The Opportunity Agenda was founded with the mission of building the national will to expand opportunity in America, a reflection of the core American belief that where we start out in life should not determine where we end up. The vision that we will have a country in which your possibilities are determined by you is central to the American self-concept.
While it would be unwise for any politician to govern by focus group, a recent New York Times/CBS News poll offers some support and some clear suggestions for future action for the White House. The poll, which was conducted in early February 2010, had 1,084 respondents – certainly a small group to be determining policy for 308 million Americans – but the results do resonate.
For those of us trying desperately to wrap our heads around the Security and Exchange Commission’s allegations against Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street Journal’s recent article on the alleged fraud is a real boon. The article is clear and concise (or at least as clear and concise as can be expected when a describing multi-stage transaction that involved more than 500,000 mortgages in 48 states), and, perhaps just as importantly, it frames the events in a way that recognizes that the economic collapse was a fundamentally human event—caused by human greed at the cost of human suffering, and leading to even greater human suffering.
According to the article, the allegations involve a massive bet, booked by Goldman Sachs and placed by hedge fund manager John Paulson, that would pay off if people across the country could not pay their mortgages. He allegedly took a particular interest in adjustable rate subprime loans issued to people with poor credit scores, rightly believing that the people who had taken out these shady mortgages didn’t really understand how big their monthly payments would eventually become. As we all now know, Mr. Paulson was all too right, and he profited to the tune of more than $1 billion as foreclosure rates shot up.
As Americans, we’re a remarkably hopeful people. A belief that, no matter where you start, you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps, work hard, and plant the posts of your picket fence, is fundamental to our identity. But, while we do lack the rigid class constrictions of Western Europe, the truth is that upward economic mobility is fundamentally unattainable for most Americans today. The road to real economic opportunity is a long one, but it starts with a reorganizing of our priorities.
In her blog today, Arianna Huffington asks if CBS’s new reality offering, Undercover Boss, is the most subversive show on television. It’s a provocative question, as most of us would like to think that a reality show existed that could turn the genre on its head. Maybe spotlight some of the reality that real Americans face, rather than spotlighting primarily those obsessed with fame. In the show, CEOs infiltrate the lower ranks of their organizations, often service industries, to see how business is going on the ground. Huffington proposes that in revealing the reality and conditions of low-wage work and workers, the show allows audiences a somewhat unprecedented look at what it really takes to get by in this country, while also illuminating the stark divide between the haves and have nots.
While it is a deeply-held American belief that we’re all in this together, there has long been a truism that when the economy gets a cold, the poor get pneumonia. It’s a glib way of noting that any downturn in the economy has a disparate impact on those least prepared to handle it.
On February 20, 2010, the New York Times published an article on the “new poor,” millions of Americans struggling with long-term unemployment. As the Times notes, changes in the economy have stripped away some of the jobs that traditionally offered a path to the middle class for those with less education. “Some labor experts say the basic functioning of the American economy has changed in ways that make jobs scarce.” … “Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 — the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.”
One year ago our nation, and much of this world, was in a state of panic and turmoil. Companies and industries were shedding jobs faster than we could count. The stock market was tanking in front of our eyes. Waking up every morning to look at the headlines of the newspaper was a daunting task in fear of what a new day could bring to the American people. We needed a lifeline.
And so President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009. Critics have been very vocal at pointing out the persistently high unemployment rate as well as flagrant examples of waste and inefficiency. At the same time, supporters have ample evidence to defend the act—a couple million jobs saved or created, a depression averted, and billions of dollars supporting and aiding colleges and universities to invest in the future of our country. Both sides have valid arguments and substantial verification. Undoubtedly, there have been great benefits from the act, but inevitably there is also vast room for improvement in the second year of the two year plan. With a year behind us, we must look ahead and focus our attention and energy in avoiding past mistakes by demanding greater transparency, and demanding higher quality outcomes. As the White House begins to craft the new jobs bill, we must make sure the bill creates good jobs—jobs that offer living wages, provide benefits, and have the potential for long-term growth and advancement.
1. I will inspire. I am one of the most charismatic orators of our generation, but as president, I’ve moved away from that critical element of my leadership.
While my speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and onreproductive rights at Notre Dame were inspirational—if I do say so myself—I haven’t brought that eloquence to my key domestic agenda items, or to my broader vision and goals as president. In 2010, I’ll recapture my eloquent voice, communicating the core values and human outcomes of my policies and presidency, then (and only then) explaining how the wonky details will help to achieve them. The values that I led with in my campaign were Community—the idea that we’re all in it together and share responsibility for each other—and Opportunity—the idea that everyone deserves a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential. Those values will return to prominence in my second year as president, and be joined by the values of Peace and Security in our foreign affairs and national defense. I may even dust off Hope and Change.
This is another in a series of stories I've written for Random Lenghts News about local environmental justice issues that have parallels elsewhere around the country. At this point, there has been a very clear divergence between Long Beach, attempting to avoid confrontation with the trucking industry, and thus increasingly selling out to them, and Los Angeles, which has, after many years of pressure, decided to stand up.
Ports Part Paths On Clean Truck Plans
Long Beach Caves To Trucking Industry,
LA Seeks Change In Federal Law
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor
When the ports of Los Angeles (POLA) and Long Beach (POLB) announced their joint Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) three years ago this month, they pledged to work closely together to clean up the air at both ports, with strong messages of support from the mayors of both cities. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa struck an optimistic note, focusing on economic growth, while Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster struck a tougher tone, saying, "The costs of these [environmental] impacts are already in the system, but the wrong people are paying them,"
But when they finally got around to approving programs to deal trucks-following months of consultations with stakeholder groups-the two port plans diverged sharply, despite rhetoric to the contrary...and it was the LA plan that most aggressively sought to clean up the air, and shift the costs to where they belonged by requiring port truckers to be employees of truck companies that would bear the costs, while POLB did not.
One reason for the difference was the threat of lawsuits from the American Trucking Association (ATA), but ATA sued Long Beach anyway, along with POLA. Now the ports have diverged even more dramatically. On October 19, Long Beach caught everyone by surprise-especially community members and groups involved in crafting the initial plan-by settling the lawsuit out of court. Those involved as stakeholders were outraged by POLB's secret backroom settlement, and lack of accountability to those it loudly pledged to protect. "The Port of Long Beach violated the public trust and sold out the citizens of Long Beach by approving a worthless settlement agreement with the American Trucking Association in their lawsuit against the Los Angeles ports' clean trucks programs," said David Pettit, a senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). who had worked with both ports on the lawsuit.
The economic stimulus package has tackled some of the most pressing job-related issues facing our communities. However, with national unemployment at over 10% for the first time since the early 1980s, we have to make sure recovery monies are spent in communities who need help the most. We have a better chance of achieving success in these areas if we come together to ensure that our most vulnerable communities, including communities of color, immigrants, and the poor, can participate in and contribute to our economic growth.
Over the next few months, The Opportunity Agenda will be highlighting the progress that a number of community groups have had in dealing with the economic recovery. Specifically, we will be highlighting the successes and challenges that these groups have had in accessing stimulus funds, how those funds have been used to increase job opportunities and ensure economic security, and what the economic recovery package has meant for poor communities and communities of color.
As an organization working to ensure equal opportunity in the economic recovery, we have begun interviewing local and state-level groups to gain a better understanding of how our country is faring during this critical period. Today’s post centers on the our interview with Sondra Youdelman and Henry Serrano, focusing on their work with Community Voices Heard (CVH), a membership organization working to build power for low-income families in the state of New York. Sondra is the Executive Director of CVH, and Henry is their Senior Organizer/Voter Engagement Project Coordinator.
During these trying economic times, CVH has been lucky enough to achieve success by taking advantage of stimulus funding opportunities and grassroots activism. Recently, CVH won $25 million in new resources for subsidized employment, partly through regular Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) contingency money. In addition, CVH has been extremely proactive in assuring proper oversight and monitoring of public housing capital funds, specifically in the enforcement of Section 3 provisions of the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act. The Opportunity Agenda interviewed Sondra and Henry together on October 21, 2009. Here are some portions of that interview:
The story in this diary picks up on two aspects of my diary yesterday, "Renormalizing The Wal-Mart World". First, it's snapshot of one of the low-wage spinoffs from the world that Wal-Mart has helped shape. And second, it's directly about one of the three themes discussed within the diary, "Part 3: Dignity-The Ultimate Cost Of Low Prices". Republished from the current edition of Random Lengths News.
The Long Haul: Organizing Port Truckers
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor
"I will die tomorrow if today we can form a union. I will be a happy man," said Oscar Ruiz, Teamster organizer for the ports of LA and Long Beach. It's spoken with all the intensity of a man who has lived the life of hardship of those he is struggling to organize.
Ruiz has a life story common to many port truckers. "I'm an immigrant born in Guatemala. I came to this country when I was around 12 years old," he said. "I went to junior high school and high school." It was more education than some port drivers, but not uncommon.
"I learned to drive a truck from my brother. He was a port driver. I became a port driver when I was 18."
That was 1986. Six years after the 1980 Motor Carrier Act changed port trucking forever. The act was supposed to be a progressive piece of legislation, as explained in a recent report from Demos (a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization) titled "Port Trucking Down The Low Road: A Sad Story of Deregulation," by David Bensman of Rutgers University.
"The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 was hailed by liberals and the business community alike as a triumph of policy reform," Bensman wrote. "Senator Kennedy and Ralph Nader led the reformers who charged that trucking regulation meant high rates for consumers, and monopoly profits for businesses. Large shippers lobbied Congress for an end to the rate setting and route planning which limited competition and drove up the cost of freight transport. Civil Rights organizations organizations argued that deregulation would lower barriers that impeded African Americans from gaining a just share of decent trucking jobs." Yet, Bensman wrote, "Despite these high hopes, deregulation has wrecked the drayage industry."
Ruiz came to work in that wreckage, and stayed there 14 years, through four wildcat strikes, working for dozens of different companies, always looking for one that would treat him with dignity and respect. "I never found it," Ruiz said. Blackballed for his activism, he found a union job offport, but always tried to get assignments that let him pass through the port vicinity, and stay in touch with things. Three years ago, he became a port organizer.
As Obama’s first 100 days draw to a close, new research shows that addressing today’s economic crisis will require reinvesting in a bedrock American principle: Opportunity. The State of Opportunity, released last week by The Opportunity Agenda, measures our nation’s progress in ensuring that all Americans, and our nation as a whole, have a fair chance to achieve their full potential. The results are sobering.
Drawing on a large body of government data, the report charts opportunity on a range of indicators—economic security and mobility, equal access, democratic voice, the chance to start over after missteps or misfortune, and a coherent sense of community—across a variety of sectors—from employment to education to housing to criminal justice and beyond. Because the most recent year for which most government data is available is 2007, the report provides a unique picture of opportunity just before today’s crisis took hold.
It shows that Opportunity was both highly uneven and highly unequal for millions of Americans before the recession that began in December of 2007. Over 37 million Americans—12.5% of our nation’s population—were living in poverty in 2007, while the rates for Latinos and African Americans were a staggering 21.5% and 24.5%, respectively. Almost 11% of full-time workers were already living in poverty that year.
Significant gender and racial wage gaps existed in 2007, with women making just 78.2% of men’s median wages, and women with a college degree earning just 65.2% of the wages made by equally-educated men. Latinos earned just 72.6% of the white median wage, and African Americans earned 75.2%. Latina women earned just 58.7% of all men. Overall, the richest 20% of Americans earned almost half (47.3%) of all income in the country, and the richest 5% earned 20.1%.
The Opportunity Agenda is pleased to announce the release of our 2009 State of Opportunity in America report. The report documents America’s progress in protecting opportunity for everyone who lives here, and finds that access to full and equal opportunity is still very much a mixed reality.
By analyzing government data across a range of indicators, this update of our 2006 and 2007 reports assesses our progress in attaining opportunity for our nation as a whole, as well as for different groups within our society. The report paints a vivid picture of opportunity at the dawn of the current economic crisis. But even before the downturn, different American communities experienced starkly different levels of opportunity. The nation has made great strides in increasing opportunity in some areas and for some communities, but many groups of Americans are being left behind in ways that hard work and personal achievement alone cannot address.
These past few years have seen an economy in turmoil, impaired financial mobility, marginal prospects for educational advancement, and a broken health care system. These conditions thwart the nation as a whole as it strives to be a land of opportunity for the 21st Century. At the same time, women, people of color, and moderate- and lower-income individuals and families are being hardest hit and left behind as they face multiple barriers to opportunity.
These barriers are a problem not only for individuals and families, but also for our economy and nation as a whole. They also present an opportunity. Addressing them now would translate to thousands more college graduates prepared for a 21st Century global economy, millions of healthier children in stronger communities, higher wages and greater productivity for American workers, far fewer mortgage defaults and bankruptcies, and far less strain on our social services and justice system. Conversely, the areas of improved opportunity revealed by our analysis represent a foundation and lessons on which to build as the nation works to restore the American dream for everyone who lives here.
If California's non-voters made their voices heard, state policies could be dramatically reoriented in a more progressive direction, according to a new report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), "California's Exclusive Electorate," written by PPIC research director Mark Baldassare.
California's electorate is significantly whiter, older, wealthier, and more educated than the population at large. "As its population has become more diverse, its voters have become less representative of that population," the report, notes. "And the difference between voters and nonvoters is especially stark in attitudes toward government's role; elected officials; and many social issues, policies, and programs."
For example:
• Governor Schwarzenegger's reelection chances would plummet. In May 2006, non-voters disapproved far more sharply (61-21 percent) than likely voters (48-42 percent).
• The $3 billion affordable housing bond (Prop 1C) could easily pass: 80 percent of nonvoters support it, versus 49 percent of likely voters in a May poll.
• California could have bigger government and higher taxes: Nonvoters prefer higher taxes/more services to lower taxes/fewer services by a 66-26 percent margin, compared to 49-44 percent among voters.
The correlations revealed in the report reflect larger relationships observed across time and geographical boundaries. A 2001 paper from the Brookings Institute, "Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?" found a direct correlation between welfare state spending and the size of minority populations-the more minorities, the lower the levels of spending. This held true both internationally (comparing more then 60 different countries) and nationally (comparing all 50 states).
The broader pattern this report fit into strongtly indicates that similar sorts of results would be found all across America: if non-voters became voters, the political status quo could change dramatically. That's the number one reason that GOP hates and fears ACORN and Project Vote.
STATE BLOGS
