Daily Digest - February 17: The Shame of Denying Corporate Responsibility

Feb 17, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

Obama Shames Companies Who Don't Want to Provide Health Insurance (Melissa Harris-Perry)

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

Obama Shames Companies Who Don't Want to Provide Health Insurance (Melissa Harris-Perry)

As guest host on Melissa Harris-Perry, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren examines the president's comments about a Staples policy that prevents workers from obtaining insurance.

The State Where Even Republicans Have a Problem With Busting Unions (The Nation)

John Nichols says that Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner is having trouble maintaining support for his plans to weaken public sector unions, with his Republican Comptroller refusing to cooperate.

The Rich Own Our Democracy, New Evidence Suggests (AJAM)

New studies show that Congress votes closest to the desires of its donors, writes Sean McElwee, and donors' ideological extremism has probably produced our dramatic polarization.

States Consider Increasing Taxes for the Poor and Cutting Them for the Affluent (NYT)

Shaila Dewan explains that shifting from income taxes to consumption-based taxes in the states increases the burden on the poor, and has led to huge budget shortfalls in Kansas and North Carolina.

The Tall Task of Unifying Part-Time Professors (The Atlantic)

Kate Jenkin looks at the challenges of organizing a group of workers who are part-time and shift from campus to campus each semester in light of the upcoming National Adjunct Walkout Day.

The War on the War on Poverty (TNR)

Michael A. Cooper Jr. looks at Republicans' efforts to shut down the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at UNC Law. These same politicians try to argue that poverty isn't a problem.

Share This

The Politics of Responsibility – Not Envy

Feb 11, 2015Richard Kirsch

Americans are looking for politicians who ask the wealthy to take responsibility for their fair share of our society.

According to former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers – who is emerging as a key economic advisor to Hillary Clinton – the big political challenge in addressing economic inequality is not to embrace “a politics of envy.”

No, Mr. Summers – it’s not the politics of envy. It’s the politics of responsibility.

Americans are looking for politicians who ask the wealthy to take responsibility for their fair share of our society.

According to former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers – who is emerging as a key economic advisor to Hillary Clinton – the big political challenge in addressing economic inequality is not to embrace “a politics of envy.”

No, Mr. Summers – it’s not the politics of envy. It’s the politics of responsibility.

Summers was quoted in The New York Times about “what has emerged as a central question of her [Hillary Clinton’s] early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.”

The rich may imagine that blaming them for the struggles of the rest of us is driven by envy, but that’s their own conceit to make them feel good. Americans don’t resent the rich. While we might fantasize about winning the lottery, we are not consumed by jealousy. What most Americans understand is that they are struggling financially because the wealthy have rigged the economic and political system to benefit them at the expense of the rest of us. That’s not envy: it’s reality.

Summer’s formulation is meant to give intellectual cover to the real problem that Democrats like Clinton face: taking on those who finance their political campaigns. As the Times puts it: “And she [Clinton] must convince a middle class that feels frustrated and left behind that she understands its struggles, even as she relies heavily on the financial industry and corporate interests to fund her candidacy.”

There is a way to connect with people without “overly vilifying the wealthy.” The politics I would recommend to Clinton and other Democrats is that of responsibility.

There are two senses in which we can have a conversation about responsibility. The first is in explaining who is responsible for the financial squeeze on American working and middle class families. The second sense is to describe the kind of responsible behaviors that we can insist those who are responsible undertake to rebuild opportunity and security. The two are related, as one needs to be clear on who is responsible in order to identify how to fix the problem.

For example, wages are stagnant because corporations engaged in concerted strategies to limit the proportion of profits shared with workers, including: busting unions, rather than negotiating with them; shipping jobs overseas rather than paying higher wages to American workers; and aggressively using campaign contributions and lobbyists to undermine labor standards (minimum wage; overtime protection; etc) and labor laws. Corporations spent their huge profits on stock buybacks and CEO pay, rather than better compensation for workers.

Then there’s Wall Street’s culpability for using its political clout to shred financial regulations and oversight while engaging in the orgy of financial speculation and predatory lending that triggered the Great Recession.

Or tax policy, where corporations pushed to reduce their proportion of taxes paid to the federal government and by the wealthy so that they now pay a lower share of taxes than the middle-class. The result:  working and middle class families pay higher taxes and more for public services. A glaring example is the enormous rise in the cost of public higher education, as funding for public colleges and universities has been slashed.

