JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Can the U.S. Fulfill Its COP 26 Climate Promises?
Brief #127 – Environmental Policy
By Katelyn Lewis
Climate experts say the gathering of leaders from around the world in Glasgow, Scotland, for a two-week climate meeting led to imperfect, yet possible, updates to the Paris Agreement to slow global warming. The success of COP 26 depends on whether countries, including the United States, hold up their end of the bargain.
Dos and Don’ts of Importing Medications from Canada
Brief #141 – Health & Gender Policy
By S. Bhimji
There is no question that prescription medications are expensive in the US and each year the prices keep on going up. Some Americans visit Mexico to buy their prescription medications but the problem is that the quality of Mexican products is often not guaranteed.
Labor, Inflation, and Supply Chain Problems Suggest a Slowing Economy
Brief #129 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
The economic recovery has slowed in the third quarter and the unprecedented circumstances make it unclear what the indicators ultimately will mean for future growth. It is estimated that worker shortages are costing the economy sixty billion dollars in sales every month. Increased wages are failing to attract a crucial influx in returning workers. There are millions of pre-pandemic workers who have not returned to work. Workers are reluctant to return to work likely due to health concerns; childcare issues; and reconsideration of life priorities.
Recent Global Agreement Sets New Rules For Corporate Tax Revenue
Brief #128 – Economic Policy
By Jared Sullivan
A new global agreement, endorsed by the Biden administration, aims to improve the international tax system by redistributing revenue that countries earn from taxing multinational corporations. The proposal was finalized and agreed upon on October 8th by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is scheduled to go into effect in 2023.
January 6th Capital Riot Investigation Update # 4
Brief #29 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The House Select Committee on the January 6 riot has been making a lot of headway into their investigation. They have been issuing subpoenas, looking over documents and tips, questioning people, and trying to work around those who are unwilling to help with their investigation. The Committee is doing their best to piece together the day’s events in the hopes that situations like this can be avoided in the future.
Optimistic Economic Outlet Coupled with Caution
Brief #127 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
There are positive indications of economic growth in the fourth quarter of the year and, while economists are optimistic, citizens are less so. The economy grew by .5% in the third quarter, and the fourth quarter is predicted to be strong. The October jobs report was encouraging. New jobs reached 531,000 and after adjustments in the August and September figures, the average for the three months was 442,000. October unemployment was down to 4.6% from 4.8%.
Offshore Turbines a Windfall for the Transition to Cleaner Energy
Brief #126 – Environmental Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
Today, 67,000 wind turbines are spinning kilowatts of energy throughout the country. That is the wind behind President Biden’s back in his recent wind energy initiative; that, and his pledge is to cut the nation’s fossil fuel emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The cost to make and deploy wind energy has gone down over 50 percent since 2008. The administration wants to seize the moment; the plan is to install 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind turbines in U.S. waters by 2030.
Trapped by Bureaucrats: The Gray Wolf’s Struggle For Survival
Brief #135 – Environment Policy
By Tim Loftus
After a century of slaughter that brought an iconic species of the North American landscape to the brink of extinction, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was among the first species to gain protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1974. The ESA had just been signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon the year before and prohibited the “taking” of a listed species without explicit permission. “Taking” meant killing, harassing, or damaging habitat necessary for the survival and recovery of the species. The designation applied to all remaining wolf populations, small as they had become, in the lower-48 states.
What Motivates Covid Conspiracy Believers?
Brief #140 – Health & Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
As of Sept 2021, there are still close to 70 million adult Americans who have not been vaccinated against Covid. Despite all types of incentives, these folks have refused to get the shot. President Biden had signaled that he would have liked most of the country to be vaccinated by July 2021 but as of now, there are millions who adamantly refuse to be vaccinated.
Analyzing the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Analyzing the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Foreign Policy Brief # 123 | By: Abran C | July 21, 2021
Header photo taken from: United States Institute of Peace
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Time Magazine
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After 20 years of war, the United States is pulling its forces out of Afghanistan and the nation’s longest war is coming to a close with as many uncertainties as when the war began. The conflict was born from the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Then-President Bush vowed to win the newly declared war on terror. The declaration was followed by the U.S. military and NATO forces battling those responsible for the attack.
In October 2001 U.S. and NATO forces officially began their assault in Afghanistan. Quickly after the U.S. assault, the Taliban regime fell and Al-Qaeda militants continued to fight the U.S. around the country through guerilla tactics. In 2003 Bush announced the U.S. mission had been accomplished and major fighting was now over. In 2004 Afghanistan drafted a new constitution and elected its first democratically elected President. Still, throughout the years the U.S. and NATO forces have gone back and forth on their plan and commitments to Afghanistan, with drawdowns and surges happening all too frequently.
