"William Diaz of the 462nd Transportation Battalion feels like he's fighting a war on two fronts. In April, the 39-year-old U.S. Army Reserve corporal is being deployed to Kuwait for a year-long tour.

But for the past few months, Diaz has been fighting another very painful battle in his own backyard: American Servicing Corp., a division of Wells Fargo, is seeking a court order to foreclose on his two-family home in Elizabeth, N.J., a predominately Latino city. [...]

'I am being deployed. I can't say no. If I do, I face court martial. But I feel like I am being forced to choose between my family and my duty to my country,' says Diaz.

For cash-strapped families like his, all it takes is one hiccup—a jump in interest rates, an illness, the loss of a job, a pay cut—to find themselves staring down the barrel of financial ruin.

These days, the contrast between struggling families on Main Street and bankers on Wall Street who are prospering at their expense could not be sharper. In the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, with the U.S. unemployment rate hitting 10 percent and more than 1.4 million Americans filing for bankruptcy in 2009, Goldman Sachs celebrated one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. In January of this year, Goldman Sachs doled out a hefty $16 billion in bonuses for the 2009 year, up from $10.9 billion in 2008—a pretty staggering feat given that a little more than a year ago, Goldman was forced to take American-taxpayer dollars just to stay alive.

The human tragedy all too frequently goes unnoticed amid the noise and finger-pointing in Washington, D.C., and Wall Street over who is to blame for the subprime debacle and its ensuing economic ramifications. But the trauma, the hardship, the heartache being felt by millions of ordinary Americans who have lost their jobs, their homes and their life savings—most of them Black and Latino—is still very real and still very raw. [...]

In fact, a study by United for a Fair Economy examining housing and racial bias found the subprime-lending mess has caused the greatest loss of wealth to Blacks and Latinos in modern U.S. history. During the past eight years, Black borrowers have lost between $72 billion and $93 billion from subprime loans, while Latino borrowers have lost between $76 billion and $98 billion during that same time period, according to the report.

Ironically, the tax dollars that supported the bailout of Wall Street's 'too-big-to-fail' banks and helped pad their bonus coffers came largely from struggling middle-class families—from people like Diaz, already working hard to make ends meet. [...]

As the real-estate market pushed to its peaks in 2005 and 2006 and home prices across the nation literally doubled, new homes couldn't be built fast enough. This voracious demand encouraged lenders to loosen their guidelines by offering loans to borrowers with even the shakiest credit. Wall Street banks cheered them on, extending generous credit terms to lenders and offering loan officers extra money to push subprime mortgages. [...]

And today?

Goldman continues to profit handsomely from the subprime-mortgage fallout. During the boom, Goldman Sachs bought thousands of subprime mortgages, many of them from some of the most toxic lenders in the business, and packaged them into high-yield bonds. [...]

In fact, Wall Street investment banks, including Goldman Sachs, were subprime-mortgage lenders' single most important source of capital and therefore had a lot of power and influence in the subprime-mortgage market, according to a report issued by Center for Public Integrity. [...]"

Read the full article by Sam Ali, Luke Visconti and Barbara Frankel on DiversityInc.com. Scroll down for additional commentary from Luke Visconti in dialogue with readers.

"There is a push underway by Republicans in Congress to trade their support for a jobs bill for a more favorable estate tax.

The left says it is a blatant case of the rich holding the poor hostage. The right say it is the only way to get a reasonable compromise on the estate-tax issue. [...]

Republicans want a full repeal of the tax or a version more along the lines of a proposal by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), which would cap the tax at 35 percent on estates worth more than $5 million.

Republicans aren’t likely to win a full repeal (especially not in these populist times) but they may get something close to the Kyl-Lincoln plan.

Lee Farris, Estate Tax Policy Coordinator at the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy called the plan to link the estate tax to the jobs bill 'an outrage.'

'Why are Senators Kyl and Grassley more worried about enriching the heirs of multimillionaires than about helping Americans hit hardest by the recession?' she said in a statement. [...]"

Read the full blog by Robert Frank.

"In a series of comments over the past few days, Senators Kyl and Grassley have made clear their willingness to hold up unemployment benefits for struggling Americans as a bargaining chip to permanently weaken the federal estate tax, and further enrich America's wealthiest families.

'Why are Senators Kyl and Grassley more worried about enriching the heirs of multimillionaires than about helping Americans hit hardest by the recession?' asks Lee Farris, Estate Tax Policy Coordinator at United for a Fair Economy (UFE). 'It is an outrage that they are willing to hold struggling Americans hostage in their efforts to secure another huge tax cut for the wealthy Wall Street crowd that crashed our economy in the first place!'

