Drum Major Institute Blog

Join us tomorrow for a lively conversation with Martin Luther...

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:02:12 -0400

Join us tomorrow for a lively conversation with Martin Luther King III, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Dr. Delores Jones Brown, Professor and Director of John Jay College Center on Race, Crime and Justice and former NYPD officer and John Jay Lecturer Eugene O’Donnell.

All The Wrong Food In All The Wrong Places

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:47:49 -0400

Liz Lamoste

It’s fairly obvious that the city of Detroit has a whole host of pressing problems to solve. The Governor, Mayor, and City Council just entered into a consent agreement to help keep the city afloat financially, and are now sorting out core governance issues. Despite a small drop last month, Detroit’s unemployment rate is 17.8% in comparison to the national 8.2% rate. Indeed, Detroit has a bad reputation that carries throughout the country.

Though Detroit residents are working hard to improve the city while highlighting the city’s positive features and redeeming qualities, we still need to have an honest conversation about which problems to address, in what order, and to what degree. To start, I think Detroit needs to tackle food insecurity and vacant land issues; the growing urban agriculture movement can mitigate these problems and help empower communities throughout the city.

Food Insecurity: The US Department of Agriculture defines food insecurity as households that lack consistent access to adequate food for active, healthy lives. In 2010, the Detroit Food Policy Council estimated that Detroit’s food insecurity rate was at least 30%, compared to the11% national average. The problem isn’t just that people in Detroit don’t have enough food to eat. The Fair Food Network published a case study on access to food in Detroit, which identified several additional problems: lack of healthy and affordable food and retailers, neighborhood safety, and environmental contamination. Some interviewees also mentioned racial tensions, as some “African American residents say that food quality, service, and condition of their neighborhood stores are unacceptable, and feel disrespected by the store owners, who are often from different racial and ethnic backgrounds and live outside their neighborhoods.”

Vacant Land: At its core, Detroit is too big for its population, and the city needs to adapt in order to survive. Detroit officials and other stakeholders have been talking about “right-sizing” the city over the past few years, and the Detroit Works Project is a city initiative that is trying to figure out just what to do with this space. While these conversations will likely remain controversial, prompt and thoughtful action is necessary, and in this case proof is in the statistics. By area, Detroit is about 138 square miles. From 2000 to 2010, Detroit’s population declined by 25% and is now about 713,000. According to the Detroit Residential Parcel Survey data, about 581 of the city’s 3116 miles of highways and streets front vacant lots. And, 10,683 of the city’s 32,913 blocks are made up of at least 25% vacant lots. The costs of maintaining this lack of land use are too high for the city to bear.

Last month, the University of Michigan Food Stamp Advocacy Project organized a panel that asked whether urban agriculture/urban farming can help put vacant land to good use and promote food security. First, Professor Alicia Alvarez, director of the Community & Economic Development Clinic (CEDC), which provides legal support to community-based nonprofit organizations in Detroit, discussed how her work supporting community-based organizations engaged in urban agriculture has made her believe that urban agriculture can positively impact the city.

The next speaker, Professor John Mogk of Wayne State University Law School argued that urban agriculture is a great opportunity to productively use otherwise vacant land to help support communities through providing access to healthy foods, fostering community development through improving neighborhoods, and reducing crime.

Finally, Executive Director of the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network Malik Yakini emphasized the importance of undoing racism in the Detroit food system by “rejecting the missionary attitude of whites who come into our communities, via grant funded nonprofits, to lead us to the urban agricultural promised land.” He also pointed out that urban agriculture can be used to connect more Detroiters to affordable, healthy, and delicious food. Mr. Yakini’s group advances urban agriculture by running the D-Town farm, supporting food justice activism, and engaging in policy advocacy projects.

The panelists both contend that city officials need to work with community groups and other stakeholders to address the operational, legislative, and regulatory challenges currently facing urban agriculture in Detroit. This point left me with a host of critical questions about what city and community collaboration would look like and achieve. For example, if the city is “right-sizing” and is going to end up rezoning several different neighborhoods, what does that mean for up and coming farms? Also, how much urban agriculture does the city want within city limits? How will Detroit deal with the Michigan Right to Farm Act, which in many respects leaves Detroit powerless to regulate commercial farming.

While there need to be more discussions about the mechanics and vision(s) for urban agriculture in the city, the punch line was that if city officials and communities work together, urban agriculture can be an opportunity to reduce food insecurity, empower communities, and put otherwise vacant land to productive use. I agree entirely.

Liz Lamoste is a second-year student at the University of Michigan Law School, a native of Suburban Detroit, and a 2009 DMI Scholar. She is a board member of the Michigan Universal Health Care Access Network (MichUHCAN) and an outgoing co-chair of the Food Stamp Advocacy Project (FSAP). You can contact her at elamoste@umich.edu or follow her on twitter @LizLamoste.

Testimony for the New York City Council: Traffic Safety and Enforcement

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:33:00 -0500

This afternoon, I had the opportunity to testify in front of a joint hearing of the Transportation and Public Safety committees.

Proceeding with Caution – An Examination of NYPD’s accident response and enforcement of traffic rules relating to cars, bikes, and trucks

Testimony: John Petro, Policy Analyst for Urban Affairs
Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
February 15th, 2012

My name is John Petro, and I am a policy analyst with the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. About 16 months ago, I began researching the subject of traffic safety in New York City and published my results last June in a report called Vision Zero: How Safer Streets in New York City Can Save More Than 100 Lives a Year.

Saving over 100 lives a year is something that I think everyone in this room can support. But for some reason, we seem to accept traffic fatalities as something inevitable, something that we as citizens or as policymakers cannot control. But this is not true. Other cities have cut traffic fatalities in half—some in as little as six years. I’ve found that there are proven methods to reduce them, to stop the needless death and pain, and to eliminate this very serious threat to public safety. Cutting fatalities in half is an important goal: that’s how we can save over 100 lives a year.

Traffic crashes are a very serious threat to public safety. It is the number one cause of injury-related death among children under 14 and the number two cause of injury-related death among New Yorkers of all ages. In fact, traffic crashes pose the same level of threat to public safety as gun murders. Over the past ten years more traffic-related incidents have been recorded as the cause of death by the New York City Department of Health than firearm-related homicides.

