JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
U.S. Can Become 45% Solar Powered by 2050. Too Much to Ask or Too Important to ignore?
Brief #128 – The Environment
By Jacob Morton
A new report from the Department of Energy shows that solar power has the potential to generate 40% of the nation’s electricity by 2035 and outlines how the nation could move toward producing up to 45% of its electricity from solar power by 2050. The climate crisis suggests this is more than necessary, it is imperative. But does the country have what it takes to make it happen.
President Biden’s Important 30×30 Environmental Policy Goal
Brief #127 – Environment Policy
By Tim Loftus
President Biden wasted no time in making clear his position on climate change. One week after Inauguration Day last January, an Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad was issued that, among other things, “… encourage broad participation in the goal of conserving 30 percent of our American lands and water by 2030.”
Afghan Refugee Resettlement in Post-Trump America
Brief #129 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
The United States has already evacuated over 65,000 Afghans and nearly 24,000 have arrived in the US. In addition, 23,000 are on US military bases abroad and another 20,000 are waiting in other countries before continuing their travels to the US.
The Biden Administration has asked Congress for $6.5 billion in emergency funds to assist in resettlement endeavors. As of now, Afghan refugees are to receive $1,255 of government funds to help with some expenses but are not eligible for food stamps or Medicaid at this time.
Federal Court in Florida Bans Enforcement of Florida’s Anti – Riot Law;
Brief #173 – Federal Court in Florida Bans Enforcement of Florida’s Anti – Riot Law
By Rodney A. Maggay
On September 9, 2021 Chief United States District Judge Mark E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction order in the case Dream Defenders v. DeSantis. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund of Florida, Inc., the ACLU of Florida and Community Justice Project brought a lawsuit on behalf of Dream Defenders and other Black – led organizations.
Should a Mental Health Assessment be a Requisite for a US Presidency?
Brief #131 – Health and Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
The presidency of Donald Trump was an eye-opener for not only Americans but the entire world. Within the first few months of the presidency, Trump proved to everyone that even mentally challenged people can become leaders of the most powerful country on the planet; but whether they could govern is another matter.
Taxes and Tribulations – Brief on Biden Tax Plans
Brief #123 – Economic Policy
By Tyler-Joseph Ballard
A $3T USD budget shortfall in 2020 and the current deficit for 2021 of another $3T USD leaves the current administration in a considerable bind. The Biden administration’s proposed tax plans — The American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan — impose considerable tax hikes for corporations and top earners while providing increased child and dependent tax credits.
Who is Florida Governor Ron Desantis?
Brief #131 – Elections and Politics
By Abran C
The conservative-leaning state of Florida which has not elected a Democratic governor since 1999 is currently being headed by its 46th governor Ron Desantis. Before being elected Desantis joined the U.S. Navy from 2004 to 2010, serving as a judge advocate general (JAG) officer advising troops in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. He represented Florida’s 6th congressional district for three terms until his election as Governor over Democratic rival Andrew Gillum in 2019.
China’s Relationships with the Muslim World
Brief #131 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
With significant attention being drawn to the treatment of the Uyghur population and the rise of the Taliban, it is important to understand China’s relationship with the Muslim world as they contend for global influence.
The Fake Covid Card Marketplace
Brief #130 – Health & Gender Policy
By S. Bhimji
The pressure is now on the unvaccinated individuals. Many workplaces, restaurants, entertainment centers, hotels, the travel industry, and government offices are requiring mandatory vaccination for both employees and people who use their facilities. And like all things American, there is a thriving black market for fake vaccination cards.
How the Biden Administration is Helping Africa Address COVID-19
Brief # 116 – Foreign Policy
How the Biden Administration is Helping Africa Address COVID-19
By Avery Roe
June 10, 2021
Policy Summary
Following the Trump Administration’s policy towards Africa which was largely characterized with expletives and apathy, the Biden Administration has significant room for improvement and a renewed relationship with the entire continent, especially in the context of the continued COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination process.
As Africa reaches a third wave of COVID-19 there is a renewed urgency to find ways to get vaccines to the continent. On December 3, 2020, the director of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a 60 percent vaccination target. As of June 3, they are averaging one dose per 100 people, compared to a global average of 23 doses per 100 people.
As the United States develops a vaccine surplus and The Biden administration seeks to re-invest in its relationship with Africa there has been a push for the United States to donate its surplus vaccines to African countries. The White House has already committed to donating 5 million doses to Africa as part of a larger commitment of donations to countries around the world. Last week, The administration also committed to purchasing and donating half a billion vaccines, though the exact details of where they are going are still unclear.
