Showing posts with label Federal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal. Show all posts

Building a Bottom Up Economy

SUBHEAD: Review of book showing how to leverage place-based movements to impact national policy.

By Chuck Collins on 6 July 2017 for Yes Magazine -
(http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/sanctuary/how-we-can-transition-to-a-bottom-up-economy-20170706)


Image above: Detail from cover of book "Bottom Up". From Amazon Books sale link (https://www.amazon.com/Building-Healthy-Economy-Bottom-Transformative/dp/0813167590).

Resistance to the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrants, climate change policy, and economic fairness has been fierce. But alongside these efforts—from flooding representatives’ phone lines to packing town hall meetings to marching in protest—it’s also important to begin the work of building alternatives to the systems that underlie the exploitation of people and planet.

The understandable focus on Trump—with his cronyism, bombast, and militarism—can divert us from the fact that several decades of extractive capitalism have fueled extreme wealth and racial inequality, democratic demise, and brought us to the brink of ecological ruin.

Wall Street’s debt-based financing system has created a phantom wealth economy delinked from the real economy of goods and services.

Trumpism is only the latest appalling chapter in a dominant narrative that holds our unsustainable economy in place, including the myths that a rising tide lifts all boats and that growth is the answer.

In the face of renewed calls for trickle-down economic policy—such as proposed tax cuts for the rich and transnational corporations—we urgently need a clearly articulated theory and practice of sustainable economics that works for local communities.

Enter a blessing of a book, Anthony Flaccavento’s Building a Healthy Economy from the Bottom Up: Harnessing Real-World Experience for Transformative Change.

Bottom Up is a comprehensive primer on the transition to a new economy—the place-based movement to rewire the economy for equity and ecological sustainability. It is rich in stories and detail for the curious or discouraged and those seeking a strategy to move toward a sustainable and equitable future.

Flaccavento excels as a storyteller, reporting on successful “bottom-up” ventures and experiments in building new systems around food, energy, health services, worker ownership, community finance, and place-based arts and culture.

Flaccavento’s perspective is grounded in his work as a farmer, entrepreneur, and candidate for Congress, with decades of experience building a regional food system and relocalized economy in southern Virginia.

While he lifts up inspiring examples of urban local economy projects, he also deeply understands the challenges facing rural communities that have been bypassed by the lopsided economic gains of the past four decades.

In regions like southern Virginia, where the median income is below $30,000 a year and the poverty rate is over 25 percent in some communities, new economy solutions have the potential to transcend political differences by creating and fixing infrastructure, generating jobs, increasing food security, and reducing energy costs.

One challenge in the Trump era is how to leverage place-based movements to impact national policy. I have witnessed local economy activities in New England that appear to operate in a parallel universe, one delinked from national debates over health care, taxation, energy, and farm policy.

What would it take to leverage the millions of people who have become engaged in new economy enterprises to be a political force that reshapes the rules governing our national economy?

What would a “bottom-up” policy program look like at the state and federal levels?

Flaccavento urges us to move beyond what he calls a “false choice” between local and national issues to recognize “that almost every positive change we make in our own communities is ultimately either undermined or supported by broader economic and political choices.” 

We cannot coast on a “small is beautiful” community garden project or worker-owned cafĂ©—not while federal policies push down wages, shift billions to the military, and subsidize corporations that destroy Main Street commerce.

The tools for change that Flaccavento offers in Bottom Up resonate with the social change frameworks of deep-ecology thinker Joanna Macy and Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi.

Step 1: Stop Threats to People and the Earth
Macy writes that to achieve social change, we must first engage in “holding actions” to stop the destruction of the Earth and its beings. In the current context, this includes defending immigrants, protecting civil liberties, and blocking policies that will worsen economic injustices.

Activities range from political advocacy and community education to public witness protests and blockadia direct action campaigns against new fossil fuel infrastructure. Similarly, in the context of the movement for Indian independence, Gandhi used what’s been called an “obstructive program” of nonviolent direct action to achieve social change.

Flaccavento too believes an important step toward social change is obstruction of harmful systems, policies, and organizations. For example, Flaccavento tells a story about the town of Bristol, Virginia, which awarded a $5,000 local entrepreneurship prize to celebrate a local business while 5 miles away the county provided $50 million in government subsidies to construct a big box store for a national chain.

