SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
frances perkins
National Monument Pushed for New Deal Leader Frances Perkins, First Woman in Cabinet
A national monument would mean "more people could learn about this incredible woman and the power of government to be a force for good," a member of Congress said.
Aug 08, 2024
The Frances Perkins Center on Wednesday launched a campaign calling for its 57-acre site in Maine to be named a national monument in honor of the trailblazing woman who led former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Labor Department and ushered in some of the most important legislation in the country's history.
Frances Perkins became the first woman to serve in a presidential Cabinet when she was named secretary of labor in 1933. She was instrumental in establishing Social Security, unemployment benefits, a minimum wage, and a 40-hour work week.
Campaigners called for President Joe Biden to designate the site, which is already a national historic landmark, as a national monument, and media reports indicated that he's likely to do so.
Members of Congress from Maine came out in strong support of the proposal.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) said in a statement that the designation would mean that "more people could learn about this incredible woman and the power of government to be a force for good."
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also supported the push to honor Perkins.
"Her commitment to ensuring hardworking families have the resources to succeed and thrive is still felt today throughout the nation," he said.
"[The designation] would not only be a tribute to her incredible legacy, but also a testament to the leadership and resolve of so many Maine women following in her footsteps," he added.
Frances Perkins’ leadership radically improved the lives of everyday workers – her story deserves a permanent home in the @NatlParkService. Join NPCA in calling on @POTUS to designate the Frances Perkins Homestead a national monument! https://t.co/8uf58hI0jZ
— National Parks Conservation Association (@NPCA) August 8, 2024
Perkins was born in Massachusetts in 1880 and lived much of her adult life in New York and Washington, D.C., but came from a Maine family and spent time there throughout her life—she owned the house that's now home to the Frances Perkins Center, in the small town of Newcastle on the Damariscotta River, from 1927 until her death in 1965.
Perkins witnessed firsthand the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in Greenwich Village in 1911—one of the worst industrial disasters in U.S. history, which left 146 workers dead, and an event she made reference to for the rest of her life—and was appointed to lead a New York City safety committee. She successfully pushed for a wide range of workplace health and safety reforms in the city that became a model elsewhere.
Perkins later became a New York state official, and when Roosevelt became the state's governor in 1929 he made her the industrial commissioner, with oversight over the state labor department. Four years later, when he became president, he again tapped her to run labor affairs. Unionists initially opposed Perkins' appointment because she didn't have a union background, but they grew to support her.
One of only two Cabinet members to serve for Roosevelt's entire 12-year tenure, Perkins was a tireless advocate for workers rights who gave a huge number of speeches across the country, some of which were aimed at encouraging union organizing.
Most notably, Perkins organized the drafting of both the Social Security Act of 1935, which included unemployment compensation, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which banned child labor, established a federal minimum wage, and required overtime pay for employees working more than 44 hours a week. (Two years later, it was changed to 40 hours a week.)
"If you had a weekend, you can thank Frances Perkins," Stephanie Dray, the author of a historical fiction novel about Perkins, told the Portland Press Herald, Maine's leading newspaper. "If you or anyone you ever loved has collected Social Security benefits, you can thank her. If you're a child who got to go to school instead of to work in a factory, you can thank her. She's just everywhere around us."
Perkins' crucial place in U.S. history has been largely overlooked, like that of many women. Only about a dozen national monuments out of more than 100 in total honor women. Biden in March issued an executive order calling for more recognition of women's history, and the push for the Perkins monument is seen by many as fitting perfectly into that initiative.
Biden has so far named five new national monuments and expanded four others. The president has the authority to do so under the Antiquities Act of 1906, aimed at protecting lands and waters. National monuments are "intended to preserve at least one nationally significant resource," whereas national parks generally cover a larger area and have a wide variety of resources worth protecting, according to the National Park Service.
The Washington Postreported Thursday that Biden plans to agree to the Frances Perkins Center's proposal and make the site a national monument, citing anonymous sources, though the White House responded by saying that no such decision had been made.
Keep ReadingShow Less
If You Want Joe Biden to Govern More Like FDR Than Jamie Dimon, Vote for Bernie Sanders on Tuesday in New York and Kentucky
The progressive base of the Democratic has to let Biden—and the rest of the party's leaders—know which way the wind is blowing.
Jun 22, 2020
Heading into Tuesday's New York and Kentucky primaries, Joe Biden has already won enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. Given that, it must seem counter-intuitive to ask voters to support the second-place finisher in the race for the nomination. However, a vote for Bernie Sanders is not just symbolic; it will increase the size of the progressive delegation to this summer's Democratic National Convention. This delegation will be petitioning the party and the nominee to adopt policies that the vast majority of Democrats support and that America desperately needs in this time of crisis.