At the 10 year mark, the U.S. had finally caught and killed Osama Bin Laden and had about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. The mission that the U.S. set out to do at the beginning of the war had come to fruition, Afghanistan had a democratically elected government, and the leader of Al-Qaeda was gone. Then-President Obama having seemed to accomplish the U.S. mission had plans to withdraw all forces by 2016.
In 2017 as the U.S. continued its fight in Afghanistan, an emerging Afghan government came onto the scene and a strengthened Taliban continued to fight Afghan and NATO forces. A then newly elected President Trump opted to add several thousand troops to join in what had become up to that point a war spanning three administrations. In 2018 the Trump administration sought negotiations with the Taliban. The talks were called off in 2019 when a U.S. soldier was killed but then restarted as Trump eagerly sought an end to the war. Then in 2020, after months of official talks in Doha between the Taliban and the U.S., a deal was struck to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan in a 14-month timeframe with the deadline to withdraw set for May 1st.
President Biden became the fourth President to inherit the war. Biden had extended the deadline for troop withdrawal to the 20th anniversary of 9/11, moved up from the May 1st deadline set by Trump. In recent weeks as troops are withdrawn and bases closed, the Taliban has undertaken a massive offensive push. Having taken up to 85% of the country within a short timeframe and stating they would not take part in peace talks until all foreign troops were gone, leaving Afghans with no choice but to attempt to resist or surrender to their assault. Faced with this, the U.S. has stated it will leave regardless of what progress is made in peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.
Policy Analysis
President Biden set an enhanced timeline for U.S. withdrawal to August 31st and acknowledged that it was unlikely the Afghan government will remain in control of Afghanistan and that there would be no moment of celebration, no mission accomplished.
Biden has stated he does not believe there is a military solution to the conflict with the Taliban. “How many more, how many more thousands of American daughters and sons are you willing to risk?” Biden said in response to those calling for an extension of U.S. forces in the region.
Photo taken from: AP News
After twenty years of war, a coalition of forces pushing their way through the country, and hundreds of billions of dollars, before the U.S. has finished packing its bags, the Taliban have gained control of 85% of the territory in Afghanistan.
The Afghan army, even after years of training, cannot stop the Taliban’s offensive. Now as the U.S. commits to its pullout, it will have to watch as what is put in place in Afghanistan comes crashing down.
The U.S. military is quite good at getting what they want, able to kill in large numbers or small targeted raids if need be, it is the only military that trains for wars in other hemispheres. There was no doubt the Taliban regime was in for its downfall when it came within the sight of U.S. forces. But the situation in Afghanistan required more than just military might, and in this regard, the U.S. has fallen short in the past and has done so again. The U.S. has not restored security or prosperity in Afghanistan other than in a handful of pockets throughout the country.
President Biden recently remarked that the U.S. did not go into Afghanistan to nation-build. However, it should be noted that America did attempt to establish a system of government, a new constitution, train the army, with George W. Bush even launching the Afghanistan reconstruction project in 2002. Afghans have paid the highest price for our efforts. Since 2001, at least 47,245 civilians have been killed in the war. The United States’ project in nation-building has not gone according to plan if there ever even was one.
There have been hard-won gains by women in Afghanistan, they have taken on roles as politicians, soldiers, journalists, and actors, and many now fear a return to Taliban rule where their advances could all be lost. During their five-year rule from 1996-2001, the Taliban imposed their harsh interpretation of Islamic law on the public. During their rule, they forbade women and girls from employment and did not allow their education after the age of eight. And those who defied these rules faced beatings or death. Women and girl’s rights became a US selling point for the war in the eyes of a skeptical public and international community. Peace talks between the US and the Taliban have not included or paid attention to the rights of women.
Photo taken from: AP News
As we are on our way out, many questions about what the U.S.’s role in Afghanistan will be in the future continue to be asked. What will the United States’ commitment to Afghanistan be in the face of renewed Taliban offensive and Biden’s promise to support from afar? What will become of the Afghans who worked with U.S. and NATO forces and now fear for their safety as troops leave, will they all be granted asylum? When U.S. forces leave will that be the true end of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan? Biden has stated he would keep the option to conduct airstrikes open. These questions and the shadow of the war will loom over current and future administrations as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates and the nation tries to emerge from decades of foreign intervention.
The twenty yearlong debacle that was America’s war in Afghanistan would never have had a clean ending. Had the U.S. not withdrawn it would have meant an untold number of years of continued fighting with no end in sight. Had President Biden gone back on former President Trump’s deal and stayed in Afghanistan there might have been increased attacks on U.S. troops and strong pushback at home. Were the U.S. to have pulled out sooner, the situation likely would have ended the same with the Taliban rising back into power as foreign forces left.
The humiliation of losing to the Taliban might have been more of a deterrent to pulling out years ago. Today with a host of domestic issues facing the United States it seems to be less about defeating the Taliban than it is how quickly we can leave to avoid blame now that the deal is done. That we stayed for twenty years is unfortunate, but it’s hardly surprising. The question now is how to develop an effective post-war US policy towards Afghanistan in the face of so much uncertainty.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Action Aid Afghanistan: A global justice federation working to achieve social justice, gender equality, and poverty eradication.
