Author: Data and Research Manager

Bargaining for the American Dream

346497_origThe following article was written by Richard Freeman, Eunice Han, David Madland and Brendan Duke for the Center for American Progress and was posted on September 9, 2015:

What Unions do for Mobility

Upward mobility and opportunity are the definition of the American dream. But today, the nation has less mobility and fewer opportunities when compared to other advanced economies. Research by economists Raj Chetty of Stanford University, Nathaniel Hendren of Harvard University and Patrick Kline and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, show that five factors have the strongest geographical relationship—positive or negative—with mobility: single motherhood rates, income inequality, high school dropout rates, social capital, and segregation. This report examines the relationship between mobility and another variable that Chetty and his co-authors did not consider: union membership.

Based on the research for this report, it is clear that there is a strong relationship between union membership and intergenerational mobility. More specifically: Areas with higher union membership demonstrate more mobility for low-income children. Furthermore, the relationship is at least as strong as the relationship between mobility and high school dropout rates—a factor that is generally recognized as one of the most important correlates of economic mobility.

Learn more about what unions do for economic mobility.

Watch the event featuring Richard Freeman, Lawrence H. Summers, David Madland, and Neera Tanden.

You can view the original post here.

The GOP Needs a Lesson on Women’s Equality Day

classroomOn Aug. 26, the Democratic Party celebrated Women’s Equality Day. Ninety five years ago, women won the right to vote, guaranteeing them one of the most basic rights available to an American citizen. 

While Democrats are fighting to protect women’s rights every day, it occurs to us that the GOP presidential candidates are in serious need of a lesson on women’s equality. When it comes to paid leave, equal pay, women’s health, and the importance of raising the minimum wage, the GOP candidates don’t have a clue! 

So as a favor to anyone who has the chance to school these candidates on equal rights, we hope you find the following lesson plan helpful. 

TITLE: Women’s Equality 101 

OBJECTIVES: To teach the GOP presidential candidates the importance of women’s equality; to correct policy positions that will take women backwards 

STUDENTS: Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry 

BASE KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT: Minimal  

MISCONCEPTIONS OF SUBJECT: Candidates lack understanding of the following:

View the rest of this post here.

Rep. Daudt’s Flip Flop on Remodeling Money

Flipo FlopsPatrick Condon with the StarTribune published an article in the August 25, 2015 issue of that paper titled “Speaker says additional Capitol restoration money he sought should be spent where it’s most needed”.  In it, Mr. Condon details Rep. Daudt’s comments at the State Capitol Preservation Commission meeting.  Even with a written e-mail chain showing the money request for the House Majority Caucus space upgrades came from his office.

Sounds like a pretty visual and loud flip flop to us.

You can read the original article here.

Speaker Daudt Cannot be Trusted

08.21.15.daudtleftThis week Minnesotans learned that Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt lobbied for $2 million in furniture for the Minnesota Capitol, including $10,000 for a door for his new “Speaker’s suite.”

“Daudt couldn’t find $30,000 to help Minnesota’s deaf children, but he wants to turn our Capitol restoration into his personal version of HGTV’s ‘Property Brothers’ using taxpayer dollars,” said DFL Chairman Ken Martin.

Once again Daudt has shown he cannot be trusted, Martin said. Daudt promised to rein in government spending, but in addition to his $10,000 door voted for the largest budget in state history. Daudt promised to make rural communities a priority, and then zeroed out funding to expand broadband. Daudt promised to fix our roads and bridges but did nothing to make this a reality.

“Minnesotans deserve a leader who will be responsible with state resources and take the steps to grow Minnesota’s economy and open the doors of success to everyone.”

House GOP Upped Budget for Capitol Furniture $2 Million

Ornate DoorThe Democrats are the party of spending taxpayers money according to the Republicans, right?  Not really.  Especially if you think you’re keeping the spending on the down low, it seems.

In this year’s legislative session, the House Republicans “quietly pushed to bump up the furnishings allocation by $2 million, or 45 percent.” the Associated Press reports.  In addition to more “historically compatible furniture in spaces, higher-end upholstery, refinished hardwood flooring rather than carpet in leadership offices” there’s that $10,000 for a door on House Speaker Daudt’s office suite. (That must be some door.)

Speaker Daudt’s position is this is “to take it back as close to 1905 as we could.” If that’s the case, why did they bury the increase in a borrowing plan that “emerged just days before it was voted on in a June special session”?

As WCCO reported:

“Emails and other agency documents obtained under a government records request the AP made in late June reflect how top aides for Daudt approached state officials about going beyond the original scope. In response, the officials prepared estimates: $1 million to go from mid-range to high-end seating in committee rooms and other parts of the Capitol; $20,312 to refinish oak floors in four leadership offices rather than laying down carpet; and $10,033 for the door and custom hardware.

While the estimates were discussed internally, agency officials spoke in broader terms about $1.3 million in extra costs for upgraded features. Daudt said the GOP opted to set aside $2 million in case bids come in higher. “If we don’t need it, we don’t need it,” he said.

By comparison, the construction budget for the new Senate Office Building — a major priority of Bakk’s — projects about $4.6 million will be spent on desks, tables, chairs and other furniture and fixtures. Senators will move in early next year.”