The economic story about who is responsible requires acknowledging the democratic story. One thing that Americans on the left and right agree on is that the wealthy and corporate lobbyists have hijacked our democracy. That’s not cynical – it’s true. And it is a major reason why so many have given up on government working for them, or solving the problems they face.

None of this is “over-vilifying the wealthy.” It is describing the reality that Americans understand. As we saw in the election this past fall, Democrats who fail to identify those responsible will lose, as base Democrats stay home and white working-class voters turn to Republicans who assign blame to the government and the poor.

Identifying those who are responsible, as I’ve done above, drives the power of solutions to address those problems. For example, corporate suppression of wages is fixed by: revitalizing labor law and enforcement; raising labor standards like minimum wage and earned sick days; creating new workplace protections, like paid family leave; changing the rules on stock buy-backs; and limiting CEO compensation.

Addressing the adverse impact of Wall Street’s drive for speculative profits calls for taxing speculative trading, breaking up the big banks, stopping predatory lending, and providing new, publicly backed mechanisms for financing the residential and community lending that banks have abdicated.

Revenue raised from reversing tax breaks for corporations and the very wealthy can be used to invest in services families need like affordable child care and free community college, proposals in President Obama’s new budget.

Instead of vilifying the wealthy, the politics of responsibility can lift up corporate leaders and wealthy Americans who are examples of responsible behavior. President Obama has done this occasionally, for example, lauding Costco for its high pay and good benefits for big box stores. Last week, Aetna announced it was going to raise wages and benefits for its lowest-wage workers. Warren Buffett has a “rule” bearing his name, for proposing that the wealthy shouldn’t pay lower shares of taxes than their secretaries. Buffett’s example is particularly important because he’s calling for government action, not just setting an example through his own behavior.

The handful of corporate leaders who are acting responsibly are also acting in their own long-term self-interest. They understand that their businesses do better with workers who get paid decently. They realize they need an educated workforce. They may even comprehend that if workers get paid more, they’ll have more to spend, driving the economy forward.

The real emotional challenge in addressing inequality is not envy by the 99 percent for the 1 percent. It’s the very thin skins of the super-rich. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, born one of the 1 percent, understood this. FDR framed the question of wealth and responsibility brilliantly when he said:

Government can deal and should deal with blindly selfish men. But that is a comparatively small part – the easier part of our problem. The larger, more important and more difficult part of our problem is to deal with men who are not selfish and who are good citizens, but who cannot see the social and economic consequences of their actions in a modern economically interdependent community. They fail to grasp the significance of some of our most vital social and economic problems because they see them only in the light of their own personal experience and not in perspective with the experience of other men and other industries. They, therefore, fail to see these problems for the nation as a whole.

There were some prominent capitalists who supported New Deal programs, including banking reforms. But of the rest, FDR famously said, “I welcome their hatred.”

At the end of the day if Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat is going to champion the policies essential to rebuilding the middle-class and creating a new era of broad, sustainable prosperity, she will have to join FDR in applauding those businesses who worked for the benefit of all and welcoming the hatred of those who resist the fundamental changes needed to build an America that works for all of us.

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

Share This

Daily Digest - February 11: How Can Small Donors Gain Big Influence?

Feb 11, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

Our partners at As You Sow are hosting a webinar on excessive executive compensation tomorrow at 2pm EST. Register here.

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

Our partners at As You Sow are hosting a webinar on excessive executive compensation tomorrow at 2pm EST. Register here.

Big Money Can’t Buy Elections – Influence is Something Else (Reuters)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Soros suggests stronger small-donor matching funds and reforms to the Federal Election Commission to work around Citizens United.

A Better Way to Help the Long-Term Unemployed (The Atlantic)

Alana Semuels asks whether one successful – but relatively expensive – workforce program can be scaled up beyond its current pilots. The high costs make it a tougher sell for federal funding.

Unfriend the Fed: Rand Paul’s Attack Re-examined (WSJ)

Pedro da Costa, with help from some economists, fact-checks a Rand Paul speech on the Federal Reserve and finds the senator's understanding of the Fed and its workings limited.

The Parent Agenda, the Emerging Democratic Focus (NYT)

Nate Cohn sees a theme in the proposals that Democrats are focusing on: childcare, preschool, parental leave, free community college. It's a family-centric agenda that appeals to the middle class.