In Afghanistan, we focus on ending violence against women and girls, promoting inclusive and resilient livelihoods, promote resilience among the right holders and promote civic participation.
HADAAF: Humanitarian Assistance & Development Association for Afghanistan is a not-for-profit, non-sectarian and political organization established in March 2004. HADAAF has implemented numerous short and long-term projects in partnership with IMC, SCI, UNICEF, WHO, Swedish committee.
The overall mission of the organization is to contribute to the development and rehabilitation of Afghanistan and empowerment of the community to decide on what, where, and when to conduct development.
CSIS: The Center for Strategic and International Studies closely follows developments in Afghanistan, especially the role of the United States and the international community there.
As security threats continue to evolve in Afghanistan, we must build and adjust U.S. policy accordingly. CSIS conducts research and analysis on major elements of U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.
Updates on US Gun Reform Efforts
Updates on US Gun Reform Efforts
Social Justice Brief #20 | By: Erika Shannon | July 20, 2021
Header photo taken from: nytimes.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice briefs here
Photo taken from: ABC News
The year 2021 has been filled with lots of violence for Americans across the country. From mass shootings to a rise in gun violence in major cities, it is clear that something must be done to put an end to the senseless killings. Earlier this year, President Biden signed several Executive Orders in an attempt to curb some of the gun violence the U.S. has been seeing. The orders placed new restrictions on pistol modification and nominating an anti-gun advocate to helm the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
However, there has been more inaction than progress made in reducing the amount of gun incidents where people are harmed or lose their lives. This year has been especially deadly, according to recent statistics. The 300th mass shooting of the year took place on June 12th, which is four months sooner than in the past. To tack on to that, more than 1,800 people have been killed or injured in mass shootings so far this year.
While the numbers certainly look bad, some efforts are being attempted on a legislative front to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. The “Disarm Hate Act” was introduced in Congress in mid-June. Its purpose is to add on to the category of people who are not allowed to receive or possess a firearm. The bill would make it illegal for those who have been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime or who have received an enhanced hate crime misdemeanor sentence from selling, transferring, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms.
The hope is that those who have been convicted of hate crimes will not be able to use firearms to carry out acts of hate in the future, and there is hope that this bill will eventually become law.
Another proposed Congressional bill to help curb gun violence is the National Gun Violence Research Act. This bill would promote gun violence research by removing limitations on the use of firearms tracing data by the ATF, permitting funds made available to the Department of Health and Human Services to be used for gun violence research, and establishing the National Gun Violence Research Program.
The bill would also authorize various competitive grants to support research into the nature, causes, consequences, and prevention of gun violence.
Understanding why there is such a spike in gun crimes may be a key piece to fixing this problem across the country, and there is hope the bill will gain some traction.
Photo taken from: American Psychological Association
Proposing gun control legislation is no easy feat; many measures are knocked down before they even have a chance for fears that they violate 2nd Amendment rights. This year, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act was re-introduced.
The bill establishes a process for the licensing and registration of firearms, while also prohibiting the possession of certain ammunition and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Its goal is for the Department of Justice to establish and maintain a publicly available database of all registered firearms; this is so that law enforcement knows whose possession they belong in.
One problem this bill might face is the fact that it also wants to change the licensing requirements for the possession of a firearm and ammunition by only issuing a license if the individual is of age twenty-one or older, undergoes a criminal background check and psychological evaluation, completes a certified training course, and has an insurance policy.
Photo taken from: Global Village Space
As with many bills, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act will likely face problems. A federal appeals court recently ruled that federal regulations setting a minimum age of twenty-one years old for purchasing handguns from licensed dealers is a violation of the Second Amendment. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that laws setting that minimum age downgraded “either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year olds to a second-class status.” One of the components of the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act is changing the legal age to own a gun to twenty-one.
Any legislation regarding gun control is tricky, with the National Rifle Association and conservatives quick to accuse gun control measures of violating the Second Amendment. However, with shootings on the rise across the nation, there has to be some leeway on one side or the other to protect innocent Americans who are being shot and killed. There is hope that eventually there will be new legislation that addresses this epidemic of violence in the U.S.
If there is no movement soon on a federal level, local and state governments need to think about tackling the gun violence problem as well. President Biden himself has stated that local and federal leaders need to come together in order to reduce gun violence.
Some states have already began to deal with the problem in their own way. In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a statewide emergency declaration in an attempt to address gun violence throughout the state. The move would allow New York to spend $138 million towards gun control efforts. In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced a $1 million reward fund for tips about illegal guns. This is in an effort to get illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of those who are killing innocent people across the city.
