JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Finally A Malaria Vaccine: A Monumental Discovery
Brief #136 – Health and Gender
By S. Bhimji
While much of the talk these days is about covid-19, the parasite that causes malaria is far more sophisticated and insidious than coronavirus. The malaria parasite has evolved to escape the immune system and it also has a complicated life cycle that spans across humans and mosquitoes. Even when it is inside the body, it escapes surveillance and different forms affect different organs.
How Redistricting In Oregon and Colorado Made The Case For State Independent Redistricting Commissions
Brief #175 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On September 27, 2021 Oregon became the first state in the union to pass congressional and state legislative redistricting maps after the 2020 Census. Soon thereafter one of Colorado’s two independent redistricting commissions approved a state map for Colorado’s congressional state map.
Russia’s Relationships with the Muslim World
Brief #134 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
As President Biden is reinventing American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the Muslim world, Russia has been able to further establish itself as a viable alternative for those unhappy with President Biden’s plans and stances.
Bipartisan Outrage Over Biden Administration Rapid Deportation of Haitian Refugees
Brief #130 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
After the July 2021 assassination of the Haitian president that plunged the nation into political turmoil and exacerbated existing violence, a 7.2 earthquake and major tropical storm hit the following month, displacing and killing thousands. The Biden Administration extended an existing Temporary Protected Status for Haitians already living in the US from deportation as a result.
Can Doctors Refuse Care to Unvaccinated Patients?
Brief #135 – Health & Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
The coronavirus pandemic has created a lot of friction and unhappiness in society. Despite the continuing spread of the virus by the delta variant, a significant number of Americans are refusing to get vaccinated for a variety of reasons. And in almost every industry hundreds of workers are now asking for all kinds of exemptions.
Analyzing the New Australia, U.K., U.S. (AUKUS) Security Pact
Brief #133 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On September 16, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden, along with U.K. Prime minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime minister Scott Morrison who joined in virtually, announced the creation of a new security partnership or the AUKUS pact, between the three nations that seeks to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Our Chance to Avert Climate Catastrophe May Have Gone Up in Smoke
Brief #131 – Environment Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
80% of the world’s energy comes from coal, oil and natural gas; carbon sources which account for 89% of human-derived CO₂ emissions. These daily emissions have accumulated in the earth’s atmosphere to produce a global climate crisis; a recent U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report forecasts global average temperature will rise 2.7 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Accordingly, the U.N. Secretary General António Guterres has warned, “the world is on a catastrophic pathway.”
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigates the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 2
Brief #28 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The case that is being built against those who participated in the January 6 Capitol riots is a slow one due to the sheer number of videos, pictures, and evidence related to the events. The House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack is doing their best to piece together the truth in the most non-partisan way possible.
A Primer on the Debt Ceiling Crisis
Brief #125 – A Primer on the Debt Ceiling Crisis
By Rosalind Gottfried
The deadline for Congress to pass a Bill to fund the government past the current fiscal year deadline of September 30th is fast approaching. The Republicans blocked a bill which would extend government spending and suspend the debt ceiling. The House passed the bill providing for government spending through December and suspending the debt ceiling through December 2022, after the mid-term elections.
The New Alzheimer Drug Controversy
Brief # 114 – Health & Gender
The New Alzheimer Drug Controversy
By S Bhimji
June 30, 2021
Policy Summary
For decades, there has been intense research to develop drugs that could either slow down or prevent Alzheimer Disease (AD). So far there is no such drug. A few older drugs are available but these agents only diminish early-stage symptoms in a few patients. In most people the drugs are not helpful and their adverse effects are more harmful than the benefits. For the majority of AD patients, the treatment so far has been supportive care.
Since 2003, no new drugs for AD have been introduced for clinical use. But just last week the FDA approved a new drug for AD made by Biogen. The drug, Aducanumab, is a monoclonal antibody directed towards a protein in the brain called amyloid. The drug prevents the buildup of amyloid aggregates which are found in the brains of people with AD. Amyloid is just one of the proteins believed to be playing a role in dementia and poor cognition.
The drug can only be given as an intravenous drip over a period of several hours. Weekly treatments are required. The early known adverse effects of the drug include headache, flu-like symptoms, pain and redness at the injection site, rash, sinusitis, and malaise- all these side effects are of short duration and generally do not require any special treatment. Since the announcement by the FDA last week, most hospitals have been eagerly waiting for the drug supplies.
Policy Analysis
The FDA approval of aducanumab has met with a great deal of controversy. In November 2020, both an outside and internal panel of medical experts concluded that during the initial study, the drug’s benefits were marginal at best. Investigators for the FDA further concluded that the data supporting aducanumab’s clinical efficacy was weak, and the experts also cited errors in methodology and interpretation of data.
Nevertheless, despite its own experts questioning the drug’s efficacy, the Head Honchos at the FDA went ahead with the approval and only asked Biogen to perform a follow-up study to see if the drug helps treat symptoms of AD and lowers the amyloid plaques in the brain.
Hospitals across the US have been following the drug’s development and have developed a huge list of patients that are eligible to receive the medication. Further caregivers for AD patients are more than eager to get the treatment started since the Biogen monograph clearly states that the drug can prevent the progression of the disease.
But specialists in AD care suggest that hospitals should exercise great caution before deciding to administer aducanumab to thousands of patients. The reason is that all AD patients must first undergo a PET Scan to determine if they have amyloid plaques and assess the risks. The drug may be best for individuals with early disease, mild cognitive impairment, and memory loss. Those with severe symptoms may not respond.
