DMI Blog

David Brooks: The Sloppy Hamiltonian

2007-06-08T18:02:34Z

There is a huge contradiction at the heart of David Brooks' column this morning, although I got so caught up in his straw-man caricatures of political philosophies and his welter of small-bore policy proposals that I nearly missed it.

Early in the column, Brooks tries to explain why he isn't a "mainstream liberal." Liberal social programs, he asserts, haven't worked (let's debunk that one another time), and what's more, high taxes are needed to pay for them. High taxes are bad because "a pile of evidence" shows they lead to reduced working hours. And "in the face of Chinese and Indian competition, we don't need Americans working less." Let's let that stand and take him at his word: Brooks is not a mainstream liberal.

But Brooks is also not what he calls a "populist" because he doesn't believe that globalization is what's leading to the stagnant wages and vast inequality the nation is experiencing. So, Mr. Brooks, tell me again why we can't afford social programs? Something about competition with China and India?

That's just sloppiness. But I'm more interested in a larger failing in what Brooks calls the Hamilton Agenda, which takes its name not only from founding father Alexander Hamilton, but also from the modern-day Hamilton Project, a policy group that shares many aspects of Brooks' approach.

My larger quarrel with the Hamilton Project, and with Brooks' column today, is that, although they correctly identify many of the nation's largest political and economic problems, their proposed solutions too frequently represent a small-bore tinkering around the edges of failed policy -- proposals that are not, in the words of Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson "remotely adequate to the problem."

So if globalization isn't a significant cause of inequality, according to Brooks, let's look at the things that are, and what he proposes to do about them.

First, Brooks insists that inequality is caused by "a rising education premium." In fact, research suggests that recent increases in inequality can't be attributed to education, but there's no question that there is a tremendous income disparity between people with college degrees and those without. So what does Brooks propose to do about the 200,000 students who graduate from high school qualified for college but unable to attend for financial reasons? Or the many hundreds of thousands who attain a degree only by taking on a tremendous burden of student loan debt? All we get is a proposal for senior citizens to mentor college students "to keep them emotionally engaged during college years." That's certain to solve the problem.

The next cause of inequality and income stagnation, according to Brooks, is the benign-sounding "changes in household and family structure." Brooks has trotted this one out before and I've countered it: what this is really about is a nation that makes few social provisions for raising the next generation, creating a situation in which starting a family is too often the first step on the road to poverty and bankruptcy. Here Brooks has some more substantive policy proposals. I'm pleased to see him endorse an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit to help young families work their way into the middle class, and it's nice to see an endorsement of a proven policy like quality preschool (although if Brooks is serious supporter, he should acknowledge the critical shortage of public funding for preschool and champion efforts to make access to good early childhood education universal). And while his other policy proposal, visiting nurses to help struggling families, is all well and good, what about paid family leave that would actually allow parents to spend time with their newborns and sick kids without going broke?

Finally, Brooks argues that rich people work longer hours than those who are less wealthy, and that new salary structures "tied to individual performance" exacerbate inequality. In other words, we have inequality because rich people work harder and therefore deserve to earn astronomically more than everyone else. In an era characterized by the growth of the working poor, on the one hand, for whom long hours on the job still don't enable them to afford health insurance for their children, and on the other hand CEO pay so excessive it upsets even shareholders... this argument is too ludicrous to even discuss.

DMI Annual Benefit: it's only the coolest fundraiser of the year

2007-06-08T11:51:18Z

DMI's Annual Benefit is just weeks away. On June 21st at Cipriani on 23rd street the Drum Major Institute and all of our supporters will be coming together for the big annual event that's key to keeping a leading edge think tank growing and going strong.

How cool is the DMI benefit?
Professor Cornell West of Harvard - the Cornell West will be presenting honoree Tavis Smiley with the Drum Major for Justice Award for being an outstanding voice for social change in the news media and beyond. You probably know Mr. Smiley from his nightly talk show on PBS and the best selling progressive book "The Covenant with Black America."

We are also honoring NYC's Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his leadership creating PlaNYC 2030 - a visionary plan to make New York City a model for environmentally sustainable cities in the 21st century. PlaNYC has been lauded by environmentalists and urban planning groups alike.

And who will be presenting his award? None other than civil rights leader Rev. Dr. James Forbes of Riverside Baptist Church. I love that guy. He is one of the most moving, inspiring speakers I have ever, ever heard (and I hear a lot of speakers). He is about to retire so we are extremely fortunate to have him at our benefit.

So what is left to do but buy tickets to the coolest benefit party of the season!

Here's the info

Drum Major Institute for Public Policy 2007 Drum Majors for Justice Awards
Cipriani 23rd Street
23rd Street and Fifth Avenue
Thursday, June 21, 2007
6:30pm -8:30 pm

Cocktail Reception Plus:
No boring rubber-chicken dinners for the Drum Major Institute. It's a festive affair celebrating our honorees and our work. Mingle with a diverse crowd of New Yorkers committed to creating social change. Eat great food, enjoy stimulating conversations and meet our inspiring honorees. (see I told you it was cool)

RSVP by June 14

Buy your tickets NOW at www.drummajorinstitute.org/benefit or RSVP at 2007benefit@drummajorinstitute.org.

Be a sponsor or place an ad in our program!

Please contact Penny Abeywardena with any questions at 646-274-5680 or penny(insert the at sign) drummajorinstitute.org.

Brought you by DMI, our Board of Directors and 2007 Host Committee.

Congestion Pricing: Good Policy for New York's Middle Class

2007-06-07T15:50:59Z

It might not be obvious at first glance, but congestion pricing is an excellent policy for New York's current and aspiring middle class.

The fact is, middle-class New Yorkers -- and those trying to work their way into the middle class -- are already paying a heavy price for traffic congestion with poor health, time wasted in gridlock, environmental damage, lower quality of life, and less economic growth. Yet while middle-class New Yorkers pay these costs, very few actually drive to work in Manhattan below 86th street. Overall, just 5.2% of working New Yorkers do. That means most current and aspiring middle-class New Yorkers will not pay congestion charges under the plan, but they will benefit from the policy.

From reducing street noise in middle-class neighborhoods to cutting commuting time,
DMI's newly released talking points explain in detail how congestion pricing would benefit the middle class. Some excerpts below:

** Getting cars off the streets will improve the health of middle-class New Yorkers. Today New York has some of the most polluted air in the nation, and everyone who lives or works in the city suffers the consequences. New York City's children are almost twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma as the average American child, and neighborhoods of people trying to work their way into the middle class are among those hardest hit by asthma. Meanwhile vehicle emissions boost breast and lung cancer rates among adults. In London, congestion pricing helped to produce a 12% drop in hazardous particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, while cutting carbon dioxide emissions by a fifth. By taking more than 100,000 cars off New York's streets every day, congestion pricing will help New York to achieve the cleanest air of any big city in the U.S. -- and the health benefits that flow from it.

** Congestion pricing will funnel hundreds of millions of dollars per year to transit improvements in the neighborhoods of New York's current and aspiring middle class. Congestion pricing is estimated to raise nearly half a billion dollars a year that will be earmarked for transit improvements in the five boroughs, improving transit quality and access for millions of current and aspiring middle-class New Yorkers. Co-op City residents will benefit from Metro North access directly to Penn Station; residents of Sheepshead Bay, Flatlands and Flatbush will enjoy bus service that is 20% faster due to a new bus rapid transit route along Nostrand Avenue; the Long Island Railroad's East Side Access project will substantially reduce travel times to Manhattan for people living in Kew Gardens, Woodside, Sunnyside, and Bayside, Queens; just to name a few of the planned improvements. Raising funds to achieve a state of good repair on all of the city's public transit will benefit transit riders throughout the city with fewer delays, faster travel, and safer equipment. These improvements are especially critical to New Yorkers trying to work their way into the middle class, who have no choice but to take mass transit, no matter how poor the quality. Without the revenue from congestion pricing, these projects may not get funded.

** Middle-class New Yorkers are invested in the long-term health of the city -- and the planet -- and so recognize that we must take action to reduce global warming. Scientists predict that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase at the present rate, New York City could experience 60 days a year with temperatures above 90 degrees, and 25 days a year with temperatures over 100, by the end of the century. At the same time, climate change increases the likelihood of a devastating hurricane flooding low-lying areas like Staten Island, the Rockaways, Southern Brooklyn, Long Island City and Astoria. Already, homeowners in some flood-prone areas are finding it harder to get insurance. The good news is that massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may be able to slow or halt global warming. Since car trips release about twice as much greenhouse gas as transit rides, congestion pricing's predicted effect of removing 110,000 vehicles from city streets and increasing transit ridership by 94,000 people will make a real impact, contributing to the city's overall efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6.1 million metric tons.

To read more of DMI's new release "Congestion Pricing: Good Policy for New York's Middle Class" click here

New York Post vs. the economically disadvantaged

2007-06-07T12:17:04Z

Governor Spitzer's rule change to allow more poor families to qualify for food stamps is a lifesaver for poor families working their way out of poverty who still need support to survive on their meager income.

Yesterday's, New York Post editorial carelessly gave voice to the misinformation that underpins social welfare policy.

The Post writes, "Between the existing food stamp program, local food banks, faith-based pantries and the public-schools' three-meals-and-a-snack feeding programs, nobody of sound mind goes hungry in New York."

As Hunger Action of New York State notes, "Over two million New Yorkers rely on Emergency Food Programs (EFPs), or soup kitchens and food pantries, each year. More than one million people in New York City rely on EFPs each year." The churches, non-profits and community groups who run so many are strained to meet the need. Yet while demand for emergency food is increasing, the Food Stamp Program is sorely underutilized. Only 53% of eligible people participate in the program in NYS. Over 75% of the families using Emergency Food Programs are below 130% of poverty and meet the criteria for food stamps.

Over 80% of families receiving food stamps are families with children. My experience working with people receiving public assistance shows that $224 in food stamps for a family of three does not meet their critical nutritional needs. Education and work take energy - energy that food provides. The Governor's plan to make applying for the food stamps people already qualify for simpler is central to moving people out of poverty. Poor people have a lot to do - taking care of children, working, going to school or getting training and being forced to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops to keep your benefits detracts from your ability to do what it takes to move your life forward.

The city, state and federal government has a stake in helping families get healthy and a role in expanding funds for food stamps -- even if The New York Post does not.

Mayhem and Misinformation on Immigration at the GOP Presidential Debate

2007-06-06T22:14:33Z

During last night's Republican Presidential debate, mayhem (and misinformation) abounded among candidates on the proposed Senate immigration bill and its effect on the American middle class.

Both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney criticized the Senate bill for not having enough enforcement oomph.

Focusing immigration reform only on enforcement is sure to be a losing strategy, not only for presidential candidates, but for American workers. Why, you may ask?

Because spending energy exclusively on enforcing existing immigration laws without providing a way for undocumented workers to legalize their status will only make them retreat even further into an underground economy, making them more vulnerable to exploitation and pushing wage rates through the floor.

Let me explain this sinister domino effect.

Once undocumented workers are forced to work in the shadows to avoid a system that focuses on punishing them for participating in our economy, it's all downhill from there. As DMI has shown, in this underground labor market employers and potential employers are able to use workers' immigration status as a weapon to force undocumented immigrants to accept lower wages to work in sweatshop conditions, risk injury on the job, access few rights in the workplace, and no option to unionize. The result? American workers' wages may plunge too -- particularly those who compete with immigrant workers for jobs in some sectors. In the long run, undocumented workers will have to live and work in fear, and the American middle class will be forced to deal with lower wages and the loss of immigrants contributions to the economy as a whole as, ahem, consumers.

The misinformation among the candidates was also highly entertaining.

Mitt Romney actually got the details of the bill wrong: undocumented immigrants who applied for a Z visa to legalize their status would NOT go to the front of the line of those waiting for green cards. Rudy Giuliani in turn complained undocumented immigrants would not be identified.

Um, hello, wrong on both counts.

In fact, undocumented immigrants would pay a fine, go through a background check, and get in the back of line for a green card. See one of my previous posts for more details on what undocumented immigrants would have to go through to legalize their status.

A shortsighted enforcement-only approach to immigration would only devalue immigrant contributions to the economy as a whole -- as workers, consumers, entrepreneurs. As DMI has argued, in the long run, this approach would also undermine the future of American workers.

Though playing bad cop (without developing a smart way to integrate immigrants already here into our economy) may play well in a television soundbite, in the end it makes no sense for American workers or its middle class.

Family Ties (Not Those Seen on Television) in Immigration Policy

2007-06-06T13:02:00Z

The immigration free-for-all resumes this week in Washington, with over 100 amendments slated for introduction on the Senate immigration reform bill currently under consideration.

Surprisingly enough, a bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill [recently unveiled by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ)] would go a long way to address one of its many fundamental problems: withdrawing support for family ties in our country.

No, I'm not talking about the 1980's television show starring Michael J. Fox.

I'm talking about the recent proposal to allow immigrants with green cards already living in the US to bring their spouses and children into the country. The amendment would reunite hundreds of thousands of immigrant families who want to build roots here and contribute to the economy in a real and sustained fashion. Once they are in the US, these family members can also begin working, paying taxes, and propelling our economy as consumers -- thereby generating economic growth that benefits the middle class.

Seems like a simple and fair idea, right?

Not so easy, pardner.

Allow me to explain.

There are currently over one million spouses and children under 18 who have been waiting in line an average of five years to join their family members in the US. These folks are waiting in the famous (or infamous) immigration case backlog for one of 87,900 visas given to family members of immigrants already living in the US.

The American middle class depends on immigrants and their families. This separation (where demand for permission to enter the US dramatically outpaces the supply of visas to do so) sabotages what hundreds of thousands of immigrant families can bring to our economy as workers, taxpayers, consumers, and entrepreneurs.

Just think about it: an immigrant who can bring his or her spouse, child, or both to the US will have a real incentive to work even harder to provide for that family once they're here. That one individual's hard work will in turn generate more tax revenue, help sustain the Social Security net (crucial to the retirement of many middle class workers), and consumer activity. Then you've got one, two, or more family members who will also be working, paying taxes, and more importantly buying consumer goods here -- all of which benefit the middle class. Contrary to popular belief, immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they receive in public benefits, and pay nearly the same share of their incomes in taxes (or even at a higher rate for some highly-skilled immigrants) as do native-born workers.

And let's not underestimate immigrant consumerism:Latino and Asian-American consumer markets alone accounted for an estimated trillion dollars in buying power in 2004, or about 12 percent of the nation's buying power. Coincidentally, a Harvard study found immigrants were also 12 percent of first-time homebuyers in 2001. In short, immigrants and their need for consumer goods helps fuel economic demand for the products and services produced by the American middle class and those who hope to join it. Allowing more immigrants to enter the country also means more workers who can be unionized and thereby increase the collective bargaining power of unions, who can in turn push for better wages for all workers regardless of where they were born.

For more information on how the shared interests of the US's middle class intersect with those of immigrants, see DMI's report.

Expanding the definition of those who can actually come to the US and further contribute to our economy only makes sense, and will encourage immigrants already in the US to work hard to support their families.

The proposed amendment would simply expand the "immediate relative" definition to allow legal permanent residents -- immigrants who generally have lived in the US for at least five years to get a green card in the first place -- the same right to petition (put in an application) for a spouse or family member as US citizens. Right now, US citizens' spouses or children are exempt from a ludicrous cap on family-based visas: essentially, permission to come to the US. This means they don't have to wait in line with the other one million potential immigrants who have applied to come to the US, because they have family members already living here. Legal permanent residents' spouses and children, however, do have to wait in line for one of the 87,900 visas available annually. The proposed amendment would exempt family-based visa petitions from spouses and children of green card holders from these annual visa caps.

Immigrants working and waiting in the US have to put their lives on hold as they comply with government travel restrictions imposed on them due to their immigration status, which usually means they can't go to their home countries to see their families. As a result, babies are born in other countries without seeing their parent's face. Spouses grow old, even die while waiting to see if they'll be able to squeak in under the annual quota of 87,900 visas granted to "immediate relatives"of green card holders -- ironically called Legal Permanent Residents in immigration law-speak.

If those spouses or children don't get in this year, then good luck -- they're back in line for anywhere from five to ten years.

The bipartisan amendment is particularly welcome given its sponsorship by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who has come a long way from her previous silence on immigration to co-sponsor this amendment with Senators Hegel and Menendez, himself the child of immigrants.
Given Senator Clinton represents the state home to the quintessential immigrant city, this is welcome news.

Now there's a way to build some family ties.

Baby Boomers Behind Bars

2007-06-05T12:00:00Z

A prison population of 2.3 million people: it's getting old. Not just the fact itself, but literally. Old enough that a prison in New York has created a dementia unit for its aging population. There are a lot of prisoners who must wonder why they are incarcerated, given the countless hundreds who are innocent, or the countless thousands who are languishing behind bars for years for nonviolent crimes (most of which are drug-related), or all those whose mental illnesses prevent comprehension; and then there are those whose dementia has caused them actually to forget why they are where they are.

Just as prisons have responded to the seismic increase of its female population with maternity wards, or to its increasing youth population with paltry attempts at educational programs, so too it now must address its older population with dementia units.

In New York, for instance, in the mid 1980s, inmates 50 and older comprised 3% of the prison population; in 2006, they made up 11%. In response, the correctional unit in Fishkill, NY now houses inmates suffering from some degree of dementia in this special unit, which offers, among other activities, Bingo every Friday. Across the nation, the number of prisoners over age 50 in state and federal prisons is rising at about 8% a year, according to sociologist Ronald Aday, author of "Aging Prisoners: Crisis in American Corrections", as reported by the Associated Press.

Although older prisoners are not new to the prison system, their numbers are. One major cause of the increase in older prisoners is our draconian sentencing laws, particularly those for repeat offenders and for drug-related offenses.

As our prison population grows, its demographics widen as well. Not necessearily in terms of race and class, since the overwhelming majority of America's inmates remain poor and disporportinately people of color, but in terms of gender, as daughters, mothers, and grandmothers enter prison at an alarmingly high rate, and age, as more teenagers are squeezed in while more elderly are kept from getting out.

Whereas our only hope at holding back the years may be an illusive search for the fountain of youth, there is no comparably illusory fountain of sensible criminal justice policies. To address our unacceptably high number of inmates, we need not rely on wishful thinking, but can withdraw the millions of dollars we spend on our senseless war on drugs and on building prisons and reinvest it into creating effective schools, affordable daycare,sensible welfare policies that encourage and enable educational goals, and job training programs.

In other words, while the aging process is inevitable, the size of our prison population is not.

corn & ticket scalpers vs. policies you care about

2007-06-05T11:47:34Z

As the New York State legislature wraps-up their 2007 session some interesting bills have come to light, like the bill to make sweet corn the official state vegetable and a bill that will help ticket scalpers. Clearly this is the kind of legislation that keeps New York State residents up at night asking existential questions like "what role does sweet corn play in my life?" or "how far from a stadium can I buy re-sold Yankees tickets?". Well I guess if you are involved in the racing industry that scalpers' bill is a big deal but what about the rest of us? What's in the state's legislative hopper?

Last week DMI Fellow Maureen Lane wrote about a sensible welfare policy bill that has the potential to help move people out of poverty. So far it hasn't been introduced by the State Senate. DMI Fellow Mark Winston Griffith blogged about model anti-predatory lending legislation that New Yorkers for Responsible Lending is working to call attention to. The city is now waiting to see if the legislature will approve Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030 including its congestion pricing proposals. The Working Families Party has been doing amazing work around the Working Families Time to Care Act which is their legislative priority this year. And as always, The Albany Project has been doing an incredible job keeping track of the legislative goings-ons.

Yet at the end of the day while the legislature is wrestling with the question of who gets to make a whole bunch of money selling tickets there really are serious problems that need to be addressed by the state government. Some of the issues New York is struggling to handle -- subsidy reform, what to do with criminals when they are released from prison, providing universal access to preschool and the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs -- are real challenges but they aren't insurmountable. In fact four localities around the country did tackle these battles with great success. Want to know more?

Our new report "Lessons from the Marketplace: Four Proven Progressive Policies from DMI's Marketplace of Ideas
(And how New York can do them even better)" reveals how it all was achieved.

Now I know it's a cliche that the state legislature "doesn't do anything" and that's not even my point here. Simply that as they go about the business of the state not all issues are equally urgent and a lot of other parts in the country have implemented policies that New York can learn a lot from. Is that too much to ask? But in the meantime, "Gentlemen, behold! Corn!"

the real story behind the unjust arrests at a funeral

2007-06-04T11:14:15Z

Reading the Trymaine Lee's article in the Times "Young People Arrested When They Gathered to Attend a Wake Ask for an Apology," was a great disappointment. It appears that Trymaine Lee caved to temptation; he wrote a sensational "gang" story, but his reporting simply missed the point.

From the article:

The arrests of about 30 young people on the way to a friend's wake on Monday have set off a wave of anger in Bushwick, Brooklyn, with more than 50 teenagers assembling yesterday to demand an apology, and their teachers saying that the police had unfairly made a target of the arrested youths - some as young as 13.

But the police defended their actions, saying that a climate of fear and retribution had taken root in the community after more violence erupted in the days after a young gang member was killed.

But here's the real deal; even if cops were fearful of violence in the wake of Donnell McFarland's death, there is no legal justification for ambushing and arresting 30 high schoolers on their way to his funeral. The students weren't carrying weapons or drugs, weren't wearing gang symbols; they were just trying to mourn a friend.