It is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ending the gun violence problem in the U.S. However, a combination of efforts at both local and federal levels is one of the most ideal ways to at least reduce the number of gun crimes being committed. While President Biden has made some conscious efforts in the area of gun control, many are hoping he will put more energy into delivering on his promise of tackling gun violence.
The bill would also authorize various competitive grants to support research into the nature, causes, consequences, and prevention of gun violence.
Understanding why there is such a spike in gun crimes may be a key piece to fixing this problem across the country, and there is hope the bill will gain some traction.
Just within the past several days there were mass shootings in Washington, D.C. and Portland, Oregon where several people were injured and two lost their lives; one of the victims was a six-year-old girl. Some further action must be taken to prevent these tragedies or else they will continue to occur across our nation at staggering rates.
Photo taken from: The New York Times
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
To see progress on proposed legislation and see what other measures have been introduced, visit Congress.gov
To learn more about preventing gun violence, visit the Prevention Institute website.
The Covid Pandemic Only Exists Now Among the Unvaccinated
The Covid Pandemic Only Exists Now Among the Unvaccinated
Health and Gender Policy # 117 | By: S.Bhimji | July 18, 2021
Header photo taken from: KTXS
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: BBC.com
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For reasons unknown, the US has a fair number of people who are adamant about not getting vaccinated against Covid 19. Some people believe that the government has a sinister agenda in having all the people vaccinated, others believe that the vaccine is not safe and yet others think that the vaccine has little value in healthy people.
Whatever the beliefs, the one absolute fact is that the number of Covid related deaths has drastically dropped since last year. From an average of 4,000 deaths a day, the latest data show that now we only have about 297 deaths a day. And the majority of the deaths that still occur are in people who remain unvaccinated. For all the doubters this just goes to show the effectiveness of the vaccines.
The current death rate of about 300 per day, would be zero if everyone eligible also got vaccinated. The latest data show that the number of hospital admissions is around 107,000 and the percentage of hospitalized individuals who have been vaccinated is 1.1% And in May 2021, of the 18,000 deaths, only 150 were in vaccinated individuals which translates to about 5 deaths per day.
While there have been breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, the numbers are small and the deaths are rare.
Policy Analysis
The overall trend is what the experts have been saying- if you are vaccinated, your chance of dying is very small. As of July 2021, data from the CDC reveals that close to 99% of Americans dying from Covid 19 are unvaccinated. This is a great tragedy because the vaccine can prevent high mortality but the anti-vaxxers still remain unconvinced.
Following the mass vaccination program which started in mid-January, deaths in the US have dropped from a peak of more than 3,400 a day to less than 300 per day.
Photo taken from: Axios.com
As of May 2021, about 63% of Americans older than 12 have received at least one dose of the vaccine, and 53% are fully vaccinated. Unlike the rest of the world, there is no shortage of vaccines in the US but the demand has dropped significantly in many southern (red) states.
Experts in infectious disease state that the preventable deaths will continue among the unvaccinated communities as we approach the Fall and Winter season when the flu virus will also be active.
In the South, Arkansas has one of the lowest vaccination rates, with only 1/3rd of the population fully protected; and tragically deaths and hospitalizations continue to rise.
The real tragedy of this pandemic is that these deaths can be prevented by people being vaccinated. There is no cost for the vaccine and it is without major adverse effects.
The other thing to note is that among the unvaccinated who have been admitted to the hospital with difficulty breathing, they now regret not being vaccinated. And while they can receive the vaccine even at this stage, they will still be faced with huge medical bills.
The Biden administration is now hoping that more stories about deaths in unvaccinated people may convince some individuals to get the shots. But despite all types of seductions including free groceries, discounts, coupons, etc, many Americans still remain adamant that they will not get vaccinated.
Many healthcare institutions and businesses are even offering paid-off time to workers who may suffer adverse effects from the vaccine.
But in the end it all boils down to the individual, if he or she does not want to be vaccinated, then in a democratic country like ours, there is little one can do besides telling them to wear a mask.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
U.S. COVID Deaths Are Rising Again. Experts Call It A ‘Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated’ https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/1017002907/u-s-covid-deaths-are-rising-again-experts-call-it-a-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated
US Experiencing ‘A Pandemic of the Unvaccinated’ https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/us-experiencing-pandemic-unvaccinated
Unvaccinated people account for nearly all COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, White House officials said. https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2021/7/8/22568734/unvaccinated-nearly-all-covid-19-hospitalizations-deaths-white-house
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 6: What Have Subsidies Got To Do With It
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 6: What Have Subsidies Got To Do With It
Environmental Policy Policy Brief # 119 | By: Katherine Cart | July 17, 2021
Header photo taken from: Baird Maritime
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more enivironmental policy briefs here
Photo taken from: theconversation.com
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Corporate wealth towers like megalithic fungi about the globe. Imagine the coagulated money of the world sprouting graphically in the areas in which the owners of that money are housed, bedded, fed. This should appear rather like a globular histogram, with, say, Beijing, New York City, Hong Kong, Moscow, Shenzhen, San Francisco etc. etc. sprouting great swaying money towers.
