This past Wednesday, President Obama kicked off a
speaking tour ahead of crucial negotiations with Congress on key budgetary matters. The president returned to Knox College, the site of his first address since taking office as a United States senator in 2005, to decry the deleterious effects that increasing income inequality is creating in the country's recovery from the recent worldwide economic crisis. As the
Guardian notes, however, the speech did not highlight any new policy proposals beyond what the president has called for in previous addresses:
There were no new policy proposals in the speech, which repackaged previously announced proposals for investment in infrastructure and education, tax reform and an increase to the minimum wage.
President Obama is once again taking his policy goals to the American people, perhaps in the hope that public pressure for a better vision will finally convince Republicans in the House of Representatives—
No, you didn't seriously think I was going waste your day speculating on whether it could perhaps be the case that maybe this time, just this once, Republicans in Congress could be convinced by any sort of public pressure or desire to find compromise with the Obama administration on key points of economic policy? Do I look like David Brooks? We are, after all, talking about a party that is so desperate to make sure that Obama's agenda fails that they are willing to convince young people to remain uninsured instead of participating in the lower-cost exchanges provided by so-called ObamaCare. So how about we dodge the speculation about how this turns out and skip to the endgame where Republicans refuse to budge on much of anything until the absolute last minute, the media blames Obama for "not leading," and very little is actually accomplished?
The truth is, serious action on addressing income inequality will likely not come from the president once again beating his head against the stubborn wall of Republican intransigence. Follow below the fold.
Given the high drama that will unfold in our nation's capital in the coming weeks and months, it's easy to forget that decisions made at the local level can have huge regional ramifications. It is a pleasant fantasy to dream of a Congress that would accede to, much less promote, needed investments in education and infrastructure, as well as a systematic economic goal of increasing wages rather than inflating assets. In the absence of such a fiction, however, states and cities can act on their own to accomplish similar objectives. California, for instance, recently passed the Middle Class Scholarship Act, which will significantly reduce tuition at public universities. Meanwhile, there is a crucial fight brewing in Seattle about whether living wages are indeed part of the public good.
Right now, a major issue in Seattle politics is an attempt by Whole Foods—a company with an unpleasant record on labor issues—to build a megastore in West Seattle. Building the project would require vacating a public street and turning it over to a private developer—which gives the city some leverage, since it has authority over whether to grant such a request or not and consider whether it is in the public interest.
The city council still has yet to weigh in, but Mayor Mike McGinn has taken a bold stand by instructing the Seattle Department of Transportation to recommend that the council reject the request to vacate the road. In cases like this, one might expect that concerns about traffic or overdevelopment might prompt such a move, but McGinn recognized that city ordinances allowed him to consider wages and benefits as part of what constitutes the overall public good.
One of our core economic development goals is to provide fair and livable wages and benefits for our residents. The Economic Development elements of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan contain clear language to this effect: “seeking a greater proportion of living wage jobs that will have greater benefits” and "support key sectors of Seattle’s economy to create jobs that pay wages that can support a family, provide necessary benefits, and contribute to the vitality of the City including, but not limited to, the industrial, manufacturing, service, hospitality and retail sectors." The primary retail use in the proposed project is a 41,000 square foot Whole Foods Market. There are already seven large supermarkets within a mile and half of the site, at least six of which offer employer-paid, comprehensive affordable health benefits for full and part-time employees and their families, as well as family-supporting wage scales. Family health benefits and employee wage scales offered by the proposed anchor tenant are significantly lower than other similar businesses, particularly for the growing percentage of employees who work part-time.
Mayor McGinn is basically telling Whole Foods that if they wish to have a public street vacated on their behalf, then they need to join the rest of Seattle's local supermarkets in paying a fair wage and offering a comprehensive benefits package, or else no dice. Now, the primary in McGinn's reelection campaign is on Aug. 6, and two of his opponents—both Democrats—are
sharply critiquing McGinn's decision to stand with low-wage workers—choosing, strangely enough, to argue about process rather than substance. McGinn, however, is not just holding firm, but
actively campaigning on his decision:
The city is under no obligation to sell public property to a company that will depress wages and benefits for workers at existing grocery stores in the same neighborhood. This city is fortunate in that we are growing and prospering, but too many people are left out of that prosperity. This is true not only here but nationwide, where we have had decades of rising inequality. And this is not just a theoretical discussion — it has real impacts on people that work in our city. Will the person ringing up groceries have good health benefits? Will those who stock the shelves with the food we buy be able to live in this city?
Many more people will be tweeting about President Obama's speeches than will be watching returns on the evening of Aug. 6 to see if Mayor McGinn will be rewarded for siding with labor unions and low-wage workers against an anti-union company like Whole Foods. But stopping the erosion of the middle class and fighting for good jobs won't occur by simply hoping that perhaps this time, President Obama can finally break a Republican House eternally dedicated to nullifying his existence. Instead, the fight against economic inequality begins at home, on the streets of our own cities. We wage it by standing in solidarity with low-wage workers in our own communities, organizing with them, and most of all, by electing real progressives at all levels of government who will wield power with economic justice in mind.