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.

At issue is the fact that the EPA sets annual volume requirements for certain renewable fuels 鈥� here, domestic ethanol production.  Presently, the RFS requires that 13.2 billion gallons of the corn starch-derived biofuel be produced in the United States in 2012.

While the stated goals of such an initiative are admirable 鈥� among other things, proponents tout energy independence and reduced greenhouse gas emission as natural consequences of these production requirements 鈥� the ethanol target has caused a rift between the energy and agriculture industries, who have become competitors for the nation鈥檚 dwindling corn crop.  Perhaps surprisingly, the biofuel industry and livestock farmers use roughly the same amount of the nation鈥檚 corn, with energy accounting for 40% of the crop and agriculture accounting for 36% for feed.

The RFS is a comparatively new regulatory mechanism, coming into being in 2005 and dramatically expanding in scope in 2007.  Since its inception, corn prices have risen 193%, according to Governor Beebe, among other sources.  In a growing season plagued with national droughts and record temperatures, the ensuing scarcity of domestic corn has caused prices to skyrocket further.  Accordingly 鈥� at least as far as the livestock industry argues 鈥� we鈥檙e faced with a dilemma.  Which do we want to cost more: food or fuel?

The concerns of Governors Beebe and Purdue (admittedly, as advocates for the agriculture industry) highlight an interesting tension between two seemingly dissimilar but equally essential segments of our economy.  In the campaign season, a great deal of coverage has been given to the talking points of energy independence and renewable resources, but very little time has been devoted to food security.  Regardless of one鈥檚 feelings towards livestock farming or, for that matter, ethanol as a renewable energy source, the Governors鈥� letters, coupled with the mounting cry of both the agriculture industry and sympathetic lawmakers, remind us that our policies must square at the end of the day.

It is a certainty that some pundits will tell us our choices at the fuel pump need not overlap with our choices at the table, but it is important to know that in the current regulatory landscape, these two areas appear to intertwine considerably.

The post Food v. Fuel: A Growing Conflict appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

by Jody Hardin

certifiedarkansas@gmail.com

The lowest hanging fruit seems the most likely to be harvested, right?

Many new opportunities are awaiting harvest as the niche market for local, sustainably-produced foods continues to expand as one of the fastest growing sectors of our national economy.  When you combine this growing opportunity with the growing demand for on-farm attractions and agri-tourism, the opportunities surrounding this growing niche market seem more and more exciting as a farmer, economist, and entrepreneur who lives and breathes this every day.

On the other hand, central Arkansas, like other parts of the country, has seen unprecedented growth in new Outdoor and Internet-based Farmers鈥� Markets, new Community Supported Agriculture programs, Local Food Festivals, Buying Clubs, U-pick Farms, Value-added products, etc. With this growth, there have been severe burdens placed on the small farmer in terms of new demands, governmental policies, and global environmental changes, that if not remedied, will soon crush the whole local food movement.  Simply put, there is demand for local foods, but we, as farmers, do not have the necessary tools and leadership to make the potentially huge health and economic impact on our state that we think we can achieve.

In my mind鈥檚 eye, the impact of this move to be more sustainable by Americans is a paradigm shift that ultimately explains some of the currently unexplained dynamics of our ongoing economic recession.  Perhaps it鈥檚 just a small group of people that are becoming to some small degree LESS consumption-based as families; however, I believe this is having some impact on the overall economy.  But, are we seeing some of this food dollar going back into rural Arkansas?  If so, it鈥檚 only a small trickle compared to the relative decline that our communities have experienced within their city limits and surrounding food sheds.  People once grew much of their own food or relied upon local farmers, but now they rely on McDonald鈥檚 and Wal-Mart for their main sustenance.  For those who think people aren’t smart enough to eventually figure this out on their own and continue to reconnect with our old ways of food production, they may be sadly mistaken.  The numbers speak for themselves, but it seems only a few farmers and businesses have this understanding, and can see this grassroots movement in food dollars being redirected back into small communities and the small farms that serve them.