Final point
Amidst the FDA approval controversy, what is often not mentioned by most of the media is the cost of the drug. Aducanumab costs nearly $56,000 a year (or about $4200 a week), a princely sum for most Americans. For a drug that has weak supporting data, this is an enormous amount of money- but hospitals and physicians will do their best to seduce desperate patients with false hopes. Since the majority of AD patients are over the age of 65, it remains to be seen if Medicare will bear the financial burden, which will easily exceed $100 billion a year.
Even if Medicare does accept to pay for the aducanumab, remember Medicare only pays 80% of the bill, and patients will be stuck with the 20% copayment. Plus patients will have to pay for the imaging scans; PET scans are generally not covered by Medicare: the average cost of a PET scan is $5,000.
Finally, there are concerns of adverse effects of the drug that were noted during the clinical trials like brain bleeding and swelling. And these side effects need to be monitored with scans, which again costs money, and who will pay for these extra scans if needed? The bottom line is that everyone should not get too excited about this drug.
Engagement Resources
FDA approved controversial Alzheimer’s drug despite objections from staff. https://nypost.com/2021/06/22/fda-approved-controversial-alzheimers-drug-despite-objections-from-staff/
The FDA Has Approved A New Alzheimer’s Drug — Here’s Why That’s Controversial. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1003964235/fda-approves-controversial-alzheimers-drug-aducanumab
Controversial Alzheimer’s drug could cost US $334B—nearly half of DoD budget
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/controversial-alzheimers-drug-could-cost-us-334b-nearly-half-of-dod-budget/
The Way Forward for Voting Rights Reform
Brief # 165 – Civil Rights
The Way Forward for Voting Rights Reform
By Rodney A. Maggay
June 25, 2021
Policy Summary
On June 22, 2021 the United States Senate held a procedural vote on the floor of the Senate to determine if the For The People Act would be brought to the floor for a debate on the merits of the bill. The For The People Act is the massive 800 page voting rights bill already passed by the House of Representatives that would bring wholesale changes and minimum standards to voting laws in federal elections. The bill introduces minimum voting standards for vote by mail and automatic registration systems (ARS), additional restrictions on congressional redistricting and a wave of new campaign finance rules, among other changes. The bill was blocked from debate in the chamber due to the use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans. The procedural vote taken would have ended the filibuster had 60 senators voted for it but the vote to end the filibuster resulted in a 50 – 50 split with all senators voting along party lines. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
With the vote in the Senate coming to a 50 – 50 tie there was a misconception that the For The People Act was voted down in the Senate. But that was not the case. The procedural vote was only to end the Republican filibuster and decide if the bill should be debated on the floor of the Senate. The Senate needed 60 votes and did not come close to reaching that threshold.
While there was disappointment that Senate Republicans did not even want to debate the merits of the bill on the chamber floor, the actions of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) gave hope that even some reforms might be agreed to in the near future in a bipartisan deal. In a draft compromise circulated by Sen. Manchin he identified voting reforms he would support and push to be added to future bills which reflect some, but not all, of the reforms included in the For The People Act as well as some new proposals. He offered making Election Day a public holiday, a mandatory two weeks of early voting, a ban on partisan gerrymandering and what alternative forms of ID a voter could use. He also requested more clarity on some of the definitions and provisions in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (such as determining when a voting rights violation has occurred and how to exit pre-clearance). This indicates that he would be open to supporting the bill. And it also indicates that there might be some voting reforms which could be palatable to some Republicans and which would have a better chance to garner support on their own rather than as a part of a large 800 page bill.
Sen. Manchin’s work at trying to find some common ground for a bipartisanship voter reform bill though has hit a roadblock as some civil rights group have come out in opposition to his compromise proposals. Just recently, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund released a statement detailing why they were opposed to the items in the Manchin Compromise. It is another illustration at how hard it can be to craft a voting reform bill that all sides and all groups can support. But voting reform does not have to be an all or nothing proposition. Sen. Manchin’s efforts have shown that a small number of Senators are willing to support separate voting issues, such as Sen. Murkowski’s support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King’s support for new campaign finance rules. There clearly is some support for some kind of bipartisan deal but on a smaller scale. If a breakthrough is to come it appears it may come not with a large “one – size fits every state” approach, which is the basis of Republican opposition to voting reform, but in a more measured approach that allows Senators to support voter reform proposals one or two at a time. This might be the best way forward at the moment and one to monitor as Senators continue to work out a deal this congressional session. Not all of the reforms introduced in the For The People Act may be included in a subsequent bill but finding common ground and passing even a smaller number of voting reforms now is better than passing no reforms at all. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Fair Elections Center – statement from voting rights group on Senate vote on voting reform bill.
Voting Rights Alliance – non – profit group working to protect voting rights from attack.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Update on Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
Brief # 18 – Social Justice
Update on Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
By Erika Shannon
June 28, 2021
While it has been nearly six months since a group of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol Building, we are still seeing late arrests being made, as well as justice finally being served as the first sentence has been given out in connection with the Capitol Riots. On January 6th, we saw several hundred people storm the Capitol Building in an effort to “Stop the Steal” of the 2020 election. Right-wing extremist groups felt that President Biden somehow stole the victory from Donald Trump, even though according to the Department of Justice, there was no interference. It is estimated that over 500 people have been charged with crimes related to the January 6th riots, with more to come.