China is also working to become a prominent vaccine donor. While they have been unable to donate up to this point; President Xi Jinping and the chairman of SinoPharm, the manufacturer of the leading Chinese vaccine, have both spoken on China’s willingness to provide vaccines to African countries for low prices.
Analysis
While it does not take much to improve over the Africa policy of the previous administration, The Biden Administration has made significant strides, especially in the past few days. There is undoubtedly still room for improvement, as many have pointed out. The Biden Administration needs to step up to help stop COVID-19 with bigger donations. It is unclear why the Biden Administration has not committed further, though it may have something to do with negotiations with vaccine companies.
While President Biden has said that these vaccines are not coming with strings attached, that they are solely to save lives, there is also a benefit of improved relations with African countries and the rest of the world. These donations will hopefully go a long way in establishing goodwill and more positive foreign relations for the United States. They will also address Chinese opportunities for influence.
The donation of vaccines will help the United States re-enter the international community after losing significant influence under the previous administration. Not only is vaccine donation a charitable and helpful way to use the surplus that the United States has developed, but vaccines can also be a great tool to build relationships and influence in the region.
One thing that has been overlooked in the discussion of COVID-19 relief is the donation of tests. While the United States struggled early in the pandemic with testing availability, there is now a surplus of tests around the country. Africa is generally lagging in testing availability. Uganda, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Ethiopia, and South Sudan are especially behind. If for whatever reason the United States is unable to donate vaccines, donating tests would be a very helpful alternative. Testing has proven crucial to implementing quarantine procedures and understanding the spread of the disease all over the world.
Overall, the commitment that the United States has made is incredible and has the potential to save many lives and work to repair relations with Africa. As the administration continues to make donation pledges it will be interesting to watch the follow-through and how the pledges can continue. Ideally, The Biden Administration will continue to donate many vaccines to African countries which will not only help to curb COVID-19, but also improve American-African relations.
Engagement Resources
- https://www.gavi.org/covax-facility- COVAX is the worldwide initiative aimed at equitable access to COVID-19 through which the United States is making most of its donations.
- https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus-covid-19- The WHO’s Regional Office for Africa has all of the most up-to-date news on COVID-19 in Africa.
VP Kamala Harris Advises Migrants not to Come to the US in First Trip Abroad to Guatemala and Mexico
Immigration Policy Brief #125
VP Kamala Harris Advises Migrants not to Come to the US in First Trip Abroad to Guatemala and Mexico
By Kathryn Baron
June 11, 2021
Policy Summary
Earlier this week, Vice President Kamala Harris took her first trip abroad in her new position, to Guatemala and Mexico. She announced the launch of an anti-corruption task force to be established for training law enforcement, aiding prosecutors, and targeting transnational crime in Guatemala; a young women’s empowerment initiative; the promise of $130 million in aid for the remainder of Biden’s term; and lastly, that the US would donate 500,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses. The US will deploy homeland security officers to Guatemala’s northern and southern border to train local officials.
In Mexico, Harris promised $130 million in technical assistance and cooperation over the next 3 years to fund programs intended to bolster labor legislation that will better support workers and working conditions, while simultaneously addressing forced and child labor. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas is scheduled to visit Mexico June 14 to begin discussing with the Mexican government how to approach lifting pandemic-related curbs on the shared border.
Analysis
However, the most jarring takeaway from this trip was Harris’s unmistakable message telling potential migrants, “don’t come,” in her final remarks as they will likely be turned away. Many democrats, activists, and other decision-makers are calling it a major disappointment and a move that lacked humanity and compassion. Such a statement is portrayed as greatly contradicting the Biden campaign vision and commitments it made to the American people and sounds too similar to the Trump-era stance on immigration.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Through the Department of Homeland Security’s website, this link provides additional information regarding the Obama era program.
Covid Vaccination Incentives; Do They Violate Ethics?
Brief # 109 – Health and Gender Policy
Covid Vaccination Incentives; Do They Violate Ethics?
By Siam Bhimji
June 14, 2021
Policy Summary
As of May 2021, nearly 172,423,605 Americans, or 53% of the population has received at least one dose of the Covid vaccine. Of these, 141,583,252 Americans or 43% of the population have been fully vaccinated. But that leaves at least over 110,000,000 ADULT Americans who still have not been vaccinated. Surveys indicate that close to 51% of the adult population is refusing to be vaccinated for a variety of reasons. President Biden has stated that he would like at least 70% of American adults to have had at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine by July 4. But with less than 3 weeks to go, it hardly appears that his goal will be achieved.