It would be fair to say that a growing percentage of consumers are buying with higher standards, and are shifting some of their purchases and menu selections to local food.  It would also be fair to say that, as families reconnect with how and who grew their food, they become more mindful of eating a healthy diet and spending their food dollar in the local economy.  Additionally, as children are exposed to more varieties of fruits and vegetables, their interest and corresponding education create more intelligent consumers that can discern good food choices from bad.  Perhaps it would be fair to say that a healthy child will grow into a healthier adult, and in a larger sense, place less of a burden on the existing healthcare infrastructure.

Economically speaking, a fairly recent study commissioned by Heifer International concluded that Arkansan’s exported $8 billion in food dollars out of state each year.  According to our best guess, less than five percent of what is purchased by residents in the state of Arkansas is grown in Arkansas.  Some have guessed that fresh fruits and vegetables account for less than one percent of the Arkansans’ annual food budget. The opportunities for growth are mind boggling, but I’m beginning to uncover the many evil bottlenecks our farmers and consumers face trying to affect change in our local food system.

Through my relatively extensive network in the local food and agriculture world in Arkansas and, more recently, the nation, I have seen the multitude of problems that our state faces first hand.  And, after taking several years to painfully boil them down, I am now supremely confident we can do something that will impact everyone in our state, and significantly alter the economic outcome of small communities and the many small acreage farmers in Arkansas.

This will be no small task.  We must understand the problems and opportunities, as well as the risks.  We will need to look outside our borders for working models, and we must quickly convince our state鈥檚 leadership that local food policy means big bucks for our state; all we need are a few infrastructure projects to come together with the markets and capital needed to reach new and existing customers.

Initially, our state needs to organize these markets, and it needs to give them credibility by creating a 鈥淐ertified Arkansas鈥� program, so that each farmer is source-verified by a rigorous inspection system that would allow him or her to sell at any Certified Arkansas Farmers Market that will be developed strategically around the state. Furthermore, as we crank up this economic engine and significant amounts of money and opportunity begin to flow from local food, impostors will attempt to enter with illegitimate products.  Impostors with illegitimate products and those producing food unfairly within a farmers鈥� market serve as one of the most dangerous catalyst to the quick demise of a local farmers鈥� market.  This must be considered before we make the first step.

The types of markets I’m proposing are not community-based farmers鈥� markets.  These have been traditionally called “Terminal Markets鈥� or 鈥淩egional Farmers鈥� Markets.鈥�  Some states refer to them as “State Farmers Markets,” as they are often run by the state鈥檚 Department of Agriculture and a member board.

Connecting these farmers鈥� markets to aggregators, processors, distributors, and retailers, is the key factor in this approach to building our infrastructure for Arkansas’ Local Food System.  Wholesale local markets, connected with aggregators, processors, distrubutors and marketers, are commonly referred to as Food Hubs.  In essence, we want to stay focused on this gluewith an overall mission statement that will drive us collectively, as developers of a statewide local food system that not only organizes food but also food policy and marketing.  However, none of this will work in the typical time frame that most new enterprises experience, since new governmental food policies recently imposed on food producers severely limit their ability to access these new markets.  Specifically, the Good Agriculture Practices program has put a glass ceiling on the size of the local market due to the additional capital and time investment necessary for farmers trying to comply.  It鈥檚 foreign to most farmers, and it does not suit their lifestyle without adding some infrastructure and incentives for them to produce in a different way.

Farmers are an interesting group to work with, and must be brought to the table creatively, patiently, and cautiously, even though they are a large part of the reason we are making this proposal.  Many don’t want or don’t know how to come into compliance with the many new changes in the Food Safety and Modernization Act and the Tester-Hagan Amendment, which gives small farmers a critical exemption in some areas.