As he points out, the big box store will harm the local economy, yet it received a subsidy 10,000 times larger than any local business. So when a Walmart was proposed in Flaccavento’s hometown of Abingdon, Virginia, he threw himself into a coalition working to obstruct the store’s construction.

Step 2: Build Local Alternative Systems and State and Federal Policies That Support ThemThe second part of Macy’s framework for change is to build structural alternatives to the dominant systems that harm—alternatives largely rooted in local communities. This is what Gandhi called the “constructive program,” building the new society in the shell of the existing.

These local alternatives should serve as a foundation for broader policy change. Like Gandhi, Flaccavento is skeptical of centralized solutions but knows that if we walk away from national politics, the vacuum will be filled by absentee corporate power. To create change, he says, we need a public policy program that removes barriers and speeds the transition. For example, Flaccavento proposes business regulations that are “scale appropriate” and reduce the regulatory burdens on start-up, local, and home-based businesses. Instead of subsidizing absentee-owned national conglomerates, local government should direct procurement and subsidies to locally rooted enterprises.

A key ingredient in Flaccavento’s program to strengthen local alternatives is to build community-based politics of engagement to overcome the power of corporate lobbyists.

I was attracted to Flaccavento’s vision of a movement of “food citizens,” which would engage the 5 million to 10 million people who shop at farmers markets or are members of one of the 4,000 CSAs. Imagine using this people power to change the national farm bill, which allocates most subsidies to the biggest 10 percent of agribusiness.

These food citizens, along with community banking activists and local business owners, could be a powerful constituency for transformation—and a countervailing force to what Flaccavento calls WTF (Wealth Trumps Fairness) politics.

Step 3: Nurture a Shift in Social Consciousness
The third step in Macy’s framework for change is to nurture a shift in social consciousness—one that centers on community economics and interconnectedness.

For Flaccavento, creating space for meaningful public debate is critical to shifting social consciousness. He quotes Mimi Pickering, one of the founders of Appalshop, a cultural change resource center in Kentucky: “In order for people to turn away from the politics of denial that have overtaken the electorate … there needs to be a visible counter narrative about what else is possible here.”

Flaccavento lifts up the importance of place-based public forums as a way to build community knowledge, capacity, and shared storytelling. In my urban neighborhood of Boston, the Jamaica Plain Forum has been a key ingredient in getting people together to engage in important community conversations around speakers, films, and workshops.

There is power in building institutions such as local radio stations, community media, storytelling venues, and theater groups that enable a community to lift up its own stories. These face-to-face “open spaces” are building blocks for authentic democracy—and their decline has impoverished our public life.

Alone, locally focused action will not overcome the systemic forces that are fueling the concentration of wealth and power and supercharging racial and economic disparities, climate change, and mass incarceration.

Our best chance is a mass movement that works to stop threats to people and planet while building local alternatives at the same time. A place-based new economy will grow grassroots people power to fuel broad change while offering a new story of how we must live together.



.

Trump tries privatizing public lands

SUBHEAD: Hunters and Fishers score quick kill on Republican plan to sell western public lands.

By Kirsten Downey on 6 February 2017 for Civil Beat -
(http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/02/hunters-and-fishermen-score-a-quick-kill-of-public-lands-bill/)


Image above: After the state the Federal government is the largest owner of land in Hawaii including the land around Haleakala on Maui shown here. Photo by the Good Reverend Flash. From original article.

A congressional land grab of 3.3 million acres didn’t sit well with groups that use public lands, a significant issue for Hawaii, too.

The first attack on public lands under the Trump administration came fast, and it died fast, too.
 
Responding to ferocious public pressure generated by two upstart public-lands advocacy groups, U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has dropped his plan to force the sale of 3.3 million acres of federal land in the western United States to the highest bidder.
The federal government owns 20 percent of the land in Hawaii including Haleakala National Park on Maui.

“Political activism is the only way to protect public lands from President Trump and his cheerleaders in Congress, and it works,” said U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, ranking minority member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The Democrats on the committee haven’t gotten a lot of vocal support from the public for the past few years — with President Barack Obama in office, people thought their efforts weren’t needed — so he and his staffers watched the developments unfold, first with worry, and then with surprise and admiration.

What happened to the measure, H. R. 621, The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017, has important consequences for Hawaii as well. 

About 20 percent of the land in Hawaii is owned by the federal government, falling under three basic jurisdictions — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the Defense Department. What happens to one set of federal lands can easily happen to another.

Hawaii U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa will be playing a major role watching over federal lands. 

On January 24th she was named ranking member of the federal lands subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, which will give her jurisdiction over the National Park system, national trails, historic and prehistoric sites on federal lands, Forest Service and wildlife resources.

.

California threat to cutoff $ to DC

SUBHEAD: State studying suspending money to Washington after Trump threatens sanctuary cities.

By Tyler Durden on 31 January 2017 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-28/california-threatens-cut-funds-washington)


Image above: Map of USA showing net donor states to federal revenue versus subsidized states. From original article.

[IB Publisher's note:  Map at bottom of article show the final Electoral College count. It is interesting to me that the Trump support came largely from states that are net receivers of federal tax dollars and the the states that went for Clinton are large net donor state to federal coffers. The "Clinton" states actually support the "Trump" states. Somewhere in there is a strategy for the future.]


With secession threats looming, the state of California is reportedly studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities.

With California counties among the Top 10 who stand to lose tax-payer funding for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants...


Image abovce: Chart of funds at risk in sanctuary cities. From original article.


KPIX5 reports that officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.
“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news.

“They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”
California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding.


Image above: Map of USA showing final Electoral College results. From (http://www.businessinsider.com/final-electoral-college-map-trump-clinton-2016-11)


.

As Standing Rock celebrates...

SUBHEAD: Trump advisors propose privatizing oil-rich Indian reservations on federal land for extraction.

By Tyler Durden on 5 December 2016 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-05/dakota-celebrates-trump-advisors-propose-privatizing-oil-rich-indian-reservations)


Image above: A celebration of fireworks over Standing Rock teepees after Army Corps denies easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline. From (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/standing-rock-photos_us_5844c3b2e4b0c68e0481849f).

With celebrations continuing at the site of the Dakota Access Pipeline protest (following the "Monumental victory" following the Obama administration's decision not to grant the construction permit), it appears the Trump administration has very different ideas.

Having confirmed Trump's support for the pipeline (not to do with his investments), Reuters reports a Trump advisory group proposes the politically explosive idea of putting oil-rich Indian reservation lands into provate ownership.

As we noted last night, after months of protests by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota, among others, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today effectively shut down the project by refusing to approve the last remaining permit required to complete a segment running under Lake Oahe.

Per Reuters, the permit denial was heavily celebrated by protesters in Cannon Ball, North Dakota but means that Energy Transfer Partners will have to go back to the drawing board to identify a new route for the last segment of the 1,172 mile pipeline that is largely already complete.

Which followed a communications briefing from Trump's transition team saying that despite media reports that Trump owns a stake in Energy Transfer Partners (ETP.N), the company building the pipeline...
Trump's support of the pipeline "has nothing to do with his personal investments and everything to do with promoting policies that benefit all Americans."

"Those making such a claim are only attempting to distract from the fact that President-elect Trump has put forth serious policy proposals he plans to set in motion on Day One," said the daily briefing note sent to campaign supporters and congressional staff.
As a reminder, Native American reservations cover just 2 percent of the United States, but they may contain about a fifth of the nation’s oil and gas, along with vast coal reserves.

And now, as Reuters reports, a group of advisors to President-elect Donald Trump on Native American issues wants to free those resources from what they call a suffocating federal bureaucracy that holds title to 56 million acres of tribal lands, two chairmen of the coalition told Reuters in exclusive interviews.

The group proposes to put those lands into private ownership - a politically explosive idea that could upend more than century of policy designed to preserve Indian tribes on U.S.-owned reservations, which are governed by tribal leaders as sovereign nations.
The tribes have rights to use the land, but they do not own it. They can drill it and reap the profits, but only under regulations that are far more burdensome than those applied to private property.