So what is being done to mass vaccinate the population?
One of the ways to encourage Americans to get the vaccine is by offering incentives. To this end, many innovative incentives are being used to seduce Americans to get the shot and they include free donuts, free medical marijuana samples, free college tuition for a semester, cheaper airline tickets, the state of Ohio has a $1 million lottery ticket, discounted groceries, free tickets to sports games, cheap beer, free $100 cash and much more….
Analysis
So far it is not known if the incentives are working because they have just recently started but most Covid Injection centers do not report longer lines of people waiting for the shot. Experts on the other hand indicate that incentivizing is only a short-term solution and may conflict with ethics. For example, in order to get the individual to get the vaccine, offering marijuana or free beer is not right; it is just substituting one harm with another.
However, in the business world, incentives are often given as a recognition of the worker’s productivity and this often results in a positive behavior change.
The two big questions about incentives are:
1) a how much, and
2) is cash payment a step in the right direction?
When it comes to financial incentives, it may be that poor people desperate for money may feel pressured to get the shot or in other words, their poverty is exploited. At the same time, it is also well known that financial incentives for unemployed or poor people often do not generate positive behavior. During the Covid pandemic the government started giving out huge amounts of money to people who had lost their jobs or could not work, but this noble endeavor has led to severe negative consequences. With government handouts of $300 a week, there is a shortage of workers in most of the hospitality industry. Why work for $7.50 an hour (or $300 a week), when the government offers the same amount for free????
Experts in ethics say that incentives should motivate behavior change but not alter the autonomy or decision-making status of the individuals.
At the end of the day, an incentive may buy cooperation for one day or one event, but it does not get to the core reason why the vaccine was refused in the first place. The problem will persist and there may be more obstacles with the 2nd booster shot.
The bottom line is that people who remain hesitant about the vaccine do not seem to understand the basic concepts about health or science and no amount of money is going to change that. Today $100 may buy a vaccine shot but tomorrow the same individual may demand $1,000- and then what?
Engagement Resources
CDC; Vaccines for COVID-19: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html
FDA: COVID-19 Vaccines: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines
Find a COVID-19 vaccine near you: https://www.vaccines.gov/
Biden Seeks Mandatory Global Taxation Level For Multinationals
Brief # 119 – Economic Policy
Biden Seeks Mandatory Global Taxation Level For Multinationals
By Rosalind Gottfried
June 10, 2021
Policy Summary
Under current international tax rules, multinationals generally pay corporate income tax where production occurs rather than where consumers or, specifically for the digital sector, users are located. However, some argue that through the digital economy, businesses (implicitly) derive income from users abroad but, without a physical presence, are not subject to corporate income tax in that foreign country.
Biden has gained the support of the G7 in establishing a minimal corporate tax for multinationals doing business overseas creating a program of fair taxation of corporations. Biden proposed a 15% minimal global corporate tax representing a significant departure from the past several decades. The hope is that this will stop countries from lowering their tax rates to attract investments and businesses in what many economists and politicians describe as a perpetual “race to the bottom. ”Over the past 40 years, according to the nonprofit Tax Foundation, the global lawful tax rate has fallen, so multinationals are getting great profit margins.
Resistance is expected from countries which make lower corporate payments such as Hungary and Ireland which pay 9% and 12.5% respectively Russia and China are also expected to challenge the proposal.
The gross profit shift in multinationals has been from 5-10% in the 1990s to 25-30% currently. Changing the corporate tax structure could yield an estimated global gain of 100-600 billion dollars annually over the next ten years. The corporate liability of US multinationals would amount to 104 billion dollars in 2022 and 1.2 trillion over ten years, representing 81% and 72% increase from current levels. If only the US changed its tax structures to reduce incentives of corporations overseas, the savings would amount to an estimated 566 billion over ten years.
Analysis
Biden’s 15% foreign activities proposal represents a compromise appeasing opponents by setting the level low enough to garner support yet representing a high enough burden to disincentivize US companies from operating abroad. In addition, the Tax Foundation analysis asserts that the Biden program will include a 9.4% sur tax on activities of multinationals above those imposed by host countries, resulting in a further disadvantage for American companies operating overseas. It is suggested that as a consequence some companies may opt to close their foreign entities.
The agreement is only the first step. The group of 20 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development still have to sign off on the agreement, and the process of rewriting international tax laws needed to implement the agreement will be long and complicated.