An Arkansas Food Hub is the ultimate infrastructure goal we must aim to achieve, backed by a set of robust and high volume 鈥淐ertified Arkansas鈥� markets.  It would allow a market-based focus on building a new economic engine for our state, and it will act like a floodgate to channel money back into rural economic development through wholesome occupations like family farming.

The lowest hanging fruit, based on the consensus of a few knowledgeable leaders in our community, is the opportunity of Farm-to-Work.  Farmers are beginning to realize that in today鈥檚 busy world, the best way to reach the consumer during the week is through their work place.  Employers are beginning to embrace workplace healthy living products, such as workplace delivery of fresh food and on-campus farmers鈥� markets.

In Arkansas, we have identified a growing number of large corporate campuses that would be suited for a demonstration Farm-to-Work program.  This program is simple and straightforward –if farmers were able to produce the variety and volume needed to make the new program successful.  I don’t believe we have this type of ability under the current environment without initially starting out with some planning funds to begin coordinating farmers and their crops to new markets and their unique demands.  Nevertheless, we believe that, with a coordinated effort, the lowest hanging fruit that could be harvested first would be to develop a Farm-to-Work program in Little Rock and elsewhere around the state.  It can be started with little expense, run independently, and have its own specific mission, while allowing other infrastructure components time to develop on their own, i.e. regional and state sponsored farmers鈥� markets, mobile farmers鈥� markets, auction markets, producer cooperatives, csa’s, food clubs, farm-to-school processing, etc.  We could plan for the Food Hub to spring from the first Farm-to-Work program facility.

For phase two, I propose that we develop a small fleet of mobile farmers鈥� markets from the city’s retired CATA buses, brightly wrapped in colorful signage, to go out into underserved communities of Arkansas with the best of what is in season each day.  These buses will be managed, serviced, and inventoried by the future Farm-to-Work aggregation and distribution facility based in Little Rock.

The post Low Hanging Fruit-The Food Hub Foundation appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

I am in my eighteenth year [1] of teaching at a law school that currently sits in the third tier of the U.S. News and World Report law school rankings.[2]  Over the years, I have been amazed by the amount of focus in legal academia placed on the needs and experiences of law schools in the top tier and law students who graduate from these schools.  According to my calculations, the top twenty-five law schools in the United States educate 23,705鈥攐r roughly 16%鈥� of the 145,239 law students attending American Bar Association-accredited law schools.[3]  Yet, so much discussion seems to be directed at what is going on at these schools.[4]  While that might be understandable given that many of these school鈥檚 graduates become influential lawyers and politicians,[5] the majority of the legal work completed in this country is performed by lawyers who graduated from law schools that are not among the top twenty-five.  Schools such as mine, a third-tier school, train lawyers who will have the opportunity to provide legal services to members underserved populations and at some of the highest levels of practice.[6]  Yet, there does not appear to be much discussion about what is happening at schools in the third tier.  If people did take a moment to focus on what we are doing, I think they would be very surprised to find out how innovative and thoughtful institutions like mine are.  I can only speak directly from my experience at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law, but my colleagues at schools like the Bowen tell me similar stories.[7]  Let me begin what I intend to be a series of short articles regarding life in the third tier with a look at something that should be the focus of law students鈥� interest鈥攖eaching.

Critics have long complained about law school education and legal academia.  Members of the bench and bar have criticized legal education, in particular, for being both out of touch with practice[8] and neglectful in how it trains future practitioners.[9]  The popular media has taken up these criticisms in recent years in response to the high costs of legal education and dimming job prospects resulting from the current recession.[10]  I always find these criticisms interesting, while at the same time thinking, 鈥淭hese folks obviously haven鈥檛 visited my school.鈥�

