Cities of Service helps mayors and city leaders tap into the knowledge, creativity, and service of citizens to solve public problems and create vibrant cities. We work with cities to build city-led, citizen-powered initiatives that target specific needs, achieve long-term and measurable outcomes, improve quality of life and build stronger cities.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Soaring grocery prices are not acts of God
Jul 17, 2024
Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Since the pandemic, going to the grocery store has become a jarring experience. On a recent visit, I packed my purchased items into my tote bag and then gawked at the receipt in disbelief.
I’m not alone. Griping about the high cost of groceries has become a national pastime. It’s not just a figment of our imaginations: Grocery prices have soared nearly 27 percent since 2020, higher than overall inflation.
Some consumers have gone into debt to afford groceries. According to an Urban Institute analysis, many families have had to tap credit cards, savings and payday loans to afford the essentials.
The standard explanation for these grocery price increases has been supply chain disruptions caused by pandemic-related labor shortages, rising fuel costs and droughts.
Certainly those factors have all played a significant role. But is that all that’s going on here? Let’s probe a little deeper.
Concurrent with the alarming rise in grocery prices has been a record increase in grocery industry profits. The major grocery chains have been operating at the highest profit margins in two decades. A recent Federal Trade Commission study on grocery supply chains found that major retailers have leveraged their size and influence to dictate what they pay to their suppliers.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So during a time when everyone else’s costs have escalated, grocery chains have been able to control costs even as their prices soared.
For example, Pepsi and Coca-Cola dominate the beverage industry. In 2021, during the middle of the pandemic, Pepsi raised its prices, blaming it on alleged higher costs. Yet somehow it still raked in $11 billion in profits. Then in 2023, even though the pandemic was over and inflation was dropping, Pepsi still hiked its prices by double digits for the seventh consecutive quarter. Its profits soared another 14 percent.
Pepsi’s only major competitor, Coca-Cola, announced the same price hikes around the same time. If Pepsi and Coke had other large competitors, consumers would have more choices. But Pepsi and Coke own most of the substitute beverage products!
That’s what’s called a market monopoly, and soft drinks are not the only food products dominated by a handful of businesses. Only four companies control the processing of 80 percent of beef, nearly 70 percent of pork and almost 60 percent of poultry. With so few businesses competing, it is pretty easy for them to coordinate price increases. Consequently, at the end of 2023, Americans were paying at least 30 percent more for beef, poultry and pork products than they were before the pandemic.
The number of grocery stores itself has fallen 30 percent in the past 25 years, resulting in more than a third of grocery sales coming from only four retailers. Walmart alone has nearly a quarter of the grocery market. Low competition gives these retailers more market power to raise prices.
So yes, inflation is down, but many people don’t notice because food prices are still high, partly due to several years of price gouging by monopolies. And this dynamic goes well beyond the grocery store. In 75 percent of US industries, whether pharmaceuticals, airlines, health care, utilities, energy or others, fewer companies now control more of their markets than 20 years ago.
What role do presidents or politics play in all of this? During the recent debate, Donald Trump attacked President Joe Biden over high grocery prices, saying, “He caused the inflation … it’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore.”
Certainly it’s true that prices have greatly increased during the Biden presidency. But much of that initially was a result of the pandemic — which began during Trump’s presidency. It’s unlikely that either president could have controlled those pandemic-unleashed economic forces.
To Biden’s credit, his administration has been pressing grocery retailers to lower prices, and actually has done more than any president since Teddy Roosevelt to crack down on monopolies. His FTC has taken action against price-fixing in the meat industry and filed a lawsuit to block the merger of supermarket giants Kroger and Albertsons that would eliminate even more competition and lead to higher prices.
Trump, in his strategy to protect American businesses, has called for a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods. That makes a great campaign slogan, but given that the United States imports 15 percent of its food supply — including 60 percent of fresh fruit and nearly 40 percent of fresh vegetables — that would likely further increase food costs.
Just recently, there’s evidence that some of the anti-monopoly saber rattling might be working. Grocery chains have finally begun lowering prices. Target announced it would lower prices on roughly 5,000 items, including staples such as milk, produce, bread, coffee, diapers and pet food. Aldi, the fastest-growing grocery chain in the country, announced price cuts on hundreds of items. Walmart and Safeway have followed suit.
But this is not some newfound corporate generosity. With prices so high, U.S. consumers had reduced their grocery spending to the point that it actually began to threaten Big Grocery’s sales and profits. Greedy grocery chains have quite literally bitten the hand that feeds them.
Going forward, as America races toward a presidential election, voters will be eyeing their grocery bills and comparing the candidates’ statements over who will provide the most relief.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Don’t Miss Out
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.
Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights
Jul 16, 2024
Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.
This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.
Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.
The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”
So far, the heavy legislating has happened at the state level, with a number introducing legislation aimed at increasing parental involvement, transparency and accountability. There is a growing movement for parents to have more control over and insight into their children's education. Proponents believe greater parental involvement can lead to better educational outcomes. Most laws proposed by states purport to center around increasing transparency in educational systems, ensuring parents are informed about what their children are being taught, how schools are run, and how decisions are made.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
These legislative efforts are often a response to our broader social and political movements, driving for increased parental involvement and oversight in schools. For instance, conservative groups have been particularly vocal about lessons around critical race theory and gender education, pushing for more parental control to adjust school curricula to align with their personal views and values.
What states have passed a parental bill of rights?
Such laws generally outline specific rights for parents regarding their control and influence over their children’s upbringing, primarily in the context of education. Arizona’s House Bill 2732 in 2010 was the first in the current effort to define parental rights concerning children's education, upbringing, and health care. The law specifically includes a parent's right to direct their child's education, access school records and be informed about the curriculum.
Utah passed Parental Rights in Public Education in 2014, specifying certain rights of a parent or guardian of a student enrolled in a public school.Florida’s 2021 Parental Rights in Education gave parents control over their child's education, health care decisions and moral upbringing, including provisions for greater transparency in educational materials and school policies.
Texas enacted two bills in 2023: The first allows parents to access and review instructional materials; the second prohibits public school systems from possessing, acquiring and purchasing “harmful library material that is sexually explicit, pervasively vulgar, or educationally unsuitable.”
Many other states have proposed and enacted similar bills over the last decade.
What are the drawbacks to this movement?
Excessive interference in curriculum can undermine the expertise of educators and educational institutions, resulting in a fragmented educational experience for students, especially if parents with diverse views impose conflicting demands on schools. Schools will face increased administrative burdens to comply with the proposed transparency, find a middle ground and fulfill reporting requirements. This diverts time and resources away from direct educational activities, impacting overall school function.
Further, there is an argument that this type of legislation can lead to censorship of educational materials, particularly those related to controversial or sensitive topics such as sex education, race and gender identity. This can limit students' exposure to diverse perspectives and critical thinking opportunities. Allowing parents to opt their children out of certain lessons or activities can lead to inconsistencies in educational standards and experiences, affecting the overall quality and cohesiveness of student's education.
What would be the impact of Project 2025’s proposed federal Parental Bill of Rights?
The focus on parental rights could prioritize voices of more vocal or organized groups, potentially neglecting the needs and rights of minority or marginalized students and families. The federal legislation will likely result in increased legal disputes between parents and schools, which are costly and time-consuming, draining already limited school resources. Also, the implementation of these laws can exacerbate social and political divisions, particularly in communities with diverse views, leading to conflicts between parents, educators, and school boards, creating a contentious educational environment.
Balancing parental rights with the needs and expertise of educators is crucial to address these concerns effectively. While Project 2025’s initiative reflects a growing trend across the United States to formalize and expand parental rights in the context of education and child welfare, careful consideration is needed to ensure these rights do not hinder the educational process and overall student welfare.
More in The Fulcrum about Project 2025
Keep ReadingShow less
Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden at the debate on June 27.
Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images
Dems, Republicans and the death of common sense: We are stuck with Biden and Trump
Jul 16, 2024
Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Common sense. We all know what it means, but common as it is, definitions and ideas of it have changed over centuries.
Aristotle connected common sense directly to the senses, and the ways in which we use different tastes, colors, feelings, smells and sounds to collectively perceive and categorize things.
Descartes agreed with Aristotle that it linked the mind to the senses, but argued it was a less effective tool of judgment than mathematical and methodical reasoning.
I’m partial to Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico’s definition of common sense: “Judgment without reflection, shared by an entire class, an entire people, an entire nation, or the entire human race.”
In other words, we can all practice common sense.
Or at least you’d think so, anyway.
But if any of these philosophers were dropped into 2024 America, in the midst of one of the craziest, messiest, most bizarre political elections in our history, they’d be hard-pressed to find common sense in evidence anywhere.
Let’s start with the obvious.
The nation watched as a frail, somewhat confused, steeply declining 81-year-old man failed to put coherent sentences together, keep his thoughts on track, and effectively debate an opponent who, at 78, seemed robust and sprightly by comparison.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Since then, common sense is telling most Americans — the ones who aren’t hardened partisans — that Joe Biden is simply too old to be president again. The presidency is a hard job, especially in these trying times of global strife and domestic fragility, and someone who will be 82 at the time of his inauguration probably isn’t best situated to do four more years of it.
Common sense also says that Biden isn’t just too old, but missing a step. Americans can see, with their own eyes, his gaffes, his stiffness, his seeming bewilderment.
And common sense is telling many Americans, especially those who’d like Biden to defeat former President Donald Trump, that Biden can no longer do that. Why? They can see the polls, almost all of which show Trump widening his lead against Biden.