The Phony, Unprincipled War On Planned Parenthood

The following appears on the NationalMemo.com website and is by Mary Sanchez. You can find a link to the original article below.

Planned Parenthood LogoWith one careless comment, Jeb Bush revealed a fundamentally indifferent attitude toward half the U.S. electorate.

“I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,” he said in a speech at the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

It was a throwaway aside in a longer blather about defunding Planned Parenthood, and one imagines that no sooner were the words out of his mouth than his cringing consultants were drafting a clarification.

The inevitable statement soon followed, admitting he “misspoke” and adding that “there are countless community health centers, rural clinics and other women’s health organizations that need to be fully funded.”

Too late. The game was on. Hillary Clinton blasted back, “When you attack women’s health, you attack America’s health.”

I don’t believe Bush misspoke. There’s something about abortion he wishes to ignore: Abortion is a women’s health issue. You cannot separate abortion from this context.

Oppose it or not — and I do — abortion is a medical procedure that ends an unwanted or health-threatening pregnancy. If we want to encourage the trend toward decreasing numbers of abortions in this country — and no one in their right mind wants to see more of them — we need to bolster women’s reproductive health services. That means Continue reading “The Phony, Unprincipled War On Planned Parenthood”

Health care law hasn’t dented hiring or hours, as critics predicted.

Well, looks light the fear mongering on the right was (yet again) unfounded. The following by Max Ehrenfreund of the Washington Post appeared in the August 13, 2015, StarTribune:

by Kevin LaMarque
by Kevin LaMarque

President Obama’s health care overhaul hasn’t meant less time on the job for workers, according to three newly published studies that challenge one of the main arguments raised by critics of the Affordable Care Act.

One provision requires businesses with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance to those working at least 30 hours a week.

Republicans, and some Democrats, worried that employers would look for ways to get around the mandate, either by giving their employees fewer than 30 hours, or by hiring fewer people.

So far, though, researchers say employers have not changed how they hire and schedule their workers.

“There really hasn’t been nearly the change that some people were expecting,” said Chris Ryan of the payroll-management firm ADP.

ADP analysts studied the payrolls of clients, about 75,000 firms and organizations. They found no overall change in employees’ weekly schedules between 2013 and 2014.

According to ADP’s analysis, scheduling shifts were trivial in every economic sector, even in industries that rely heavily on part-time work.

ADP’s findings were confirmed in another study by Aparna Mathur and Sita Nataraj Slavov of George Mason University and Michael Strain of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Their paper, published this month in the journal Applied Economics Letters, used data from the federal Current Population Survey and finds no statistically significant change in the proportion of part-time workers in the sectors most likely to be affected by the law.

An analysis by Bowen Garrett and Robert Kaestner of the Urban Institute reached largely the same conclusions.

Your can read the original post here.

What capitalism has to fear from inequality

100 BillsThe following commentary written by Peter Georgescu appeared in the August 12, 2015, issue of the StarTribune. A link to the online posting follows.

Businesses need to realize that investment in their employees is investment in their own futures. Here’s the plan.

While so many people are struggling, even those on the higher end of the middle class have relatively little after paying the bills: on average, some $1,300 a month. One leaky roof and they’re in trouble.

If inequality is not addressed, the income gap will most likely be resolved in one of two ways: by major social unrest or through oppressive taxes, such as the 80 percent tax rate on income over $500,000 suggested by Thomas Piketty, the French economist and author of the bestselling book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”

We are creating a caste system from which it’s almost impossible to escape, except for the few with exceptional brains, athletic skills or luck. That’s why I’m scared. We risk losing the capitalist engine that brought us great economic success and our way of life.

Continue reading “What capitalism has to fear from inequality”

How Planned Parenthood actually uses its federal funding

Planned Parenthood LogoThere’s been a lot of coverage of Planned Parenthood recently.  (And, once again, operatives on the Right have been caught editing video to skew what someone says.  So much for any kind of values.)  Below is an article by Janell Ross from the Washington Post published August 4, 2015, that talks about how federal funds are used by this organization:

The long-running calls for the federal government to cease all funding directed toward Planned Parenthood have once again come to the fore. This time, a congressional vote and debate took shape after an anti-abortion group secretly recorded a series of videos with the organization’s medical officers and staff speaking dispassionately — some would say dismissively — about the work of extracting fetal tissue from aborted fetuses and and transferring it to research facilities.

And even though the defund Planned Parenthood fight on the Senate floor didn’t move the needle — in terms of actual impacts on funding — it did bring to the fore some important facts about how much federal money goes to the group, and what it’s used for.

Those federal dollars were the single largest source of money coming into the organization and its local affiliates, by far. Another $305.3 million came from nongovernment sources, about $257.4 million reached the organization after private donors and foundations made contributions and bequests. The organization also raised another $54.7 million in fees charged for its services. So, government funding — with federal dollars comprising the biggest portion of this part of the organization’s budget — are absolutely critical to Planned Parenthood’s total operation.

Planned Parenthood Graph 1

But, it’s important to note that federal dollars are not used to provide the service at the center of the political debate around Planned Parenthood: abortions. That’s been banned by law in almost all cases since 1976. (The details of the ban have shifted over time.) Instead, the organization uses money from other sources — private donors and foundations as well as fees — to fund its abortion services. Continue reading “How Planned Parenthood actually uses its federal funding”