Every 35 hours, one New Yorker is killed in a traffic incident. In other words, they were killed while simply trying to get from point A to point B.

All of us in this room are responsible for whether or not traffic incidents occur—we all use the city streets in one way or another. But those that engage in dangerous driving are especially responsible. In New York City, speeding is the number one cause of fatal traffic crashes.

Policymakers are also responsible for whether or not traffic fatalities occur on the scale that they do. There are proven methods to reduce traffic fatalities in urban areas. Most seek to ensure that motorists don’t exceed 30 miles per hour. Where pedestrians and bicyclists are present, keep automobile speeds between 20 and 30 miles per hour and your fatality rates will drop.

That’s why bike lanes reduce fatalities. They tend to prevent drivers from speeding. That’s why widening sidewalks at intersections works: they cause drivers to slow down to legal speeds, to observe pedestrians and others as they make a turn. These methods have proven to work in academic studies and in journals of medicine and injury-prevention in the cities that have tried them.

That’s why these policies should have the broad support of the elected officials in city government: they save lives.

Cities that have widely adopted 20 mph zones have seen traffic fatalities drop. Berlin in Germany—the home of the Autobahn—has converted 70 percent of its road network to 20 mph zones. It also has a traffic fatality rate half of New York’s. This is where the report gets its name: if New York had the same traffic fatality rate as Berlin, Paris, or Tokyo we’d save over 100 lives a year.

The enforcement of traffic rules is also critical for the prevention of traffic fatalities. Most fatal crashes are not just accidents—drivers often choose to engage in risky behavior like speeding that contribute to fatal crashes. However, without the expectation that traffic laws will be enforced, they will routinely be broken. For example, one study of 13 city intersections found that 39 percent of the drivers were speeding.

One effective enforcement method is the use of speed cameras, which have been proven to reduce speeding, crashes, and injuries. Cameras are especially beneficial when you consider that they use few police resources—officers are not diverted from other tasks. Speed detectors—especially mobile units because otherwise drivers simply learn the location of fixed cameras—give drivers the expectation that enforcement may occur anywhere and at any time.

What else could the NYPD be doing to help reduce traffic fatalities? The department could focus on reducing the incidence of dangerous speeding by setting benchmarks and targets. For instance, the NYPD could work with the Department of Transportation to set targets to reduce the number of drivers that exceed the speed limit by more than ten miles per hour: a reduction by 50 percent over five years, for example.

More generally, traffic crashes need to be treated with the same seriousness as other incidents that cause injury and death. For example, the difference between the investigations into the elevator incident from last December—in which a woman was killed—and the traffic crash that killed Mathieu Lefevre could not be more different. In the case of the elevator incident, the city’s response was swift and firm: the Department of Buildings quickly inspected all 650 elevators owned or maintained by the company involved, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office also launched a criminal investigation into the botched maintenance work. It was a horrible incident necessary of a thorough investigation.

The question I would like to leave before the committee is this: why are traffic crashes treated much less seriously? Through careful street design, through targeted enforcement, and by changing the culture that accepts traffic death as a part of every day life, we can dramatically reduce the number of fatalities that occur on the city’s streets nearly every day.

Thank you.

Conservative Alternatives to the DREAM Act: New and Hardly Improved

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:28:00 -0500

Afton Branche

In this election season, discussions of immigration reform have been light on serious policy talk and heavy on partisan posturing. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama reiterated his commitment to getting immigration reform done, using strikingly similar language to what he said in past addresses. For their part, Republican presidential hopefuls have been committed to spending more money at the border and rejecting any comprehensive immigration reforms. But when the right has presented fresh ideas on immigration, they seem to be motivated by restrictionist ideology rather than a consideration of common sense.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts ruffled feathers recently with his strange and inhumane idea that out of status immigrants “self-deport” back to their home countries; fellow frontrunner Gingrich quickly attacked this unrealistic policy. But Romney’s most alienating statement on immigration so far was his stunning promise to Iowa caucus audiences that he would veto the DREAM Act.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, aka the DREAM Act, would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as children, provided that they graduate from high school and attend college for two years or serve in the military. This legislation has been around for a little over ten years; in December 2010, the DREAM Act passed the House, but failed in the Senate.

Opponents to the bill frequently claimed that DREAM Act eligible immigrants, once legalized, would be able to petition on behalf of their undocumented parents, resulting in massive “chain migration.” It is true that naturalized citizens can petition for residence for their parents; but under the Act, applicants must wait a minimum of thirteen years before even becoming eligible for citizenship. Even then, the fact is that it’s very difficult for relatives already living illegally in the US to become permanent residents through this process. The DREAM Act is hardly the open door to citizenship that opponents claim it to be.

The most troubling line of reasoning against the DREAM Act is based on the idea that undocumented youth and young people are somehow the “other” and that this policy only benefits a special interest group. With legal status, conservative opponents say, these individuals will steal jobs and take spots in colleges that should otherwise be reserved for real Americans. But DREAM Act beneficiaries have grown up in America, speaking English and attending our public schools; despite their origins, these young folks are hardly “aliens.”

And providing a path to legal status for these residents will empower them to give back to our economy and society. According to a new UCLA study, the DREAM Act could yield a whopping $3.6 trillion in economic output over the next forty years; with legal status and the incentive to continue their education, immigrants can get better jobs and contribute much more to our economy. The DREAM Act would enable immigrant youth to start businesses, pay income taxes, and buy more consumer goods; clearly these positive outcomes won’t just pay off for special interest groups.

Thanks in part to the efforts of immigration advocates and youth activists, the 2010 defeat of the DREAM Act was hardly the end. During this election cycle, Republican candidates and conservative voices on immigration have been speaking out against the current iteration of the bill, and suggesting radical ways to improve it.

In an op-ed for The Hill, Robert Gittelson of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposes a “conservative alternative to the DREAM Act.” To avoid the possibility of a “back-door amnesty” to undocumented parents of eligible children, Gittelson suggests changing the “Democratic version of the DREAM Act” so that beneficiaries would only be allowed to stay in the country as non-immigrants or guest workers. In this way, there is no way for newly legalized immigrants to sponsor anyone for residence. In the beginning of the piece, Gittelson agrees that children of immigrants deserve compassion. Then why limit their options just to appease chain migration alarmists? The fact that DREAM Act beneficiaries may someday be able to sponsor their parents in the future does not warrant consigning them to an inappropriate immigration status today.

Someone who has gone to American high school and speaks English should absolutely not be classified as a guest worker. The endemic problems of our guest worker programs are well documented; in short, these programs leave immigrant workers open to labor exploitation and degrade labor standards that all workers rely on. We should not expand this system without reform. Further, classifying DREAM Act beneficiaries as “non-immigrants” obviously goes against the spirit of the program. The non-immigrant program is for international visitors coming to the U.S. temporarily, a large category that includes fashion models and au pairs, but should not include DREAM Act beneficiaries. There is nothing temporary about migrating to the U.S. as a teenager, learning English, and marrying a U.S. citizen.

Gittelson also suggests lowering the qualifying age for the bill from 35 years old as a way to trim the potential pool of candidates. (This is despite a recent study that finds only 825,000 individuals would realistically be eligible for legalization under the bill.) If we agree that someone brought to the U.S. as a minor who has gotten an education and stayed out of trouble should be allowed to legalize, then lowering the age limit to exclude a 35 year old who meets these requirements seems arbitrary.

The worst “amendment” to the DREAM Act by far would allow undocumented youth to get on the path to citizenship only through military service. Gittelson’s op-ed also endorses this plan, while Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have come out in support of the bill. The idea that we only offer citizenship to undocumented students willing to serve and potentially sacrifice their lives in the military but not those who want to further their education is ridiculous, and some say racist. To undocumented youth, the message is clear: America doesn’t want you to be an educated citizen, but will let you sacrifice your life to be a veteran citizen.

I understand the need to tweak the DREAM Act and improve its chances, but this is not the right way to do it. Would-be lawmakers and their advisors should come up with a solution to ensure the DREAM Act only covers intended beneficiaries without resorting to needless restrictions. At the end of the day, it’s hard to believe the existing policy is the problem, and easier to think that politics as usual has gotten in the way of a successful DREAM Act.

End the Culture of Accepting Traffic Deaths

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:46:00 -0500

Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein

In December, a horrific elevator accident killed a young executive named Suzanne Hart in Midtown Manhattan. The city’s response was swift and firm: the Department of Buildings quickly inspected all 650 elevators owned or maintained by the company involved, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office also launched a criminal investigation into the botched maintenance work.It was a horrible incident necessary of a thorough investigation.

Two months earlier, another horrible incident resulted in the death of a young New Yorker. However, the difference between the city’s responses to both incidents is stark and shocking.

In October, Mathieu Lefevre was struck and killed by a truck while commuting home on his bicycle in an industrial part of East Williamsburg. The truck driver left the scene.

The NYPD tracked down the driver that struck Lefevre a few days later, the truck having been found parked a few blocks away. The driver claimed he never felt the collision and was unaware that the incident took place.

No charges were filed against the driver and the NYPD brought the investigation to a close, falsely concluding with the notion that Lefevre had run a red light.

It wasn’t until after being threatened with a lawsuit by the victim’s family that the NYPD released the file of the investigation. This is when certain facts of the incident became known: investigating officers were unable to take pictures of the incident because of a faulty camera (no camera phones, I suppose); and video footage from a private security camera captured the incident, showing that the truck driver struck Leferve while making a right hand turn without signaling. This video proved that Lefevre did not run a red light and makes it difficult to believe that the driver was unaware that the collision took place.

But one especially eerie detail stands out: the NYPD had taken pictures of the victim’s family while attending a rally in support of better enforcement of traffic laws. It was in the file.

Why was the city’s response to these two tragedies so different? There is a general culture that simply accepts traffic deaths as a way of life; this is a culture of acceptance. Traffic deaths are, after all, common. One New Yorker dies roughly every 35 hours in a traffic incident.

But traffic deaths are entirely preventable with careful street designs, such as bike lanes and other safety-enhancing measures implemented by the city’s transportation commissioner, Jannette Sadik-Kahn. Instead, elected officials and opinion pages generally deride her and her policies.

The City Council enacts legislation to add roadblocks to new bike lanes, bizarrely claim they hurt business, and take stabs at Sadik-Kahn. But these same elected officials do not think about the massive scale of traffic violence: about 300 killed a year and another three thousand seriously injured.

Other cities have cut their traffic fatality rates to one-half that of New York City. This means over one hundred lives a year in human terms. Only when we stop accepting traffic deaths as a fact of life and begin to treat them more like the elevator incident will we stop the violence that claims so many every year.

Everyone needs to show leadership to end the plague of violence on our roads. The Mayor needs to show zero tolerance for traffic fatalities and ensure that city agencies do the same. The Transportation Department under Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan is already reducing speed limits in neighborhoods like Claremont in the Bronx and Park Slope in Brooklyn, a move proven to reduce traffic deaths but the entire city could benefit from less speeding. NYPD needs to crack down on dangerous driving like what killed Mathieu Lefevre, but it’s not just dangerous drivers who are at fault. Felix Salmon points to studies finding that 2/3rds of bike accidents happen because of unsafe cycling and safer biking would surely keep people alive. Moreover, responsibility does not rest merely with city government. Community boards and neighborhood groups should not sit back and watch pedestrians and cyclists die on their streets. And everyone has a responsibility to use the streets safely and make sure friends and neighbors do too.

In some ways, we are at the beginning of a shift similar to the movement to prevent drunk driving, which Barron Lerner recounts in One for the Road. They faced a similar misperception that drunk driving was inevitable and accidental, rather than a conscious choice to drink and drive. Changing behavior and government policy reduced drunk driving and keeps people alive. We are similarly positioned to make giant leaps in reducing traffic deaths, if we take up on the duty to do so.

Taxes and the Pig--A Christmas Story

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:13:00 -0500

Daniel Wu

“This year’s the first year I’ll be making enough to pay taxes,” I thought to myself on Christmas morning, pontificating about how I’ll be spending over half of my measly graduate student stipend on Boston’s crazy rent. As I slipped into the living room for breakfast, my mom hugged me and told me again how happy she was that I was home for the holidays. Then she handed me a card. On the cover was a pig wearing a Santa hat that anthropocentrically smiled at me.