Will the Recovery Finally Translate into Better Wages? (TAP)

Robert Kuttner looks at the questions that are still in play despite a strong jobs report, including wage growth and when the Fed will decide to raise interest rates.

New on Next New Deal

Building a Better Community: MacArthur-Winning Campus Network Looks to the Future

The Campus Network's members are what earned them a MacArthur Award, writes National Director Joelle Gamble, and the award creates new opportunities to invest in those people.

What Happens if Europe Cuts Off the Greek Banks?

Roosevelt Institute Fellow J.W. Mason argues Greek banks won't collapse without the European Central Bank's support, since Greece's own central bank can maintain internal payments.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 23: Politics Broke the Economy

Jan 23, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

The Politics of Economic Stupidity (Project Syndicate)

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

The Politics of Economic Stupidity (Project Syndicate)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz says the economy's "near-global stagnation" is the result of "stupid politics," meaning austerity policies that slow demand.

It's 'Pathetic' What Politicians Have To Do To Stay In Office (HuffPost Live)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Robert Johnson discusses the State of the Union and campaign financing, noting that fundraising makes our government less healthy.

The Most Dangerous Man In American Politics (Buzzfeed)

Ben Smith says that U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara has proven he's willing to cross not just Wall Street but his own political party in pursuing justice.

The Government Just Took a Step Toward Ending Mass Homelessness (ThinkProgress)

Allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to contribute to the National Housing Trust Fund could mean a small but steady supply of cash for building affordable housing, reports Bryce Covert.

McDonald's Sued Over Claims Workers Were Fired From Store With 'Too Many Black People' (The Guardian)

Jana Kasperkevic reports on the lawsuit, filed by 10 former McDonald's employees in Virginia, which tries to hold the parent company accountable alongside the franchise owner.

Americans Overwhelmingly Want Paid Sick Time, Even if It Lowers Their Wages (WaPo)

Christopher Ingraham counters the common conservative argument that mandatory sick leave will lead to lower wages with data that shows workers support sick leave anyway.

New on Next New Deal

After Four Decades with Roe, U.S. Women Still Need Abortion Access, and So Much More

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn and Shulie Eisen look at Kansas as an example of how economic inequality intersects with lack of access to reproductive care to create a crisis for women.

Share This

Daily Digest - December 23: Big Money is Destroying America's Two-Party System

Dec 23, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

The Daily Digest is taking a break for the holidays. It will return on Monday, January 5, 2015.

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

The Daily Digest is taking a break for the holidays. It will return on Monday, January 5, 2015.

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

Americans Are Sick to Death of Both Parties: Why Our Politics Is in Worse Shape Than We Thought (Alternet)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Thomas Ferguson and Walter Dean Burnham say the combination of incredibly high political spending and low voter turnout signals a serious problem with our democracy.

McDonald's Can No Longer Hide Behind its Franchises (The Hill)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says that holding McDonald's accountable for labor practices at its franchises is the kind of common-sense labor policy we need today.

Forecast for the 2015 Economy: Sunny (MSNBC)

Suzy Khimm gathers up economists' predictions for the coming year. Trends point toward some increases in wages, which means more people will feel the recovery in their lives.

Yellen’s First Year at Fed: A Remarkably Steady Course (NYT)

Binyamin Appelbaum reviews Janet Yellen's actions and accomplishments this past year. Her distinguishing characteristics as Fed chair include a focus on unemployment and jobs.

Volkswagen’s Employee Engagement Plan Could Weaken Labor (In These Times)

Alexandra Bradbury explains the concerns around Volkswagen's plan, which recognizes groups representing at least 15 percent of workers but doesn't allow any collective bargaining.

Republicans Block Reappointment of CBO Chief Doug Elmendorf (Bloomberg Politics)

Dave Weigel says the decision not to reconfirm Elmendorf to the Congressional Budget Office revolves around the GOP's desire for dynamic scoring, an unproven method of calculating budget costs.

New on Next New Deal

Chuck Schumer and the Democrats' Identity Crisis: Economic Policy vs. Rhetoric

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says that New York Senator Chuck Schumer embodies the dilemma facing the Democratic Party: Wall Street funding vs. the populism it promises voters.