The $15 billion jobs bill that passed on Wednesday did not extend unemployment benefits or the COBRA health insurance subsidy. As a result, more than a million people will run out of benefits next month if the deadline is not extended, prompting Congress to begin debate over extending those benefits. But Senators Kyl and Grassley are ready to block it to get their way.

Minority Whip Senator Kyl, who has been a leader in efforts to weaken the federal estate tax, stated on Feb. 24 that Republicans will block consideration of the new unemployment benefits bill unless they get 'a path forward fairly soon' to voting on a permanent, and weakened estate tax. And earlier this month, Senator Grassley said that 'timely consideration of permanent bipartisan estate and gift tax reform' is 'essential to completing action on' a previous jobs bill."

Read the full press release on CommonDreams.org.

Beginning Tuesday, March 2nd, UFE will host a four-session, bilingual (Spanish & English) Training of Trainers series at our office in downtown Boston. UFE's Popular Economics Education workshops transform dry economic statistics into memorable learning experiences that connect with people’s lives and lead to action. This Training of Trainer series will give participants an opportunity to learn and practice the methodology behind the workshops, as well as engage with information about the roots of economic inequality and what we can do to move the struggle for economic justice forward.

Registration & Food at 6:00 pm
Training Session from 6:30 - 8:30 pm
All sessions will be held in UFE's Conference Room, 29 Winter St., 2nd Floor, Boston

The cost is $10 per session. Space is limited, so please RSVP to Steve Schnapp (617-423-2148 x110) or [email protected] to register.

2010 Shareholder Resolutions

In 2009/2010, Responsible Wealth members have filed shareholder resolutions on the following issues:

1. Say on Pay (the right of shareholders to vote on executive compensation packages)
2. Pay Disparity (the gap between CEO compensation and average worker pay)
3. Virtual Shareholder Meeting
4. Proxy Voting
5. Succession Planning
6. Board Diversity

Say on Pay

While the economy has been in a deep recession, triggered by the financial crisis that began in 1998, many executives, particularly in the financial sector, have continued to receive outsized compensation packages. Responsible Wealth members have expressed their concern through “Say on Pay” shareholder resolutions, which propose giving shareholders a non-binding advisory vote on the pay of senior executives in the company. Responsible Wealth is part of a broad coalition of socially responsible investors, foundations, pension funds and others who together filed over 100 Say on Pay resolutions in both 2008/2009 and 2009/2010. To date, over 40 companies have adopted Say on Pay policies, and legislation is moving in Congress to require such votes at all publically traded companies.  

Although “Say on Pay” resolutions are relatively new, studies have shown that they have increased the quality of communication between shareholders and board members/executives. Say on Pay allows shareholders to provide valuable input in the formulation of CEO compensation packages by opening up dialogue between top executives and shareholders and holding executives more accountable for the company's long-term performance as reflected in their compensation.  For 2010, we have re-filed Say on Pay resolutions with Target and Yahoo.

Pay Disparity

Over the past few decades, the growth of CEO pay packages has far exceeded that of the national average income. This resolution asks companies to take a look at the CEO pay/average worker pay gap by asking the company to report on the following:

1. A comparison of the total compensation package of senior executives and employees’ median wage in the United States in July 2000, July 2004 & July 2009.
2. An analysis of changes in the relative size of the gap and an analysis and rationale justifying this trend.
3. An evaluation of whether senior executive compensation packages (including, but not limited to, options, benefits, perks, loans and retirement agreements) are “excessive” and should be modified to be kept within reasonable boundaries.
4. An explanation of whether sizable layoffs or the level of pay of the company’s lowest paid workers should result in an adjustment of senior executive pay to “more reasonable and justifiable levels” and whether the firm in question should monitor this comparison going forward.

For 2010, we filed Pay Disparity resolutions with JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Comcast.  The Comcast resolution was subsequently withdrawn due to a filing technicality (the filer owned the wrong class of shares).

Virtual Meeting

We strongly support the use of new technologies to make annual meetings accessible to stakeholders who cannot attend in person. This will make “attendance” simpler for many investors globally and is a creative tool for expanding outreach to owners. But we do not believe that Internet-only meetings should be substituted for traditional in-person annual meetings. Instead, the use of video or audio conferencing should be complementary to the physical meeting. We believe the tradition of in-person annual meetings plays an important role in holding management accountable to stockholders. By making all meetings purely virtual, executives and board members are able to manipulate the conditions of discourse to their advantage. This resolution asks to maintain a physical meeting as a means of ensuring the both the accountability of executives/board members and the quality of representation of stockholders. For 2010, we filed a virtual meeting resolution with Intel. Intel agreed to hold a physical meeting in 2010 and Responsible Wealth withdrew our resolution.   