“Why don’t you have to pay taxes?” I grumbled to myself. “You’re just a stupid pig.”

But the pig’s smug smile made me think. As someone who values thrift and accountability, and whose family is struggling in the recession, I felt the hesitation that comes along with sending a portion of my hard-earned cash to Uncle Sam. I had little faith that it was going to priorities I felt were important. For instance, over 50% of my tax dollars go to paying interest on military debt and wars across the world, which is triple the combined amount of Russia, China, and the so-called Axis of Evil. I could only imagine towering profits earned by this war-ready industry. To make things worse, due to tax loopholes, well-resourced corporations and people who could afford crafty tax accountants could have a lower tax rate than mine.

To be frank, our current discourse around taxes doesn’t alleviate my apprehension. Most commentators focus on the divide between the rich and everyone else. From the right, commentators repeat the “no new taxes” mantra, while committing social services to liposuction. Want to raise taxes on millionaires? That’s class warfare—not to mention job destruction. From the left, the frame on taxes is a mouthful. Tax cuts for the wealthy contribute to growing inequality. In fact, as Paul Krugman states, the super wealthy do not create jobs, but exacerbate risk “that was mostly borne not by the wheeler-dealers themselves but either by naïve investors or by taxpayers, who ended up holding the bag when it all went wrong.” The wealthy (aka the 1%) prey on the public (aka the 99%). Taxes? It’s justice and redistribution.

But even though I was apprehensive about taxes, as a civic-minded individual, I knew that my tax dollars were a necessary pillar of the American Dream—if and only if they were used appropriately. So, I propose that we talk and think about taxes differently. Instead of focusing only on the divide between the rich and everyone else, we must also ask, “What should we use our taxes for?” Here’s one answer: Our taxes must revitalize our communities and promote the equality of opportunity. We must invest in our cities and neighborhoods; our housing, transit, food and water quality, schools, health, and job innovation. Currently, only a measly 6% of my taxes go to such initiatives. What a shame. I want my money to go into skilled planning and foresight into these priorities.

We are ignoring one of the nation’s largest and most invisible regressive taxes: cost of living. Housing, transit, and food consume 57% of the average American’s income, and 72% if you make less than $50,000. We must find ways to invest our tax dollars that reduces the onerous costs. Public investments in mass transit make transportation more affordable for American families. Investments in affordable—and even public—housing keep housing costs down for everyone by increasing the supply. Many Americans can barely keep up with the monthly bills, not to mention saving for a child’s college education. By making our neighborhoods more affordable and accessible, we can help families invest in themselves.

How do we pay for this investment? Let’s keep the nation’s wealthiest—the supposed “job creators”—honest. Our tax code must link the futures of both the rich and poor. “We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality,” Martin Luther King Jr. once pointed out, “tied together into a single garment of destiny.” It’s time for those that have made tremendous fortunes in the American economy to uphold their tremendous responsibility as our nation’s supposed job creators. Instead of simply raising corporate taxes, I propose we link corporate tax rates to a national job quality index. The index compiles not only unemployment rates, but also its wages, job security, and work-life balance. If the job quality goes down, corporate tax rates go up and vice versa.

Let’s move from if to how. We must put a sound investment into our nation’s future opportunities onto our New Years Resolutions.

States vs. Cities: Immigration Enforcement Policy in 2011

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:00:00 -0500

Afton Branche

Three years into the Obama administration and no comprehensive immigration reform in sight, immigration enforcement policy seems to be going two directions, characterized by smart policymaking at the city level and ill-advised restrictive policies in the states.

This month, legislators in New York and Washington D.C. made it clear that cities don’t have to get in the business of federal immigration enforcement. Yesterday, New York City Mayor Bloomberg signed an important measure limiting the city’s role in federal immigration enforcement. The new law keeps the Department of Corrections from turning over immigrants with no criminal convictions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon their release from local jail, but makes key exceptions for known gang members or those on the terror watch list. Under this legislation, the first of its kind signed into law, local officials will no longer place immigration holds on New Yorkers without criminal histories.

In Washington, all thirteen members of the D.C. Council co-sponsored a bill which prevents the Department of Corrections from detaining suspected undocumented immigrants without current or previous convictions for violent crimes. The measure further stipulates that local jails will release immigrants after 24 hours if ICE officials fail to pick them up—typically, ICE has 48 hours to retrieve immigrants from local custody. Immigrant communities in Washington and New York should feel safer knowing that local law enforcement officers will no longer be doing double duty as ICE agents; so too, should non-immigrants—fewer resources spent on non-criminals necessarily means more resources allocated toward catching criminals and identifying threats to public safety.

Cities shouldn’t participate in enforcing our outdated civil immigration laws, which are enacted and funded at the federal level. Local governments are tasked with upholding public safety and ensuring communities’ trust in city police—there is evidence that civil immigration enforcement undermines both goals. Further, there is little connection between public safety and deporting undocumented immigrants without criminal pasts. And by narrowing the population eligible for jail time, New York and Washington will save millions in jailing and other correctional costs each year.

Across the country, other localities have been taking steps to restrain costly immigration enforcement programs. In Chicago, Illinois, Arlington, Virginia and elsewhere, elected officials have passed resolutions or laws attempting to opt-out of ICE’s controversial Secure Communities program. The fingerprint sharing “partnership” engages local resources in enforcing immigration laws, so that individuals booked for local crimes have their prints automatically forwarded to federal immigration authorities. In practice, this has resulted in thousands of immigrants deported for civil immigration violations, even though they were originally charged with or convicted of for minor crimes like traffic offenses. In addition, a groundbreaking study found that the program sweeps up Latinos in disproportionate numbers, and negatively affects due process for all immigrants apprehended. Despite these concerns, the Obama administration has essentially forbidden localities from exiting the program, and plans to expand Secure Communities nationwide by 2013.

While many cities are crafting smarter policies to mitigate the impact of immigration enforcement, some states are going the other direction, cooking up costly and expansive policies. In 2011, states including South Carolina, Indiana and Alabama have attempted to tighten the screws on immigrants, passing increasingly restrictive and potentially unconstitutional omnibus laws designed to identify, deport and simply drive out undocumented families.

Alabama’s law is the most radical, broadly requiring individuals to show “proof of immigration status for ‘any transaction between a person and the state or a political subdivision of the state.’” The implications of this provision are staggering—citizens could be required to produce papers when signing up for electricity service or garbage pick-up. It also includes language requiring public schools to determine student’s immigration status and barring landlords from knowingly renting to undocumented immigrants. According to Birmingham Mayor William Bell, the new measure “is virtually impossible to enforce.” Indeed, the law goes further than other states’ measures, even Arizona’s infamous SB1070. Beyond the obvious injustice of attempting to drive workers and consumers without papers out of the state, Alabama’s law fails as a sound piece of public policy thanks to its far-reaching unintended consequences.

The legislation allows residents to show driver’s licenses as proof of immigration status; but those with out-of-state licenses or military IDs could be forced to produce other documents when picking up car tags or signing up for membership at the local pool. It’s well known that certain populations, including African-Americans and the elderly, are less likely than the general population to have citizenship documents. Further, in the aftermath of the law, there were reports that immigrant families fled the state. The Center for American Progress found that the resulting labor shortages led to serious negative economic consequences: one farmer lost an estimated $300,000. These and other reported impacts are reportedly forcing Alabama lawmakers to consider “tweaking” the law.

Fortunately, the federal government successfully filed a complaint to halt elements of Alabama’s immigration law, and ultimately the state’s district court prevented key provisions from going into effect. But the fight is far from over: court challenges were filed this year in Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina to turn back similarly restrictive measures.

Politicians will continue to adopt immigration hawk stances and propose backward-thinking laws against the interests of the general populace, while smart policymakers know that it’s best to leave immigration enforcement to the feds. “Cracking down” on immigration won’t decrease unemployment, improve public schools or create safer neighborhoods; it’s time elected officials put aside silver-bullet immigration laws promising otherwise.

DMI Scholars: Training the Next Generation of Policy Leaders

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:47:09 -0500

Apply now to be a DMI Scholar!

DMI Scholars is a “Public Policy 101” for young people who want to keep our country moving forward.The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy created DMI Scholars to identify progressive college activists from underrepresented communities and train them in the skills necessary to obtain and succeed in entry-level public policy positions.

Our two-week Summer Institute for DMI Scholars will be in New York City during Summer 2012. There, Scholars will learn to approach problems through a policy lens and meet people on the frontlines fighting for fair and just public policy. After our intensive summer training, we will help students throughout the year explore careers in this field through internships and follow-up trainings.

With DMI’s network and expertise, DMI Scholars will become the future Legislative Directors, Policy Analysts and Advisors who fuel the progressive movement with new ideas and effective advocacy.

We strongly encourage students of color, immigrant, members of the LGBTQ community and students from low-income and working class backgrounds to apply. All expenses are paid.

Download the application at http://bit.ly/DMIScholars2012. To apply, please send application materials to abranche@drummajorinstitute.org.

Application deadline: January 31, 2012.

Squeezing the 99 Percent

Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:52:00 -0400

Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein

The fabled American Dream suggests that by working hard and playing by the rules, any American may prosper. For the generations born in the 1950s and 1960s, this largely held true. The economy boomed, business prospered, and all Americans shared in the gains—both the richest Americans and those working themselves into the middle class. Children expected to earn more than their parents and, by and large, they did. Times are different now, and this dream has seemingly fallen apart.

Millions of Americans are out of work or are forced to work only part-time. For Americans who are working, they are taking home less and less. Since 1973, incomes for most Americans have stagnated. Just compare the average hourly wage in 1972, $20.06 an hour after factoring in inflation, with today’s average hourly wage of $18.52. Over the same period, corporate profits doubled and CEO pay close to quadrupled.

It’s not just wages. Many employers are cutting health and retirement benefits, squeezing the 99 percent even more. For instance, take Walmart, which posted a profit of over $15 billion last year.

Last week the retail giant announced its plan to slash health benefits for its workers. The company cited “rising costs.” But this was simply a choice made by Walmart’s executives to squeeze more from its workers at a time of sky-high profits. They expect to increase profits this year compared to last year. Class warfare, indeed.

One worker profiled in a story by The New York Times, Tammy Yancey, would now have to pay $127.90 every two weeks to get health care through Walmart, more than double the $53.80 she had been paying. But Ms. Yancey, who makes $9.50 an hour, is barely above the absurdly low poverty line and won’t be able to afford those newly increased premiums.

It’s important to keep in mind that Ms. Yancey isn’t the only person in her situation. About one in six Americans with a job today work in retail and for many of those 24 million Americans, it may be worse. The low wages in this growing industry also drive down wages for every American hoping to find work, regardless of the industry.

Walmart executives would tell you they’re just doing their job—maximizing profits for themselves and shareholders. Free-market stalwart Milton Friedman talked of the responsibility of businesses to maximize their profits “within the rules of the game.” But clearly the rules of the game are no longer fair, and it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the rules are fair. This disconnect is at the heart of the Occupy movement that is growing across the US.

This movement should think beyond Wall Street and financial regulations and consider labor laws like the minimum wage. In today’s dollars, the minimum wage was worth far more from 1960 through 1980, hitting a high of $10.04 in 1968. It should also consider strengthening its relationship with labor unions. It is no coincidence that wage stagnation has happened in conjunction with falling union membership. Strong union membership in the retail sector would certainly help lift wages and help struggling Americans like Ms. Yancey.

Of course, Congressional Republicans would tell you that any effort that stems the flow of wealth to the top one percent would hurt employment. That’s why they oppose President Obama’s jobs bill and its tax increases on millionaires and corporate profits. But this thinking is out of step with Americans on Main Street, who oppose cutting corporate taxes and favor raising taxes on millionaires by a margin of two-to-one. Now that the Occupy movement has gained the nation’s attention, perhaps members of Congress will wake up and take notice.

The Gentrification Spaceship

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:18:00 -0400

Daniel Wu

My friend, John, invited me to visit him in NYC this past weekend. When he told me he lived in East Harlem, I imagined him studying under leaky, lead pipes. But at least, I imagined, he had cheap rent. When I met him in front of his white, square building (We affectionately call it his Gentrification Spaceship), he told me he paid $1000 a month, a “good deal” compared to his student friends next door who paid $1500. His spaceship isn’t cheap, especially since he makes less than $15,000 a year.