Although the Capitol Riots happened several months ago, we are still seeing people being arrested in connection with them to this day. Just last Thursday, a central Illinois man was arrested and charged with assault on a law enforcement officer, assault in special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, and engaging in violence in a restricted building or grounds; it is alleged that he tripped an officer, subsequently pushing him to the ground, then breached a media staging area and tackled a cameraman. The reason for arrests continuing to be made to this day has to do with the fact that many inciters and participants in the Capitol Riots were not arrested on that day. In fact, most were able to get on planes and fly home, resuming life until video or photographic evidence surfaced that could identify them as attendees at the riots.
As far as the 500+ people that have been charged in connection with the events on January 6th, the Department of Justice has published a list of those charged. It also includes their charges, case status, and other relevant information. The cases are being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Some of those charged remain in jail, such as Proud Boys leader Charles Donohoe, while many are free and awaiting pending court dates for their cases. The charges against those who have been caught range from assaulting law enforcement officers to trespassing and destroying property. There is also a conspiracy case pending against 16 people with alleged ties to the Oath Keepers; it is alleged that the defendants agreed to plan and take part in an operation to interfere with the certification of Electoral College votes. This was done by coordinating in advance with others via social media and other websites in an attempt to recruit participants to travel to Washington D.C. with weapons and other paramilitary gear. On June 23rd, Oath Keeper member Graydon Young plead guilty to conspiracy and other charges related to the January 6th riots; he has agreed to help prosecutors in bringing charges against other members. He will eventually testify before a grand jury.
A 49-year-old woman from Indiana was the first person to be officially sentenced in the Capitol breech. The woman, Anna Morgan-Lloyd, was linked to the riots due to her sharing of photos and videos on social media. In court, she expressed remorse and alleged that she did not know it was going to turn violent or else she would not have gone. Morgan-Lloyd plead guilty, and was sentenced to no prison time for her light involvement; she received three years of probation instead, which will likely set a precedent for sentences for other rioters who attended but were only charged with minor crimes. Morgan-Lloyd also must pay restitution of $500 to help offset her part in the $1.5 million worth of damage carried out at the Capitol during the January 6th riots.
While it seems that many of those involved with the Capitol Riots have already been charged, the Justice Department is still looking for more than 250 people involved in assaulting law enforcement and other acts of violence. It is estimated that someone has been arrested or charged in the connection with the attacks everyday since they occurred, and there is still more work to do. The FBI is sorting through hundreds of thousands of tips received online in regards to the investigations. It is thought that many of those involved will not face any actual jail time; however, those involved in violent crimes against law enforcement or those facing conspiracy charges are more likely to receive a significant jail sentence. There is hope that those involved will learn the lesson that violence is not always the answer, and in the future lives can be saved when protests remain peaceful.
Engagement Resources
- To view the FBI’s Most Wanted list for the Capitol Riots, or to submit a tip, visit their Capitol Violence webpage or Seeking Information webpage.
- To see who’s been charged in association with the Capitol Riots, visit this page on the Department of Justice website.
Infrastructure Plan Update: Parties Haggle Over Content and Funding
Brief # 122 – Economic Policy
Infrastructure Plan Update: Parties Haggle over Content and Funding
By Rosalind Gottfried
June 22, 2021
Policy Summary
Biden and the Democrats are currently haggling over a 1.2 trillion dollar plan to address infrastructural change. This figure is down from the original 4 trillion sought by Biden. For negotiations, the White House had trimmed the bill to 1.7 trillion and it now stands at 1.2 trillion. This measure would address basic hardcore infrastructure needs== transportation, broadband, and water issues; it would avoid climate change mandates and so called “soft infrastructure” issues such as daycare, healthcare, schools and other measures that Biden and the Democrats see as good for families and for our economic recovery. The Democrats than plan to package climate change and “soft infrastructure” as a separate bill that would move forward using a budget reconciliation process that can be passed just by the Democratic 51 vote Senate majority. President Biden says he will only sign both bills at the same time.
Ideas for funding, squarely rejected by the Democrats, would increase the gas tax, mileage taxes, and taxes on electric vehicles. Biden will not agree to these measures as he sees them as contradicting his promise not to raise taxes on household incomes of 400,000 dollars or less. He would support enhancing IRS enforcement of tax collecting in lieu of rolling back the 2017 GOP tax cuts, to address republican resistance to increased income taxes. It does not look as if there can be bi-partisan support for the plan as thus conceived.
The Democrats are considering a bill that would proceed using the utilizing the budget reconciliation procedure which would require the support of all the Democratic Senators. This plan would address climate control which they see as a mandatory element for any infrastructure bill. It would also provide for dependent family member support and funding for housing, job training and schools.
Analysis
Eleven Republican Senators have indicated that they would vote for the Bi-Partisan plan which means that only one Democrat can defect and that is not assured since several progressive members have voiced concerns over the compromise bill. Senator Joe Manchin has asserted his insistence on a Bi- Partisan bill and a refusal on his part to support a Democratic bill would kill it. Impasse seems sustained since Democratic resistance to the bi-partisan bill seems high, given the concerns with regard to climate control and the gas tax. Biden has said this week will be his last push for a bi-partisan approach; the gamble of relying on a single party bill also seems risky.
Engagement Resources
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/21/biden-to-hold-infrastructure-plan-meeting-this-week.html
A Review of Current Assistive Technology Policy in the United States
Brief # 51 – Technology
A Review of Current Assistive Technology Policy in the United States
By M.J. Conaway
June 25, 2021
Policy Summary
In the United States, there are several Federal laws that address technology accessibility for people with disabilities, including the American with Disabilities Act, the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The U.S. Access Board develops accessibility standards for the various technologies covered by the laws, which have been incorporated into the procurement regulations of the Federal government.
Assistive technology (AT) provides devices that help people with disabilities engage in activities of daily living. Examples of assistive technology include communication boards, wheelchairs, and word prediction software. AT facilitates greater independence by allowing people with disabilities to accomplish tasks in all facets of everyday life that would otherwise be difficult or impossible.
Analysis
There are myriad gaps in various areas relevant to policy development. This includes: identifying evidence useful for policy making; using existing data within policy; generating policy development in an inclusive way; evaluating existing policy according to social inclusion criteria, and; implementing policy, and its monitoring and evaluation by an appropriate range of stakeholders. Too often policymakers in the healthcare sector are totally unfamiliar with disability, impairment or assistive technology issues. Therefore, these officials are unaware of some of the policy challenges in this area [1].
Generally, the first steps in creating inclusive policy for assistive technology are to connect different communities with an interest in assistive technology; to encourage sharing experiences and best practices, and to simply become aware of the constellation of stakeholders from academia, government, self-advocacy, and various nonprofit organizations. Stakeholders who are often overlooked in these processes generally include self-advocates; Native peoples in areas where their inclusion is often marginalized; rural and/or inner-city people in poorly resourced settings, and; people with intellectual disabilities [2] for whom assistive technology may be particularly beneficial for community living [3].
In the scholarly literature, three types of policy gaps have been identified: 1) a Policy Awareness Gap, where policymakers knew little about disability-specific policy instruments (e.g., ADA), and disability representatives knew little about the policy instruments used in mainstream development; 2) a Policy Process Gap, in which there was consultation with disability advocacy organizations, but the final deliverables rarely reflects their primary concerns, and; 3) a Policy Implementation and Monitoring Gap, in which there is a lack of explicit criteria for monitoring and evaluation with respect disability specific concerns.
Engaging in policy often requires understanding the triggers for policy change. While Federal law and the U.S. Access Board can set the context for a discussion on assistive technology policy; such mechanisms by themselves are generally insufficient to propel various Federal agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare And Medicaid Services (CMS) towards policy change. The crux of the matter is to fashion an argument that hooks the attention of government and policymakers. Especially persuasive would be data indicating the socioeconomic benefits and impact of assistive technology. The widespread fragmentation of service delivery, which is often siloed and inviscid with many specialists in the supply chain, is a very expensive way to provide assistive technology. Such fragmentation sorely lacks in equity and distributive justice. Thus, arguments addressing the need for improved efficiency in the delivery system for AT would be helpful. However, policy is often most influenced by financial consequences. Hence, the socioeconomic case for assistive technology must be emphasized by different stakeholders to drive improvements in U.S. assistive technology delivery systems.
Engagement Resources
Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs
National Council on Independent Living Technology Task Force
Global Herd Immunity Remains out of Reach– 99% of People in Poor Countries are Unvaccinated
Brief #113 – Health & Gender Policy
Reposted from The Conversation, www.theconversation.com
By: Maria De Jesus, American University
Public health experts estimate that approximately 70% of the world’s 7.9 billion people must be fully vaccinated to end the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 21, 2021, 10.04% of the global population had been fully vaccinated, nearly all of them in rich countries.
Only 0.9% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose.
I am a scholar of global health who specializes in health care inequities. Using a data set on vaccine distribution compiled by the Global Health Innovation Center’s Launch and Scale Speedometer at Duke University in the United States, I analyzed what the global vaccine access gap means for the world.
Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.
A Global Health Crisis:
Supply is not the main reason some countries are able to vaccinate their populations while others experience severe disease outbreaks – distribution is.
Many rich countries pursued a strategy of overbuying COVID-19 vaccine doses in advance. My analyses demonstrate that the U.S., for example, has procured 1.2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses, or 3.7 doses per person. Canada has ordered 381 million doses; every Canadian could be vaccinated five times over with the two doses needed.
Overall, countries representing just one-seventh of the world’s population had reserved more than half of all vaccines available by June 2021. That has made it very difficult for the remaining countries to procure doses, either directly or through COVAX, the global initiative created to enable low- to middle-income countries equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.
Benin, for example, has obtained about 203,000 doses of China’s Sinovac vaccine – enough to fully vaccinate 1% of its population. Honduras, relying mainly on AstraZeneca, has procured approximately 1.4 million doses. That will fully vaccinate 7% of its population. In these “vaccine deserts,” even front-line health workers aren’t yet inoculated.
Haiti has received about 461,500 COVID-19 vaccine doses by donations and is grappling with a serious outbreak.
Even COVAX’s goal – for lower-income countries to “receive enough doses to vaccinate up to 20% of their population” – would not get COVID-19 transmission under control in those places.
The Cost of not Cooperating:
Last year, researchers at Northeastern University modeled two vaccine rollout strategies. Their numerical simulations found that 61% of deaths worldwide would have been averted if countries cooperated to implement an equitable global vaccine distribution plan, compared with only 33% if high-income countries got the vaccines first.
Put briefly, when countries cooperate, COVID-19 deaths drop by approximately in half.
Vaccine access is inequitable within countries, too – especially in countries where severe inequality already exists.
In Latin America, for example, a disproportionate number of the tiny minority of people who’ve been vaccinated are elites: political leaders, business tycoons and those with the means to travel abroad to get vaccinated. This entrenches wider health and social inequities.
The result, for now, is two separate and unequal societies in which only the wealthy are protected from a devastating disease that continues to ravage those who are not able to access the vaccine.
A repeat of AIDS missteps?
This is a familiar story from the HIV era.
In the 1990s, the development of effective antiretroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS saved millions of lives in high-income countries. However, about 90% of the global poor who were living with HIV had no access to these lifesaving drugs.
