March, 25 2009, 09:30am EDT
Groups Unite to Urge Congress to Redirect Federal Spending to Meet Human Needs and Rebuild the Economy
They believe the U.S. can trim excess “defense” spending and find new solutions that make the country safer and stronger
WASHINGTON
Calling for a new and better definition of security, organizations representing millions of constituents from across the U.S. signed onto a letter to Congress delivered March 25, 2009. The letter urges Congress to reevaluate the country's security needs, and to make changes in the proposed FY10 federal budget. Specifically, it seeks to redirect money from the Pentagon to human and environmental needs.
"Human needs groups see first hand, every day, how our federal budget affects millions of Americans," says Susan Shaer, executive director of WAND (Women's Action for New Directions). "And truly, we are alarmed. We believe that our citizens are at risk, and facing security challenges every day; many are without jobs, healthcare, housing, and even food. The recession is posing the most risk to those who are already vulnerable: the poor, the disabled, the elderly. It's time to readjust our federal budget to meet these urgent needs."
The broad coalition, from Common Cause to FCNL to the National Organization for Women, acknowledges that the federal budget is under increased strain -- due to demands from the crumbling economy, years of deficit spending, and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - but agrees on one area of the budget that is bloated and has excess resources: the Pentagon. "Every year, the Pentagon gobbles up at least half of the federal discretionary budget," says Marie Rietmann, public policy director of WAND. "We could easily cut several weapons systems that were developed in the 1980s to fight the Cold War, and our defense capabilities would be just as strong."
The organizations hope to show Congress that there is a huge groundswell of grassroots support for diverting money away from obsolete weapons and toward rebuilding a stronger economy. "It's time for Congress to stand up to Pentagon contractors, with their lobbyists and tens of millions in political contributions, and do what's right for the American people by cutting unneeded military spending and using that money in ways that maximize job creation and economic recovery," says Common Cause President Bob Edgar.
"What does it mean for individuals and families to feel secure?" asks Susan Shaer. "Is it several new F-22 aircraft that cost $351 million each, and do little or nothing to help against the real threats of today? Or is it feeling safe in a real home: fed, educated, healthy, warm? Because we're paying for more military toys while our folks at home are increasingly worried about everyday security needs. We are asking Congress to consider these trade-offs when they make the federal budget for FY10."
The letter -- organized by WAND and NETWORK - states: "The President's FY10 budget outline calls for $534 billion for DOD. That is an increase of $9 billion beyond inflation. In addition, separate supplemental appropriations continue to provide most of the money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some $130 billion for FY10. Nuclear weapons and some miscellaneous military costs could add an estimated $23 billion for a national security total of $557 billion. Even though we are encouraged that this outline calls for a smaller increase than in recent years, it continues a relentless increase in DOD spending to a higher level than at any point since World War II. This does not make sense in a time of fiscal crisis."
Many of the organizations that signed on work with people who live on the edge, who daily feel insecure about what tomorrow holds. "Government has a role to play in these people's lives," says Shaer. "It is there to guarantee a certain level of security. But the federal budget increasingly defines security as having a huge military machine."
"It's time to re-deploy funds from war to providing for the needs of people here at home." Rietmann says, "We are not offering sufficient services to our own people, while we feed too much to the arms manufacturers. And make no mistake: this is not money for veterans; this is about weapons that were designed for a bygone era."
"As the most powerful, wealthiest country in the world, we should be able to take care of our citizens," says Rietmann. "We should be smart enough to see beyond technologically arcane weapons systems to the real needs of our people."
Signing organizations:
National groups
Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.
Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs
Black Women's Health Imperative
British American Security Information Council
Catholic Mobilization Network
Church Women United
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Coalition on Human Needs
Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism
Common Cause
Community Action Partnership
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Foreign Policy in Focus
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Gender Action
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office
Methodists United for Peace with Justice
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Organization for Women
National Priorities Project
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Peace Action
People with Disabilities for Social & Economic Justice, Inc.
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office
Progressive States Network
Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Women's Focus Committee
Sisters of Charity of Seton Hill, United States Province
3D Security Initiative
True Majority
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
The United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society
USAction
Washington Office of Public Policy, Women's Division, United Methodist Church
Women's Action for New Directions
Local, State, and Regional groups
Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition/Phoenix, Arizona
Marin Interfaith Task Force on the Americas/Larkspur, California
Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)/Livermore
St. Mark Presbyterian Church Peace and Justice Commission/Newport Beach
Interfaith Peace Ministry Orange County/Orange
Orange County Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice/Orange
California Church IMPACT/Sacramento
Sellers & Company/San Diego
Orange County Interfaith Coalition for the Environment/Tustin
Jewish Family Services/Danbury, Connecticut
Collaborative Center for Justice/Hartford
Pax Christi Northeast Florida/St. Augustine, Florida
Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda/Atlanta, Georgia
Georgia WAND/Atlanta
North Decatur Presbyterian Peace & Justice Committee/Decatur
Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Central Leadership/Nazareth, Kentucky
Peace Action Maine/Portland, Maine
Xaverian Brothers USA/Baltimore, Maryland
PeaceAction Montgomery/Brookeville
Nepal America Welfare Association/Somerville, Massachusetts
Sisters of St. Joseph of Springfield
Gray Panthers of Huron Valley/Ann Arbor, Michigan
WAND Southeast Michigan/Southfield
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs/Duluth
Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation Advisory Committee, Franciscan Sisters of Little Falls
People of Faith Peacemakers/Minneapolis and St. Paul
Women Against Military Madness/Minneapolis
Public Policy Center of Mississippi/Jackson, Mississippi
Leadership Team of the Sisters of the Most Precious Blood/O'Fallon, Missouri
St. Louis Province of the Carondelet Congregation, U.S. Federation of the Sisters of St. Joseph/St. Louis
West Midwest Justice Team, Sisters of Mercy/Omaha, Nebraska
NH Citizens Alliance for Action/Concord, New Hampshire
New Jersey Tenants Organization/Hackensack, New Jersey
YWCA of Binghamton & Broome County/Binghamton, New York
Reaching-Out Community Services Inc./Brooklyn, NY
West Side Campaign Against Hunger/New York, NY
North Carolina Fair Share/Raleigh, North Carolina
Oklahoma Therapeutic Foster Care Association/Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Albany Peace Seekers/Albany, Oregon
Corvallis Alternatives to War/Corvallis
Climate Crisis Working Group/Eugene
Community Alliance of Lane County, Eugene
Eugene Peace Works, Eugene
Oregon WAND, Eugene
Veterans for Peace - Squadron 13/ Eugene
Seeking Out Democracy/Junction City
Human Services Coalition of Oregon/Portland
Peace with Justice Ministries/Network Oregon-Idaho United Methodist Church Conference/Portland
Oregon PeaceWorks/Salem
PathWays PA/Holmes, Pennslyvania
Epiphany House, Inc./Lansdowne
Campaign for Working Families/Philadelphia
Just Harvest/Pittsburgh
Providence Connections Inc./Pittsburgh
Tennessee Citizen Action/Nashville, Tennessee
37th Legislative District Democratic Committee/Seattle, Washington
Peace Action Wisconsin/Milwaukee, Wisconsin
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular