is full of transaction costs, these decisions will need to be made.

And this is where Coase is a major problem for current libertarian thinking. Today’s libertarians draw almost their entire philosophy from the idea of “self-ownership” and think that the only role of government is to enforce a minimal, classical liberal version of “do no harm.”

But notice how ideas like non-aggression makes no sense in the Coase world. The ideal of self-ownership and minimal government can’t get us out of this problem, because it is precisely what ownership entails that is under question. And to realize one person’s ownership would necessarily entail limiting the ownership claims of someone else. (You can read the hostility that anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard had for the Coase Theorem’s “social engineering” here.)

Or as Coase concludes, “We may speak of a person owning land and using it as a factor of production but what the land-owner in fact possesses is the right to carry out a circumscribed list of actions…in choosing between social arrangements within the context of which individual decisions are made, we have to bear in mind that a change in the existing system which will lead to an improvement in some decisions may well lead to a worsening of others.”

The question of which social arrangements are best is the problem we face. Some, however, can’t even see the question.

[1] Three quick examples of the Coase Theorem not panning out in the real world:

Where Do We Send Unemployment Checks? John Donohue looked at a natural experiment from a pilot program in Illinois that would send out a bonus unemployment check of $500 for people who successfully found a job. But some people in the pilot program had the checks sent to them, while others, randomly, had the checks sent to their employers. This was a great test for the Coase Theorem, as the people in question had to bargain a contract to get employed in the first place, so there were no transaction costs.

It turned out there was a significant effect. People were much less likely to participate if their employers received the check. So policy design does matter.

Actual Cattle, Actual Society. In 1989, Robert Ellickson of Yale Law School investigated how rural landowners in California handled livestock trespassing under different liability regimes. What did he find? “The field evidence I gathered suggests that a change in animal trespass law indeed fails to affect resource allocation, not because transaction costs are low, but because transaction costs are high. Legal rules are costly to learn and enforce. Trespass incidents are minor irritations between parties who typically have complex continuing relationships that enable them readily to enforce informal norms.”

Norms and social accounts of obligations are important basic sources of entitlements, as opposed to just abstract bargaining models.

Institutions Matter Too. Much of the more interesting work in cross-country growth has been focused on relative strengths and weaknesses of public institutions like courts, something that shouldn’t matter from the Coase world. For one example from someone in that field, Simon Johnson had a great summary about financial regulation and economic conditions. They key point is that securities law has a strong correlation with economic outcomes, which shouldn’t happen. But it does.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Property isn’t a vertical relationship between a person and an object, but instead is a horizontal, reciprocal relationship of exclusions between people. Since the benefit of one person in regard to property comes at the expense of someone else, there’s no logical or coherent way to invoke liberty or classical liberal principles of “do no harm” when it comes to how the law determines the shape of property. All we can do is pick among competing systems that try to achieve shared social goals.

That’s not an idea normally associated with the economist Ronald Coase, who died yesterday at 102. But it’s a very important part of his landmark paper, ”The Problem of Social Cost (1960), that goes missing when the right-wing celebrates his legacy. Let’s unpack it.

The paper is meant to address the issue of externalities, or when a third party pays a price (or get a benefit) as a result of market transactions he or she isn’t engaged with. Pollution is the classic example.

The normal Coase Theorem argues that in the ethereal world of perfect markets, clear property rights, and no transaction costs, legal regulations would only impact the distribution but not the outcomes of externalities.

Obligatory example, this one from Coase: someone purchases land next to a train to farm. The train throws off sparks, which damage the crops. The railroad company could remodel the train to stop the sparks. What difference would liability law and regulations make?

Let’s say it cost $100 to put on spark guards that would stop $120 worth of crop damage. In this case, the spark guards would get installed. If liability fell on the train company, they’d pay the $100. If it didn’t, the farmer would pay the train company $100 to install the spark guards. If those numbers were reversed, the spark guard wouldn’t get installed. The train company would just pay $100 for the crop damages to prevent the lawsuit if they faced liability. If they didn’t, the farmer would eat the $100 loss. In both cases, the law didn’t change what decision would be made if they just bargained together. The only thing that would change would be the cash payments. (This does not pan out well in the real world [1].)

What does this have to do with libertarianism? As Barbara Fried notes, Coase is defining the social costs as being “the joint costs of conflicting desires in a world of scarce resources.” This move brings the progressive legal realism of the early 20th century law into the economics field.

What Coase is overturning is the idea that the scenario above is simply the railroad damaging the crops, and thus the issue is how to stop or punish the railroad company. Instead, there are multiple, valid claims, claims that necessarily put restrictions on others, and the issue is how to balance them.

As Coase says early on about externalities, “The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong. We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature. To avoid the harm to B would inflict harm on A. The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A?”

Indeed, the very first thing Coase does in the paper is to argue the “reciprocal” nature of social cost. The cost of the crop damage isn’t a question. The problem comes out of two people’s desire to utilize their property rights: for the train to run as is, and for the farmer to grow crops near the tracks. The question is, whose property rights do we privilege: the railroad’s or the farmer’s? People in law and economics usually dodge this by arguing that bargaining will take care of the (non-distributional) issues, but in the regular world, which is full of transaction costs, these decisions will need to be made.

And this is where Coase is a major problem for current libertarian thinking. Today’s libertarians draw almost their entire philosophy from the idea of “self-ownership” and think that the only role of government is to enforce a minimal, classical liberal version of “do no harm.”

But notice how ideas like non-aggression makes no sense in the Coase world. The ideal of self-ownership and minimal government can’t get us out of this problem, because it is precisely what ownership entails that is under question. And to realize one person’s ownership would necessarily entail limiting the ownership claims of someone else. (You can read the hostility that anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard had for the Coase Theorem’s “social engineering” here.)

Or as Coase concludes, “We may speak of a person owning land and using it as a factor of production but what the land-owner in fact possesses is the right to carry out a circumscribed list of actions…in choosing between social arrangements within the context of which individual decisions are made, we have to bear in mind that a change in the existing system which will lead to an improvement in some decisions may well lead to a worsening of others.”

The question of which social arrangements are best is the problem we face. Some, however, can’t even see the question.

[1] Three quick examples of the Coase Theorem not panning out in the real world:

Where Do We Send Unemployment Checks? John Donohue looked at a natural experiment from a pilot program in Illinois that would send out a bonus unemployment check of $500 for people who successfully found a job. But some people in the pilot program had the checks sent to them, while others, randomly, had the checks sent to their employers. This was a great test for the Coase Theorem, as the people in question had to bargain a contract to get employed in the first place, so there were no transaction costs.

It turned out there was a significant effect. People were much less likely to participate if their employers received the check. So policy design does matter.

Actual Cattle, Actual Society. In 1989, Robert Ellickson of Yale Law School investigated how rural landowners in California handled livestock trespassing under different liability regimes. What did he find? “The field evidence I gathered suggests that a change in animal trespass law indeed fails to affect resource allocation, not because transaction costs are low, but because transaction costs are high. Legal rules are costly to learn and enforce. Trespass incidents are minor irritations between parties who typically have complex continuing relationships that enable them readily to enforce informal norms.”

Norms and social accounts of obligations are important basic sources of entitlements, as opposed to just abstract bargaining models.

Institutions Matter Too. Much of the more interesting work in cross-country growth has been focused on relative strengths and weaknesses of public institutions like courts, something that shouldn’t matter from the Coase world. For one example from someone in that field, Simon Johnson had a great summary about financial regulation and economic conditions. They key point is that securities law has a strong correlation with economic outcomes, which shouldn’t happen. But it does.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

What Mia Macy's Victory Means for Transgender Workers' Rights

Jul 29, 2013Tyler S. Bugg

The Justice Department's ruling in Mia Macy's lawsuit against the ATF is a significant win in the fight against employment discrimination for the transgender community, but there's still more to be done.

The Justice Department's ruling in Mia Macy's lawsuit against the ATF is a significant win in the fight against employment discrimination for the transgender community, but there's still more to be done.

It has been over a year since I last wrote about Mia Macy and her lawsuit, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and the state of employment discrimination for transgender people like Macy. To review, Macy was tentatively offered a position as a ballistics expert at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), pending a background check, and the background check revealed her gender transition. The hiring manager then told Macy the position was being eliminated due to budget cuts and hired another applicant. Her high-profile lawsuit against the ATF for rescinding this job offer has resulted in a long and arduous battle in court. Now her work has finally paid off.

Earlier this month, a Justice Department decision was handed down in favor of Macy, ruling that the ATF broke the law in not offering her a job as a ballistics expert -- a move the ruling says was motivated by direct discrimination based on her gender identity. The ruling requires the ATF to again offer the job to Macy, pay her back pay and benefits with interest, and cover all of her legal costs. Even better, the decision stipulates that the agency must implement its own anti-discrimination policies to be applied to all its other employees and future job applicants.

Macy’s hallmark challenge was already considered a victory last year when the complaint she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prompted the agency to independently rule that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans employers from discriminating based on an employee’s gender identity or expression. Her Department of Justice suit win this year only extends and celebrates the progress she began in ultimately ensuring a more just and equitable body of employment law for the United States labor force.

The benefit this has for employer-employee relations, employee productivity, and general satisfaction with job environment safety and morale is obvious. I have written previously about why more inclusive employment anti-discrimination protections are both sound social policy and sound business policy – employees and job applicants feel less anxiety about their workplace environments, employers reap the benefits of happier and more qualified applicant pools, and diverse workplaces encourage a respectful and productive mode of labor that better mirrors the country’s diversity outside of the workplace.