The issue of taxation of multinationals in a global economy is largely unchartered territory. Because the scope of the issue has never previously been addressed, the ultimate effect of the policies to American’ corporations is incalculable.
Engagement Resources
https://taxfoundation.org/biden-international-tax-proposals/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-global-tax-trouble-11621636099
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/05/31/global-minimum-corporate-tax-biden-g7/
Israel’s New Coalition Government: Can It Succeed?
Brief # 115 – Foreign Policy
Israel’s New Coalition Government: Can It Succeed?
By Reilly Fitzgerald
June 11, 2021
Policy Summary
Over the past month, Israel has been a hotbed of political turmoil which has included mass protests, an 11-day war, and now a political coalition in the Knesset that includes eight political parties trying to remove Prime Minister Netanyahu. The eight party coalition is interesting in that it includes factions of the entire political spectrum in Israel with the exception of the ultra-Orthodox parties. It has members from the right-wing, the left-wing, and even the Arabist Ra’am Party. The Knesset will vote on Sunday (6/13/2021) on whether or not to move forward with the removal of the country’s longest serving Prime Minister; if the vote passes, then a new government could be sworn in as quickly as Sunday.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has been an extremely polarizing figure in world politics over his 12 years in charge of the country; and he has become just as divisive within Israel. The political energy of the country, based on previous election results, has become about whether or not politicians (and citizens) side with his style of governance or not. It is not surprising to see such a wide-spread coalition come together when the single issue that they share in common is whether or not Prime Minister Netanyahu should be the leader; and they can all agree on not wanting his time in power to continue. Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing trial for corruption charges, as well as being unpopular globally for his comments on the Iran Nuclear Deal, and also his most recent 11-day Gaza war against Hamas.
Analysis
The Biden Administration is in a tough position in regards to Israel, as the political climate domestically has turned fairly sour towards Prime Minister Netanyahu following the war in Gaza last month. Republicans believe that he did not support Israel enough; Democrats, especially amongst the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, believe that he did not support the Palestinian cause enough.
The White House has said they will work with whomever is the leader of Israel. I expect this to be a more difficult task with a coalition of eight different parties coming together and coming from across most of the Israeli political spectrum. For example, Ra’am Party is a supporter of the idea of a recognized Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital; it is a supporter of ending the divisive issue of Israeli settlements; and it is a supporter of increasing Israeli- Arab social infrastructure (educational system, opportunities, minority status and rights, etc).
There will mostly likely be an increasing tension within the coalition should they successfully remove the Prime Minister this weekend. The plan, as it has been explained so far, will be to have Naftali Bennett take over as Prime Minister of Israel. Mr. Bennett is going to be a polarizing figure within this coalition and globally as he is a devout Jew and has been far to the right of Prime Minister Netanyahu. To complicate matters even more, Mr. Bennett would only be in power for the first two years of this government and would be replaced by a centrist afterward. It will be a tough job for the White House to work with a government that is seemingly only united in its disdain for a singular leader rather than a shared set of beliefs or ideas to move Israel forward.
Engagement Resources
The Israel Democracy Institute (https://en.idi.org.il/) – is an independent think tank dedicated to strengthening democracy within Israel. This resource includes overviews of the political parties involved in Israel politics including the parties involved in this new coalition.
Many Americans Continue to Refuse the Covid Vaccine
Brief #108 – Health and Gender
Many Americans Continue to Refuse the Covid Vaccine
By Siam Bhimji
June 10, 2021
Policy Summary
Throughout 2020, there was a frantic search for medications that could end the Covid-19 pandemic which infected 6 million Americans and caused nearly 160,000 deaths, but despite extensive research, no viable drug was discovered. Scientists stated that the only way to cure the Covid-19 outbreak was by developing a vaccine. And in mid-2021, two vaccines were developed in the US which include the Moderna and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. To achieve maximum protection from these vaccines, the recommendations are that the public receive two doses. The second shot for the Pfizer vaccine is supposed to be given 3 weeks after the first shot. For the Moderna vaccine, the second dose is at 4 weeks.
During the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic, millions of Americans were laid off, thousands of businesses were closed- some permanently and the entire hospitality industry including tourism was shut down and teetered on bankruptcy. And one would think that once the vaccines were developed, all Americans would be rushing to get vaccinated- the answer is that half of Americans do not wish to be vaccinated!!!!.
Analysis
As of May 2021, more than 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of the covid vaccine and close to 110 million have been fully vaccinated. But at the same time, surveys indicate that close to 50% of Americans will or have refused to be vaccinated. And some of these Americans also have family members who have acquired covid 19 in the recent past.