Now, conversely, consider a similar globular graph that depicts where the physical goods powering wealth are sourced from. We’ll call this a wealth-impact histogram. The swathes of open country where Big Ag spreads feedlots are now histogram platforms. As are: the rivers dammed, the rivers dried; Congo’s cobalt mines; Utah’s Bingham County; the Gulf of Mexico; the monocultured swathes of the global south; the arctic into which drills have dug; the delicate oceans. The world’s water is an eruption of wealth-impact.
Consider the government subsidy. It is not a watertight gift, this monetary boost. The power of money leaks, is in no way unidimensional. Big Ag subsidies clear ground, allow for aggressive farming techniques that lower consumer prices, stoking competition that in turn perpetuates even more aggressive farming techniques that lower consumer prices– etc.
Such centralized wealth is problematic in a species like ours that depends on long-term resource gathering; it alienates the consumer from the product, and from that product’s impact on the planet.
Which is not to say that the division of the consumer from the consumed has not allowed for awesome civil, scientific, cultural, artistic progress; I mean only to highlight the very obvious fact that, collectively we – or rather, the inherent human trend towards cultural leap-frog, a societal/tribal darwinism of sorts – have overplayed our parasitism of the planet.
We act en masse, problematically tied to our reptilian fear of falling behind, of not keeping up with the big dogs.
Photo taken from: TripAdvisor
I haven’t been aboard an Alaskan fishing vessel in nearly a year. Yesterday, however, I Facetimed with a former crew member. He tells me that fishing vessels targeting yellowfin sole (a relatively inexpensive and generally abundant flatfish caught by bottom trawl – and here I must define “inexpensive” as it relates to the consumer; bottom trawling is an ecologically extortionate practice) are hauling up, after several hours of towing, one half ton bags of yellowfin and/or “trash fin” AKA bycatch-to-be-unused-and-discarded.
This is, to my knowledge, abnormal. Inarguably, ecosystems and oceanic currents and marine populations do and would oscillate sans industrial reaping, but to consider industrial reaping to be trivial is asinine.
Marine life is vast in terms of the individual’s consumption. In terms of global consumption and the methods by which we harvest, marine life is finite.
To flatline the flux and smooth the potholes of the consumable fisheries market, fishing companies, families and communities are subsidized (this was especially true in 2020 and 2021 when Covid-19 relief packages assuaged the impact of closed restaurants). Subsidies are standard fare in “normal” years; in 2018, global fisheries corporations were subsidized by $22 billion in payout, allowing vessels to scrape bottom and scrape bottom, filling quotas one metric ton at a time.
Money speaks as a gauge of preciousness, of rarity, to the difficulty of acquisition. Money speaks too loudly: the true nature of production is lost in transit. Subsidies scrub the dirt, if you will, from the consumable. To subsidize the mega-companies that trawl the ocean floor is to alienate the consumer from the impact their meal has upon this earth.
To be witness to the slumping of ecosystems, to stand on a trawl deck and wonder to where the fish have gone and to see a limp codend sloughing black benthic mud, coral, crab, some fish is to be witness to the repetitive abuse of a living thing so harsh that that thing is changing shape. We beat the ocean, expecting her to produce.
Photo taken from: SouthCoastToday.com
Fuel is subsidized. The building of new, more efficient boats is subsidized (double trawl, faster factories, fewer employees, greater automation: we are aiming towards a remote-controlled fishing boat; that’s another story).
If we consumed without the power of money that sprouts en masse from the wealth centers of our world we would consume differently. A depleted place would be left not perhaps for any moral or long-view ecological reason but because the company and consumer that harvested there would not be able to turn profit.
Subsidies muddy the water, as it were, and cloud the judgement of the consumer, who is not wealthy, who is budgeted, who exists in a world that demands awareness of too much to leave room for the tracing of true food production.
Subsidies alienate us from earth, allow us to pretend we are not the rampant, squirming parasite in this overburdened ecosystem. The boreholes we make are kept wonderfully hidden from the eye.
Proposed Scientific Integrity Act Would Help Reverse Trump’s “War on Science”
Proposed Scientific Integrity Act Would Help Reverse Trump’s “War on Science”
Technology Policy Brief # 54 | By: Henry Lenard | July 15, 2021
Header photo taken from: People for the American Way
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs here
Photo taken from: TED Ideas
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In response to the so-called ‘War on Science’ by the previous presidential administration of Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Tomko (D-NY) has reintroduced the Scientific Integrity Act. The bill currently has 169 co-sponsors.
The proposed legislation would help prevent undue political influence over federal science by establishing uniform standards at U.S. agencies to adopt or strengthen existing scientific integrity policies. It would protect policy decisions from political interference, ideology or financial conflicts of interest. More than 20 federal agencies have developed some form of scientific integrity policy, but standards remain inconsistent.
Further, it requires any federal agency addressing science to designate a scientific integrity officer, develop a scientific integrity policy that includes a set of minimum standards, provide scientific integrity and ethics training, and mandates that federal departments develop a transparent, internal review process for scientific papers.
Similar legislation was introduced in both chambers of Congress in the 2017 and 2019 sessions but failed to reach either floor for a full vote.
This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on February 4, 2021 and referred to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, where it now sits. It will typically be considered by the committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House as a whole. If passed, it would then move on to the Senate for similar approval before going to President Joe Biden.
If it became law, it would complement President Biden’s “Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking”, issued on January 27, 2021. Directed to the heads of all executive departments and agencies, the memo stated it is the policy of the Biden administration to make evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data.
This memorandum also reaffirms and builds on former President Barack Obama’s Memorandum of March 9, 2009 on Scientific Integrity and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Memorandum of December 17, 2010 on Scientific Integrity.
Policy Analysis
Calls for a Scientific Integrity Act grew out of the regular interference in and denial of the work of government scientists during former President Trump’s administration. This included censorship of scientists, appointing industry insiders to head key agencies and failing to fill vital government science roles. This has led to a mass departure of scientists in the employ of the U.S. government.
A report prepared earlier this year by majority staff of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology details that decline in the federal scientific workforce, particularly at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The report, “Scientific Brain Drain: Quantifying the Decline of the Federal Scientific Workforce”, singled out former President Trump.
Photo taken from: Union of Concerned Scientists
“The four years of the Trump administration were devastating for the federal scientific workforce. Throughout many of the Federal Government’s civilian scientific agencies, career scientists experienced political interference, bureaucratic obstruction, and personal retaliation,” the report said.
According to the findings, the combined civil service workforces of the EPA, DOE, and NOAA declined by 4,874 employees between 2009 and 2020. The EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s workforce declined by 7.6 percent during the Trump administration and 17.2 percent between 2012 and 2019, losing nearly one-fifth of the office’s total workforce in seven years.
At NOAA that interference included the infamous “Sharpiegate” where Trump altered a weather map with a Sharpie marker to prove his comment that Hurricane Dorian was tracking toward Alabama. He then had NOAA publish an unsigned statement in support of that claim and appointed two climate change deniers to top positions at the agency.
Trump also regularly contradicted the CDC and government scientists on matters related to COVID-19, pushing unproven treatments and undercutting the experts at seemingly every turn.
“This type of political bullying compromised scientific integrity and caused morale among career scientists to plummet,” according to the staff report. Citing a 2018 Union of Concerned Scientists survey of federal scientists, the report said “political interference, censorship and a fear of retaliation had weakened the morale of scientists in a number of critical agencies.”
In a separate report, the Union of Concerned Scientists tracked 190 attacks on science from within the Trump administration. That compares with 22 during the Obama administration and 98 under the George W. Bush administration, both in office twice as long as Trump.
Photo taken from: Politico
Although there were cuts during the Obama administration, the “political marginalization of science” occurred under Trump and was most acute, the report added, when science conflicted with the administration’s political objectives. Government scientists who balked at suppressing climate change threats or industry deregulation proposals “found themselves at the center of the fiercest scientific clashes of the Trump era.”
Our country continues to grapple with the worst pandemic in over a century and a mounting climate crisis. Data shows that the American electorate trusts scientists to address the pandemic and other serious challenges we face more than those of people from other professional backgrounds.
Despite the attack on scientists by Trump and his political allies, public trust in the scientific community remains as strong as ever, according to a poll released last November by the Pew Research Center, confirming polling results dating back to the 1970s.
Thirty-eight percent of those polled in Pew’s survey in the U.S. say that they have a lot of trust in scientists to do what is right for the public. Pew’s data show respondents only ranked the military as more trustworthy than scientific institutions, while ranking lower trust in others like the national government, news media and business leaders.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
H.R. 849 Scientific Integrity Act official summary:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/849
January 27, 2021 Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking from President Joe Biden:
Union of Concerned Scientists statement in support of Scientific Integrity Act of 2021:
https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/science-group-urges-passage-scientific-integrity-act
Scientific Integrity Act fact sheet:
https://tonko.house.gov/uploadedfiles/scientific_integrity_117th_fact_sheet.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court’s Brnovice v. Democratic National Committee Decision Further Weakens Voting Rights Act of 1965
U.S. Supreme Court’s Brnovice v. Democratic National Committee Decision Further Weakens Voting Rights Act of 1965
Civil Rights Policy Brief # 169 |
By: Rod Maggay, Senior U.S. RESIST NEWS Writer | July 7, 2021
Header photo taken from: commondreams.org
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs here
Photo taken from: The Daily Signal
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” In 1982 amendments to the act provided a “results test” to Section 2. This meant that any voting law enacted which “resulted” in a discriminatory effect based on race or color was prohibited. An “intent test” which prohibited discriminatory voting laws only if the law was enacted with the intent to discriminate based on race or color had already been established under Section 2 in Mobile v. Bolden in 1980.