Share This

A Dem Who Can Explain that Fairness is Prosperity Will Sweep in 2016

Nov 19, 2014Richard Kirsch

The policies that will deliver economic growth also center fairness, and that's what Democrats need to emphasize to keep the presidency in 2016.

The policies that will deliver economic growth also center fairness, and that's what Democrats need to emphasize to keep the presidency in 2016.

The familiar debate within the Democratic Party – move left or right – is on. In a memo to a “limited number of Democratic leaders,” Third Way, the leading organization for corporate Democrats, lays down the gauntlet: “Democrats are offering economic fairness, but voters want economic growth and prosperity.” And for good measure, Third Way declares, “And it has to be meaningful; Democrats can’t simply stick a 'growth' label on the old bottle of 'fairness' policies.”

The folks at Third Way are right about one thing; voters do want economic growth and prosperity. Where they are wrong is in their assumption that fairness can't be a part of that growth. The policies that do the most to bolster fairness are in fact the most powerful policies to move the economy forward and create broadly shared prosperity.

Progressives and Democrats don’t always make that clear. Most of the time they talk about fairness as separate from broadly-shared prosperity. The Democrat who bases his or her campaign on that crucial link will sweep into the presidency in 2016.

Policies that increase fairness are key to driving the economy forward.

Raising the minimum wage is not just about basic fairness for low-wage workers. Raising wages is about creating economy boosting jobs, not economy busting jobs. When wages are raised, workers have more money to spend, essential when 70 percent of the economy is made up of consumer spending.

An economy boosting job pays enough to cover the basics, which is why the fight for a $15 per hour minimum wage mobilizes people to action. It is about working at that wage for enough hours, with predictable schedules, so that the wages add up to a decent paycheck. It is about getting paid when you are out sick and having paid family leave, so you can care for and support your family. It is about women getting paid as much as men. It is about being able to afford your health care, so you have money to spend on other essentials and don’t end up bankrupt because of a high-cost illness. It is about increasing Social Security benefits and bolstering retirement savings, so you can keep supporting yourself and keep the economy moving well into your retirement.

These measures reward people fairly for work and are essential to rebuilding the middle class engine of the economy, as shown by the evidence collected in the Center for American Progress’s middle-out economics project.

The flip side of creating economy boosting jobs is reversing the soaring concentration of wealth. It’s not just unfair that the rich are grabbing more and more of the wealth we all create, it’s a big reason that the economy remains sluggish. When the top 1 percent capture virtually all of the economic progress, it's impossible for them to spend much of it. When corporations sit on trillions of dollars of cash because there aren’t markets for their goods, that money doesn’t go to higher wages or investment in creating jobs or other things that would boost productivity throughout the economy.

Even Wall Street is beginning to get it. In a report that is stunning only for its source, Standard & Poor's found this summer that “Our review of the data, as well as a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth, at a time when the world's biggest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession and the government is in need of funds to support an aging population.”

A big goal of Third Way’s memo is to justify policies that they admit “may not be the most politically popular.” While some of the Third Way proposals are worthwhile, like millions of teachers for pre-K, much of their agenda is that of corporate America and in some cases would actually be bad for the economic growth they claim to seek.

Using coded language in an attempt to dilute the political poison, Third Way pushes for cutting Social Security benefits, lowering corporate tax rates rather than stopping corporate tax evasion, and agreeing to new trade deals which would drive the race to the bottom and allow corporations to challenge environmental and health and safety laws, instead of bolstering American workers' already hard-pressed incomes.

Instead, what the country needs and what Democrats should push are bold policies which drive the economy forward and create broadly shared prosperity: fairness.

We can start by putting Americans to work with a massive investment in core productive infrastructure in three areas: transportation, from roads and bridges to high speed rail; clean, renewable energy, which will simultaneously tackle climate disruption; and high-speed Internet for every home and business in America. Everyone who does this work should be paid enough, with good benefits, to support and care for their families, and be given the flexibility needed to care for those families.  In doing so, we doubly boost the economy: through the investment in infrastructure and through the good jobs.

It is both fair and essential for our economic future to ensure that every child has a quality education and the opportunity to succeed in school, career, and life. We need to modernize and replace dilapidated schools and assure that every child has a well-prepared and supported teacher in a small enough class to learn. We need to transform schools, particularly those that teach children in low-income neighborhoods, into community centers. We should make high-quality child care and pre-K universal, employing millions more providers and teachers.

We need to provide career training for the high-skilled jobs that don’t require traditional college. We need to make college affordable, by dramatically lowering the cost of public colleges and universities, providing much more tuition assistance, and tying the payment of student loans to earnings.

And as in infrastructure, all these jobs – from day-care providers to teachers to college professors (no more adjuncts) – should be good jobs, with good pay, benefits, and the flexibility to care and support families.

The only reason that Democrats would consider an agenda that Third Way admits is politically unpopular is to please corporate campaign donors and elites. But with President Obama pushing for new trade deals, advocating revenue-neutral corporate tax reform and having supported cuts in Social Security benefits, that agenda is as alive as the billions in campaign contributions that pour into both political parties.

Americans are right about two things. One, the system is rigged to favor the wealthy and powerful. Two, unless we change course, the future will not be better for our children. Those are the core reasons we saw historically low voter turn out this month and why minimum wage hikes passed at the same time voters decided to give Republicans their turn in the continuing roller-coaster of Congressional control over the past decade.

The Democrat who champions bold policies to build an America that works for all of us, not just the wealthy, and policies that create broadly shared, sustainable prosperity, will triumph in 2016.

The key, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did (and as great organizers do), is to tap into anger and lift up hope. FDR railed against the “economic royalists” and experimented with bold policies that reigned in financial speculation and put Americans to work building the foundations for the 20th Century economy. 

The next FDR will name the villains who are rigging the system: Wall Street speculators and corporations that cut wages and benefits and ship jobs overseas. The next FDR will reveal the truth that “we all do better when we all do better.” That when we all earn enough to care and support our families, when we can shop in our neighborhoods, give our kids a great education, afford our health care, retire with security, we drive the economy forward.

Mamby-pamby won’t cut it. Americans are crying for bold leadership, a way out of a narrowing world towards a better world for our children.

The Democrat who leads a political party that stands up against the rich and powerful and stands up for working families and the middle class, who declares that Americans have done this before and that together we can do it again, will triumph in 2016. A Democratic party that relentlessly presses that agenda into action will meet the great challenge of our time. 

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

Share This

Obama Administration Defends Amazon’s Low Pay – Again

Oct 9, 2014Richard Kirsch

It's hard for workers to trust the President's support for policies that help them when the administration sides with Amazon at the Supreme Court.

Amazon’s business model is based on quick easy buying and low prices. One way it does that is to force its warehouse workers to wait a long time to leave work, without getting paid. And that’s just fine with the Obama administration, which continues to have a blind spot when it comes to decent pay and working conditions at Amazon.

It's hard for workers to trust the President's support for policies that help them when the administration sides with Amazon at the Supreme Court.

Amazon’s business model is based on quick easy buying and low prices. One way it does that is to force its warehouse workers to wait a long time to leave work, without getting paid. And that’s just fine with the Obama administration, which continues to have a blind spot when it comes to decent pay and working conditions at Amazon.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case (Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk) in which workers are suing the temp firm that staff’s Amazon warehouses. The workers are in court because they don’t get paid for the time they are forced to stand on line for a security check when they leave work to be sure they haven’t stolen anything. The security screening itself reveals the poor working conditions and lack of respect that Amazon has for its workers. Workers who are well paid and have job security will not take the risk of stealing. The lack of pay adds costly insult to their injury.

The legal issues revolve around whether the security screenings, which can take 20 minutes or more, are “integral and indispensable” to the job, which would trigger pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Amazon certainly thinks so; the screenings aren’t optional. Still the firm, which pays warehouse workers around $11 or $12 an hour, cheaps out by denying the workers pay when they are waiting on line to leave.

As Jesse Busk, the lead plaintiff in the case, told The Huffington Post, "You're just standing there, and everyone wants to get home. It was not comfortable. There could be hundreds of people waiting at the end of the shift."

While President Obama has made numerous passionate speeches about giving Americans a raise, his administration is taking Amazon’s side at the Supreme Court, filing an amicus brief, alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbies.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing new about this from the administration. Last August, as I wrote at the time, “President Obama gave a great speech on why good jobs are the foundation for his middle-out economic strategy... from a huge Amazon warehouse where the workers do not have good jobs.”

The President told the Amazon warehouse workers who were in the audience, “we should be doing everything we can as a country to create more good jobs that pay good wages.”

Everything, it turns out, except being sure they get paid for all the time they are required to be at work.

The Obama administration may wonder why the President does not get more credit for the economic progress the nation has made coming out of the Great Recession or more recognition for his calls for raising the minimum wage. The core reason is that for too many Americans too low wages, too few hours at work, and job insecurity or no job at all remain their reality.

The President’s defense of Amazon reveals another reason. Americans see that he is unwilling to take on the powerful forces that are driving down the living standards and hopes of American workers. They see his embrace of Amazon and Wal-Mart, where he gave a speech on energy earlier this year. And too many come to the conclusion that it is only campaign contributors that matter, despairing of finding leaders who understand what really is going on in their lives – and who are willing to take their side against the powerful.

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

Share This

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

Daily Digest - September 19: This Bus Doesn't Stop for Big Money

Sep 19, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Catholic Nuns Take On Dark Money In Politics With Nationwide Bus Tour (ThinkProgress)

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

Catholic Nuns Take On Dark Money In Politics With Nationwide Bus Tour (ThinkProgress)

Sister Simone Campbell, the 2013 FDR Four Freedoms Awards laureate for Freedom of Worship, is leading a new Nuns on the Bus tour, this time focused on disenfranchised voters, writes Jack Jenkins.

Tenants Facing Eviction in Era of Skyrocketing Rents Need Legal Assistance (TAP)

Martha Bergmark emphasizes the need to support legal aid programs, noting that legal representation doubles tenants' chances of staying in their homes when fighting eviction.

Workers Deserve to Benefit from Their Productivity, Too (WaPo)

Harold Meyerson says newly proposed legislation from Rep. Chris Van Hollen that ties the performance pay tax deduction to workers' wage increases is necessary to ensure a fair deal for workers.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg and Campus Network alumna Lydia Austin look at the broader problems with the performance pay provision in the tax code.

Does Silicon Valley Have a Contract-Worker Problem? (NY Mag)

Kevin Roose dives deep into the so-called "1099 Economy," in which start-ups have independent contractors galore, many of whom may legally qualify as employees.

Demonizing the Minimum Wage (New Yorker)

William Finnegan looks at the range of statements against raising the minimum wage, which consistently misrepresent minimum wage workers. They aren't just teenagers with after-school jobs.

New Republican Bill Would Paralyze National Labor Relations Board (In These Times)

Bruce Vail explains why and how the Republicans are aiming to gridlock the National Labor Relations Board, a goal that he says is primarily based in anti-union, anti-worker bias.

Tax Cuts Can Do More Harm Than Good (AJAM)

David Cay Johnston looks at a new report on tax cuts, which shows that short-term economic growth aside, badly structured tax cuts just push costs to the future and can incentivize bad investments.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 15: Violence Against Women is Still a Threat, Abroad and at Home

Sep 15, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Hillary Clinton Seeks End to Gender Violence by Terrorist Groups (CBS News)

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

Hillary Clinton Seeks End to Gender Violence by Terrorist Groups (CBS News)

Clinton also spoke about issues of violence against women in the U.S., reports Hannah Fraser-Chanpong, reiterating her stance that domestic violence requires criminal, not cultural, responses.

White House Photo Ops, Old School (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow David Woolner says the new Ken Burns film The Roosevelts: An Intimate History highlights the interconnectedness of the lives of Theodore, Franklin, and Eleanor.

Shareholders Say, ‘Show Me The Money’ (In These Times)

David Sirota explains the fight over corporate political spending disclosures. A proposed Securities and Exchange Commission rule has significant public support – and plenty of corporate pushback.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg looks at the costs and benefits of mandating corporate political spending disclosure.

Workers Go on Strike at Hammond Automotive Seats Plant (Chicago Tribune)

The workers are "tired of being treated like fast-food industry employees," writes Alexandra Chachkevitch. They are asking for the elimination of a salary cap instituted during the financial crisis.

Workers in Maine Buy Out Their Jobs, Set an Example for the Nation (Truthout)

Rob Brown, Noemi Giszpenc, and Brian Van Slyke explain why the creation of the Island Employee Cooperative in Deer Isle, Maine is a particularly groundbreaking achievement.

New on Next New Deal

How Much are Local Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses Driven By the Feds? A Reply to Libertarians

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal counters libertarian arguments, showing that the profit motive is bottom-up: asset forfeiture in non-Federal cases is driven by local policy.

Share This

Pages