All of those outcomes remain true with Macy’s DOJ win. What is unique about Macy’s case is that, for the first time, the federal government is backing challenges of private and government employers by the transgender community. The DOJ decision in Macy’s case represents a significant precedent in the government’s interest in and implementation of more aggressive anti-discrimination policies, especially at the federal level.

The federal government’s sudden activism on behalf of transgender employees is curious, then, as it also continues to stall the passing of ENDA at the federal level. While Macy’s DOJ win is significant, it only applies to her individual case and to her particular employer. ENDA, as a more comprehensive plan to protect all of the nation’s employees, is a preventative measure, and remains absolutely necessary. If the government wishes to remain consistent with the spirit of its findings in Macy’s case, then it must move forward in considering ENDA. Its passage will be an important next step for extending benefits of protection past Macy to all other persons fired, not hired, or denied a promotion or salary increase as a result of their gender and sexuality identity statuses.

However, even ENDA has its limits, and they point to the failings of employment and labor law in this country more broadly. While ENDA certainly has a symbolic significance and a legal usefulness for transgender employees, real change cannot only rely on the jurisdictions of the court system. The effectiveness of employment protections for everyone, not just transgender people, is less than satisfactory. While proponents of ENDA push its necessity by pointing out that it is legal to fire someone for identifying as transgender in 34 states, in the 49 states where “at-will” employment law is the overarching standard, it is completely legal to fire someone for any reason at all and without explanation.

As we move away from Macy’s case, it is economically, socially, and legally important that transgender activists mobilizing within workers’ rights causes have a stake in the larger, more structural state of employment law for everyone, and vice versa. It is only when we finds the ways to consider all critiques across the board that we can find the change-oriented solution that the transgender community has been fighting for throughout Macy’s legal battles. With this shared understanding, we can build the most just and equitable workplaces for transgender people, and indeed all people.

Tyler S. Bugg is a New York-based writer, activist, and artist and an alumnus of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

Share This

Why Trayvon Is Inspiring America to Put Stand Your Ground Laws on Trial

Jul 16, 2013Naomi Ahsan

The Zimmerman verdict could spark a nationwide movement to challenge "self-defense" laws that support racism.

The Zimmerman verdict could spark a nationwide movement to challenge "self-defense" laws that support racism.

Immediately following George Zimmerman’s acquittal on all charges brought against him for killing Trayvon Martin, mass protest began in the streets and on social media, evoking the great mobilizations for civil rights in American history. While many trials invite public scrutiny and speculation through intense media coverage, few others so clearly illustrate the racial tensions that connect the present with the embarrassing and ugly pieces of America’s past. The Zimmerman trial offers a status update on systemic racism in the United States and calls for attention to and action on Stand Your Ground laws. It also reminds those working for social justice of what litigation can and cannot accomplish, challenges us to consider how public safety measures can serve all Americans, and plainly illuminates the need for greater legal and political empowerment of young men who look like Trayvon Martin.

Stand Your Ground bills have been passed by over 30 states, based on a campaign that began in Florida in 2005 led by the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). (ALEC went on to disavow advocacy for Stand Your Ground in 2012.) These laws provide immunity from criminal and civil proceedings to people who “stand their ground” and use potentially deadly force instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so is necessary to “prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” They are alternatively known as “Castle” laws based on Castle doctrine, which traditionally provides for defense in a home and is named based on the saying, “a man’s home is his castle.”

While Stand Your Ground was not invoked by the Zimmerman defense, the case has raised the law’s profile because it is the reason that Zimmerman was not arrested until almost two months after he killed Trayvon Martin. Florida Stand Your Ground law requires police to have specific evidence refuting a self-defense claim in order to arrest someone claiming self-defense as the basis of their violent actions, shifting accountability to law enforcement from people who use force in the name of “self-defense.” There is a growing realization that Stand Your Ground serves to promote anti-black racism — both in who is perceived as threatening and whose claims of feeling threatened are legitimized.

According to a federal lawsuit brought by Markel Hutchins that challenges Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law, some courts have “accepted the race of a victim as evidence to establish the reasonableness of an individual’s fear in cases of justifiable homicide.” The lack of specificity in circumstances justifying the use of deadly force leads to Americans of color being disproportionately targeted by such force. Stand Your Ground is more likely to be applied in cases of white-on-black crime. Hutchins also claims that the law does not equally protect him and other black Americans acting in self-defense. According to the Tampa Bay Times, people in Florida who kill a black person walk free 73 percent of the time in Stand Your Ground cases, while those who kill a white person go free 59 percent of the time.

Marissa Alexander, an African American woman, was not protected by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law when confronting her ex-husband, who was violating his restraining order and had a documented record of domestic violence. For firing a single warning shot as she “stood her ground,” even though the shot did not injure anyone, Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Stand Your Ground thus failed to serve a black woman who was being threatened by a man who was known to have abused her.

The Zimmerman verdict is not only disappointing because it seems wrong that killing Trayvon Martin, who was innocently walking along in his hoodie on the wrong street at the wrong time, should go unpunished. It is also because an institution of justice seems to have affirmed the racism in Zimmerman’s suspicion and pursuit of Trayvon – racism evidenced by Zimmerman’s history of dozens of “emergency calls“ to the police to report suspicious black men, including one incident where the “suspicious black male” in question was between seven and nine years old.

But while offensive to contemporary American morality, racism is not a crime. In fact, racist thought and speech are protected in American courts of law by the First Amendment, an application of Voltaire’s principle of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Our foundational legal doctrines are ill-suited to today’s tasks of addressing issues of race advantages and disadvantages to achieve an authentically equal and just society. This is one reason that our courts are often not ideal tools for policy change.

The Department of Justice is investigating Trayvon Martin’s killing, and the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights launched an investigation into the racial bias of Stand Your Ground laws in May. While a lawsuit proceeds to challenge Stand Your Ground in Georgia, there is also the possibility that the Martin will family will bring a civil suit to challenge the constitutionality of Stand Your Ground in Florida.

In the meantime, grief, outrage and worry in reactions to the Zimmerman trial could prove effective and meaningful in motivating new race consciousness and appropriate action. Americans can civically engage and establish a productive discourse to scrutinize Stand Your Ground; increase awareness of the law and of related rights, especially in communities of color; and get involved in state legislative processes to demand alternative policies on public safety and permissible use of guns. The creeping proliferation of Stand Your Ground legislation and its flaws, which are only now starting to be recognized, underlines the importance of these steps as well as the need to increase the diversity of Americans who vote and serve the country as attorneys and elected officials.

Naomi Ahsan is a Research and Program Associate at the Center for Community Change and is Director of Programming for the DC chapter of Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline.

 

Hand with gun image via Shutterstock.com.

Share This

What’s New in the New Surveillance State?

Jun 11, 2013Mike Konczal

I had a post at Wonkblog over the weekend, “Is a democratic surveillance state possible?”

In some sense, the issue of the government spying and collecting data on its citizens isn’t a new problem. One of my favorite tweets of the past week was Brooke Jarvis noting "Collapsing bridges alongside massive spy networks... Ah, the Jeffersonian ideal of government."

The United States has been tracking, observing, and surveilling its citizens for centuries. That includes that long-standing form of communication, the mail. As Senator Lindsey Graham just said, “In World War II... you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored...If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it.”

From the Census in the Constitution to the Cold War spy network (including the NSA, founded in 1952 through the Executive Branch), maybe this should be seen as a continuation of an old issue rather than a brand new one. But I think there are genuinely new and interesting problems with the 21st century Surveillance State and the brand new digital technologies that create the foundations for it. What’s new about the new surveillance state?

1. It’s always on and always has been. Old acts of surveillance had to be triggered and were forward-looking. However, we now spend so much of our lives online, and that is always being recorded. As the leaker Edward Snowden said in his interview, “they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."

To the extent that old surveillance was capable of going back, it was by checking old records or interrogating old sources. And there the concept of amnesia comes into play.

2. It will never forget. “Amnesia” is a normal front line of defense. People forget things. Clear memories, stories, and ideas become grey. Photos and documents get lost with time. Trying to piece together history will necessarily involve a lot of missing gaps and poor recollection.

Not with the surveillance state. Cheap digital storage means that clear, easily replicable data will exist for the foreseeable future.

3. It scales easily. If the FBI was keeping records on 100 people in the 1950s, and it then wanted to monitor 1,000 people, it would probably need 10 times as many resources. Certainly it wouldn’t be effortless to scale up that level of surveillance.

As we can see in the age of Big Data and fast computing, this is no longer the case. The resource costs of accessing your phone’s metadata history versus all phones’ metadata history is going to be (somewhat) trivial. And the fact that there’s no amnesia means that you’ll always have access to that extra data.

4. It’s designed to be accessible. As Orin Kerr emphasizes, digital data here isn’t collected or surveilled via the human senses. A person can’t simply “peek” into your email the way they could peek at your physical mail. Instead devices need to be installed to access and make sense of this data. Private sector agents will do this, because it is part of their business model to make this information accessible. These access points will also be accessible to government agents under certain conditions - part of the major debate over the PRISM program is under what conditions the government can actually access these devices.

5. It’s primarily driven by the private sector. Broadly speaking, measures of democratic accountability and constitutional protections do not extend to the private sector. More on this soon, but things like the Freedom of Information Act to the Administrative Procedure Act to our whole regime of transparency laws do not apply to outside businesses. The government has worked with private groups before on surveillance, but here it is in large part driven by private agents, both for contractors and information gathering.

6. It predicts the future for individuals using mass data. Surveillance has generally used mass data to either predict or determine future courses of action on a mass scale. For instance, Census data is used to allocate federal money, or predict population growth. Alternatively, it uses individual data to analyze individual behavior - asking around and snooping to dig up dirt on someone, for instance.

The surveillance state, however, allows for using mass data to predict the actions of individuals and groups of individuals. This is what generates your Netflix and Amazon suggestions, but it is also now providing the basis for government actions. As Kieran Healy notes, this would have been interesting back in the American Revolution.

This is distinct from the normal Seeing Like a State (SLS) critique of how states see their citizens. Some think states produce “a logic of homogenization and the virtual elimination of local knowledge...an agency of homogenization, uniformity, grids and heroic simplification” (SLS 302, 8). But rather than flatten or homogenize its citizens when observed under bulk conditions, it actually creates a remarkably individualized image of what its citizens are up to.

What else is missing, or shouldn't have been listed? You could view these as a technological evolution of what was already in place, and in some ways that would make sense. But the technology has opened a brand new field. This existed before the War on Terror, and will likely exist afterwards; dealing with the laws and institutions behind this new state is crucial. As the technology has changed, so must our laws.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

I had a post at Wonkblog over the weekend, “Is a democratic surveillance state possible?”

In some sense, the issue of the government spying and collecting data on its citizens isn’t a new problem. One of my favorite tweets of the past week was Brooke Jarvis noting "Collapsing bridges alongside massive spy networks... Ah, the Jeffersonian ideal of government."

The United States has been tracking, observing, and surveilling its citizens for centuries. That includes that long-standing form of communication, the mail. As Senator Lindsey Graham just said, “In World War II... you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored...If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it.”

From the Census in the Constitution to the Cold War spy network (including the NSA, founded in 1952 through the Executive Branch), maybe this should be seen as a continuation of an old issue rather than a brand new one. But I think there are genuinely new and interesting problems with the 21st century Surveillance State and the brand new digital technologies that create the foundations for it. What’s new about the new surveillance state?

1. It’s always on and always has been. Old acts of surveillance had to be triggered and were forward-looking. However, we now spend so much of our lives online, and that is always being recorded. As the leaker Edward Snowden said in his interview, “they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."

To the extent that old surveillance was capable of going back, it was by checking old records or interrogating old sources. And there the concept of amnesia comes into play.

2. It will never forget. “Amnesia” is a normal front line of defense. People forget things. Clear memories, stories, and ideas become grey. Photos and documents get lost with time. Trying to piece together history will necessarily involve a lot of missing gaps and poor recollection.

Not with the surveillance state. Cheap digital storage means that clear, easily replicable data will exist for the foreseeable future.

3. It scales easily. If the FBI was keeping records on 100 people in the 1950s, and it then wanted to monitor 1,000 people, it would probably need 10 times as many resources. Certainly it wouldn’t be effortless to scale up that level of surveillance.

As we can see in the age of Big Data and fast computing, this is no longer the case. The resource costs of accessing your phone’s metadata history versus all phones’ metadata history is going to be (somewhat) trivial. And the fact that there’s no amnesia means that you’ll always have access to that extra data.

4. It’s designed to be accessible. As Orin Kerr emphasizes, digital data here isn’t collected or surveilled via the human senses. A person can’t simply “peek” into your email the way they could peek at your physical mail. Instead devices need to be installed to access and make sense of this data. Private sector agents will do this, because it is part of their business model to make this information accessible. These access points will also be accessible to government agents under certain conditions - part of the major debate over the PRISM program is under what conditions the government can actually access these devices.

5. It’s primarily driven by the private sector. Broadly speaking, measures of democratic accountability and constitutional protections do not extend to the private sector. More on this soon, but things like the Freedom of Information Act to the Administrative Procedure Act to our whole regime of transparency laws do not apply to outside businesses. The government has worked with private groups before on surveillance, but here it is in large part driven by private agents, both for contractors and information gathering.

6. It predicts the future for individuals using mass data. Surveillance has generally used mass data to either predict or determine future courses of action on a mass scale. For instance, Census data is used to allocate federal money, or predict population growth. Alternatively, it uses individual data to analyze individual behavior - asking around and snooping to dig up dirt on someone, for instance.

The surveillance state, however, allows for using mass data to predict the actions of individuals and groups of individuals. This is what generates your Netflix and Amazon suggestions, but it is also now providing the basis for government actions. As Kieran Healy notes, this would have been interesting back in the American Revolution.

This is distinct from the normal Seeing Like a State (SLS) critique of how states see their citizens. Some think states produce “a logic of homogenization and the virtual elimination of local knowledge...an agency of homogenization, uniformity, grids and heroic simplification” (SLS 302, 8). But rather than flatten or homogenize its citizens when observed under bulk conditions, it actually creates a remarkably individualized image of what its citizens are up to.

What else is missing, or shouldn't have been listed? You could view these as a technological evolution of what was already in place, and in some ways that would make sense. But the technology has opened a brand new field. This existed before the War on Terror, and will likely exist afterwards; dealing with the laws and institutions behind this new state is crucial. As the technology has changed, so must our laws.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

How to Pensa 2040: Italy's Millennials Share Their Blueprint for Change

May 13, 2013Alan Smith

An Italian offshoot of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network shows that Millennial policy priorities reach across national borders.

An Italian offshoot of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network shows that Millennial policy priorities reach across national borders.

In 2010, the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network created the Blueprint for Millennial America, a generational vision for the country we hoped to see by the year 2040. In the conversations that established the backbone of the blueprint, we identified a core set of values shared by Millennials. The top three -- a deeply held concern for equity, a respect for the individual and society, and a belief in community empowerment and self-determination – represent a commonality that we think underlines what is unique about this generation of Americans. We are a group that seeks self-empowerment and strives to improve our society, but not always through the traditional power structures.

Over the last year, a similar project has been taking root on university campuses and among active Millennials – except this time it’s in Italy, where students have stepped up to take charge of their country’s uncertain future. “Pensa 2040” has taken the values-based collective ethos of the Roosevelt Blueprint and the Budget for Millennial America but introduced an Italian perspective. More than a thousand Italians have participated in conversations similar to those that built the Blueprint, and a Millennial vision for Italy is coming into focus.

If we’ve learned anything at the Campus Network, it’s that ownership of the process is equally as important as ownership of the outcomes. From what we’ve seen so far, the leaders of the Pensa 2040 process have carried on the successes of the Thinks 2040 framework by being willing and able to customize their discussions for the people in the room and the issues that are near and dear to their hearts. Holding discussions that engage people through the fundamental framework of values, and in so doing asks participants to examine which issues they truly believe are the most important, can yield a deeper and more lasting engagement on the issues that the community decides on together. 

So, what happened in Pensa 2040? The top-ranked value listed by the Italian Millennials reveals a clear difference between our two cultures: a deeply held respect for the idea of “legality.” This concept, rooted in Italy’s ongoing problems with the mafia and organized crime, extends to ending tax evasion and corruption within government. The very fact that the idea of legality would be a core value reveals a desire for order that is not at the forefront of many Americans’ minds. Still, some of the outcomes that students hope for in this category include a fair tax system and a more effective and fair legal system – important underpinnings of the Government By and For Millennial America discussion. 

It is in the second and third values expressed by the Italian students that we find a direct match with their American counterparts: equality and respect for the rights of the person. These essentially match word for word the underpinnings of the American Blueprint, and we find kinship with a generation focused on an absolute right to citizenship, same-sex marriages, and “civil service for all” (outcomes under “Uguaglianza”) as well as a right to health and full access to the sorts of “primary goods” that people need to be active and successful citizens (outcomes listed under “Rispetto per i diritti della persona”). There is something here, direct and definable, that speaks to a global generational identity. 

This sympathetic outlook makes sense: there are more and more shared experiences for people across borders and oceans. Not only could we jump on Skype to hear the results of the Pensa 2040 discussions, but many of the core issues facing Millennial Italians are the same issues facing American students in the Campus Network. Global climate change, economic uncertainty, and the challenges of a consistently volatile yet ever-more-interconnected world mean that the experience of being young often establishes a stronger bond than the experience of being “American” or “European.” While the 39 percent youth unemployment rate in Italy dwarfs the 17 percent unemployment rate for American youth, both countries are experiencing talk of a “lost generation,” and anyone trying to get a job out of college right now can tell you that unemployment is only a part of a bitter cocktail that includes low-wage jobs and student debt.  The economic example serves to highlight a greater truth: that a generational movement is real and important. 

Pensa 2040 has moved from the conversation stages to the building of a values-based blueprint for Italy. Students are working with other stakeholders now to write policy recommendations for Italy going forward, and to follow in the footsteps of the Campus Network by creating a crowd-sourced and collaborative budget for Italy that tackles their ongoing economic woes from a place of shared values. We’re excited that Italian students have taken on a part of our brand of collective discussions and are using it to build something equally as empowering and exciting for themselves. Look for a Blueprint for Millenario Italia entro il 2014! 

Alan Smith is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's National Policy and Program Director.