In 2016 the Arizona State Legislature passed H.B. 2023 which made it a felony crime to handle or submit a completed ballot on behalf of another person unless the person was a family member, caregiver or election official. Additionally, Arizona has an “out – of – precinct” policy which requires election officials to reject ballots if the voter submits his ballot to the wrong precinct.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) brought a lawsuit to challenge these two voting provisions. The District Court ruled against the DNC and found that both provisions were not unconstitutional and not in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the judgment of the District Court in a 7 – 4 vote. The court found that both provisions violated Section 2 of the VRA. The court said that the “out – of – precinct” policy violated the “results test” of Section 2 of the VRA because the policy placed a significant burden on minority voters. As for H.B. 2023, the court ruled that this provision violated the “intent test” of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because the provision was enacted with discriminatory intent to burden ballot collectors who worked in predominantly minority areas. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately ruled 6 – 3 to overrule the Ninth Circuit decision. The Supreme Court held that both voting provisions were not in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
The decision in Brnovice v. Democratic National Committee is clearly a blow for voting rights but when the case is viewed in a larger context with other recent Supreme Court voting rights cases it is clear that the active protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been significantly narrowed and weakened.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the landmark legislative pieces of the Civil Rights Movement. Its intent is to prohibit racial discrimination in voting. The law had a number of provisions that sought to protect the right to vote but the most important were Section 2 (at issue in the Brnovice case) and Section 5.
Section 5 was designed to give the Federal Government a chance to review and object to proposed voting changes in selected states before they were implemented.
Photo taken from: Britannica
However, this Section was seriously weakened by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. That left Section 2 as an avenue to try and stop attacks on voting rights but the Court again issued a decision that undercut Section 2 as a viable option to challenge voting laws.
In Abbot v. Perez in 2018 the Supreme Court raised the standard to prove intent to discriminate. Here, they imposed a presumption of legislative good faith. This rendered Section 2 “intent tests” cases difficult because of the high bar parties had to prove a racially motivated intent to discriminate. What remained was Section 2’s “results test.”
But in this case the Supreme Court completes the work it had started in previous cases by issuing an opinion that again makes implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so difficult as to make efforts to challenge voting laws, as a practical matter, nearly futile. While the intent test and the results test had been the test to challenge voting laws since 1982, Justice Alito scraped that and instead introduced a non – exhaustive five – factor “totality of the circumstances” test. Simply having a voting law that results in voter discrimination against a minority community is no longer enough to challenge the law.
Nor is a clear intent by a legislative body to enact a voting bill targeted at communities of color enough to challenge the voting law. Now to show a violation, according to Justice Alito, is to show what burdens the new voting rule imposes, show a comparison to the new voting rule and the prior standard practice in 1982 (when the Voting Rights amendments introducing the results test was passed), the disparities of the new voting rule among different minority communities, other opportunities to vote in the State’s voting system and the State’s interests in the proposed voting rule.
Photo taken from: The New Republic
This new legal standard just complicates matters and will likely make it harder to challenge any new voting rule or law and ultimately prevail. The five – factor test introduces too many requirements that groups would have to satisfy to show that a new voting rule is in violation of Section 2.
The Court, again, raised the legal standard to heights that question whether any party could meet it. And when this case is combined with the Shelby County and Abbott v. Perez cases and the conservative justices goal to defer to decisions made by state and local legislators except in the most egregious cases, it leaves one to wonder whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can be used to challenge questionable voting laws that are being introduced around the country. And this, in turn, raises the question whether the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can be used in a meaningful manner anymore.
The law was enacted to prohibit tactics and methods that prevent people from exercising their right to vote. But that protection disappears when additional legal requirements are imposed that act as another barrier to voting. These five new factors will simply be thrown up to make groups think twice about whether it is worth their time and effort to mount a challenge to a voting law and whether they can even succeed.
This will end up in the likely disenfranchisement of millions of minority voters around the country if the rate of voter suppression bills being introduced by Republicans around the country is any indication. After the Brnovice case, and taken together with the Supreme Court’s Shelby County and Abbott case, it is difficult to see if the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can continue to act in any meaningful way for the noble purpose for which it was enacted. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Brennan Center for Justice – infopage on Brnovice case and Supreme Court decision.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – comment on Brnovice Supreme Court decision.
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.
What The CDC’s School Reopening Guidelines Tell Us
What The CDC’s School Reopening Guidelines Tell Us
Health and Gender Policy # 116 |
By: S Bhimji | July 14, 2021
Header photo taken from: usnews.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Union Track Engage
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As the country starts to reopen, the one topic that has captured the nation is what will happen to students. For more than a year, students have not been able to physically attend classes. While the adult American population is getting vaccinated and gradually returning to the workplace, there is no vaccine for children under the age of 12.
