Racial Equity - Wenstrup for Louisiana

PETER’S VISION: RACIAL EQUITY

Non-negotiable: Racial equity is possible within our lifetimes.

Racism is a prominent thread in our country’s past and present; it is inscribed in the policies and practices that founded this country and currently power it. The deep racial wounds experienced by Black people, Indigenous people, and People of Color, were formed long ago and are constantly reopened through racism in our education, criminal justice, and economic systems. However, systems and policies are created by people and can be fixed by people. With a willingness to reckon with our history and a commitment to undertake systemic action, we can solve this challenge head on.

More than half of African Americans, one third of Native Americans, one fourth of Asian Americans, and more than one fifth of Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations. What sorts of Federal protections should be in place for workers of color?

SOLUTION 1
SOLUTION 2
SOLUTION 3
Strengthening Affirmative Action Requirements
Expanding Anti-Discrimination Enforcement
Increasing Union Access

Executive Order 11246 should expand affirmative action requirements to all employers who contract with the Federal government, and refuse future contracts for those who are found to be in noncompliance.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be funded proportional to inflation, population increases, and should include jurisdiction over all employers.

Expand Federal labor protection laws to include farm and domestic workers.

SOME SPECIFICS ON THE PLANS:

  • Affirmative Action:
    • Current affirmative action requirements are only in place for contractors with 50 or more employees and for contracts greater than $50,000. Expanding these requirements to all employers who contract with the Federal government would ensure that all 4 million Federal contractors are covered. Advocates for this plan point to the expansive impact of federal employment policies for those employers who don’t contract with the government themselves.
    • Affirmative action policies have been shown to most benefit white women, more than workers of color. Critics of this policy often advocate instead for targeted programs specifically for workers of color. Others worry about the difficulty smaller employers or family companies may have in hiring a diverse staff.
  • Anti-Discrimination Enforcement:
    • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has never been fully funded since its founding in 1965 and provides numerous exemptions for the types of employers it has jurisdiction over. Additional staff capacity would allow the EEOC to process through its backlog of 50,000 cases, more actively litigate claims, increase its enforcement capacity, and eliminate employee count thresholds.
    • Critics of this plan point out that discrimination claims are reactive solutions to hostile workplaces, and it can take years for damages to be dispersed, if ever. They would advocate for more proactive policies or for funding to be directed toward state agencies.
  • Increasing Union Access:
    • Though unions have won extensive protections for millions of workers, segregationist policies intentionally left farm and domestic workers out of the National Labor Relations Act and leave them vulnerable under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act protections. Adding farm and domestic workers into these policies, who are disproportionately people of color, will grant them additional protections from unsafe and hostile work conditions.
    • However, many argue that in right to work states like Louisiana, unions have less power and therefore do not have the leverage to offer additional protections to workers of color. Others also argue that unions have historically been, and continue to be, hostile to workers of color themselves, and therefore should not be relied on to protect those workers’ interests.

Communities of color in the United States have a long history of denied economic opportunity. How should we move forward from this history of exclusion?

SOLUTION 1
SOLUTION 2
SOLUTION 3
Baby Bonds
Federal Fund for business enterprises run by People of Color
Estate Tax Reform

At birth, each child in the U.S. receives a $1,000 deposit into an interest-bearing savings account, with additional annual deposits depending on family income.

The Federal government provides $7 billion in grants to entrepreneurs of color, with additional support and credit protections to help their businesses thrive.

Reversing the trend of recent years, we increase the tax placed on wealth passing from one generation to the next, and invest that revenue back into communities.

SOME SPECIFICS ON THE PLANS:

  • Baby Bonds:
    • Depending on family income, these child savings accounts could accrue more than $45,000 over the course of childhood, with children in the lowest income bracket adding $2,000 annually. At age 18, account holders can access their funds for human and financial capital investments like higher education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership. 
    • Everyone is concerned with college affordability. Many conservatives are skeptical of complicated government apparatus for college loans and of the push to send every kid to college. This plan would simplify our college tuition support system and empower individuals with the freedom to invest in a small business or home instead. However when spent, it would decrease the racial wealth gap.
    • Critics of this plan worry about the expense of a universal program, and they point out that this plan does not specifically target children of color, and doesn’t explicitly address current wealth inequality in this country. They also express concern with intergenerational equity when investing in the stock market.
  • Federal Fund for POCI Businesses:
    • People of Color are underrepresented in business ownership and there’s real research that conscious and unconscious bias makes it harder for people of color to get loans to start a business. Providing funding to entrepreneurs of color, in a program administered by states, would allow them to start businesses without having to rely as heavily on credit. States and municipalities could provide ongoing technical assistance to help these businesses thrive. 
    • Along with citing its significant price tag, critics of this plan suggest that government-administered business programs can be ineffective and distort the free market. They would propose instead investing in community development financial institutions (CDFIs) or more localized wealth building initiatives. 
  • Estate Tax Reform: 
    • The number of estates subject to the federal estate tax is just 2% of what it was 20 years ago. To reduce racial wealth inequities, proponents of this plan suggest lowering the exemption threshold to the median income (~$50,000) for every year until you are 85. You should be able to provide your children with a living, not power and privilege.
    • Supporters of this plan note that it is a generational fix to a generational problem. It is also the only one of these plans that would be revenue-producing. 
    • Critics of this plan argue that additional taxes make the private market inefficient and create macroeconomic consequences, including de-incentivizing private sector creativity. They would prefer programs that increase wealth in one group without taking it from another. 
First
More than half of African Americans, one third of Native Americans, one fourth of Asian Americans, and more than one fifth of Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations. What sorts of Federal protections should be in place for workers of color?