Concerned about undercutting their markets in high-income countries, the pharmaceutical companies that produced antiretrovirals, such as Burroughs Wellcome, adopted internationally consistent prices. Azidothymidine, the first drug to fight HIV, cost about US$8,000 a year – over $19,000 in today’s dollars.
That effectively placed effective HIV/AIDS drugs out of reach for people in poor nations – including countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the epidemic’s epicenter. By the year 2000, 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV, and AIDS was the region’s leading cause of death.
The crisis over inequitable access to AIDS treatment began dominating international news headlines, and the rich world’s obligation to respond became too great to ignore.
“History will surely judge us harshly if we do not respond with all the energy and resources that we can bring to bear in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said South African President Nelson Mandela in 2004.
A 9-year-old girl in Johannesburg, South Africa, prays before taking her twice-daily HIV medications in 2002. Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images
Pharmaceutical companies began donating antiretrovirals to countries in need and allowing local businesses to manufacture generic versions, providing bulk, low-cost access for highly affected poor countries. New global institutions like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria were created to finance health programs in poor countries.
Pressured by grassroots activism, the United States and other high-income countries also spent billions of dollars to research, develop and distribute affordable HIV treatments worldwide.
A Dose of Global Cooperation
It took over a decade after the development of antiretrovirals, and millions of unnecessary deaths, for rich countries to make those lifesaving medicines universally available.
Fifteen months into the current pandemic, wealthy, highly vaccinated countries are starting to assume some responsibility for boosting global vaccination rates.
Leaders of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, European Union and Japan recently pledged to donate a total of 1 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses to poorer countries.
It is not yet clear how their plan to “vaccinate the world” by the end of 2022 will be implemented and whether recipient countries will receive enough doses to fully vaccinate enough people to control viral spread. And the late 2022 goal will not save people in the developing world who are dying of COVID-19 in record numbers now, from Brazil to India.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic shows that ending the coronavirus pandemic will require, first, prioritizing access to COVID-19 vaccines on the global political agenda. Then wealthy nations will need to work with other countries to build their vaccine manufacturing infrastructure, scaling up production worldwide.
Finally, poorer countries need more money to fund their public health systems and purchase vaccines. Wealthy countries and groups like the G-7 can provide that funding.
These actions benefit rich countries, too. As long as the world has unvaccinated populations, COVID-19 will continue to spread and mutate. Additional variants will emerge.
As a May 2021 UNICEF statement put it: “In our interdependent world no one is safe until everyone is safe.”
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 5: Protecting and Empowering Women
Brief # 112 – Health and Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 5: Protecting and Empowering Women
By Erin McNemar
June 23, 2021
Policy Summary
As President Biden continues with his first term , women’s issues remain high on his agenda. During his campaign, he introduced The Biden Agenda for Women. Through this plan, he highlights ways his administration will support gender equality in the US and around the world. Biden wants to help create a culture that protects and empowers women. In the final section of his policy proposal, Biden explains just how he plans to do that.
Analysis
Biden begins this section by once again addressing the inequalities that women face, and how it impacts the world as a whole. Biden writes, “Governments, economies, industries, and communities everywhere are made stronger when they include the full participation of women. Yet, women are underrepresented in positions of power in most countries around the world. Trillions of dollars are lost each year from the global economy because women are excluded from full economic participation.”
Biden speaks about his support for women’s leadership globally. As he states, this includes breaking down political barriers and supporting civil education and leadership development for women and girls. Breaking down these barriers started with his own team. Biden pledged in the plan to “strive for gender parity and full diversity in his own national security and foreign policy appointments, elevating women into senior national security positions and ensuring that women of color are well-represented in senior ranks.”
Additionally, Biden also writes about the importance of elevating women economically. He comments that trillions of dollars are lost from the global economy each year by excluding women. In order to elevate women on an economic level, Biden proposes increasing education opportunities, enhancing inclusive banking and working with other world leaders to eliminate other barriers that women all around the globe face.
Biden also wants to work with other countries to confront gender-based violence. Biden explains, “Gender-based violence is a barrier to girls’ education, and inhibits women’s full participation in politics and the economy, holding back entire communities and countries.”
In order to confront the problem, Biden wants to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund, train law enforcement to root out the issues that cause gender-based violence and bring back America’s commitment to supporting refugees and displaced persons. Lastly, Biden states he plans to “pursue ratification for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), so that we can better advance the rights of women and girls here at home and around the world.”
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- Learn more about the U.N. goals for Gender Equality.
- Take action with the Women’s March Movement.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Should We Be Concerned About Inflation?
Brief # 121 – Economic Policy
Should We Be Concerned About Inflation?
By Rosalind Gottfried
June 20, 2021
Policy Summary
Inflation occurs when the value of money decreases, largely due to increases in prices which are not matched by rises in income. With the vaccine rollout, people are emerging from their pandemic cocoons and demands for goods and services are surging. High demand, coupled with reduced supplies, is causing prices to rise. Anyone trying to rent a car; buy appliances or cars; buy airline tickets or get building materials can attest to the rise in prices and the competition to get goods in a timely fashion. As a result, the May consumer price index showed an increase of .6% which would amount to a 5% annual increase—way higher than the “tolerated” 2% level.
The government has spent $5.5 trillion in pandemic relief and Biden has proposed a 6 trillion dollar budget for the year. Big spending and low interest rates, which have remained near zero level, often lead to inflation. These trends can be seen in the high inflation of the periods during the world wars and in the 1970s. In the past several decades inflation has been low, especially since the 2008 recession. Economists attribute the decades’ trend to the huge influx of global goods produced by workers especially in China and the former countries of the Soviet Union. Now we are entering an era of fewer workers and reduced production due to a larger aging population and a lower fertility rate. If production slows and good remain scarce, than prices will continue to rise.
Currently, it is difficult to assess the severity of this trend because of the artificial lowering of goods and services during the pandemic and the subsequent pent up demand. It is debated how this trend will play out in the next year or so. The Biden administration and the Federal Reserve are banking on the temporary nature of the price increases. They recognize that people who have saved money during the pandemic are not put off by the higher prices and they hope demand will level out. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin has adopted a wait and see attitude regarding hoisting the interest rate and more economists agree with her than don’t though there is a growing minority who feel that if she waits for things to get worse it will be too late to effectively stall inflation.
The Fed is addressing stabilizing the economy by keeping interest rates low and buying 120 billion in long term bonds monthly to keep mortgage rates low. The policy currently suggests that the bond purchases will be reduced before interest rates will be increased. If sustained inflation hits the 3% mark, the Fed will likely step in.
Analysis
Currently Secretary Yellin is not concerned about inflation and is not ready to move on an increase in interest rates. She asserts that the price climbs will cease and the economy readjust. About one quarter of surveyed economists disagree with that assessment, predicting serious inflation. They see Biden’s budgets and programs, such as free childcare and community college, as amounting to irresponsible government spending matched with stimulus to grow the economy which they hold will lead to a more persistent inflation. It is hard to say what will occur as the country moves into a post-vaccine return towards normality. At the moment more economists appear optimistic than not though there is some evidence that the rate of inflation fearful experts is growing faster than their more optimistic colleagues.
Engagement Resources
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1005312213
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1005235227/inflation-climbs-even-higher-with-prices-rising-5-in-may
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22346376/inflation-rate-explained-federal-reserve
Court Blocks Biden Administration Efforts to Suspend Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands
Brief # 117 – Environment Policy
Court Blocks Biden Administration Efforts to Suspend Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands
By Jacob Morton
June 21, 2021
Policy Summary
On Tuesday June 1, the Biden administration temporarily suspended all oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), reversing one of former President Donald Trump’s most sought after and last-minute environmental policy changes. The suspensions came after President Joe Biden’s executive order, given on his first day in office, placed a moratorium on all new drilling leases on federal lands and waters, including the ANWR. That Executive Order requested a new environmental review specifically of the ANWR leasing program “to examine possible legal flaws in the program approved by the Trump administration.”
The review, conducted by the Department of Interior, found “defects in the underlying record of decision supporting the leases,” prompting Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to suspend them. Secretary Haaland announced a pause on the ANWR leases until her agency “completes an environmental analysis of their impact and a legal review of the Trump administration’s decision to grant them.”
However, on Tuesday, June 15, Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted a preliminary injunction declaring all the lease suspensions ordered under Biden’s original moratorium to be unconstitutional, and instructing the Interior Department to release those leases from suspension immediately. Judge Doughty’s ruling applies to all the oil and gas drilling leases suspended under Biden’s moratorium, not just the ANWR. Despite the Interior Departments argument that the decision to grant drilling leases in the ANWR may be legally flawed, Judge Doughty has included those leases in the court’s injunction.
For over four decades, Democrats and Republicans have fought over the decision to drill in the ANWR. The refuge covers 19.3 million acres, about 1.6 million of which are coastal plains that, according to the US Geological Survey, sits atop an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. The coastal plain between the Arctic Ocean and the mountains of the Brooks Range however, is also a winter home for pregnant polar bears, as well as the nearly 200,000 Porcupine caribou “that migrate between Alaska and Canada, using the plain as a nursery in the spring.” The entire refuge represents one of the largest “unspoiled, intact ecosystems left on the planet,” and has been protected since 1960, being designated a national wildlife refuge in 1980.
During his time in office, Donald Trump made opening up the coastal plain to drilling a top priority in his push for increasing domestic fossil fuel production. In 2017, the republican controlled congress proposed an environmental review be conducted of a potential land leasing program for the coastal plain acreage. That analysis was published last year and gave a green light to the administration to begin dividing tracts and selling leases.
Upon the release of that report, environmental groups immediately sued the Trump administration, arguing that amongst other issues, “the analysis discounted the impact of oil and gas production on climate change.” CBS News reports that the ANWR is “warming twice as fast as any other region on the Earth due to climate change.” Gwich’in tribal members in the Arctic Village and Venetie communities say, “the leases are an affront to their culture and way of life.” The tribes also filed a federal lawsuit against the selling of land leases in the refuge.
Despite the fact that the issue had not yet been settled in courts, the Trump administration began selling leases just weeks before leaving office after losing reelection in 2020. However, drilling in the refuge has become so contentious that only 9 of the 22 leases offered were even bid for. Two small companies ventured to make bids for “10-year rights to explore and drill for oil on two tracts totaling about 75,000 acres.” Major oil companies expressed little interest, at least publicly, in bidding for leases, “given the high cost of producing oil in the Arctic, the growing desire to reduce fossil fuel use, and the reputational risks of drilling in such a pristine area.”
Major banks even refused to finance any drilling projects in the refuge, facing pressure from tribal groups and environmental organizations. Another 7 tracts, totaling about half a million acres, were bid on by the state-owned Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. These bids however, raised legal concerns of whether or not the state could legally purchase leases. This and other legal issues have not yet been resolved. Interior Secretary Haaland’s suspension of the lease program was only temporary and “The administration had only committed to reviewing the Trump leases, not canceling them. If it determines that the leases were granted illegally, it could then have legal grounds to cancel them.”