A 2009 report by The Center for Urban Future showed that he isn’t alone; NYC is the most expensive metropolitan area in the nation. Take “Bob,” the blue-collar policeman. He’s had at least a decade of experience on the job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bob makes about $60,000 a year. That’s about $20,000 more than the average NYC resident’s income. But, when you consider the costs of food, utilities, rent, and other essentials, that $60,000 in NYC would be equivalent to making $26,000 in Atlanta. This is no surprise when a month of rent on average costs $2,800. Occupy Wall Street made a smart financial decision by sticking to the Zuccotti park benches. I urge Bob to join.

What is more disturbing is that these cost of living trends are not unique to NYC. In 2006, the Center for Housing Policy published a startling report which found that across the United States’ 28 major metropolitan areas —that includes the suburbs— working families spent about 60% of their income on housing and transportation alone. When you add in the cost of food, 75% of the average working family’s income vanishes yearly into gas stations, auto insurance bills, rental checks, mortgage statements, and supermarket receipts. High cost of living is linked to a more pervasive problem.

When examined historically, the immensity of these costs becomes more clear. Take housing. In the late 1970s, during one of the United States’ worst economic recessions, housing costs in New York City were about 3 times the median income. Currently, housing costs represent 7 times the median income. The American dream in New York City is now over twice as expensive.

These exorbitant costs affect everyone: Latinos, Whites, single parents and families, and recent college graduates. When Americans are paying so much for the basic necessities of life, more and more are going bankrupt and less and less are free to invent the next big thing and reach their dreams.

The private sector, our government, and all our local communities must act on this pressing, yet invisible issue. We must urge lenders, developers, and policymakers to create more quality and affordable housing, transit, and food systems. When we do so, we can expand opportunity for all and strengthen the middle class. My next post will specify ideas for the first point — housing — that require attention. For now, let’s hope for fewer spaceships and more affordable housing.

Video of We Marched With Martin

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:48:49 -0400

Video of We Marched With Martin

Check out more photos from We Marched With Martin on our...

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:04:51 -0400

Check out more photos from We Marched With Martin on our Facebook page.

DMI Questionnaire Responses from Gov. Rick Perry

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:51:20 -0400

Have we as a nation done everything we can and should to advance the noble mission and legislative goals of the Civil Rights Act, and, if not, what more should we do – and will you – do?

I believe the mission of equality as we go forward is not dependent on more laws, but on the power our citizens, communities and leaders. Our leaders must set a tone of inclusivity, and speak not only to the America common to their own experience, but to the America common to people of a variety of experience. We must find ways to extend opportunity far and wide by improving education in America. Education is the great equalizer, allowing children of the most modest means to rise up from humble beginnings to pursue their dreams. Investments and accountability in education are investments in equal opportunity. Providing every citizen the chance to live a life of opportunity should be our modern day goal.

What will you do to encourage and support greater voter participation; in particular, do you support electronic voter registration and moving Election Day to the weekend?

In Texas we have convenience voting for two weeks prior to Election Day, making it easier for voters to participate in their elections. I think when Americans know the high stakes of an election, they will participate in overwhelming numbers. I believe participation comes down to whether our candidates address the issues of the day that impact working families. When candidates speak to the hopes and dreams of our families gathered around the dinner table, then voters feel a connection to the candidates and a reason to participate in our democratic process.

What role do you feel our government should play in helping to provide such necessities as housing, health care, nutrition, and jobs for all Americans?

Poverty is a challenge that must be addressed by local, state and federal governments, private charities, employers and individual citizens. My philosophy is we must create an environment conducive to opportunity. Government is wiser to give people the tools of self-sufficiency than to trap people on the rolls of various programs. Our goal should be to make America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family, ensuring people have opportunities to work and get ahead. I would rather citizens could purchase their own homes, and afford their own health care, through access to high-paying jobs. At the same time, we should offer help to the most needy and deserving Americans and to who those who need assistance transitioning to self-sufficiency.

DMI Questionnaire Responses from President Obama

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:50:20 -0400

Martin’s call for racial justice resulted in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Have we as a nation done everything we can and should to advance the noble mission and legislative goals of the Civil Rights Act; and, if not, what more should we—and will you—do?

Our nation’s civil rights laws and principles are at the core of our nation. Our country grows stronger when all Americans have access to opportunity and are able to participate fully in our economy. I will continue to fight to strengthen civil rights in my second term as I have throughout my career as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, Illinois state Senator, U.S. Senator, and now as President. I signed the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce the disparities in mandatory minimum sentences between powder cocaine and crack cocaine. We have taken significant steps forward by signing into law the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which included the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, repealing the discriminatory law known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, and restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers through passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I will continue to lead the fight to build a fairer and more equitable criminal justice system, will seek to strengthen hate crime legislation and will work to ensure that federal law enforcement agencies do not resort to racial profiling. Funding drug courts gives first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence in drug rehabilitation programs that work better than prison, and I will help ex-offenders reenter society through jobs strategies, substance abuse treatment, and mental health counseling.

Martin believed that “the greatest stride forward for society is that short walk into the voting booth” and heralded the consequent enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But today, voter turnout in our country ranks last among G-8 nations and 138^th of 172 voting countries in the world. What will you do to encourage and support voter participation; in particular, do you support electronic voter registration and moving Election Day to the weekend?

The Voting Rights Act has been a critical tool in ensuring that all Americans not only have the right to vote, but the right to have their vote counted. This goes back to that historic day on March 7, 1965, when Congressman John Lewis led about 600 peaceful protestors demanding the right to vote across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. I am grateful for the actions of Congressman Lewis and Dr. Martin Luther King, who were on the front lines of the civil rights movement.

I continue to support the principles of this important piece of legislation, and will work to ensure that voting rights are protected and that Americans do not suffer from increased discrimination during a time of economic distress.

My campaign will also continue to help support voting rights and participation in all 50 states. In 2008, we registered millions of voters across the country through the help and hard work of our volunteers. We will continue to register new voters and help voters who have moved update their registration in 2011 and 2012. Strong voter participation is the backbone of our democracy, and I will continue to support equal and full participation.

Martin’s conviction that legal rights alone do not ensure equality and opportunity led to his clarion call for economic justice through the Poor People’s Campaign and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Nearly a half-century later, however, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that poverty rates in virtually every sector of our country have risen to historic levels. Tragically, over 15,000,000 American children (1 in 5) will go to sleep tonight wondering whether tomorrow morning is their turn to have breakfast. What role do you feel our government should play in helping to provide such necessities as housing, health care, nutrition, and jobs for all Americans?

Today, too many Americans live without access to good, family-supporting jobs. I am committed to creating the opportunity for all Americans to grab the first rung on the ladder to the middle class. That includes investing in strategies to make work pay, expanding access to affordable housing, and helping low-income Americans build the job skills to succeed in the workforce. The American Recovery Reinvestment Act lifted millions of Americans out of poverty. To fight hunger, the Act includes a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, as well as funding for food banks and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. To broaden access to affordable housing, the Recovery Act provides $1 billion in increased funding for the Community Development Block Grant; $4 billion in increased public housing capital funds; $2 billion in Neighborhood Stabilization Funds to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed homes; and $1.5 billion in Homelessness Prevention Funds to keep people in their homes.

I am also committed, as is the First Lady, to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids act, a groundbreaking piece of legislation, was signed into law so all kids have healthier food in school and even more have access to a healthy lunch. In 2010, Michelle launched the “Let’s Move!” campaign and “Let’s Move Cities and Towns,” with nearly 500 communities across America making commitments to significant changes in support of their communities’ health.

The Affordable Care Act established health care as a basic tenet of working and middle class Americans. As a result of this historic piece of legislation, 32 million uninsured Americans will be able to afford health care insurance. Our work is not done. In my second-term, I will continue to lead a new federal approach to revitalize communities stricken by the economic crisis as well as communities that were hurting before it began.

Livestream of "We Marched With Martin"

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:59:00 -0400

Round 1: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Fails to Stand Up For Consumers

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:06:42 -0400

Rakim Brooks

Consumers expressed outrage when Bank of America announced that it would begin charging $5 per month for debit card use. Good for them. Working families are strapped. Median incomes are declining, food prices are rising, and the labor market is stagnant. Five dollars per month means a lot to Americans these days, especially the 45 million Americans who now rely on food stamps to make ends meet. But I hope the outcry is even greater when the word spreads that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau knew about BoA’s plans and did nothing to stop it.

According to recent reports, the BoA officials who met with the CFPB to discuss the plan brazenly admitted that this is the financial industry’s response to the Dodd Frank Act. BoA, which is the largest US financial institution, has publicly claimed to be under siege. Its credit rating has been cut, stock prices have suffered, and lawsuits are being filed against them at a dizzying pace. Add to that the Durbin Amendment of the Dodd Frank Act, which limited the amount banks could charge merchants, and BoA spokespersons claim they are like a turtle on its back: just looking for a hand up.

No wonder BoA has an image problem. This “embattled institution” participated directly in the mortgage crisis but still received $45 billion through TARP and, as of August 2011, has received another $500 million from Fannie Mae to offset the losses associated with their toxic mortgage portfolio. All the same, the fees keep coming. That is unless you have at least $20,000 banked, a small business, a BoA mortgage, or accounts linked to the Merrill Lynch brokerage. After all that America has done for this bank, BoA still doesn’t treat ordinary citizens as valued customers.

This is what class warfare really looks like, betrayals of public trust, accompanied by maddening distortions. This transaction fee is neither Senator Durbin’s fault, nor is it a legitimate response from the financial sector. The Durbin Amendment, contrary to industry and GOP commentary, was a wise piece of legislation. Prior to its enactment, merchants were charged roughly 400 percent the cost of processing a debit card transaction. That equaled, on average, 44 cents per transaction. Senator Durbin’s amendment capped those fees at 24 cents, a figure that was determined by the Federal Reserve. This move is expected to reduce bank profits by $6-10 billion, with BoA absorbing $2 billion of those losses. But note that banks are still able to charge merchants more than 215 percent of the transaction cost. While that rate is still exorbitant – more than most loan sharks charge – it’s at least fairer than it was previously.

There is also a good economic rationale for the Durbin Amendment. Cutting transaction fees, just like the payroll tax cuts favored by the GOP before Obama proposed them, will save businesses money and give them more capital to invest in hiring and growing. Additionally, lowering the average cost of transactions makes processing debit cards more attractive to other businesses that have not yet made the transition from cash only to plastic. Debit cards, like ATM machines, make transactions more efficient and thus improve the quality of businesses. All in all, the Durbin Amendment is not only a smart financial regulation but it actually should have promoted economic growth, even if it does hurt BoA’s profits.

Yet, BoA, and the other major banks – JP Morgan, Citibank, Wells Fargo & Co – that have or intend to experiment with debit card fees are too self-centered to recognize levelheaded reform. Prior to the recession, BoA boasted $21 billion in profits. Today, the financial giant is in a panic, having reported a $2 billion annual loss in 2010. Looking for some way to steady themselves quickly, BoA intends to fire 30,000 workers and raise more fees on consumers.

The message to America’s working families: We are going to gouge the little guy because Dodd Frank won’t let us gouge merchants anymore. That’s the way things work around here. You put even an inch between us and our profit and we’ll tighten the vice on working Americans.

Sadly, strategies like these work. Hours after announcing the debit card fee, BoA stock price rose 3 percent and somewhere the millionaires were heard saying “Amen.” This is exactly the kind of corporate greed that Occupy Wall Street has been trying to confront every day in Zuccotti Park. “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out.”

Many of us had hoped that the CFPB would be an ally in this fight and maybe they still can be. But their first shot went center right. They affirmed the bank’s entitlement to do anything that is not explicitly against the law rather than upholding standards that protect average Americans. Seven House Democrats are now demanding that the Justice Department investigate whether the big banks are effectively organizing to raise consumer fees in violation of anti-trust laws. Whatever comes of this demand, hopefully the CFPB will stand firm with the lawmakers in defense of the working class, many of whom are marching as we speak.

We Marched With Martin Event This Sunday

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:33:50 -0400

Government Layoffs: The Wrong Move in a Bad Economy

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:23:00 -0400

Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein

In recent days, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his intent to layoff almost 3,500 public employees. While the layoffs may not go through if Cuomo convinces the Public Employees Federation to accept pay cuts and higher healthcare costs, the threat is part of a broader trend of government layoffs. Across the country, federal, state and local governments are laying off thousands of workers in their pursuit of reducing budgetary deficits. As a result, more than half a million Americans have lost their jobs in government since 2008, adding to the already swelling unemployment figures.