 

"Made in Italy" image via Shutterstock.com

Share This

How Congress and the Courts Are Closing in on Dodd-Frank

Apr 4, 2013Mike Konczal

What are the serious threats to Dodd-Frank? Last month, Haley Sweetland Edwards wrote "He Who Makes the Rules" at the Washington Monthly, which is the best single piece on Dodd-Frank implementation I've seen. In it, she identifies "three main areas on this gauntlet where a rule can be sliced, diced, gouged, or otherwise weakened beyond recognition." The first is "the agency itself, where industry lobbyists enjoy outsized influence in meetings and comment letters, on rule makers’ access to vital information, and on the interpretation of the law itself." The second is the courts, "where industry groups can sue an agency and have a rule killed on a variety of grounds." And the third is Congress, "where an entire law can be retroactively gutted or poked through with loopholes."

How important have those three areas been? Looking at the first two and a half years of Dodd-Frank, the courts turned out to be the unexpected danger for financial reform. I have a piece in Bloomberg View today arguing this, as well as the fact that the courts are structurally biased against reform in some very crucial ways.

That's not to say the lobbying battle is going well. But when the bill passed, people understood that rulewriting would be a difficult battle, and some groups like Americans for Financial Reform and Better Markets could at least help balance the lobbying efforts of financial industry groups. What was less understood was that the D.C. Circuit Court would have so many vacancies, and thus tilted to the far right and a radical agenda. I hope you check out the piece.

But what about Congress? Erika Eichelberger at Mother Jones has an excellent piece about the ongoing, now biparistan, efforts to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank's derivative regulations that are starting up in the House Agriculture Committee. (I wrote about this effort for Wonkblog here.) This third area Edwards identifies, Congress, is only now becoming a serious battlefield. But isn't the timing off? President Obama and the Democrats lost in 2010 but won in 2012. Yet while the threat of Congress rolling back Dodd-Frank, one of President Obama's major achievements, with new bills wasn't on the radar in 2011, it may be in 2013. Isn't that backwards?
 
Part of the answer is that the rules are becoming clearer, so financial industry lobbyists have more concrete targets to bring to Congress. But there's a political dimension as well. The general shutdown and polarization that dominated Congress after 2010 made a congressional threat to Dodd-Frank less likely. And ironically, the rise of the Tea Party within the conservative movement, even with its anti-Obama and anti-regulatory zeal, made bills to weaken Dodd-Frank less likely to pass. One reason is that the Tea Party wanted a full repeal of the bill or to gut entire sections, rather than more targeted interventions. Another is that the biggest losers in the 2010 shellacking were centrist “new Democrats,” those that would be more responsive to the needs of the financial industry than the progressive caucus that gained in relative strength afterwards.
 
It’s possible many more centrist Democrats could have moved a bill through Congress weakening Dodd-Frank as it was being implemented, especially if conservatives were looking to compromise. But remaining centrist Democrats were not going to remove the FDIC's new resolution authority to end Too Big To Fail, which is what the Ryan budget calls for, or knee-cap the CFPB out the door, which is what the Senate GOP wants in exchange for nominating a director, or vote to repeal the bill in its entirety, which was a litmus test for the 2012 GOP presidental candidates. Especially after they just took a lot of heat to pass the bill. Deficit hysteria was the only thing that got momentum, with both parties doing serious damage by cutting the budget of the CFTC.
 
(The unpopularity of the financial industry probably didn't help either. The congressional change that the financial industry most wanted, the delay of a rule designed to limit the interchange fees associated with debit cards, failed to clear 60 votes in the Senate.)
 
Now that the GOP is realizing that Dodd-Frank is here to stay, we might see more effort to reach across the aisle to dismantle smaller pieces of it in accordance with what the financial industry wants. Health care is facing a similar situation, where conservatives policy entrepreneurs are currently debating whether or not to work within the framework of Obamacare or continue trying to repeal it. Sadly, conservatives will probably do far more damage if they get to the point of accepting that Dodd-Frank is the law of the land and try to do more targeted repeals rather than wage all-out war.
 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
  

 

What are the serious threats to Dodd-Frank? Last month, Haley Sweetland Edwards wrote "He Who Makes the Rules" at the Washington Monthly, which is the best single piece on Dodd-Frank implementation I've seen. In it, she identifies "three main areas on this gauntlet where a rule can be sliced, diced, gouged, or otherwise weakened beyond recognition." The first is "the agency itself, where industry lobbyists enjoy outsized influence in meetings and comment letters, on rule makers’ access to vital information, and on the interpretation of the law itself." The second is the courts, "where industry groups can sue an agency and have a rule killed on a variety of grounds." And the third is Congress, "where an entire law can be retroactively gutted or poked through with loopholes."

How important have those three areas been? Looking at the first two and a half years of Dodd-Frank, the courts turned out to be the unexpected danger for financial reform. I have a piece in Bloomberg View today arguing this, as well as the fact that the courts are structurally biased against reform in some very crucial ways.

That's not to say the lobbying battle is going well. But when the bill passed, people understood that rulewriting would be a difficult battle, and some groups like Americans for Financial Reform and Better Markets could at least help balance the lobbying efforts of financial industry groups. What was less understood was that the D.C. Circuit Court would have so many vacancies, and thus tilted to the far right and a radical agenda. I hope you check out the piece.

But what about Congress? Erika Eichelberger at Mother Jones has an excellent piece about the ongoing, now biparistan, efforts to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank's derivative regulations that are starting up in the House Agriculture Committee. (I wrote about this effort for Wonkblog here.) This third area Edwards identifies, Congress, is only now becoming a serious battlefield. But isn't the timing off? President Obama and the Democrats lost in 2010 but won in 2012. Yet while the threat of Congress rolling back Dodd-Frank, one of President Obama's major achievements, with new bills wasn't on the radar in 2011, it may be in 2013. Isn't that backwards?
 
Part of the answer is that the rules are becoming clearer, so financial industry lobbyists have more concrete targets to bring to Congress. But there's a political dimension as well. The general shutdown and polarization that dominated Congress after 2010 made a congressional threat to Dodd-Frank less likely. And ironically, the rise of the Tea Party within the conservative movement, even with its anti-Obama and anti-regulatory zeal, made bills to weaken Dodd-Frank less likely to pass. One reason is that the Tea Party wanted a full repeal of the bill or to gut entire sections, rather than more targeted interventions. Another is that the biggest losers in the 2010 shellacking were centrist “new Democrats,” those that would be more responsive to the needs of the financial industry than the progressive caucus that gained in relative strength afterwards.
 
It’s possible many more centrist Democrats could have moved a bill through Congress weakening Dodd-Frank as it was being implemented, especially if conservatives were looking to compromise. But remaining centrist Democrats were not going to remove the FDIC's new resolution authority to end Too Big To Fail, which is what the Ryan budget calls for, or knee-cap the CFPB out the door, which is what the Senate GOP wants in exchange for nominating a director, or vote to repeal the bill in its entirety, which was a litmus test for the 2012 GOP presidental candidates. Especially after they just took a lot of heat to pass the bill. Deficit hysteria was the only thing that got momentum, with both parties doing serious damage by cutting the budget of the CFTC.
 
(The unpopularity of the financial industry probably didn't help either. The congressional change that the financial industry most wanted, the delay of a rule designed to limit the interchange fees associated with debit cards, failed to clear 60 votes in the Senate.)
 
Now that the GOP is realizing that Dodd-Frank is here to stay, we might see more effort to reach across the aisle to dismantle smaller pieces of it in accordance with what the financial industry wants. Health care is facing a similar situation, where conservatives policy entrepreneurs are currently debating whether or not to work within the framework of Obamacare or continue trying to repeal it. Sadly, conservatives will probably do far more damage if they get to the point of accepting that Dodd-Frank is the law of the land and try to do more targeted repeals rather than wage all-out war.
 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
  

 

Share This

Mark Schmitt: Constitutional Amendment Against Citizens United Distracts from Real Progress

Mar 13, 2013

Few on the left were happy with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United that paved the way for so-called corporate personhood and opened the floodgates for money in politics. But taking that frustration and focusing it solely on a constitutional amendment is misguided, as Senior Fellow Mark Schmitt told Democracy Now. "I view it as a real distraction from some of the progress that we can make on money in politics," he explained.

Few on the left were happy with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United that paved the way for so-called corporate personhood and opened the floodgates for money in politics. But taking that frustration and focusing it solely on a constitutional amendment is misguided, as Senior Fellow Mark Schmitt told Democracy Now. "I view it as a real distraction from some of the progress that we can make on money in politics," he explained. The amdendment is "sending the wrong signal to people and overlooking the tremendous progress that’s actually being made…on public financing that offsets the role of money from individuals and money from big corporations."

And there's a lot of hope in public financing for money in politics reformers. "We’re really undergoing a grand experiment of how much we can do with public financing of elections," Schmitt says. "I think we’re beginning to find that those systems that either provide a fixed amount of money to candidates who agree to forgo most private money or that match small contributions…those can really help candidates get to the point of being heard without turning to big money and get them enough that they’re not necessarily shot down by big money." Systems in New York City, Arizona, Minnesota, and Connecticut are all working, he said: "These systems are popular, they’re resilient, they withstand legal challenges, and that’s really where the energy ought to be focused at this point."

While he understands the appeal of a constitutional amendment -- "it’s easy to get people to sign a petition for it because it sounds very clear cut" -- the slow and perhaps even impossible progress on this front could send the signal that nothing can be done. "The message it sends is we can’t do anything until we have a constitutional amendment," he said, which is "exactly the same as saying we can't do anything."

Share This

Pages