Proxy Voting (specific to State Street Corporation)

As part of its fiduciary duty, State Street Corporation is responsible for voting proxies of companies in which it holds stock on behalf of its clients. However, its proxy voting record seemed to ignore State Street’s proclaimed environmental commitment and stated position regarding the impact of key environmental factors on shareholder value. We believe a thoughtful fiduciary must carefully review the economic rationale for all proxy initiatives. This resolution requested that the Board initiate a review of State Street Global Advisor’s Proxy Voting Policies, taking into account State Street’s own corporate responsibility and environmental positions and the fiduciary and economic case for each shareholder resolution presented. This resolution was filed with State Street Corporation. State Street has agreed to revise its proxy voting policy and we have withdrawn our resolution.

Board Diversity (specific to Intel Corporation)

The goal of this resolution is to raise the issue of introducing racial diversity within Intel’s board of directors. While Intel is by no means the epitome of board homogeneity (breaking the gender gap with three women serving on the board of directors), there is currently no racial diversity on the board. A growing body of research has shown that board diversity is a component of sound corporate governance and a key attribute of a well-functioning board. In an increasingly complex and diverse U.S. and global marketplace, the ability to draw on a wide range of viewpoints, backgrounds, skills, and experience is critical to a company’s success. After a good-faith discussion with Intel about strengthening its practices with respect to recruiting diverse candidates for board seats, we agreed to withdraw our resolution. 

Succession Planning (specific to Intel Corporation)

CEO succession is one of the primary responsibilities of a board of directors.  This resolution asks the board of directors to initiate a process to include in the company’s corporate governance guidelines a written and detailed succession planning policy. The resolution proposes that the new policy should require: an annual review of succession strategies; criteria for ensuring that the CEO position reflects the needs of the company; a plan to identify and develop internal candidates for the CEO position; initiation of a non-emergency succession planning committee at least three years before any anticipated transition, and an emergency succession plan; and the creation of a annual report to shareholders on the company’s succession planning.  This resolution was filed with Intel Corporation and withdrawn after negotiation with the company and assurance from the company that it is adequately focused on this issue and will provide greater transparency on this issue in the future.

Please follow the links below to see the text of the 2010 resolutions.

State of the Dream 2010: Drained

Jobless and Foreclosed in Communities of Color

NOW AVAILABLE!

State of the Dream 2010: Drained explores the current racial economic divide in the U.S. in terms of unemployment, income, poverty, net worth, and rate of foreclosures.

In Drained, we discuss the shortcomings of "colorblind," broad-spectrum policies, and the urgent need for targeted policies geared toward lifting up the communities in most need. We highlight this policy approach as key to narrowing the gaping racial income and wealth divides, and to rebuilding the economy as a whole.

SEE KEY FACTS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The authors of this report are:

• Ajamu Dillahunt, UFE Board Member
• Brian Miller, Executive Director, UFE
• Mike Prokosch, UFE Board Member
• Jeannette Huezo, Education Coordinator, UFE
• Dedrick Muhammad, Senior Organizer & Research Associate, Institute for Policy Studies

READ THE REPORT IN ENGLISH (PDF 2.2MB)

READ THE REPORT IN SPANISH (PDF 2.5MB)

Forward to 22:49 for the segment featuring Mike Prokosch.

"President Barack Hussein Obama officially marked the end of the first year of his administration with his State of the Union Address Wednesday night. The First Black President kept his record of doing zero for Black America intact, as he announced a spending freeze which will result in the downsizing of already underfunded federal social services. According to the United for a Fair Economy State of the Dream 2010: Drained report, the national unemployment rate for blacks stood at 16.2 % as of December 2009. Latinos came in at 12.9 % while the rate for whites actually dropped for the second month in a row, to 9 %. The report finds that blacks earn 62 cents for every dollar made by whites, Latinos make 68 cents. Blacks possess 10 cents of net wealth for every dollar of whites, Latinos stand at 12 cents. Last month, ten members of the Black Congressional Caucus demanded that 10% of federal job creation funds be allocated to regions with the highest unemployment rates. This plan was shot down by the president. As a result of the CBC boycotting a key House vote on financial industry regulation, $6 billion dollars was added for targeted job creation, assistance to people facing housing foreclosure and other initiatives.

The conclusion of the State of the Dream report is that targeted job creation programs for communities with the highest unemployment rates is the only way to address the aforementioned racial economic disparities. The findings of the report have been met with deafening silence by blacks who still want to believe in their president and white progressives who participated in an unprecedented grassroots campaign to get Obama elected. Health care reform is dead – the president did not refer to this issue until he was 30 minutes into his speech. The vaunted public option was not mentioned, so the crappy bill that passed the Senate is apparently still on the menu. There were never any discussions during the Health Care No Holds Barred Steel Cage Match between the Democrats and Republicans about the impact of racial health disparities. According to a report by Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland researchers, these disparities cost the United States $229 billion annually, enough money to completely revamp the national health care system. The report finds that people of color are generally in worse health than whites and far more likely to die from a wide range of diseases. Militarism will still be well served by the Obama administration as the spending freeze exempts the Pentagon. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq rage on, with Yemen and Nigeria possibly being added to the mix very soon."