Indeed, if you're serious about addressing the problems facing American society, a vote for Bernie on Tuesday might be one of the most positively-impactful votes in your lifetime. If you think that sounds like hyperbole--it's not. Here's why. Ideologically, the Democratic Party in 2020 is split in two--between a moderate establishment, supported overwhelmingly by voters over 50, and an insurgent progressive wing with a fervent young base. The moderate politicians are for maintaining neo-liberal policies consistent with the Clinton and Obama administrations. The progressives, in contrast, see neo-liberalism as a failed project that only served the wealthy few, and call for a return to FDR-like social democratic policies that prioritize the needs of poor, working and middle class Americans. Joe Biden is a career moderate Democrat. Bernie Sanders is a lifelong left progressive. Joe Biden won, Bernie took second.
"If you're serious about addressing the problems facing American society, a vote for Bernie on Tuesday might be one of the most positively-impactful votes in your e."
In this year's election, there is a pronounced difference between the moderate politicians' track record and what their supporters want. For instance, Democratic voters who ultimately swept Biden to the nomination supported most of Sanders' signature policies over Biden's position on the same issue (this was largely consistent throughout this primary cycle on health care, wealth redistribution, environmental and education policy, financial regulation, money in politics, et al). Indeed, on some issues, the polling data almost defies credulity: a recent Hill/Harris X poll showed 88% of Democrats support Medicare for All, a policy that the party's presumptive nominee stridently opposes.
However, given the unique circumstances surrounding this primary, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Democrats voted against their policy preferences. Biden, after all, represented stability: a restoration of the previous Democratic administration, which projected an air of professional competence and decorum. Given the chaos and bigotry of Trump, it's easy to understand the appeal. Then, as the COVID-19 pandemic loomed increasingly over the country, compounded by Trump's anti-scientific idiocies; the desire for a return to the sanity of the Obama/Biden years grew ever stronger.
Still, that doesn't free Biden from the risks inherent in being out-of-sync with his party's base. Indeed, the last two Democratic presidents provide cautionary tales about this problem. Democratic voters stayed home in 1994 and 2010 and the GOP won landslide victories. This time around the stakes are even higher both because of the degree of social, economic, and public health damage wrought by the pandemic; and how frightening the GOP has become under Trump (imagine how empowered the militant right will feel if an incoming Democratic administration fails to act on policing)--and that's to say nothing of the profound tragedy of losing more time without adequately addressing the climate emergency.
All of this can be avoided if Biden moves the left so that he is in sync with the desires not just of Democratic voters, but increasingly with the general public. This isn't a matter of crossing our fingers and hoping Joe sees the light; this means applying pressure. Tuesday's elections are a great way to achieve that end by winning more delegates for Bernie Sanders--and every vote matters because Bernie hasn't yet won enough delegates to ensure a powerful progressive presence at the convention.
The results on Tuesday are key. Here's why. For a motion to be considered on the floor of the convention (by all the delegates), it needs to have 25% support in a committee. The committee make-up is reflective of the general delegate pool--and while Bernie has already won more than 25% of all the elected delegates, committees will include superdelegates too, who overwhelmingly support moderate positions--so, Bernie still needs to win more delegates in the remaining primaries to guarantee that progressives have enough votes to bring major policies, rules, and resolutions to the general body.
"Every vote matters because Bernie hasn't yet won enough delegates to ensure a powerful progressive presence at the convention."
What will that achieve? Well, if Biden doesn't want messy floor fights at his convention--and he doesn't--it basically guarantees in advance that the party will commit to a (somewhat) more progressive platform and not reverse the democratizing DNC reforms that the Sanders movement achieved in 2016. Of course, having a more progressive party platform doesn't necessarily mean anything concrete in terms of policy if Biden becomes president. However, following two election cycles in which Sanders came a close second in the race for the nomination, during which his movement fought prolonged battles within the party, you can be certain that a President Biden will hear about every betrayal of the platform--even as progressives demand more of him. Also, not to be cynical, but whether or not Biden follows through when he becomes president, a more progressive platform will almost certainly help him win the election given the mood of the country.
Most importantly, the country needs a progressive president. Given the scale of our problems, and the level of discontent, nothing else fits the moment. Per economics, we need a New Deal. Given the climate emergency, that has to be a Green New Deal. Per public health, a direct pathway to Medicare for All. Per policing, the embracing of alternative--and transformative--grassroots proposals.
Nothing less than America's social fabric, and even the idea that this remains a prosperous country, is at stake. Our next president needs to step up in profound ways.
Biden has said he wants to be an FDR-like president; but it's unlikely he's making that case when he's glad-handing Citibank CEO Jamie Dimon. Come January 2021, we need the new Francis Perkins and Harry Hopkins in the cabinet, not neo-liberal zombies Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.
To have any hope of achieving that, we have to make our case every step of the way. Sure, Joe Biden has been a centrist Democrat throughout his long career, but "centrists" dominated the party until very recently. Joe Biden is also a weathervane politician. We have to let him know the wind is in progressive sails these days--that no other political tendency comes close.