Defending their behavior, police from the 83rd precinct crowed about locking up two people with outstanding warrants. In no way is that an excuse for jailing over 30 kids. Not to mention screaming and cursing at 15-year-olds.

Relying on the brittle justification of guilt by association is unjust and drags innocent kids through a dangerous and overly-punitive criminal justice system. Policing like this only creates conflict between officers and the community they serve and that is not in anyone's best interest.

Supreme Court: Decades of discrimination don't matter after the first six months

2007-06-01T20:20:23Z

By now you might have heard about Lilly Ledbetter. An employee of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for 19 years, Ledbetter discovered that she was being paid far less than male employees with less seniority doing the same job. She sued and won $3 million in back pay and damages. Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled against that decision, saying Ledbetter hadn't acted within the narrow permissible window of time, and so was due no compensation for her employers' years of illegal discriminatory conduct.

This is more than a women's issue, or even just a discrimination issue. It's also an issue of workplace rights more broadly and a case with something important to say about ordinary Americans' access to justice.

According to the Court's 5-4 majority, even though Ledbetter had suffered for years from the effects of pay discrimination, and was still suffering at the time when she sued, her complaint was illegitimate because more than 180 days had passed since the initial pay decision was made. Never mind if she wasn't aware until that point that Goodyear was illegally discriminating against her for being a woman. Never mind that many employees don't know how much their co-workers are being paid at the time pay decisions are made, and may not realize they are victims of even the most vicious discrimination until years later. If you don't sue within the first 180 days, the Court ruled, your employer is essentially immune from being held accountable for their illegal actions, even if paychecks reflecting discriminatory decisions continue for decades.

I'll leave it to legal experts not to mention the four dissenting Supreme Court Justices to parse the legal intricacies of the decision. What worries me is the Court's apparent eagerness to place technical obstructions in the path of people seeking redress for injustice, in effect making it harder to enforce the laws meant to protect us.

Thankfully, Congress is acting to "fix" the law so that employers won't have impunity from for pay discrimination after 180 days.

But I'm with my long-time hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, in her powerful dissent, rebuked the Supreme Court's majority for ignoring the real world. Where's the fix for that?

DMI on WNYC at 10am in "Urban Conversations: Strengthening the Middle Class"

2007-06-01T14:06:16Z

This morning, Andrea Batista Schlesinger will be speaking along with leaders like D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin about the need to strengthen the Middle Class in American cities. It is a topic DMI recently released a survey and held a conference on (transcript here).

Today's conference, "Urban Conversations: Strengthening the Middle Class" is convened by The Milano School for Management and Urban Policy and is being moderated by WNYC's Brian Lehrer. You can listen to parts of the conference live on the radio this morning at WNYC channel 93.9 fm.

Andrea's panel will start around 10am. You can listen live at http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/06/01 and here's the permalink to listen to the recorded show and/or download it.

Here's more information on today's conference:
* * *
Urban Conversations: Strengthening the Middle Class
As income disparity between wealthy and working-class families becomes more pronounced, middle-class neighborhoods are disappearing from many American cities. How are today's urban leaders trying to ensure their cities remain - or become - livable for middle-income families and affordable for the millions of working people aspiring to gain a foothold in the middle class?

MODERATED BY:
Brian Lehrer, WNYC

FEATURING:
* Hon. Adrian Fenty, Mayor of Washington, DC
* Hon. Shirley Franklin, Mayor of Atlanta, GA
* Hon. Thomas R. Suozzi, County Executive, Nassau County, NY

WITH:
* Dan Cantor, Executive Director, Working Families Party
* Ester Fuchs, Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science, Columbia University, and former Special Advisor to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
* Nicole Gelinas, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, and contributing editor, City Journal
* Andrea Batista Schlesinger, Executive Director, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
* Dennis Walcott, Deputy Mayor for Education and Community Development, City of New York

WELCOMING REMARKS BY:
* Hon. Christine Quinn, Speaker, New York City Council

Presented by The Center for New York City Affairs and WNYC

Date: Friday, June 1

Location: The New School
Theresa Lang Community and Student Center
55 West 13th Street (between 5th and 6th Avenue), 2nd floor
Time: 8-11am
Ticket price: Admission is free, but reservations are necessary
Ticket information: This event is full - we are no longer taking reservations.