Read the full article on HartfordIMC.org.

"To add insult to injury to working America, in came the earnings reports from Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. At these mega banks, balance sheets are healthy, profits are up and bonuses for top executives are bigger than ever. JPMorgan Chase just reported $11.7 billion in profits and $26.9 billion in compensation and bonuses. Goldman Sachs made a record-high profit of $13.4 billion in 2009 and is slated to hand out $16.2 billion in compensation and bonuses.

These are some of the same institutions whose predatory and unethically risky actions brought our economy to its knees. But, thanks to billions of dollars in government resuscitation, they seem to be recovering nicely from their near-death experiences.

The "earnings report" for the rest of the U.S., however, includes — drum roll, please — higher unemployment and continued foreclosures, with no relief in sight. It sounds like a raw deal because it is. Big banks and Wall Street financiers ignited the foreclosure crisis, setting our economy ablaze, resulting in the loss of millions of homes and jobs.

While Americans everywhere are suffering, not all are suffering equally. Communities of color are, once again, experiencing the brunt of this recession. [...]"

Read the full op-ed by Prakash Laufer on NewJerseyNewsroom.com.

"'The election of Obama reflected a great deal of change in attitudes, but change hasn’t lasted,' says William P. Jones, an associate professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'And I don’t think we should expect to see much change, both because of who Obama is as a politician and because of who we are as a nation.'

Race is inextricably tied to economics, because racial inequality in the United States was forged in the economic institution of slavery, says Jones. Obama’s success in winning the election, and in effectively governing, rests on his ability to convince white voters that he puts their interests first and black voters that they will benefit even more than whites from his policies, Jones says. But the economic crisis of Obama’s first year as president has done nothing if not challenge the effectiveness of his programs — especially for blacks.

'For the first time in 30 years, the gap between black and white income is increasing,' says Jones, who was part of a discussion panel called 'Taking Stock of Race and Racism: A Year after Obama’s Inauguration' presented last week by the UW-Madison Center for Humanities.

Jones’ observation is supported by a new report on economic inequality, 'State of the Dream 2010: Drained,' that concludes people of color are suffering more in the economic downturn than whites. In 2009, the unemployment rate for whites rose 2.4 percentage points, compared to 4.3 points for African-Americans and 3.7 for Latinos, according to the report released on Jan. 18 by United for a Fair Economy, a Boston-based nonprofit research and advocacy group. The disparity was particularly pronounced in five states, including Wisconsin, where the unemployment rate for blacks was at least three times that of whites.

Read the full article by Pat Schneider in The Cap Times of Madison, WI.

"As of December 2009, the African American unemployment rate went above 16%, the Latino unemployment rate is very close to 13%, and that's compared to 9% for white Americans. [...] [W]hat the African American community is facing is more in the order of a depression than a recession. [...]

[I]n places like Michigan and Ohio...the unemployment rate amongst African Americans is expected to exceed 20% this year. [...]

We need a targeted approach to get us out of this bind that we're in now, and we have recommendations for that."

Click here to listen to the show. Scroll forward halfway for the segment with Ajamu Dillahunt.

Oregon, like so many states in the recession, was facing difficult and painful cuts in order to balance their budget – until the recent, and historic, vote that took place on Tuesday.

Oregonians voted in favor of Measures 66 and 67, which passed at 54% and 53% respectively. These measures call for modest income tax increases on the wealthiest 3% of Oregonians, and establish a $150 minimum tax for most businesses, raise the tax rate on some corporate profits by 1.3 percentage points, and increase certain business filing fees.

According to an article by David Steves, Oregon had not voted to approve general tax increases since 1930. So why are they voting in favor now? Some speculate the change of heart is due to the fact that these tax measures only affect those most able to pay – both at the individual level and in terms of large corporations. Most Oregon residents and businesses will not be affected.

Though anti-tax opponents are still spouting messages of doom for Oregon, the taxes are estimated to bring in over $700 million that will protect vital public services. This revenue saves schools from a 5% across-the-board decrease in state funding, and prevents drastic cuts in state-fiunded medical coverage, public safety and human services.

UFE commends the voters of Oregon, Vote Yes for Oregon, and TFOC members, Tax Fairness Oregon and Our Oregon, for their contributions to this historic victory.