The way to do that in New York and Kentucky is to vote for Bernie Sanders; which, paradoxically, is also the best way to support Joe Biden's campaign on Tuesday. A good showing will tip the scales past the 25% goal and send a powerful message in support of the policies America needs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Remarkable Mothers of Social Security
In memory of those brilliant, hard-driving, creative, and compassionate Mothers of Social Security, all of us should commit to fighting to expand Social Security
May 11, 2019
This Mother's Day, let's celebrate the remarkable Mothers of Social Security. Without them, this essential program may never have been born. It certainly would be much less successful and effective.
The Mothers of Social Security pushed for an expansive, ambitious program. When necessary, they fiercely resisted men too cautious to embrace their bold vision. All of us benefit immensely from their work--particularly women, for whom Social Security's modest benefits are especially important.
Best known of Social Security's many mothers is Frances Perkins, the first female member of a presidential Cabinet in the history of the country. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt first asked Perkins to become Secretary of Labor, she told him that she would only accept his history-making offer if he agreed to fully support her fight for Social Security, as well as other significant measures to increase all of our economic security. He did. True to her principles and values, she was a driving force behind the healthy start of Social Security, from the system's conception to its birth and its early growth.
"As good as Social Security is, it can and should be better. Past generations of women and men have fought to improve it. Now it is our turn."
A less-known pathbreaker was Dr. Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong, the first tenured female law professor in the country. A Ph.D. economist, she taught both law and economics at Berkeley and authored a landmark treatise, Insuring the Essentials, an exhaustive study of social insurance and minimum wage programs around the world.
Armstrong chaired the Roosevelt administration working group that invented Social Security. Other policymakers, concerned about the constitutionality of Social Security, argued that it should be a state-based program. Armstrong successfully convinced them that only a federal program was workable. When those who oversaw her work contemplated dropping Social Security because they feared it was too big a lift, she leaked their plan to friendly journalists whose exposes got Social Security back on track.
Without Armstrong's bold leadership and keen intellect, Social Security might not even exist at all today. If that sounds hyperbolic, those same policymakers whom Armstrong outwitted later decided to not propose national, guaranteed health insurance. Cautiously, they decided it was better left for the future. Today, we are still fighting for improved and expanded Medicare for All.
Other remarkable Mothers included two members of the Social Security Board, which administered Social Security prior to a 1946 reorganization that replaced the Board with a single commissioner. Four other women were members of the 1938 Social Security Advisory Council, whose recommendations to add benefits for wives, widows, and dependent children were enacted into law in 1939.
Perhaps it is in part because these and other women were so important to the birth and early development of Social Security that it is so important to women today. Social Security is essential for virtually everyone, but it is particularly critical for women, as well as people of color, the LGBTQ community, and others who have been discriminated against in the workplace.
Even in 2019, women experience a substantial wage gap. It is commonly reported that, on average, a woman earns just 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Yet even that understates the facts. A recent report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research reveals that women today actually earn, on average, just 49 cents for every dollar earned by men.
Moreover, the same report exposes the drastic penalty for taking time out of the paid labor force. Women who take just one year off from work suffer 39 percent lower earnings than women who do not. This is especially detrimental since 60 percent of caregivers are female.
Social Security cannot offset all of the ills of society. However, it does seek to offset, to the extent it can, this kind of discrimination in the workplace. From the beginning, Social Security has employed a progressive benefit formula that provides larger benefits, as a percentage of pay, for those who have lower lifetime earnings.
Social Security is also especially important to women, because on average, women live longer than men. Unlike savings, you can't outlive Social Security, even if you live to be 110. It's no surprise that women are approximately two out of every three beneficiaries aged 85 and older.
Moreover, Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation, no matter how high inflation is. That is imperative to prevent benefits from eroding as you age. This automatic inflation adjustment, which needs updating, nevertheless is an extremely important feature for everyone, but particularly women. That is because, without adjustment, inflation causes the erosion of benefits to compound with each passing year.
As good as Social Security is, it can and should be better. Past generations of women and men have fought to improve it. Now it is our turn. Our elected Democratic policymakers in Congress are fighting to expand Social Security.
They are fighting to increase Social Security's modest benefits for all current and future beneficiaries. They are also fighting for targeted improvements. They want to restore the minimum benefit, which no longer provides a meaningful floor because it has eroded so substantially. They are also fighting to update the method of indexing benefits, because the current method under-measures the cost of living of seniors and people with disabilities, who have, on average, higher medical and other costs.
Updating both the minimum benefit and the automatic inflation index disproportionately benefits women. So do other improvements Democrats in Congress are fighting for. These include providing caregivers credit toward Social Security for their invaluable but unpaid caregiving work, and improving benefits for those who are divorced and widowed.
Historically, forward-looking women and men have improved Social Security for those who would follow. It is so appropriate that today's Democratic leaders, who are growing more diverse, have taken their place in the fight. Perhaps the best way to celebrate this Mother's Day is for all of us to commit to fighting to expand Social Security, in memory of those brilliant, hard-driving, creative, and compassionate Mothers of Social Security.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular