The post The United States Postal Service: A bank for everyone, everywhere appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

What if I told you that the United States could fund the President鈥檚 鈥減roposed鈥� $1 trillion infrastructure package, the additional $3.6 trillion , a public jobs program similar to Franklin Roosevelt鈥檚 Works Progress Administration, the additional defense spending that seems to be necessary every fiscal year, and even Sen. Bernie Sanders鈥檚 and plans all without breaking a sweat?

Enter a different way of thinking about money 鈥� modern monetary theory (MMT). For those who haven鈥檛 heard of it, it鈥檚 essentially a rejection of the traditional idea of how the federal government budget (and money) works. We all think of the federal government鈥檚 budget like our own bank accounts. You put money in from paychecks, loans, tax returns, gifts, excess aid checks, etc. You take money out to pay your bills, buy food and gas, and spend on services. When your checking (or savings) accounts run out of money, you can鈥檛 spend any more without borrowing on credit.

The federal budget seems on its face to operate the same way. Tax revenue goes in, spending comes out. To offset costs of new government spending, taxes must be raised, spending must be cut in other areas, or the government runs a deficit (more spending than revenue in a year) and adds to the national debt (total amount the federal government is 鈥渋n the red鈥� after adding all the deficit years and surplus years together). Pretty simple.

But why is the federal government鈥檚 budget different than a personal checking account, business bank account, or city or state government鈥檚 budget? Because the federal government can make up its own money. Now it鈥檚 a little more complicated than that, as I鈥檒l explain. In 2013, an idea was pitched from the to alleviate the national debt without raising the debt ceiling. Proponents suggested that the U.S. Treasury mint a $1 trillion coin and deposit it in its account at the Federal Reserve as a way to get around the debt ceiling without raising it. The idea here is, if we need money to spend on programs and services we want, we can make more of it.

Now, again, we couldn鈥檛 do away with taxes, or risk runaway inflation. Essentially, the federal government would pay itself for public works projects, increases in defense spending and to eat costs of new or modified programs for its citizens鈥� care. The basic philosophy behind the idea is that our money is to it having value 鈥� this is called fiat money. There鈥檚 no other value to our paper currency other than the value we have agreed to as a society. A $20 bill is worth $20 because we say it is. Gold, diamonds, silver, shells, and goods in bartering systems have value as currency, but they have intrinsic value because you can do something with them 鈥� this is commodity money.

When the United States still followed the gold standard, dollars were sort of a hybrid 鈥� representative money. We used paper dollars, but they represented actual intrinsic value. What MMT does is take this philosophy to its logical conclusion. The government, the source of all our currency, funds programs by spending money, which flows into the economy. Taxes, a control on inflation, send that money back to the government so that dollars stay in demand. Money flows out from the government first, then back in. It鈥檚 a common-sense adage for smart businesspeople 鈥� you have to spend money to make money.

So, what does this all mean? Under a MMT system, the government can never 鈥渞un out鈥� out of money. As long as we continue to work, maintain our machines, continue extracting raw materials, and pay our taxes, there is no limit to the public services the government can provide. Deficits and budget constraints, as a problem to be debated, will be purely political (and for MMT proponents, like myself, already are) instead of an actual financial barrier to funding programs we want. Compare Sanders鈥檚 plans with defense spending. When Sanders pitched his plans while running for president in 2016, media outlets on the right and the left were agog at how expensive the plans were, and sounded alarms about the possibility of exploding deficits. In interview after interview, Sanders was asked 鈥渉ow are you going to pay for it?鈥� While Sanders had proposals for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, these proposals would only serve to help mitigate inflation under a MMT regime. Similarly, the U.S. raises defense spending after and no one asks the Congress how they intend to pay for these spending hikes.

Under the current system, either taxes will need to go up or other programs will be cut if we are really concerned with deficits. But, under a MMT system, we wouldn鈥檛 have these concerns. Government spending will . We can have our cake, and eat it too.

The post 鈥淲hat鈥檚 in your wallet?鈥�: Why we should start taking modern monetary theory seriously appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

By: Ashleigh Creed

In 2012 the democrats got 1.4 million more votes than the republicans and could not take control of the [House of Representatives]; and when a gerrymander like this, for all intents and purposes, puts a chamber ostensibly intended to mirror popular opinion and the public will beyond control of the voters- that damages the levers of representative government; that is how elections are rigged and that is the kind of rigged we ought to be talking about. Not what Donald Trump is talking about. Author David Daley on how 鈥渢he game changed in 2010鈥�;

The Best of the Left Podcast (January 19, 2018).