"We should take tribal land away from public treatment." said Markwayne Mullin, a Republican U.S. Representative from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe member who is co-chairing Trump’s Native American Affairs Coalition. "As long as we can do it without unintended consequences, I think we will have broad support around Indian country."
The plan fits with Trump’s larger promise of slashing regulation to boost energy production, but as Reuters notes, it could deeply divide Native American leaders, who hold a range of opinions on the proper balance between development and conservation. The proposed path to deregulated drilling - privatizing reservations - could prove even more divisive. Many Native Americans view such efforts as a violation of tribal self-determination and culture.
"Our spiritual leaders are opposed to the privatization of our lands, which means the commoditization of the nature, water, air we hold sacred," said Tom Goldtooth, a member of both the Navajo and the Dakota tribes who runs the Indigenous Environmental Network. "Privatization has been the goal since colonization – to strip Native Nations of their sovereignty."

Reservations governed by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs are intended in part to keep Native American lands off the private real estate market, preventing sales to non-Indians.

"It has to be done with an eye toward protecting sovereignty."
The contingent of Native Americans who fear tribal-land privatization cite precedents of lost sovereignty and culture.
"Privatization of Indian lands during the 1880s is widely viewed as one of the greatest mistakes in federal Indian policy," said Washburn, a citizen of Oklahoma's Chickasaw Nation.

"With this alignment in the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court," he said, "we should be concerned about erosion of self determination, if not a return to termination."



.

The Perpetual Electronic Lineup

SOURCE: Russ Pascatore (russ.pascatore@titanx.com)
SUBHEAD: As an adult American chances are better than 50% your in the FBI facial recognition database.

By David Kravits on 18 October 2016 for Ars Technica -
(http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/the-perpetual-lineup-half-of-us-adults-in-a-face-recognition-database/)


Image above: Sample of "new' Hawaii driver's license introduced in 2010 to meet federal regulations permitting it to be used for security clearance situations like boarding an airplane, an international identity check or for the federal facial recognition database. From (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2010/Jan/30/ln/hawaii1300331.html).

Half of American adults are in a face-recognition database, according to a Georgetown University study released Tuesday. That means there's about 117 million adults in a law enforcement facial-recognition database, the study by Georgetown's Center on Privacy & Technology says.

"We are not aware of any agency that requires warrants for searches or limits them to serious crimes," the study says.

The report (PDF), titled "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America," shows that one-fourth of the nation's law enforcement agencies have access to face-recognition databases, and their use by those agencies is virtually unregulated.

"Innocent people don't belong in criminal databases," said Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology and co-author of the study.

"By using face recognition to scan the faces on 26 states' driver's license and ID photos, police and the FBI have basically enrolled half of all adults in a massive virtual line-up. This has never been done for fingerprints or DNA. It's uncharted and frankly dangerous territory."

Where do the mug shots come from?

For starters, about 16 states allow the FBI to use facial recognition to compare faces of suspected criminals to their driver's licenses or ID photos, according to the study. "In this line-up," the study says, "it's not a human that points to the suspect—it's an algorithm."

The study says 26 states or more allow police agencies to "run or request searches" against their databases or driver's licenses and ID photos. This equates to "roughly one in two American adults has their photos searched this way," according to the study. Many local police agencies also insert mug shots of people they arrest into searchable, biometric databases, according to the report.

According to the report, researchers obtained documents stating that at least five "major police departments," including those in Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles, "either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology that can do so, or expressed an interest in buying it."

The Georgetown report's release comes three months after the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FBI has access to as many as 411.9 million images as part of its face-recognition database.

The bulk of those images are photographs of people who have committed no crime. That study, which provided examples of crimes solved by using the database, noted that the FBI database was used in investigations involving credit card and identity fraud, bank robberies, violent crime, and other felonies.

Meanwhile, the Georgetown study also said that police departments have little oversight of their databases and don't audit them for misuse:
Maryland's system, which includes the license photos of over two million residents, was launched in 2011. It has never been audited. The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office system is almost 15 years old and may be the most frequently used system in the country. When asked if his office audits searches for misuse, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri replied, “No, not really.” Despite assurances to Congress, the FBI has not audited use of its face recognition system, either. Only nine of 52 agencies (17%) indicated that they log and audit their officers' face recognition searches for improper use. Of those, only one agency, the Michigan State Police, provided documentation showing that their audit regime was actually functional.
Clare Garvie, the report's lead author, sent records requests to 100 police departments. Only half of them acknowledged using facial recognition. Many of the agencies allow police to search for someone regardless of whether he or she is suspected of a crime.

"With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias" Garvie said. "It's a Wild West."

.