A Tribute to Our Dear Friend Beth Shulman

Posted by Miles Rapoport at 6:07 PM | 0 comments

Demos is deeply saddened at the passing of our dear friend Beth Shulman. Beth, who was a Senior Fellow at Demos, had been a lifelong advocate for working people, a leader in the movement to expose abusive employment practices, and a core figure in a national campaign to implement a fair, living wage. Her book, The Betrayal of Work, exposed the inequities of America's economy, and humanized the struggles of millions of working men and women. With Beth's passing we have lost one of the strongest voices for working Americans. But her organizing, writing, and leadership leave us with a legacy of progress we must continue to pursue.

Friday Feature: Oregon Votes Yes! for Oregon

Posted by Patrick Bresette at 10:25 AM | 0 comments

On Tuesday the people of Oregon voted Yes! They voted yes not just for the specific tax measures on the ballot but yes for their state and its future. There are lessons in this vote; just not the ones you are hearing most about.

Voters on Tuesday supported two tax increases that had been passed by the legislature as part of a balanced approach of cuts and new revenues to address a deep budget shortfall. These two tax increases were immediately challenged by business and anti-tax groups and placed on the January 26th ballot.

A superficial reading of the outcome might suggest that this vote in favor of taxes on high incomes and corporations is merely an example of populist anger at the wealthy and big business. But the story of success on Tuesday is richer than this analysis. The energy that fueled months of hard work by a broad and deep coalition of concerned organizations and individuals, with thousands of volunteers, endless door knocking, phone calls and conversations with neighbors was not merely a "soak the rich" anger, it was a deep concern for the future of the state. In the months leading up to the vote on Tuesday these individuals, advocates and organizations made a compelling and affirmative case for the role of government in Oregon. This is the lesson that other states should learn.

The two proposals on the ballot--known as Measures 66 and 67--increased marginal taxes on high income households and raised the corporate income tax. Measure 66 raises income taxes on individuals who earn more than $125,000 a year and households that earn more than $250,000 a year, generating $472 million. Measure 67 raises $255 million by increasing from $10 to $150 the minimum corporate income tax that has not changed since 1931 and creating a graduated system based on sales and taxable income.

The vote to support these two tax measures was a stunning reversal of decades of anti-tax votes in Oregon. As the Los Angeles Times noted:

Over the years, voters here have capped property taxes (saddling the state with two-thirds the cost of running the schools) and passed a constitutional amendment requiring rebates whenever tax receipts come in 2% over budget. Nine times they have been asked to OK a sales tax--and said no. Proposals to increase the state income tax? Down in flames twice.

In the wake of the vote, observers and pundits--both in support of and against the measures--have focused their attention on the fact that these tax increases fall on the wealthy and corporations. They assert that the vote is additional evidence of an emerging populism that is ready to "soak the rich and greedy businesses."

Huffington Post:

Oregon's Sherwood Forest, take-from-the-rich strategy might appeal to legislators in other states struggling to bandage their budgets...

The Wall Street Journal:

One national consequence of the Oregon vote is that we are likely to see unions finance more of these tax-the-rich campaigns in other states with big deficits.

Similar themes were echoed by the Oregonian, the Atlantic, Daily Kos, and many others.

Unfortunately, the deeper story behind this historic vote is not getting the attention it deserves. It is true that polling by the Vote Yes! campaign showed deep public support for increasing the ridiculously low minimum tax on corporations and a willingness to raise taxes on those most able to afford them. But Americans do not vote for taxes on wealth just because. In fact, important research by Larry Bartels of Princeton shows that more often than not average Americans side with businesses and the wealthy in tax debates--voting for tax cuts they will never receive and against tax increases they will not pay. In his groundbreaking paper "Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind,” Bartells dissects the deep anti-tax sentiments that undermine even the most logical revenue proposals.

Getting the public to support tax increases requires more than pointing a finger at someone else who should pay. It requires reconnecting taxes to their purposes. The Public Works team at Demos spent a good deal of time in Oregon in the fall and winter working with a number of key campaign supporters. We helped them think about ways to engage the public in the larger public purposes that were at stake, not just the particulars of the tax package. And this is the part of the successful effort in Oregon that deserves more attention. In a subtle but important and consistent manner the campaign and its many advocates worked hard to reconnect Oregonians to what was at risk--the fundamental public systems and structures that the state depends on and that are essential to their shared quality of life.