For those needing a brief refresher on the subject, gerrymandering is the act of 鈥渞edrawing the lines of a congressional district to give one political party a voting advantage over another.鈥� (See ) The idea was born from a bill signed by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry that redistricted his state to 鈥渙verwhelmingly benefit his party鈥� back in 1812. This redrawing is effectuated through acts of 鈥渃racking鈥� and 鈥減acking.鈥� Cracking being when the controlling party takes the opposing party鈥檚 vote and divides it up into as many districts as possible- to make it as ineffective as possible; and packing being when the controlling party 鈥減acks鈥� as many of the opposing votes as possible into as few districts as possible, in an effort to take the majority for themselves. (See ). Historically, this was 鈥渂usiness as usual,鈥� and a bipartisan game. However, with modern technology, the threat now posed to democracy through acts of gerrymandering, can no longer be ignored.

Every decade the United States conducts a census 鈥� a 鈥減opulation enumeration鈥� 鈥� the results of which include extremely detailed demographic information that is used to 鈥渁llocate Congressional seats, electoral votes and government program funding.鈥� (See ).This census data comes preloaded on a program called 鈥淢aptitude,鈥� which also provides demographics, ethnicity, economic data, consumer preferences and even voting records. Essentially, 鈥渁 partisan mapmaker now has so much information in front of them that they can draw [district] lines that are essentially unbeatable for a decade.鈥� Author David Daley on how 鈥渢he game changed in 2010鈥�; The Best of the Left Podcast (January 19, 2018). Or, more simply put, 鈥渉e who controls redistricting can control Congress.” Karl Rove, The GOP Targets State Legislatures, (March 4, 2010). See

At this point you may be asking yourself, 鈥渋s this legal?鈥� I certainly was. And, as it turns out, the Supreme Court has been considering that same question for several years now. Since Baker v. Carr in 1962 to be exact. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Those early cases led to the development of the “one person, one vote” principle which boasted to be profoundly constitutional and in symmetry with the framer鈥檚 intention. However, the principle鈥檚 application wasn鈥檛 without its problems. Further, the Court was struggling with coming up with a standard to satisfy discord amongst Justices regarding judicially manageable gerrymandering cases, or if the area was even justiciable in the first place. Indiana circa 1986, a suit was filed by a number of Democrats against various state officials claiming that the Republican Governor鈥檚 reapportionment plan constituted a 鈥減olitical gerrymander intended to disadvantage Democrats across the state.鈥� Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and held that: (1) political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause; and (2), in the case at bay, 鈥渨hile the apportionment law may have had a discriminatory effect on the opposing party, the effect was not “sufficiently adverse” as to violate the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.鈥� But, what then is, 鈥渟ufficiently adverse?鈥� Fast forward a few years to 2004 and Vieth v. Jubelirer, a split decision that had no majority opinion, where the Supreme Court 鈥渄ecided not to intervene because no appropriate judicial solution could be found.鈥� Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004). In this case, Justice Scalia proffered that 鈥渢he Court should declare all claims related to political gerrymandering nonjusticiable鈥� because 鈥渘o court had been able to find an appropriate remedy to political gerrymandering claims in the eighteen years since the Court decided Davis v. Bandemer.鈥�

Now, fast forward to 2017 and Gill v. Whitford: Plaintiffs filed suit in 2015 challenging the legislative re-districting plan drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature following the 2010 Census, alleging discrimination against Democratic candidates and voters on the basis of their political beliefs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The procedural history is as follows:

On November 21, 2016, the panel issued a 2-1 opinion holding that Wisconsin鈥檚 legislative plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander because it resulted in excessive partisan asymmetry that could not be explained by neutral factors such as political topgraphy. Wisconsin filed an appeal on February 24, 2017, asking the Supreme Court to review the decision striking down the map.

So, Wisconsin Democrats are claiming that Republicans have drawn district lines that virtually guarantee their party鈥檚 control of both houses of the state legislature. The Republicans counter that the tests proffered by the Democrats to measure political gerrymandering are 鈥渢oo complex and fail to provide a limited and precise standard for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims.鈥� 鈥淭his case will force the Supreme Court to tackle questions that have long gone unanswered: Can the courts actually rule on partisan gerrymandering? And if so, how will they evaluate such claims?鈥� David Goldman, One Person, One Vote (September 27, 2017).  With so much at stake, this case will be one to watch; but, regardless of the outcome, I am left still wondering, is this the best we can do? Will the Supreme Court rule that political gerrymandering is nonjusticiable? Likely resulting, then, in further perversion of our democratic system? Or will they rule that gerrymandering is a constitutionally justiciable issue of equal protection and lay out a standard for evaluating such claims? Which, pragmatically, legalizes the perversion to the standard laid out by the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision. Again, is this the best we can do?