Further, there are already concerns that many Americans are not completing the second shot of the covid vaccine. They may have gotten the first shot to either maintain their job and/or travel and skipped the second dose. For example, data from Medicare beneficiaries reveal that the skip rate for the shingles vaccine is close to 26% and the same trend may be happening with the covid vaccines.
Why is there such a strong reluctance to take the vaccine? Two reasons; one is that most anti-vaxxers feel they are healthy and do not feel that they need the vaccine and second there is a concern that the vaccine has adverse effects that may lead to long-term complications or even death.
Are the covid vaccines safe?
There are many short-term reports on the safety of the covid vaccine. However, about 35-45 percent of individuals may experience local effects soon after the vaccine administration. These adverse effects include pain, redness, or swelling at the site of the shot. All studies reveal that these side effects resolve in a matter of days. At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control has reported that more than 9,000 cases of breakthrough infections have occurred after vaccination.
Less than a dozen people have died following the covid vaccines and in some cases, this has been linked to the formation of blood clots. But a direct link to the vaccine as a cause of death is still being debated. No vaccine is 100% safe and even if ten people died out of 150 million, the risks are considered minuscule.
Engagement Resources
CDC: Different COVID-19 Vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines.html
FDA: COVID-19 Vaccines: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines
Mayo Clinic: U.S. COVID-19 vaccine tracker: See your state’s progress: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker
HHS: COVID-19 Vaccines: https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html
WHO: Covid 19 vaccines: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines
51 percent of Americans would refuse or delay COVID vaccine, survey finds. https://nypost.com/2021/02/01/51-percent-of-americans-would-refuse-delay-covid-vaccine-survey/
States Where the Most People Are Refusing the COVID-19 Vaccine. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/05/19/states-where-the-most-people-are-refusing-the-covid-19-vaccine-3/
Vaccine Refusal May Put Herd Immunity At Risk, Researchers Warn. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/07/984697573/vaccine-refusal-may-put-herd-immunity-at-risk-researchers-warn
Millions Are Saying No to the Vaccines. What Are They Thinking?https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/the-people-who-wont-get-the-vaccine/618765/
5 Million Americans Skipped Second COVID-19 Vaccine Shot: Why? https://www.ibtimes.com/5-million-americans-skipped-second-covid-19-vaccine-shot-why-3187616
COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
The American Jobs Plan: A Spotlight on Airport Infrastructure
Brief # 119 – Economics Policy
The American Jobs Plan: A Spotlight on Airport Infrastructure
By Lily Cook
June 7, 2021
Policy Summary
President Biden’s American Jobs Plan (AJP) proposes $621 billion for improvements to transportation infrastructure with a specific focus on using green energy wherever possible. In the event that the bill passes without radical augmentation,
One component of the plan that has received broad bipartisan support is the money set aside for airport improvements. The Biden plan allocates $25 billion, and the Republican proposal actually surpasses that number to reach $44 billion. Although not a politically inflammatory point, upgrading America’s airports is by no means an easy task. The AJP envisions using funds to support terminal renovations, increased funding for the Federal Aviation Administration and the Airport Improvement Program—a grant program for public-use airports. There are also gestures towards “multimodal connections for affordable, convenient, car-free access to air travel,” which aligns with much of the Biden Administration’s clean energy goals.
The plan for airports as laid out in the AJP lacks much in the way of detail. In fairness, the entire AJP is more of a general road map of proposed projects rather than a granular blueprint for achieving them. Thus, the single paragraph devoted towards ports, waterways and airports amounts to a vague but promising beginning. If the AJP proceeds, it’s imaginable that America’s airports will slowly be revamped.
Analysis
The average U.S. airport is approximately 40 years old. If there’s something that Biden and Donald Trump can agree on with shocking specificity, it’s that certain airports need immediate upgrades. In 2011, Trump told CNN that New York’s LaGuardia Airport is “like a Third World airport, ” and Biden echoed this sentiment in 2014, stating that LaGuardia feels like “some Third World country.” One takeaway here is that U.S. presidents are too flippant when using the term ‘Third World’ in a derogatory context; but more to the point, crumbling airport infrastructure has been a subject of discussion for years now. Giving airports the attention they need is not easy, since development is usually up to local governments. Thus, if the AJP passes with $25 billion earmarked for the cause, real changes could make flying easier and more environmentally friendly.
The pandemic decreased airport travel by 62% from 2019 to 2020 and severely reduced airport revenues. According to The Airports Council International of North America (ACI-NA)—the most vocal organization of airport owners and operators—airports in the U.S. have a backlog of $115 billion in planned infrastructure projects.
While most U.S. airports are government owned and operated, recent years have seen more private funding for expensive projects. LaGuardia’s ongoing $8 billion makeover is partly funded by Delta Air Lines and a private organization created by New York State Governor Cuomo and the Port Authority of New York called ‘LaGuardia Gateway Partners.’ With the absence of private funding sources, some airport organizations such as the ACI-NA have attempted to lobby Congress to increase passenger fees beyond the current $4.50 per flight. Other interests, such as consumer groups and some airlines, have argued that revenues can be gathered from on-site sources like restaurants and stores. The $25 billion injection from the AJP will hopefully relieve this burden of choice and simplify the financing portion of things.
It’s possible that one day, America’s airports won’t be the subject of scorn, not for purposes of nationalistic hubris, but rather for the purely practical reason of expediting travel.
Engagement Resources
Let your senators know that passing the AJP is important to you.
Learn more about the ACI-NA and its advocacy for airport infrastructure funding.
Facebook Extends Trump Ban For 2 Years
Brief #48 – Technology
Facebook Extends Trump Ban For 2 Years
By Scout Burchill
June 6, 2021
Policy Summary
After an initial review from the Oversight Board, Facebook finally announced the company’s decision on the fate of former president Donald Trump’s account. In a blog post, the Facebook Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg responded to the Oversight Board’s charge that the company’s initial decision of an indefinite punishment was ‘not appropriate’ by announcing that Trump’s ban would be in effect for 2 years starting from January 7th. This will keep Trump off Facebook through the 2022 primary season. At the end of this period, Facebook will “look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded” and if not, it will extend the ban for another set period of time.
Facebook also responded to the Oversight Board’s criticisms of its ‘newsworthiness’ policy in which the platform allows posts to remain up if they are deemed to be important or in the public’s interest even though they violate Facebook’s Community Standards. The company insisted that going forward they would not treat politicians differently than other users and would make public instances when the newsworthiness standard is applied. Additionally, Facebook also stated that it would publish its “strike policy” so that users can better understand what type of content and actions will be penalized.
Trump responded to the decision by calling it “an insult to the record-setting 75M people, plus many others, who voted for us in the 2020 Rigged Presidential Election.” He also added a personal message for the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, declaring that the “next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.” Since Trump’s bans from social media, he has effectively been muzzled. His attempt to create his own platform, Trump’s Desk, failed to gain traction and was abandoned last week.
Analysis
While Facebook may be trying to respond to criticisms that its penalties are vague and indiscriminate, this decision fails to demonstrate the company is taking these criticisms to heart. Despite introducing a color-coded sliding scale of penalties for users, it’s the vague language that does most of the heavy lifting. For example, Trump is definitely banned until January 7, 2023, but what happens after that date is extremely unclear. Facebook claims it will rely on experts to assess things like levels of civil unrest and potential risks to public safety. Which experts and how exactly they will measure potential risks are anybody’s guess. If by chance some new domestic unrest is brewing around the same time Trump is up for his Facebook parole, it seems safe to assume he’ll surely be denied. In effect, Facebook could just keep extending this ban indefinitely by re-banning Trump every couple of years.
Ultimately, this logic seems backwards. Trump’s incendiary messages and blatant disregard for truth were obviously major factors in creating civil unrest in the United States in the first place. If they weren’t, then Facebook wouldn’t have suspended his account! How they will assess the potential dangers of introducing him back into an environment in which he has been absent for two years seems like it might require at least some measure of speculation. In other words, more ambiguity and vague standards. This kind of assessment and the two year timing makes it seem as if Facebook is just hoping the Trump train runs out of steam by the time the next presidential election cycle rolls around. Cutting off his ability to communicate with his base is definitely one way to pump the brakes on the Trump train.
Their reasoning also seems to suggest that America’s deep polarization and divisions are all Trump’s fault, as if America will now slowly return to a state of normal in the absence of the former Arsonist in Chief. This incredibly naive expectation seems like an easy way for Facebook to absolve itself of any responsibility for the current state of affairs. As profiled many times before, Facebook’s business model thrives off of conflict, sensationalism and outrage. In actuality, Trump’s rise to power was a symptom of a failing system stinking of rot, injustice, inequality, distrust and disdain. The information ecosystem that Facebook helped create contributed to this dismal state of affairs. Just because Trump’s gone America will not magically return to normal. In fact, whatever normal was before 2016, it proved to be a good time for someone like Trump to run for president.
One of the more positive outcomes of Facebook’s decision is its attempt to make its newsworthiness standard and strike policy more transparent. However, in this area too the language is sorely lacking in precision. For instance, Facebook declares they will no longer give preferential treatment to politicians and will instead “simply” apply their “newsworthiness balancing test” to all content. Of course this balancing test “simply” consists of “measuring whether the public interest value of the content outweighs the potential risk of harm by leaving it up.” On a separate page Facebook lays out some factors for newsworthiness that include whether or not a country is holding elections, at war or has a free press. Facebook’s promise to publish when a newsworthiness exception applies will be an interesting development to follow, and may be the only meaningful change bringing a bit of transparency to Facebook’s content moderation decisions.
In the end, there is a strange sense that Facebook is attempting to resolve extremely complex questions of freedom expression, due process and justice in ways that it is fundamentally unable to do, and frankly not in the business of doing. The back and forth between the Oversight Board and Facebook policy makers is a strange boardroom dance that is meant to give the company a veneer of accountability and transparency, but in this instance, very little seems to have actually been accomplished. But maybe that’s actually the point.
Engagement Resources
Facebook’s Decision
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-oversight-board-recommendations-trump/
New York Times on Facebook’s Decision
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/technology/facebook-trump-ban.html
Trump’s Desk Shuts Down
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/02/trump-blog-page-shuts-down-for-good.html
Governor’s Recall Failing to Gain Traction
Brief #21 – Elections and Politics
Governor’s Recall Failing to Gain Traction
By Patrick Dwire
June 7, 2021
Policy Summary & Analysis
The campaign ads of the Republican challengers of Galvin Newsom for governor of California in the upcoming recall election portray the state as suffering the same dystopian fate as Venezuela- with flash frames of despair and voice-over narratives of businesses and workers fleeing the economic collapse brought on by the government over-reach of Covid restrictions.
They speak about rampant homelessness, crime, civil unrest and the pending shutting down of the oil and gas industry with the radical Green New Deal. All this is the consequence of a single-party, proto-socialist state led by a governor with strong ties to the liberal elite in Washington, with the ads concluding that the “California Dream,” whatever that is, will be lost forever if Democrats stay in power.
Meanwhile, a recent public opinion survey completed by the reputable, non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that a clear majority of Californians approve of Governor Newsom’s overall handling of the pandemic and vaccine rollout, do not support the recall, are optimistic about their own and the state’s near-term economic future and generally believe the worst of the pandemic is behind them.
According to the PPIC Statewide Survey, based on telephone interviews with 1,700 adults including at least 1000 “likely voters” conducted between May 9th and May 18th, nearly six out of ten likely voters say they do not support the recall of Newsom, with 54 per cent approving of the governor’s job performance, and an even larger majority (61 per cent) approving his handling of the pandemic.
Overall, the survey results reflect “a sea of optimism on so many factors,” said Dean Bonner, associate survey director at the PPIC, in a virtual event for the release of the survey results on May 26th. Bonner said he was “surprised at how things have changed” in consistently positive directions for the Newsom administration among “unlikely voters” since the same survey was conducted in January. These included increases in the approval ratings of Newsom’s handling of the pandemic and vaccine roll out, as well as the overall expectation of economic “good times” soon to come to California, all up over 11 per centage points since January.
What surprised Mark Baldassare, CEO of the PPIC, is what did not change in the attitudes of “likely voters” toward the recall election over the course of three PPIC surveys conducted in January, March, and now May. These surveys consistently found around 40 per cent in favor of recalling Newsom with about 60 per cent opposed, which is basically consistent with the 38 per cent of voters who did not vote for Newsom in November of 2018.
These two different worlds of political perception, with one believing the state is on the brink of collapse from which it will not be able to recover with the current governor (about 40 per cent) and the other believing the state is doing relatively well with widespread expectation of doing better in the near future (about 60 per cent) – could not be much farther apart than they are in California.
California is, after all, one of the states that Trumpian Republicans love to hate precisely because it is so big, so affluent, with such a remarkably diverse economy and work force, and, despite relatively high taxes, is so stubbornly and predominantly liberal, pro-immigration and anti-Trump. If Trumpism is right about liberals and the Democratic Party, then California must be a failed, near socialist state under the control of a corrupt Democratic Party. The real problem for the Republican Party in California is that this is simply not the case – and most Californians know it.