The idea that we were doing something different here鈥攐r at least different than top tier schools鈥攐ccurred to me many years ago at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (鈥淎ALS鈥�) shortly after the Fifth Circuit decision in Hopwood v. State of Texas.[11]  For those of who do not remember that case,[12] it was, for a brief time, the leading case striking down a law school affirmative action admission program.  It sent shockwaves through legal academia, and left law schools鈥攁t least schools who receive thousands of applications鈥攕crambling to find a way to continue to admit a diverse student body.  Following the decision, AALS took up the topic at its annual meeting.  A series of speakers spoke about ways to achieve diversity in admissions while not running afoul of Hopwood.  One speaker explained that schools would have to begin to look at the 鈥渨hole person,鈥� meaning that they would have to look at the applicant鈥檚 file and actually read and review it.

I found myself chuckling.  What do schools in the top tier think those of us who do not get thousands of applications do?  Members of my school鈥檚 admissions committee had long been reading entire applications not only to diversify our classes, but also to try to find those few students who might not have the highest LSAT scores, but had the potential to excel in law school and become competent lawyers.  That was the beginning of what became frequent experiences at the national level: law school-related conferences that purported to be about legal academia throughout the United States, but instead seemed only to be aimed at schools in the top tier and their close relatives in the second.

Two additional occurrences pushed me to write this article about life at a law school like Bowen.  One involved a comment from an inspector from the ABA during our most recent reaccreditation review.  During a one-on-one discussion, he asked me how our school had managed to keep our bar passage rate up when a good chunk of our student body was pretty 鈥渕iddle-of-the-road鈥� in terms of entering statistics.  I鈥檓 sure I looked at him quizzically.  It never occurred to me that the students I taught would not have a high bar passage rate.   Most years, with the occasional exception, my students have strong bar passage rates.  That some law schools like Bowen have difficulty with this was not something of which I was particularly aware.  As a general matter, my students, even those that did not come with the greatest credentials in terms of LSAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages, have worked hard and passed the bar.

The second incident occurred at a conference on the Carnegie Report.  For those not familiar with the study, the Carnegie Foundation prepared a report about the state of legal education in the United States.[13]   There have been other reports about legal education,[14] but this study highlighted the legal education system鈥檚 failure to provide practice-related experience and its failure to inculcate professional identity in law students.[15]

The conference included a panel of legal academics that discussed how their law schools were incorporating some of these values into their courses.  One of the panelist鈥攖he Dean of a top tier law school鈥攑rovided as an example that Civil Procedure professors at his school were beginning to have students draft a complaint in their Civil Procedure courses.  I once again chuckled.  My Civil Procedure students have been drafting complaints in my class for approximately fifteen years.  It鈥檚 a capstone exercise that allows them to pull together a variety of different legal concepts that they have learned in class up to that point: personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue, and pleading requirements.

I鈥檓 not alone among my colleagues at Bowen in incorporating practice and value-related concepts into my courses.  Indeed, our curriculum itself emphasizes the two competencies that the Carnegie Report criticized law schools for neglecting.  For example, in addition to the first-year legal writing and research program, Bowen students are required to take a two-semester Lawyering Skills course during their second year.[16]  Every Bowen student progresses through a simulation that begins with client interviewing and counseling and eventually ends in a bench trial.  We also have clinics and a vibrant externship program, in which students are placed in public interest organizations or government offices under the supervision of a practicing attorney and a full-time faculty member.  Among the components of the externship program is student journaling, whereby students are encouraged to reflect about what they are experiencing in practice.  Indeed, my colleague who teaches the externship class wrote an article describing how the course is consistent with Carnegie values.[17]  Bowen also offers a variety of upper-level writing courses, including a course on drafting contracts.   Finally, for students who are inclined to hang their own shingle, the School offers a law practice management course.

It鈥檚 not only in the skills-related courses that students have opportunities to see what practice is like.  We have many faculty members who incorporate additional activities into doctrinal classes to help students understand the real world applications of their studies.  For example, along with drafting complaints in my Civil Procedure course, students develop what I call 鈥渁pproaches鈥� to the various subjects I teach them.  These approaches require them to synthesize a variety of cases in one area鈥攆or example, personal jurisdiction鈥攁nd develop a framework by which to analyze a problem in that topic.  These approaches must be completed in writing, and I critique them.  Another example is our Poverty Law class, in which my colleagues require students to draft a complaint, a motion and supporting brief, and a client advice letter related to the subjects covered in class.  Family Law is taught in a similar manner.  Many of my colleagues use problems and hypotheticals in class so that students can apply what they have learned to new situations.

That鈥檚 not to say that Bowen does everything right, but we are thoughtful about our teaching approaches and take our jobs as teachers seriously.  Currently, the school is in the process of mapping its curriculum to core competencies developed by the faculty last year.  We want to make sure we are teaching students what we want them to learn.  While our bar results suggest that we have done a good job in past,[18] there is always room to improve.  We continue to carefully consider the manner in which we approach teaching certain subjects.

I hope to produce law students who can pass the bar and conclude their educations with a real sense of what practice is about as a result of gaining practical skills along the way.  Another distinct advantage of Bowen is the price: $11,456/year in tuition for in-state students.[19]  Our students do not graduate from law school mired in debt.  Because of this, many are able to follow their interests, whether it鈥檚 becoming a public defender or prosecutor or working for a public interest law firm.  Perhaps this is why no one is talking about what goes on at third-tier state law schools like Bowen: a great legal education at a great price may prove pretty tough competition for the top twenty-five.

The post A View from the Third Tier: One Professor鈥檚 Preliminary Thoughts about Teaching Law Students appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Executive Summary

Because of the gains by conservatives in the state鈥檚 electoral environment since 2008, now is a crucial time that will shape the state鈥檚 politics for the next generation.

Because portions of Arkansas are 鈥渓ike鈥� different portions of the country, successful strategies for progressive social change employed in Arkansas could be applied to very different portions of the United States. This enhances the value of an investment in such efforts in Arkansas.

A Record of Progress

In recent years Arkansas has made impressive progress on big challenges that have confounded leaders in other states. Under both Republican and Democratic leadership in the past decade, Arkansas has:

• Made a massive overhaul of its education system, including dramatically increased funding and enhanced educational standards;
• Avoided cutbacks to social safety net programs through raising revenue to fill budget shortfalls when necessary;
• Made the tax code more progressive for low-income families, while raising the minimum wage and passing other policies to expand economic opportunities for those in poverty;
• Largely avoided the divisive social issues of immigration, abortion, and LGBT-related policies that have dominated many other neighboring state agendas.

This document (Ripe for Reform) explores the factors creating Arkansas鈥檚 record of progress. The history of populism and progressivism in the state, especially compared to its Southern neighbors, serves as a foundation on which modern progressive social change can be built. Moreover, excepting some very recent dynamics that threaten the overall trend, modern electoral success by relatively progressive candidates and for progressive causes on ballot initiatives exemplifies the openness of the state鈥檚 citizenry to such ideals. The surprising success of progressive causes in the legislative arena in the state鈥攄espite limited outside support for that work鈥攕erves as additional evidence of the opportunities for lasting success in the state.

The report fleshes out this history and modern success stories. It also makes the case that the complex demography of the state that makes it both a 鈥淪outhern鈥� state and a 鈥淢idwestern鈥� state means that political successes in Arkansas could be replicated in a wider array of states in those regions (and in rural America more broadly). In short, while many Southern states have become dominated by ideological polarization, Arkansas remains a more balanced political system that is, therefore, capable of progress on issues that will expand opportunities and social justice. Due to these unique characteristics, with additional investment from outside its borders, Arkansas has an enormous opportunity to continue tackling challenges of poverty and lack of opportunity to transform this small state and have broad ramifi cations beyond its borders.

Download the full report

The post Ripe for Reform: Arkansas as a Model for Social Change appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.