They can see what plenty of down-ballot Democrats can see all too well, which is that Biden most likely can’t beat Trump and might even drag down House members and senators, too.
Common sense says Democrats should have chosen someone else to lead the party into the future.
And yet, the president and his surrogates are telling Americans that Biden is just fine. “He is as sharp as ever,” his press secretary told the media, with a straight face.
He just had a bad cold, they said.
He was jet-lagged, they said.
He had over-prepared, they said.
They also told us the polls are wrong, and Biden is the best person to beat Trump.
But none of these excuses make any sense to most Americans. Because most Americans have common sense.
Over on the right, things are hardly any better. In fact, they may be worse.
Republicans are on the verge of nominating a man for president who lost the White House, the House and the Senate, incited an insurrection, got impeached twice, and is a rapist and convicted felon.
Common sense is telling most Americans — the ones who aren’t locked in the cult of MAGA — that Donald Trump is wholly unfit for the job. He’s also too old, also missing a step, routinely fumbles his words, can’t answer basic questions, and has said and done things that make him morally and physically questionable.
Common sense says that having a convicted felon for president, someone who had an affair with a porn star and then paid her to keep it quiet, would be embarrassing for America.
Common sense says that Republicans should have selected someone who could lead the party into the future.
But Trump and his surrogates have told us with a straight face for nearly 10 years that everything common sense tells us is a weakness is actually Trump’s strength. They’ve told us not to believe anything we hear or see. They’ve told us Trump’s lies are “alternative facts,” his peccadillos are his political prowess, his moral failings, his evidence of masculinity.
The gaslighting from both sides is truly impressive, but too many of us have turned off our common sense in order to adhere to each party’s obscene and insane purity tests.
Both parties are taking advantage of this, knowing that our common sense is now fragile and fungible, that we’ve become complacent and convincible, that we are more vulnerable to persuasion than ever before.
But plenty of Americans — not coincidentally those who are disillusioned with our two parties — have not turned off their common sense. They see through the lies and gaslighting, and importantly, they will decide this election. And that should scare both candidates.
2024 S.E. Cupp. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Keep ReadingShow less
The Supreme Court is a threat to American democracy
Jul 16, 2024
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was a wake-up call for Americans who had grown complacent about their rights and freedoms. The court's decision was just the beginning of a series of rulings showcasing its alarming readiness to influence almost every facet of American life.
In a recent move, the court annulled the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old precedent that granted federal agencies extensive regulatory power. This ruling, coupled with the undermining of Roe, reveals a court determined to reshape the nation in its image, regardless of the cost to established law or the balance of power in our government. The situation is not just concerning; it's urgent, and immediate action is needed now.
The high court, tilted sharply to the right in its present configuration, seems determined to impose a rigid and distinct ideology on the nation. It's not just about abortion rights, though the loss of a half-century-old precedent is seismic enough. It's about the court's growing tendency to disregard precedent, ignore legal consensus and side with the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. This disregard for precedent is not just a legal issue; it's a threat to our established law's fabric. For instance, the court's decisions have disproportionately affected women, minorities and low-income individuals These decisions further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The justices' expansive view of their authority threatens the delicate checks and balances that safeguard our democracy. This trend, if left unchecked, could have far-reaching consequences for the health of our constitutional system. When the court intrudes into areas rightfully belonging to the legislative or executive branches, it undermines the people's ability to effect change through the democratic process. Only select judges should have the final say on matters of policy, which are best left to the people's elected representatives. By overstepping their constitutional role, the justices disrupted the careful balance of power envisioned by the Framers and diminished the citizenry's voice and power. In a representative democracy, the people must have a meaningful avenue to share in the country's direction. When the court legislates from the bench, it circumvents this process and consolidates excessive power in the judicial branch. This erosion of checks and balances is a dangerous trajectory that could ultimately imperil the stability and resilience of our democratic institutions.
The Supreme Court's recent decisions demonstrate a court in thrall to ideology rather than a moral commitment to the law. They expose the dangers of lifetime appointments and the court's lack of accountability. They underscore the urgent need for reform, whether through term limits, expansion of the court or some other mechanism to restore its balance and legitimacy. The need for reform is not just required; it's pressing, and our advocacy can make a difference. Moreover, the court's overreach threatens to alienate Americans from their democracy. When citizens see their elected representatives stripped of power and their votes rendered meaningless by unelected judges, they lose faith in the system. They grow apathetic, disengage from the political process and cede the field to extremist minorities.
The court's expanding reach presents a grave danger: not just the loss of this right or that, but the potential hollowing out of our democracy. The court needs to understand that its vast power is not without limits. If it does not voluntarily pull back from the brink, then the other branches of government and the people themselves must step in to restore the balance. The potential dismantling of democracy is an existential concern that we must all address. The fight to save democracy is not just about the next or future election. It's a generational struggle to ensure that our system of government remains accountable to the people above the shouts of a reactionary elite. The threat to our democracy is accurate, and we all have a responsibility to protect it.