Analysis
Elected officials in Alaska and other conservatives were disappointed and angered by the suspension. Republican Governor of Alaska Mike Dunleavy claims “Alaska does responsible oil and gas development in the Arctic under stricter environmental standards than anywhere else in the world. Yet the federal government is focused on trying to stop our ability to produce oil and gas.” Despite the lack of interest by major oil companies, as demonstrated by the meager success of the lease sale program, and the fact that major automotive companies like GM have committed to significant transitions to clean energy vehicles, Dunleavy still proclaims that, “Each action they take demonstrates a failure to comprehend the worldwide demand for oil and gas.”
What Governor Dunleavy may not comprehend is that just last month, the International Energy Agency, the world’s leading authority on energy policy, released a new report warning that governments around the world “must immediately stop approving new coal-fired power plants and new oil and gas fields and quickly phase out gasoline-powered vehicles if they want to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”
U.S. Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, said of the suspension, “This action serves no purpose other than to obstruct Alaska’s economy and put our energy security at great risk. Alaskans are committed to developing our resources responsibly and have demonstrated our ability to do so safely to the world.” Conservative groups, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an organization that worked closely with the Trump administration to overturn numerous environmental protections throughout Trump’s single term, contest the lease suspensions as being illegal. Devin Watkins, an attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, “The government cannot enter into a contract to take over $14 million and then invalidate the contract without cause. No cause for canceling the ANWR leases has been provided.” Alan Weitzner, executive director of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, also argues that “the Biden administration had yet to provide documentation of any deficiencies that would warrant a suspension of leases.”
Governor Dunleavy says, “We are not going to allow the Biden administration to turn Alaska into a giant national park.” Perhaps the Governor is unaware that the ANWR has already been designated a national wildlife refuge, with even greater restrictions than a national park, since 1980. It was only during the Trump administration and through what Kristen Miller, acting executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, calls a “flawed and legally deficient process,” that the prospect of opening the land to drilling became possible.
Environmental groups and Tribal communities have expressed gratitude for the suspensions. Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, says, “Suspending leases in the Arctic Refuge is a major step forward in keeping President Biden’s campaign promise and cutting carbon pollution.” Tonya Garnett, special projects coordinator for the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, acknowledged the importance of the administration’s decision, saying “this goes to show that, no matter the odds, the voices of our tribes matter.”
Policy experts, however, were quick to point out the timing of this decision, suggesting it may be a response to the criticism President Biden has received for recent fossil fuel-friendly actions taken by his administration. The White House recently approved a multibillion dollar oil drilling project with ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s largest oil producer, in the National Petroleum Reserve; in court opposed shutting down the Dakota Access pipeline, which carries 550,000 barrels of oil daily through private farmland in Iowa and the Upper Sioux Tribe territory in Minnesota, including the Big Sioux Wildlife Management Area and Tribal burial grounds; and upheld 440 oil and gas leases on federal lands in Wyoming previously issued by the Trump administration.
Supporters of the suspensions recognize the timing of the decision but viewed it as an opportunity for the administration and congress to set a new standard for environmental justice and stewardship in the ANWR and across the country. Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, said in a statement, “After fighting so hard to protect these lands and the Porcupine caribou herd, trusting the guidance of our ancestors and elders, and the allyship of people around the world, we can now look for further action by the administration and to Congress to repeal the leasing program.”
Karpinski, with the League of Conservation Voters, presses this point, saying, “Going forward, we also need to ensure the administration keeps its climate commitment across the board. A ‘drill here, don’t drill there’ approach will not get the job done.” Miller, with the Alaska Wilderness League, points to the road ahead, “Until the leases are canceled, they will remain a threat to one of the wildest places left in America. Now we look to the administration and Congress to prioritize legislatively repealing the oil leasing mandate and restore protections to the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain.”
That threat is all too real and present. In March, Jeff Landry, the Republican attorney general of Louisiana, along with attorneys general (all Republican) from 12 other states sued to revoke President Biden’s Executive Order to halt all new drilling leases on federal lands and waters, including the ANWR. As mentioned, just this past Tuesday, Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (appointed by Donald Trump) granted a preliminary injunction against the administration’s lease suspensions, stating that the power to suspend those leases “lies solely with Congress” because it is the legislative branch that originally voted to open those lands and waters for leasing. The injunction was granted nationwide, a rare move by a federal court.
Judge Doughty argued that the 13 states that filed suit “had demonstrated that their economies could be irreparably harmed by the pause on drilling,” and that the White House’s pause on new drilling leases should end nationwide. Doughty wrote, “Millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake.” Judge Doughty ruled that Secretary Haaland and the Department of Interior “are hereby enjoined and restrained from implementing the pause of new oil and gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters” until final rulings are decided for the cases of the 13 plaintiff states. Those 13 states include: Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
According to a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, the agency will continue to work on an interim report for President Biden “about the state of the federal oil and gas drilling programs, as well as recommendations on the future of the federal role in drilling on public lands.” Secretary Haaland is expected to deliver those recommendations to the President by the end of the summer. Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, says, “The judge’s order turns a blind eye to runaway climate pollution that’s devastating our planet. We’ll keep fighting against the fossil-fuel industry and the politicians that are bought by them.”
Engagement Resources
Alaska Wilderness League – Alaska Wilderness League
- URGE CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE ARCTIC REFUGE! With drilling leases in oil company hands and another lease sale on the horizon, we need Congress to make legislative action a reality. It must restore protections as soon as possible. Alaska Wilderness League protects Alaska’s public lands by fighting for wilderness, wildlife, Indigenous rights, and a cleaner energy future.
League of Conservation Voters – STOP THE GIVEAWAYS TO BIG OIL
- Tell your Representatives: STOP THE GIVEAWAYS TO BIG OIL! Big Oil is pressuring members of Congress to oppose Biden’s leasing pause and their allies in Congress have introduced legislation to roll back the pause. To protect our environment, our climate, taxpayers, and frontline communities from drilling projects we need Congress to hear from you now.
Center for Biological Diversity – Center for Biological Diversity
- We seek to strengthen our core environmental laws, support lawmakers from all political parties that believe in a healthier environment, and to hold accountable any politician regardless of party who does not.
References
- Davenport, C. (2021, June 16). Federal Judge Says Biden Cannot Pause New Leases for Drilling on Public Lands. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/climate/biden-drilling-federal-land.html.
- Davenport, C., Fountain, H., & Friedman, L. (2021, June 1). Biden Suspends Drilling Leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/climate/biden-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge.html.
- Eilperin, J., & Partlow, J. (2021, June 16). Louisiana judge blocks Biden administration’s oil and gas leasing pause. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/06/15/louisiana-judge-blocks-biden-administrations-oil-gas-leasing-pause/.
- Lewis, S. (2021, June 2). Biden administration suspends Trump-era oil and gas drilling leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-suspends-trump-oil-gas-drilling-lease-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-alaska/.
- Plumer, B. (2021, May 18). Nations Must Drop Fossil Fuels, Fast, World Energy Body Warns. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/climate/climate-change-emissions-IEA.html.
- Thiessen, M., & Daly, M. (2021, June 2). EXPLAINER: The suspension of Arctic refuge drilling leases. Yahoo! News. https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-suspension-arctic-refuge-drilling-213925795.html.
The Moderate Republicans: A Guide to Who’s Who
Brief # 22 – Elections and Politics
The Moderate Republicans: A Guide to Who’s Who
By William Bourque
June 21, 2021
Policy Summary
When it comes to political beliefs, a large portion of voting bloc seems to be wrought with radicals. However, the truth is that most Americans don’t have very extreme ideas at all, and are actually quite moderate. In recent elections we have seen this, with an increasing amount of folks with more radical beliefs being elected to Congress. On the right side of the aisle, folks like Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Madison Cawthorn are examples of extremes who don’t represent the majority of Americans, or even the majority of their party, yet get some of the most airtime and screen time of any folks in Congress. However, moderate Republicans also get a lot of time to talk, and these are some of the most popular people in Congress, mostly because they are willing to work with the President and the other side of the aisle. We will now highlight several prominent moderate Republicans who we think may end up running for president.
Analysis
Liz Cheney:
Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney has been under some scrutiny from her own party recently, with much of the heat coming from the far right of her party that supported former President Trump. Cheney, the daughter of infamous vice-president Dick Cheney, has been in office since 2017, and was often loyal to Trump during his time in office. However, since the January 6th insurrection, it has become clear that Cheney wished to remove herself from the far right Trumpian wing of her own party. She was removed as the chair of the House Republican Conference following a closed door meeting. Many think that Cheney has put herself in pole position for a run against a Trump-backed candidate, which would likely put her on the good side of many moderate Democrats—only time will tell.
Mitt Romney:
Romney, who has already famously run for and lost the race for the presidency, is another moderate Republican who has broken with Trump on a number of occasions. Romney is seen as a traditional conservative, with particularly staunch views on marriage and abortion. However, many moderate Republicans have praised Romney on his condemnation of Trump on many issues, which indicated that he had, and still has, some sort of respect for the values of democracy and integrity. However, Romney must adjust his views on marriage if he is to have any sort of shot at a presidential run, and must also be able to explain to conservatives his choice to vote to impeach Trump. Of course, if there is a swing towards a more moderate candidate, Romney will always be a name that folks bring up. We see him making a run to the Republican nomination and is a dark horse to win the nomination if the Trump-backed candidate makes any mistakes.
Lisa Murkowski:
Murkowski, the second-longest serving female senator, represents the state of Alaska. Much like her state, Murkowski is seen as a bit of a wild card, leading a moderate cohort of conservatives while also voting with democrats on a select few issues. Murkowski was one of several Republicans who voiced their deep disturbance and sadness with Trump’s January 6th insurrection, even calling for his resignation a number of times. This, of course, is representative of her disdain for Trump, something that may end up helping her should she decide to seek the nomination. Murkowski would likely be a popular candidate for moderates on both sides of the aisle, but her more partisan votes, such as the one to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett, may prove to hold her back if she were to reach a general election. Nevertheless, Murkowski is one to watch if the Trump faction of the party begins to splinter.
Susan Collins:
Susan Collins is often regarded as the most bipartisan of Senate Republicans, having worked closely with both Republicans and Democrats as the longest-tenured female senator. Collins is almost certainly going to end her illustrious career as Senator after being reelected for another term last year. Despite this, she still has lots of work to get done in the Senate, where she will continue to be an asset for the right and left alike. Despite her bipartisan record, Senator Collins voted with Trump a large majority of the time, indicating her still staunch conservatism. Unlike the others on this list, we don’t think Collins will consider running for the Republican nomination, mostly because of age. However, it is possible that the Senator may aim for a term as Governor in her home state of Maine. But that is a long six years away. For now, we expect to see Collins remain as a vital swing vote in the ever-changing Senate.