This loss of public sector jobs comes at an especially critical time with 14 million Americans officially unemployed and more than 16 percent of Americans want a full-time job but can’t get one. Private sector jobs remain scarce with employers hiring just 1.8 million people since September 2010, according to seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But close to 300,000 public sector jobs disappeared over the last year, or one sixth the number of new private sector jobs.

Political leaders insist that they simply can’t afford to pay workers. While pundits and politicians in Washington argue about the right level of deficit spending, state and local governments generally cannot run deficits. They don’t have the option of just raising the debt ceiling, and so must choose between cutting jobs and raising revenue. Governor Cuomo has rejected raising more revenue, arguing: “The working families of New York cannot afford tax increases.”

It’s important that we stop and consider what the impact of cutting public sector jobs in a time of painfully high unemployment will be. Even the IMF, an organization notorious for imposing austerity measures on struggling economies, now says that cuts are the wrong move in this period of perilous economic recovery. According to their report, deficit reduction results in higher unemployment and lower incomes for the subsequent two years. Indeed, the harm is not just for the subsequent two years; long-term unemployment remains above average for five years. The spending cuts also diminish wages far more than they affect investment profits. As a result, the IMF recommended that the US, specifically, should work more to create jobs, rather than reducing employment in the name of deficit reduction.

Unfortunately, the opposite seems more likely to actually happen, and the consequences are dire. Layoffs create a vicious cycle, depriving people of jobs and as a result further slowing economic growth. When one person loses their job, they have to cut back on other things, such as going out to eat at restaurants. That means restaurants have less money and must lay off workers, who in turn have less money to spend creating jobs. At the same time, the lack of business means lower tax revenue for government, which must either lay workers off or simply put off hiring people. Layoffs make a bad economy worse.

And unlike Greece, it is not like states are completely out of money. They still have choices. New York State is choosing to give money away to large corporations, rather than to keep workers. The testing company Pearson Education will receive at least $13.5 million and potentially as much as $50 million to move 628 jobs to Lower Manhattan. t the high-end, Pearson might receive about $80,000 per job, for jobs that are estimated to pay $72,000 a year. By contrast, Cuomo hoped to save $80 million this year and $160 million for the subsequent four years by laying off government employees. For just a little bit more money, Cuomo could create thousands more jobs. But instead, it seems like he and other politicians are going in the opposite direction, reducing jobs at the most inopportune time.

Foley Square, October 5, 2011. Looking south towards 8 Spruce...

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:16:26 -0400

Foley Square, October 5, 2011. Looking south towards 8 Spruce Street, a new luxury residential building.

The 99 Percent

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:14:00 -0400

John Petro

I was among the thousands of people cramming into Foley Square Wednesday evening, observing those who had come down to show their support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. I arrived at 4:30, and for the next hour roamed around the park. It had the energy of a festival, a celebration. The air was permeated by the sound of drums. Placards waved about in the air, many of them hastily written with marker on brown corrugated cardboard. And though the rally was organized by labor unions, those with union t-shirts were vastly outnumbered by those with no obvious union affiliation.

I could find no central focal point. If amplified speeches were going on, I could not hear them. Nearer to the drummers people were dancing. Standing on top of the fountain, I found it impossible to get a true sense of the size of the crowd. It was difficult to get it all within view.

This was symbolic, perhaps. The most frequent criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that there is no central organized message. However, looking out over the amorphous crowd that evening, it was very simple to identify what the movement was all about. That is, thousands were gathering here to speak out about economic injustice—injustices dealt to them, their families, and to the entire nation. There was a palpable sense that our democracy is in danger, that the voices of the many are being drowned out by the few: those with vast fortunes and a certain political agenda.

“We are the 99 percent,” the protesters chanted. In contrast, those that make the decisions that affect our lives are the other one percent. They’re the ones telling us that we’re better off if we allow corporations to pollute our air, to ship our jobs overseas, to cut corporate taxes and those on the wealthy. They tell us that we’re better off if we cut health benefits for workers, if we get rid of pensions, if we do away with the social safety net. We’re better off without high-speed rail or universal health care. These things are unattainable, we’re told, because government is out of money. If we raise taxes on the wealthiest to help pay for these things then the whole economy will fail, we’re told.

The crowd at Foley Square wasn’t falling for it.

Student loan debt was a common cause for many. After all, we were all told that we must go to college to get a good job. For some this is no problem; their parents can simply write a check. For others, loans are the only practical solution. Now many are out of college and are tens of thousands of dollars in debt. There are few jobs to be had and those who haven’t found one are wondering just how they’re supposed to pay all this debt off.

“The banks got bailed out, we got sold out,” the crowd chanted.

These are big, institutional problems that don’t lend themselves to easy answers. The seductive power of the Tea Party is that it offers simple, easy answers. Cut government and cut taxes. Get government out of your life and maybe someday you will be rich. The real answers aren’t going to be that easy.

Earlier that morning a Republican presidential candidate told the protesters that they ought not to blame Wall Street for the fact that they’re not rich. But no one at Foley Square said anything about wanting to become rich. For the former CEO of a fast-food pizza chain this may be a difficult idea to understand. It’s also difficult for New York City’s billionaire mayor to understand. He called the protesters “ridiculous.” This is the same mayor who expresses no concern over the growing gap between the rich and poor in his city.

The crowd at Foley Square wasn’t concerned about amassing riches. They wanted economic security and a say in their political process. They wanted to end the injustice that they see all about them, to eliminate want in the face of greed.

An hour later, looking south on Centre Street, the setting sun reflected off of the silver façade of a new luxury apartment building. A two-bedroom apartment in this building rents for $72,000 a year, a sum greater than many of the attendees’ salaries. And then the crowd began to move forward for the march down to Zuccotti Park. I walked with the chanting crowd in silence. When the march met with those encamped at Zuccotti Park there were cheers. There was dancing. Later a small group tried to storm some barricades. A white shirt officer swung his nightstick at the group. Thousands of cameras captured the moment.