The Supreme Court's recent power grab poses a threat not just to specific laws or rights but to the foundational principles of our democracy itself. Regardless of our political leanings, every American who cares about the future of our republic must recognize the danger this shift represents. In their rush to impose a narrow and divisive vision upon the nation, the court's ideologues have upset the delicate balance of power our system depends on. They have chosen to ignore decades of legal precedent, dismissing the people's will and our elected representatives' role in shaping the country's laws. This court's practices are not just an attack on certain cherished rights, though those are also undoubtedly under threat. It is a threat to the very essence of our self-governance, to the idea that, in a democracy, it is the people who ultimately determine the nation's direction.
We cannot afford to be complacent in the face of this threat. The court's actions demand a swift and decisive response from all of us. We must organize, mobilize and make our voices heard in the streets and at the ballot box. We must demand that our elected officials take action to check the court's power and defend the rights and principles that are under attack. This can be done through civic actions like contacting elected officials, participating in peaceful protests or voting in upcoming elections.
This will not be an easy fight and will only be won over time. But if we cede the field to the court's ideologues and allow them to reshape our country without resistance, we risk losing a few cherished freedoms and the heart of our democracy itself. Your engagement is crucial in this fight. Every voice matters, and every action counts. Together, we can and must defend the republic and ensure that it remains the people who have the power in the United States.
Keep ReadingShow less
How we might better navigate the culture wars
Jul 16, 2024
Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.
Earlier this year, Escambia County, Fla., received national attention for banning over 1,600 books, the most by any single county in the entire country. If you’ve been following book banning efforts, many titles on the list won’t surprise you. But these might: multiple editions of the dictionary, various encyclopedias, and “The Guinness Book of World Records.”
Meanwhile, less than half of Escambia County third-graders are proficient in reading and multiple elementary schools in the area are in danger of state takeover due to persistent low-performance. Let me be clear: I believe youth success is not simply a school issue, but the responsibility of an entire community.
Saying we want our youth to succeed is easy. Ensuring we focus on what really matters so that they do is proving increasingly difficult. And not just in Escambia County. Culture wars over education are spreading all across California and other states as well.
Now, there are valid discussions to be had over the content we put in front of kids. Communities need to address such issues. But there’s a growing trend in our country today of too many communities getting distracted by an array of culture war issues — typically stoked by a small minority — that divide people, diminish hope, and stymy wider progress.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So many community leaders tell me they don’t know how to respond effectively to these culture wars. I often see groups and organizations respond to the loudest voices by seeking to match them. They create their own group to oppose and fight existing ones; they raise money to mobilize people; they even weaponize their own agendas. As if raising the temperature could somehow quench the flames. The other tendency is for people to retreat entirely, ceding the public square to growing divisive forces. The result is that the community is held hostage, unable to move forward.
When I took my civic campaign — Enough. Time to Build — to Pensacola, the seat of Escambia County, people there, like people across the nation, told me they were exhausted by the culture wars. They were frustrated by a lack of progress on education and other vital community issues. They felt stuck and couldn’t see an alternative path forward.
My experience working to transform communities for over three decades proves that there is a better path that can inoculate communities against the culture wars. The way forward is for communities to temporarily set aside culture war issues and commit to coming back to them once their community has forged a new civic path.
What does this civic path look like? It starts with determining what we can agree on regarding issues that really matter to people. This means focusing not on “problems” or utopian visions but rather people’s shared aspirations. Then — and this is where I think too many civic initiatives also fall short these days — we must get in motion to take shared action on those issues. Action is key. We must build together. More talk isn’t going to get us where we need to go. Only by building together can we restore our belief that we can get things done and get on a more hopeful path.
Let’s be clear: Building together doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. It also doesn’t mean we have to like each other. But it does mean we must — amid our real differences — find where we can agree and get in motion on things that make a real difference in people’s lives. Starting small is key. Starting too big is a recipe for failure. The trick is to grow and spread our efforts over time, provide proof that positive change is possible, and create increasing momentum.
When we forge this civic path, I find there is greater energy in a community to move forward, to avoid distractions and even to realize that the issues we so often get stuck on are no longer of such great importance. But beware: We cannot simply sweep aside people’s persistent “culture war” concerns. Our task is to place them in a larger context and tackle them when more civic confidence and trust exists.
When I presented this alternative to a roundtable of leaders in Pensacola, they experienced a new sense of possibility. I wasn’t telling them this approach would solve their educational challenges overnight. But I was telling them real, tangible progress could be made. That by embracing a new path, they could inoculate themselves from the culture wars and start to tackle the real issues that were holding them back.
This is how we can get the future of our communities back on the agenda.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More