The post Not Your Grandpa鈥檚 Gerrymandering; The Rigged Election We Should be Talking About appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

• 4 – 11聽
• 6 – 10听
• 8听
• 10听
• 11 – 17聽
• 12 – 18听
• 18 – 24听
• 19 – 23聽
• 20听
• 24听
• 27听

For more information on materials or trainings feel free to email socialchange@ualr.edu! 

The post March appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

by Kyla Bishop

The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.

The term 鈥渟ex-selection鈥� is used to describe . Though there are many methods to control the sex of a fetus (), the method the Arkansas legislature chose to address is sex-selective abortion. Arkansas鈥檚 鈥淪ex Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act鈥� prohibits physicians from performing abortions with the knowledge that the pregnant woman is obtaining the abortion based solely on the sex of the fetus. The Act requires doctors to ask if their pregnant patient knows the sex of her fetus and, if so, requires doctors to inform the patient that she may not seek an abortion based on the sex of the fetus and to obtain the medical records of the patient relating to her entire pregnancy history.

Though the Act is presented as pro-female legislation (the Act states that 鈥淲omen are a vital part of our society and culture and possess the same fundamental rights as men鈥�), in reality, it is a gross intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship based on the offensive stereotype that Asian-Americans do not value the lives of their female children. Representative Charlie Collins, the sponsor of the bill, conceded this, stating that the reason for the legislation was This assertion is not only insulting, but baseless.

Chinese, Indian, and Korean families actually have more girls on average than white families. found that Chinese, Indian, and Korean families have an equal number of boys and girls at their first birth (a sex ratio of 1.00), whereas white families have a sex ratio of 1.06 at their first birth. Additionally, Chinese, Indian, and Korean families have a female-biased sex ratio of .64 after they have had two previous boys, whereas the ratio for white families was 1.07. The 2012 National Asian American Survey on opinions asked the question: 鈥淚f, for whatever reason, you could only have one child, would you want it to be a boy, girl, or does it not matter?鈥� 92% of Chinese, 92% of Indians, and 89% of Koreans said, 鈥淒on鈥檛 Care/Doesn鈥檛 Matter.鈥�

Given this data, sex-selective abortions are not as widespread a problem as the Arkansas legislature purports them to be. Representative Collins admitted that he is not aware of a single incident in Arkansas where a woman had an abortion upon discovering the sex of the fetus. In fact, that Asian immigrants are obtaining sex-selective abortions at all in the United States. So why have a piece of legislation meant to curtail something that is not even happening?

The practical (and arguably, the intended) effect of the Act is to restrict access to abortion as a whole. This is not surprising, as . Among the new laws were . The ACLU of Arkansas and the Center for Reproductive Rights brought suit challenging the measures, resulting in U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker issuing preliminary injunctions against the new restrictions. In her opinion, Judge Baker wrote, 鈥淭hese [laws] do not advance interest in women鈥檚 health because delay and other negative effects instead threaten women鈥檚 health and wellbeing.鈥�

Giving the Arkansas legislature the benefit of the doubt, if it truly wishes to fight against sexism, there is a wealth of data pointing to inequality between the sexes in health, education, and economic status. A 2012 Interim Study Proposal authored by Representative Kathy Webb reported that 16.2 percent of Arkansas women and girls were uninsured, while the national average of uninsured women was 13.5 percent. Regarding education, Arkansas ranks among the lowest in the country of women 25 years or older with a bachelor鈥檚 degree. The Arkansas female high school drop-out rate is 3.5 percent, lower than the 4.7 percent dropout rate of Arkansas men, but still higher than the U.S. drop-out rate of 2.7 percent. Finally, the poverty rate for women in Arkansas is the 7th highest in the nation. A 2016 report found that 20.4 percent of working-age women in Arkansas fell below the poverty line, while the percentage for working-age men was 15.8.

We can all agree that sexism has no place in our society. Using racist stereotypes to restrict reproductive rights, however, solves nothing. Women should feel free to have open and honest conversations with their doctors. Forcing doctors to scrutinize why a patient elects to have an abortion obstructs the doctor-patient relationship and leaves patients feeling humiliated. Rather than acting altruistic in addressing a non-existent problem, the Arkansas legislature should use its time and resources enacting legislation that provides real solutions to the real problems of Arkansan women.

The post Solving Sexism with . . . Racism? appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.