Four Progressive Policies You Should Know About

2007-05-31T18:41:57Z

Right-wing pundits claim that progressive public policy will kill jobs, squander tax dollars, suppress innovation and let axe-wielding criminals run free. If that were true than why can moderate-income residents in Maine buy prescription drugs for as little as half the retail price? Why are some violent criminals in San Francisco 82 percent less likely to commit new crimes after their release from prison? Why can the state of Minnesota reclaim money from subsidies when economic development incentives don't produce the promised results? Why are 92 percent of four-year-olds attending a high-quality public preschool in Oklahoma?

If you read the DMIBlog I'm sure you know the answer. It's because progressive public policy solves problems. There is no reason that New Yorkers - or residents of any other state - can't enjoy the benefits of these policies as well.

"Lessons from the Marketplace," our latest report provides an in-depth look at policies from around the country that have been proven successes.

* Lessons from Minnesota on getting Accountability for Economic Development Subsidies
* Lessons from San Francisco on Reducing Criminal Recidivism
* Lessons from Maine on how to provide Affordable Prescription Drugs for the Uninsured
* Lessons from Oklahoma on Universal Access to Preschool

Each policy featured in Lessons from the Marketplace draws on a discussion from DMI’s acclaimed Marketplace of Ideas series, which invites policymakers from around the country to speak about the public policy they successfully pushed, its impact, and their on-the-ground experience getting the policy enacted. After their presentation, they engage with an expert panel of legislators, advocates, business representatives, religious leaders, and academics, to further discuss the policy and its implications for New York and the entire country.

So read the report Lessons from the Marketplace online. And you can also watch podcasts, listen to audio, or read transcripts of past events in DMI's Marketplace of Ideas series.

Bravo State Assembly! You've Introduced Welfare Policy that Will Work

2007-05-31T11:35:43Z

Good news! A new NY State Assembly bill could mean a small shift toward underscoring the role that government plays in mitigating poverty. For far too long, jobs that simply don't pay enough to boost someone over the poverty line have held people in place, grinding down their economic hope. Certainly, if nothing else, hope is the cornerstone for a thriving economy.

A partial solution - at least - may be on its way:

NY State Assembly bill 07990 ensures comprehensive assessments and development of career plans for participants; sets forth a definition of sustainable living wage; provides for review of specific employment-related skills and abilities; requires a preference for unsubsidized employment; requires social services officials to establish collaborative relationships with local employers in the private sector.

What does that mean? After a family has become stable, or rebounded, after the crisis that brought them to welfare, a trained professional affiliated with this government program will interview the head of the household to see what their skills are, what their needs are (literacy, language, education and training, childcare etc...). The professional will then develop a plan to help that person get and retain a living wage job.

The bill stems from evidence that welfare reform policy has not been successful in reducing poverty and facilitating the transition to economic security for many families. I applaud this bill's proposed assessments and career plans - these are truly needed for each person receiving public assistance. A good assessment will lead to a specifically tailored career plan for each individual’s unique needs and abilities, and this training will provide the much-needed groundwork to help people on public assistance land the living wage jobs that will allow them to work their way out of poverty.

In fact the state has developed such an assessment and it would be smart to use it statewide. Localities can be directed to make use of the best practices of the state and good assessments and plans for poor families are just the right way to go statewide, if not nationally.

In addition, the bill directly focuses on improving people's ability to obtain unsubsidized employment in a position that pays a sustainable living wage (defining this wage at 185% of the poverty line). The bill points out that "Currently, many recipients are placed in subsidized employment, WEP [work experience program - NYC workfare] activities or educational programs that do not necessarily improve their long-term ability to obtain unsubsidized employment that pays a sustainable living wage."

Education and training are key here. Welfare rights activists know they work and the general public knows they work. "Public opinion supports access to these services as a way to greater economic security. When asked what government benefit would most help poor families get ahead, a majority (89 percent) of moderate and high income New Yorkers and low income New Yorkers (68 percent) identified skills acquisition (training and higher education) as a first or second response. Basic education, including pursuit of a GED, and English for Speakers of Other Languages also received significant support from both moderate and high income New Yorkers and low-income New Yorkers. "

The bill is a modest one and moves clearly in the right direction. I urge the New York State Senate to get going on introducing it in their chambers and encourage other states to take a look and even share what their doing already on this score. Good substantive assessments and career plans can be hopeful tools for families often discouraged by the economies they cannot control.

An Immigration Amendment Food Fight

2007-05-30T12:03:13Z

As Senators relax in their home district over the Memorial Day weekend recess, I've got a few reminders for them as they mull over the recent immigration proposal (The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act) and head out into a supposed firestorm of public opinion.

Newsflash: Americans support a smart and compassionate legalization program that acknowledges immigrant contributions to our nation.

A New York Times/CBS News poll released Friday underlined just how ready Americans are for a fair legalization program to address the nation's over 12 million undocumented immigrants. Nearly two-thirds of respondents supported legalization for those who have been in the US for at least two years. Nearly two-thirds of those polled also felt recent immigrants contribute to the US.

So it seems like we have a consensus, right?

Wrong.

Senators have started an amendment food fight over the past week, frantically slinging in provisions that take cheap shots at immigrant communities.

Cases in point: Senator David Vitter (R-LA) introduced an amendment last week to eliminate the bill's legalization provisions. Luckily Senators retained a measure of sanity when they defeated it by a resounding two-thirds majority, 66 to 29. The whole point of an immigration legislation package is to legalize undocumented immigrants and give them a reason and pathway to come out of the shadows where they are exploited in the workplace, risk undermining the quality of jobs in this country and are prevented from fully engaging in American civil society. Without a smart and enforceable legalization provision, this bill would do little to acknowledge the immigrants who have built lives in the US and give a green light to exploit workers while denying them a path to citizenship. Yes, I’m referring here to the temporary worker program.

This program - which creates a permanent underclass of workers who will never be allowed to build roots in the US or apply for citizenship - remains enshrined in the current bill. This is despite the efforts of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who introduced an amendment to reduce the number of temporary workers allowed in the country from 400,000 to 200,000. The amendment passed -- preserving one of the worst pieces of a flawed and complicated bill (at last count, it's about 600 pages long). Allowing workers into the country on this Y visa to contribute to our economy without allowing them to ever apply for permanent residency would effectively bar them from developing strong and sustained economic ties to the US. It maintains immigrant workers' marginal and exploitable status which threatens to depress wages and working conditions for all workers and keeps the immigrants themselves from advancing economically over the long run to join the middle class.

It appears the American public doesn't fully understand the implications of a temporary worker program. Two-thirds of respondents in the New York Times/CBS News poll supported a guest worker program while nearly the same percentage favored legalizing undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for at least two years. Right now, the Senate's proposed temporary worker program does not offer guest workers any path to apply for citizenship. It is also important to note that any kind of temporary worker program that requires workers to shuttle back and forth between the US and their home country and then kicks them out of the program if they are unemployed for sixty days in a row -- encourages the exploitation of employees, because it forces immigrants to keep their job, no matter how exploitative it is in order to remain in-status. This can end up reducing the quality of jobs in this country, effectively shutting American workers out of whole industries where the prevalence of vulnerable immigrants makes labor standards functionally below the legal minimum.

Next, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) introduced an amendment that would, among other bad ideas, force state and local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws. This is something police chiefs of cities and towns large and small across the US have agreed for years is a bad idea. Law enforcement officials should aim to develop and inspire trust in the communities they patrol. Forcing them to double as immigration agents would do just the opposite, and would likely result in more fires, rapes, and other crimes going unreported by terrified immigrant communities.

In addition, this amendment would almost encourage undocumented workers to NOT report workplace violations (wage and hour infractions, complaints on work hazards) to local law enforcement, for fear of being deported. By systematically violating these labor laws, employers of undocumented workers would save money, making it hard for the employers of legal workers to compete. The result: wages and working conditons are driven down for everyone.

What's even more worrisome is the Coleman amendment's margin of defeat: one vote, 49 to 48. Yes, one vote. 48 Senators voted to make law enforcement professionals' work even harder by forcing them to round up undocumented individuals who are working, paying taxes, and raising children in communities nationwide.

Senators and members of Congress should remember Americans support a humane legalization program that acknowledges and embraces the hardworking immigrants who are already here, and gives them the workplace and wage protections all workers in this country need to have for a functional labor market. Americans want to allow undocumented and documented immigrants who have built roots in the US to stay here, pay up, get in line, and eventually become citizens.

Now is not the time to backpedal on comprehensive immigration reform. Preserve the path to citizenship provision, and extend it to all undocumented workers. Scrap the temporary worker program and its assault on immigrants' roots in this country and American workers.

It's particularly important for members of the House to remember this, as it was the House that defeated the last legalization proposal, introduced by Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and McCain (R-AZ) last year. House members should remind themselves of what Americans want and what the middle class would benefit from as they prepare to enter the amendment food fight.