 

SOLUTION 1 SOLUTION 2 SOLUTION 3

Strengthening Affirmative Action Requirements

Expanding Anti-Discrimination Enforcement

Increasing Union Access

Executive Order 11246 should expand affirmative action requirements to all employers who contract with the Federal government, and refuse future contracts for those who are found to be in noncompliance. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be funded proportional to inflation, population increases, and should include jurisdiction over all employers. Expand Federal labor protection laws to include farm and domestic workers.

 

SOME SPECIFICS ON THE PLANS:

  • Affirmative Action:
    • Current affirmative action requirements are only in place for contractors with 50 or more employees and for contracts greater than $50,000. Expanding these requirements to all employers who contract with the Federal government would ensure that all 4 million Federal contractors are covered. Advocates for this plan point to the expansive impact of federal employment policies for those employers who don’t contract with the government themselves.
    • Affirmative action policies have been shown to most benefit white women, more than workers of color. Critics of this policy often advocate instead for targeted programs specifically for workers of color. Others worry about the difficulty smaller employers or family companies may have in hiring a diverse staff.
  • Anti-Discrimination Enforcement:
    • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has never been fully funded since its founding in 1965 and provides numerous exemptions for the types of employers it has jurisdiction over. Additional staff capacity would allow the EEOC to process through its backlog of 50,000 cases, more actively litigate claims, increase its enforcement capacity, and eliminate employee count thresholds.
    • Critics of this plan point out that discrimination claims are reactive solutions to hostile workplaces, and it can take years for damages to be dispersed, if ever. They would advocate for more proactive policies or for funding to be directed toward state agencies.
  • Increasing Union Access:
    • Though unions have won extensive protections for millions of workers, segregationist policies intentionally left farm and domestic workers out of the National Labor Relations Act and leave them vulnerable under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act protections. Adding farm and domestic workers into these policies, who are disproportionately people of color, will grant them additional protections from unsafe and hostile work conditions.
    • However, many argue that in right to work states like Louisiana, unions have less power and therefore do not have the leverage to offer additional protections to workers of color. Others also argue that unions have historically been, and continue to be, hostile to workers of color themselves, and therefore should not be relied on to protect those workers’ interests.

Which approach to do you think is best for Louisianans?

Communities of color in the United States have a long history of denied economic opportunity. How should we move forward from this history of exclusion?

 

SOLUTION 1 SOLUTION 2 SOLUTION 3

Baby Bonds

Federal Fund for Business Enterprises Run by People of Color

Estate Tax Reform

At birth, each child in the U.S. receives a $1,000 deposit into an interest-bearing savings account, with additional annual deposits depending on family income. The Federal government provides $7 billion in grants to entrepreneurs of color, with additional support and credit protections to help their businesses thrive. Reversing the trend of recent years, we increase the tax placed on wealth passing from one generation to the next, and invest that revenue back into communities.

 

SOME SPECIFICS ON THE PLANS:

  • Baby Bonds:
    • Depending on family income, these child savings accounts could accrue more than $45,000 over the course of childhood, with children in the lowest income bracket adding $2,000 annually. At age 18, account holders can access their funds for human and financial capital investments like higher education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership. 
    • Everyone is concerned with college affordability. Many conservatives are skeptical of complicated government apparatus for college loans and of the push to send every kid to college. This plan would simplify our college tuition support system and empower individuals with the freedom to invest in a small business or home instead. However when spent, it would decrease the racial wealth gap.
    • Critics of this plan worry about the expense of a universal program, and they point out that this plan does not specifically target children of color, and doesn’t explicitly address current wealth inequality in this country. They also express concern with intergenerational equity when investing in the stock market.
  • Federal Fund for POCI Businesses:
    • People of Color are underrepresented in business ownership and there’s real research that conscious and unconscious bias makes it harder for people of color to get loans to start a business. Providing funding to entrepreneurs of color, in a program administered by states, would allow them to start businesses without having to rely as heavily on credit. States and municipalities could provide ongoing technical assistance to help these businesses thrive. 
    • Along with citing its significant price tag, critics of this plan suggest that government-administered business programs can be ineffective and distort the free market. They would propose instead investing in community development financial institutions (CDFIs) or more localized wealth building initiatives. 
  • Estate Tax Reform: 
    • The number of estates subject to the federal estate tax is just 2% of what it was 20 years ago. To reduce racial wealth inequities, proponents of this plan suggest lowering the exemption threshold to the median income (~$50,000) for every year until you are 85. You should be able to provide your children with a living, not power and privilege.
    • Supporters of this plan note that it is a generational fix to a generational problem. It is also the only one of these plans that would be revenue-producing. 
    • Critics of this plan argue that additional taxes make the private market inefficient and create macroeconomic consequences, including de-incentivizing private sector creativity. They would prefer programs that increase wealth in one group without taking it from another.