This was different than merely offering a laundry list of the dire cuts that would ensue without new revenue. It was a coherent narrative about Oregon and its future. This excerpt from a letter to the editor by State Representative Chris Harker is emblematic:

As a small-business owner, I'm convinced that in order for Oregon to prosper we need to have the courage and the will to create an environment that's profitable both for businesses and for the communities on which our businesses rely. Unless we properly fund our education system and protect working families and the services they need, we're going to struggle to compete in the growing global economy. The days in which low skills could generate high pay are disappearing. These tax measures are the next necessary steps to promoting the health and well-being of our state as a whole.

Other supporters and observers have recognized that this aspect of the campaign was part of its success. Dick Hughes in his Statesman Journal column remarked: On the one hand, it could be dangerous to read too much into the measures' passage.

By accepting higher taxes, Oregonians maintained their national reputation as mavericks. But these were taxes on "the other guy" — well-to-do Oregonians and businesses — so most voters wouldn't directly pay them. But it also would be a mistake to disregard what the measures indicated about the voters' perceptions. Oregonians showed their faith in Oregon government, believing the tax money was necessary to support state services and schools (emphasis added).

In an Oregonian article, Steve Novick, a key spokesman for the Vote Yes! campaign noted:

We ran a campaign that reminded people of the value of those government services

On the eve of the victory a spokesman for the Oregon PTA talked about the meaning of the win this way:

Tonight’s victory is one for all Oregonians--especially students and middle class families," said Otto Schell, of the Oregon PTA. “Strong schools and preserving public services are critical to our children’s future and key to our economic recovery. Today, Oregon voters have laid the foundation for a strong future.

In a post campaign thank you to supporters, Senator Peter Courtney (President of the Oregon Senate) stated that:

Pundits will argue that the lesson from Tuesday’s vote was either (1) that progressives rebounded quickly from the shocking loss of a once “safe” Democratic U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts or (2) that Oregon voters are on the leading edge of a populist revolt against big corporations and their wealthy CEOs.

If those who have watched us so closely only consider those things, however, they will miss the most important point. Oregon voted to keep funding our schools, health care for our children and to keep criminals locked inside prison walls because of a super-human effort by everyday people...

The lesson Oregonians should remember and other states should learn from Tuesday’s vote is that we did not succeed because of the structure of the revenue measures alone. It was also an incredible collaborative spirit and tireless work ethic that saved Oregon, my Oregon.

As we all digest the results of this historic vote in Oregon, let’s make sure we give attention to all of its lessons. States across the country are facing budget challenges of a scale and scope they have never seen before. What is at risk are the public systems, services and structures that are essential to our very quality of life and our economic future. Any responsible approach to this challenge should include an examination of new revenue options, not just budget cuts. This means we need to create a more productive conversation about taxes and their purposes. The good news coming out of Oregon is that this is a conversation we can have and can win.

Obama's State of the Union: No Time to Turn Back

Posted by Miles Rapoport at 4:09 PM | 0 comments

In last night’s speech, President Barack Obama confronted an incredibly difficult challenge. His agenda for change has been stymied by an implacable Republican opposition, a set of democracy-defying rules in Washington in the filibuster and the drenching of the system with money (even before the horrendous Citizens United decision), and a startling amount of self-serving politics among some Democratic colleagues.

President Obama was right to acknowledge his difficulties, right to challenge those who have hamstrung legislative progress and those Democrats seeking to trim the sails and tack to the right, and right to call out the super-activist Supreme Court Majority. I was glad he pledged not to quit and not to give up on really making change, even if the specifics of the move forward were generally sketchy.

The proof will be in the follow-through. If he really takes his challenge of serious financial reform to the mat; if he puts flesh and serious investment behind the call to create new jobs; if he fights to make education affordable and retirement secure despite the warnings of the deficit-hawks; and if he really fights to change Washington and enliven our democracy, not just with lobbyist postings but with public financing of elections and reforms to bring every eligible voter into the process and into the conversation; then this speech will have marked a new beginning of hope and change.

I want that to be the case, and I’m dismayed by some of the premature dismissals of the possibilities and the predictions of failure while the wheel is still in spin. And it’s not President Obama’s job alone. Those of us who want the kind of change he continues to promise need to speak, rebut, and march, all to push out the space of possibility, in which he can move forward and from which our country can achieve the kind of economic opportunity for all and democracy with meaning that we so desperately seek.

Obama's Spending Freeze is More Politics Than Purpose

Posted by Tamara Draut at 5:17 PM | 0 comments

The national temper tantrum displayed on the fringes of our political debate--personified by tea parties and the squawking of the deficit hawks for a budget commission--have led the Obama Administration down a political path of no good return.

At tomorrow's State of the Union Address, President Obama will propose a 3-year freeze on spending on domestic programs other than defense, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. On the same day the Administration announced this freeze, the New York Times ran an article about widespread food insecurity in the United States.

One in five Americans did not have enough money to buy food at some point in the last year. The level of food insecurity decreased slightly this year thanks to increased spending for the nation’s food stamp program, with a record 38 million Americans now using food stamps to feed themselves and their families. It's the kind of stimulus spending vital during an economic downturn, and a safety net that ensures our humanity doesn’t get thrown out the window every time the Dow takes a nosedive. But Obama's new plan would force states facing increasing need to do more with less.

Yet, the story of mass food insecurity is just one indication that the path our nation needs to follow is one of greater social investment, not disinvestment. With the unemployment rate in double-digits and foreclosures still mounting, our government needs to focus on paving the way toward an economy of shared prosperity. The great challenges confronting our nation are recovery in the short-term, and rebuilding in the long-term. Paying down the deficit is not inconsistent with either of these goals, but a broad freeze on domestic spending is political pandering masquerading as political leadership.

As Demos Senior Fellow Robert Kuttner argues in the American Prospect, we need more deficit spending on public investment and jobs now--we can turn our attention to deficit reduction once recovery comes. This is the prescription for long-term prosperity, and as important in an election year, it’s the right decision politically.

Fueling the debate and public anxiety about our nation's fiscal health is the sense that our government is no friend of the people. As low- and middle-income households have struggled to stay afloat, bad policymaking has only cemented this perception. For the past decade, Congress and state legislatures have chosen tax cuts for the wealthy over broad-based investments in education, research and technology or basic infrastructure. And now, with the insecurity deepening and growing in the recession, the American people are angry about spending trillions of dollars to save the very banks that brought us to the brink of another depression. Serving up a freeze on discretionary domestic spending will only further damage the government's ability to serve the common good, and really won’t make a serious dent in the long-term deficit picture.

According to the New York Times, the Administration says that by 2015 the spending freeze will result in the share of discretionary domestic spending being at its lowest level in a half-century relative to the size of the economy. This is hardly a recipe for building a competitive and prosperous economy for the 21st century, but it’s the bragging rights the Administration thinks it needs to make politically. It’s both wrong politically and substantively, a self-inflicted vise that will further constrain our nation’s ability to recover and rebuild the economy.

Will Scott Brown's Victory and the Decision in 'Citizens United' Kill Climate Legislation?

Posted by Cristina Vasile at 11:31 AM | 0 comments

If the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts last week wasn't bad enough for the prospects of passing climate legislation, the Supreme Court ruling to overturn campaign limits for corporations may be the final nail in the coffin for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

The blogosphere and opinion pages have been abuzz analyzing the shockwaves coming from Brown’s victory. The implications for climate change legislation are dire.

Brown opposes a national cap and trade program (even after voting in favor of a regional-level cap-and-trade program while a state senator). When asked whether he thought global warming was a fraud last week, Brown responded:

“It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling. It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information...I just want to make sure if in fact...the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and if its unbiased by scientists with no agenda.”

Brown has already promised to block health care legislation--and as one research firm put it:

“If an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill was unlikely before, we think a Republican win in Massachusetts would put it on life support.

However, if you think that’s bad, then prepare yourself for even worse news: the Supreme Court ruling to overturn campaign limits for corporations. President Obama issued a statement Thursday, saying that:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street Banks, health insurance companies, and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

By opening the door for oil, coal and manufacturing interests to exercise their influence, we may be signing the death warrant for ACES. The swollen river of private money has already made climate change legislation an uphill battle. Now that river will grow even more unstoppable. The oil and gas industry contributed over $35 million to campaigns in 2008 (not to mention $132.2 million on lobbying efforts in the same year).

The Sierra Club also issued a statement on the ruling:

“Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and other special interests have a stranglehold on the Congress and today’s ruling will further endanger the ability of citizens to influence the political process….We already have very clear indications of the dangers that lie ahead. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been involved in today’s case, reported just yesterday that it spent a record-breaking $71 million on lobbying last quarter. Even before today’s decision it has already been laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate cash, most notably for the health insurance industry and polluters, and has pledged to spend tens of millions of dollars in this year’s elections. Now it and the special interests that fund it will be allowed to spent limitless amounts not only in the legislative process, but to support or oppose individual candidates.”

While the election of Scott Brown is clearly a setback for the climate change battle, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has the potential to impede climate legislation, long after Brown leaves office.

The Anatole France First Amendment of Citizens United?

Posted by Brenda Wright at 1:41 PM | 0 comments

This blog is cross-posted from ACSblog, where Democracy Program Director Brenda Wright is a guest blogger, in response to yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

With today's decision in Citizens United, the Roberts Court has proudly unveiled the Anatole France First Amendment. "The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and beg in the streets," Anatole France famously wrote. After today, the First Amendment, in its majestic impartiality, will allow ordinary citizens and massive corporations alike to spend as much as they desire to elect their preferred candidates to office.

In a pre-argument blog on Citizens United, I pointed out how radically the scale of money in politics would change if the Court were to hold that the First Amendment outlaws any distinction between giant corporations and individuals when it comes to electoral spending. As the Solicitor General's supplemental brief in Citizens United explains:

During the 2007-2008 election cycle...FEC-registered political parties spent $1.5 billion, and federal PACs spent $1.2 billion, while the Fortune 100 companies had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of $605 billion. If those 100 companies alone had devoted just one percent of their profits (or one-twentieth of one percent of their revenues) to electoral advocacy, such spending would have more than doubled the federally-reported disbursements of all American political parties and PACs combined.

One of the most striking features of the majority opinion is thus the disconnect between its rhetoric - which frames the ideal of protecting the political arena from the terrible dangers of public oversight - and the reality - namely, the massive damage the decision itself will do to the political arena and the ideal of self governance by unleashing for-profit corporate treasury funds in the electoral sphere. At the heart of this disconnect is the deeply flawed assumption that political spending by an artificial, entirely state-created entity such as a for-profit corporation serves precisely the same function of self-expression and political actualization as it does for an individual person. The amicus brief that I helped author for the American Independent Business Alliance summarized the problems with that assumption as follows:

The governance system of...corporations is highly successful for the pursuit of profit, making them important instruments in the economic sphere. But the very factors that make the corporate form an effective instrument of wealth accumulation are the factors that make it inappropriate for corporations to claim the full panoply of First Amendment protections for political speech and participation that are enjoyed by natural persons. Because of the way corporations are structured, corporate speech does not express the political views of any individual or group of individuals associated with the corporation. Moreover, the constraints that drive a corporation's political speech - the requirement that corporate actions all must be calibrated toward profit - directly undermine the notion that a corporation can be a free participant in the marketplace of ideas. And precisely because a corporation enjoys significant state-created economic advantages designed for the narrow purpose of furthering wealth-accumulation, corporate participation in candidate campaigns promotes market entrenchment and corrupts the political marketplace in a fundamentally undemocratic manner.

Justice Stevens' dissent picks up on these themes (and even quotes our amicus brief, the only kind of comfort the reform side is getting from campaign finance opinions these days). In Justice Stevens' words "the fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it." He continues:

Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

But the majority's decision to overrule decades of precedent in order to unleash for-profit corporate participation in the political marketplace displays an even more striking disconnect when we think about the timing of the decision. The notion of perfecting our democracy by casting off all restrictions on corporate political spending comes on the heels of massive and appalling failures of corporate governance in the economic sphere itself - the very sphere for which the corporate form was created. Unrestrained and under-regulated pursuit of corporate profit helped spark a financial meltdown that wiped out $2 trillion in retirement savings in 15 months, lost 2 million homes to foreclosure over the past two years; and saw the disappearance of 7.2 million jobs. In the wake of all this, the Roberts Court's response is to ask "What could possibly go wrong from putting corporations in charge of politics too?"

The reform movement is gearing up quickly to move from outrage to action. The responses vary. Many are calling on a renewed push for public financing of congressional elections to help give citizens a place at the table; others are urging the need for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision; and others are proposing shareholder protection measures that would give shareholders greater control over political spending by corporations. All of these approaches have promise and should be widely debated in the coming days.

[image via www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org]

WATCH: The Future of Philanthropy: Will Market-Based Models Save the World? Live Webcast Tonight

Posted by Gennady Kolker at 4:36 PM | 0 comments

A new movement called philanthrocapitalism promises to save the world by applying a market-based perspective to various social and economic challenges. How well can this approach solve the complex and nuanced goals of fundamental social transformation? Some argue that philanthrocapitalism is a new and innovative way to breathe life and resources into the causes for which we advocate. Others maintain that business-based solutions are based on an entirely different set of principles, and will never inspire the collaborative spirit necessary for true change.

Tonight, Demos will host the book launch of Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World by Distinguished Senior Fellow Michael Edwards. Edwards will be joined by The Economist's Matthew Bishop, author of Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World and the upcoming The Road from Ruin: How to Revive Capitalism and Put America Back On Top. The authors will draw upon their recent books to discuss and debate the costs and benefits of philanthrocapitalism in tackling our toughest social problems, both in the US and globally.

If MLK Were Around, He Wouldn't Care About Racial Brushfires in the Media--He'd Be Talking About Poverty

Posted by Rich Benjamin at 9:55 AM | 0 comments

The following blog is cross-posted from AlterNet.

What a tangle of racial controversies to embroil politicians, the media, and the public in recent days: Glenn Beck insisted that African-American is a "bogus, PC-term," the Census bureau insisted on keeping "Negro" among its list of racial categories, and Senator Harry Reid confessed to saying the President's appeal derives from his (relatively) fair skin and Negro-free dialect.

Forgive, for a moment, some biographical speculation: Had he lived, Martin Luther King, Jr. would not likely be bothered by these racial brushfires. Instead, he would be appalled by the larger afflictions engulfing this nation, all of which threaten the realization of his dream--not the therapeutic, saccharine dream peddled to us in candle-lit commemorations, but the urgent dream anchored by his gritty work.

The just-released jobs report shows 85,000 more jobs lost in December, with startling unemployment across the board: Teenagers (27 percent), Blacks (16.2 percent), Hispanics (12.9 percent), Whites (9 percent), and the general population at 10 percent and rising.

Socio-economic progress in the United States is no better today then during the latter years of Dr. King's life. America faces the same poverty rate today (13.2 percent) that Dr. King denounced in 1968 (12.8 percent). Meanwhile, the number of people living in poverty in that time span has grown from 25 million to a whopping 40 million, including 12 million children.

As the House and Senate dither over healthcare reform, and tens of millions of Americans hover on the brink of poverty, Martin Luther King's Dream remains more pressing and relevant than at any point since his assassination.

Rather than thoughtfully discussing our political problems, including race, Americans love to reduce the conversation to feelings and etiquette. It's the personal and dramatic aspects of race that obsess us, not the deeply rooted and currently active, political inequalities. That's our predicament: Racial debate, in public and private, is trapped in the sinkhole of therapeutics.

On the airwaves, in the legislatures, around the kitchen tables, and at the water cooler, we would serve our country better with a conversation about class and racial inequalities than with chitchat about how any given person "feels."

We live in a nation that worships Latino baseball players, black presidential candidates, and Asian classical musicians, even as it diminishes, or neglects, the average non-white citizen -- overwhelmed moms, factory workers, prisoners. So, instead of asking Does Topher like Asian women? Will LaShonda marry her Latino beau? Why does Glenn have no black friends? why not ask how we can expand middle-class stability -- earnings, savings, homeownership -- to the hordes of Americans, among all races, who are one pink slip, one lapsed mortgage payment, one cancer diagnosis, one car wreck away from destitution?

Modern-day King would not be bothered by Harry Reid -- almost King's historical contemporary -- and his anachronistic gaffe. Modern-day King would be perturbed, however, by the Senate Majority Leader's inability, so far, to marshal the requisite Senate support for a public option in healthcare reform. And the intransigence of both war and economic depravation would pique the slain leader.

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane," King declared in 1966. Two years later, the year he was assassinated, King launched his Poor People's Campaign, "a multiracial army of the poor," that marched on Washington to demand an Economic Bill of Rights from Congress.

"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar," Dr. King maintained. "It is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." Recounting the Biblical parable of the beggar on the Road to Jericho, King called for sweeping changes to the conditions that cause economic suffering. What does fixing the Road to Jericho mean today?

Forget about Negros, Avatar's alleged racial insensitivity, and Glenn Beck's melanin-deficient friends. To help realize King's dream, let's start by ensuring meaningful healthcare and financial industry reform, not the mostly haphazard, cosmetic measures flung about so far.

Dr. King did not view poverty as a natural or inevitable condition of humankind. Instead, he believed it was the result of unjust economic policies and a lack of government investments that help people realize their potential. King's actual legacy teaches Americans and political leaders a great deal about implementing an equitable, purposeful, and long-term economic recovery.