With veto-proof Democratic majorities in both chambers of the state house, with no Republican holding any state-wide office and with Republican Party registration dwindling (down to 24 percent from 27 percent in 2016), the Republican Party is not just a minority party in California, it’s a minority party with virtually no political power in state politics.
Perhaps that’s the real energy behind the recall – an attempted legal coup by a relatively powerless minority of California Republicans who have a good deal of money to spend- not because of reality-based corruption, incompetence or incapacity of the incumbent- but because it is simply possible to do, to try to upend the results of the last gubernatorial election. Writ large after the 2020 presidential election, discrediting fair elections is apparently the mainstay of the Republican Party’s national political strategy. Ironically enough, the anti-democratic orientation of the Republican Party has exploited an opportunity in California by abusing a Progressive-era democratic reform that allows direct voter recall of the governor, one of only 19 states that does so.
The campaign to collect signatures for the recall of Gavin Newsom was eventually sustained with considerable financial support from outside the state, and considerable attention was paid to this campaign and the “first to declare” candidates by right-wing media. This investment may well have been done with the cynical calculation that a Republican candidate will have a much better shot at the Governor’s mansion in an off- year special election in 2021, when voter turn-out is likely to be lower, and the sense of pandemic burn-out likely to be higher, than would be the case in the regular gubernatorial race at the end of 2022, when economic recovery could be in full swing.
But here’s the rub. Back in 2003, when Gray Davis was about to become the first California governor to be recalled, the PPIC measured the degree voters believed things would get better if Gray Davis was, in fact, recalled. Never enjoying widespread popular support, Gray Davis was beleaguered by huge budget deficits, chromic energy shortages and spiking utility bills, which were later revealed to have originated in the Enron Corporation’s gaming of the state’s energy supply for illegal profit.
In a PPIC survey conducted in August, 2003, fully 47 per cent of voters said they believed things would get better if Davis were removed from office, while 17 per cent said that things would get worse if he was recalled. This widespread expectation was confirmed the following month in another PPIC survey, and in October of that year, 55 per cent voted to remove Davis, and 49 per cent voted to replace him with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In contrast, only 29 per cent of Californians believe things will get better if Newsom is recalled, less than a third, while 34 per cent believe things would get worse. A surprising number responded it would make no difference if Newsom is recalled or not —fully 28 per cent. According to Baldassare, CEO of the PPIC, “For a recall election to gain traction this time, many more voters need to believe that things would get better afterward.”
Contributor Outreach
Patrick Dwire is a freelance writer based in of Santa Cruz, CA. He can be reached at paddyd385@gmail.com
It’s Frustrating to Negotiate with Republicans
Brief # 118 – Economic Policy
It’s Frustrating to Negotiate with Republicans
By Rosalind Gottfried
June 4, 2021
Policy Summary
In March Biden proposed a 2.3 trillion dollar infrastructure plan which he has trimmed to 1.7 trillion. The Republicans initially proffered a plan of 568 billion and have raised it to 928 billion, after sustained discussion with Republican Negotiator Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. Biden, after much negotiation with Republican leaders has rejected that offer saying that it fails to address significant needs in the transportation, climate control, and job creation.
Biden also wants to establish a 15% minimum corporate tax, with no exceptions, to end major corporations escaping the tax burden altogether with deductions and write offs. The Republicans flatly refuse to amend the Trump tax reform of 2017 which had no minimum and established a 21% ceiling, less than the 28% Biden has proffered. Another sticking point is that the Republicans want to fund the bill with unspent pandemic relief money, a proposal Biden has unequivocally rejected.
On the same day that Biden announced the lack of agreement on an infrastructure package, the May jobs report unveiled the addition of 559,000 new jobs. Though this figure is greater than the tepid 278,000 added in April, Biden says it points to the need for more aggressive action. Unemployment dropped to 5.8% from the previous month’s 6.1% and remains significantly higher than pre-pandemic rates.
Analysis
Although the Biden administration has reduced its initial infratsructure process, Biden has been frustrated with the negotiation process; the Republicans have raised their funding level but they started very low, at about a quarter of Biden’s original plan. Biden will continue negotiations in the hope of getting somewhere when Congress returns from their Memorial Day break but commentators are not optimistic. The more progressive elements among the Democrats are agitating for passing a plan with a simple majority and foregoing any bi-partisan agreement. Republican hostility to infrastructure spending promoted by Biden is ironic in that President Trump proposed a two trillion dollar plan (that also went nowhere) a year before Biden announced his plan.
Engagement Resources
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/04/us/biden-news-today
https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-business-bb295afe6ec8d8b88b1b944f3eba7931