Well, finally the CDC has updated its guidelines and stated that schools can reopen for in-person learning this fall for everyone. Plus, if students and teachers have been vaccinated, there will no longer be a need for masks in the classroom.
Since the currently available vaccines are only for use in children 12 years or older, most schools can expect a mix of student bodies that will comprise mixed vaccination status. Regardless of the vaccine status of the students, the CDC has urged all schools to take primary preventive measures that ensure a low risk of virus transmission.
For students over the age of 12, the agency highly recommends vaccination as the ideal prevention strategy. But despite the urgency of the situation, rollouts all over the nation have been low. As of June 2021, less than 25% of 12-15-year-olds and just over a third of 16-17-year-olds have been fully vaccinated.
For staff and students who remain unvaccinated, the CDC continues to recommend mask-wearing when indoors and in any outdoor area where crowds are likely. At the same time, the agency has repeated that masks will be required for students riding the school bus or public transport.
Policy Analysis
Finally, the American Federation of Teachers has welcomed the new CDC guidelines. For most of the year, teachers in most states have been very reluctant to offer in-student teaching but with these guidelines, they feel more at ease.
However, a more problematic area in schools is that of social distancing of at least 3 feet for children who remain unvaccinated. This is often not realistic in school settings and monitoring every student for social distancing can be a logistical nightmare.
Photo taken from: Wall Street Journal
However, all concerned parties agree that as long as other prevention strategies are in place then social distancing may have to be compromised every now and then. Close monitoring will be the key to ensure that infections are not on the increase.
Unfortunately, not all states are abiding by the CDC’s prevention strategies. In Texas and Iowa, school districts have been told not to make masks mandatory, a prevention tool that has been used to lower the viral spread. Even though masks have been shown to prevent the spread of covid 19 and widely used as a preventive measure, in some parts of the country local government policies often override public health policies. For schools that do not practice masking, the CDC does recommend physical distancing.
Even though overall covid cases have dropped all over the nation, in certain vulnerable countries with low vaccination rates the infection rates have started to increase, resulting in a higher number of hospital admissions compared to previous months.
Currently, the highly transmissible Delta variant makes up more than 50% of cases nationwide, but the good news is that the current vaccines are all effective against this variant.
The CDC is confident that the schools can open safely with in-person learning but immunocompromised children and their families should work with their school district and determine if remote options are available.
There is no question that in school -learning offers more opportunities for students and nurtures healthy relationships with peers and educators compared to online teaching. Only time will tell if opening schools this fall will have a negative impact on the health of children and educators.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html
Schools and Child Care Programs
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/index.html
CDC Updates Guidelines To Protect Kids From COVID In School. Plus: Vacation Tips
Maine Becomes the First State To Commit to Fossil Fuel Divestment Through Legislation
Maine Becomes the First State To Commit to Fossil Fuel Divestment Through Legislation
Environmental Policy # 118 | By: Jacob Morton | July 12, 2021
Header photo taken from: Common Dreams
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Main Beacon
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Last month the Governor of Maine, Janet Mills, signed into law a bill forbidding any state pension funds or other public savings funds from making new investments in stocks or securities of the 200 largest publicly traded fossil fuel companies. The new law requires the state treasurer and the board of trustees of the Maine Public Employees Retirement System, known as MainePERS, to review current investments and divest all holdings in coal, oil, and gas companies. MainePERS manages a $16.5 billion public employee retirement fund, 7.7% (about $1.3 billion) of which was invested in fossil fuel companies in 2020, according to documents filed with the legislature. The law also includes divestment from the state treasury’s cash pool and trust funds.
The governor’s action makes Maine the first state in the country to commit to fossil fuel divestment through legislation. In 2015, Connecticut and Vermont considered divestment bills, but neither state passed the measures into law. New York City has adopted similar legislation on a local level and most recently, New York State committed to divesting its $225 billion retirement fund from fossil fuels.
Currently Maine does not produce fossil fuels and is not a large consumer of them. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), about four-fifths of the state’s electricity net generation came from renewable sources in 2019. Natural gas-fired power plants fueled less than one-sixth of generation in 2019, its smallest share in at least two decades, according to EIA.
Policy Analysis
A major concern, and perhaps why states like Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Vermont have failed to pass similar legislation, is that divesting in fossil fuels could potentially mean lower earnings for the investment portfolio, and thus a smaller return for public employees’ retirement pensions. This concern may be justified by findings from the EIA that reports fossil fuel use is growing in the United States and around the globe:
“We forecast that global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will average 97.7 million b/d for all of 2021, which is a 5.4 million b/d increase from 2020. We forecast that global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will increase by 3.6 million b/d in 2022 to average 101.3 million b/d.”
However, EIA reports also show that despite an estimated global increase in fossil fuel consumption from May 2020 to May 2021, that level of consumption is still about 3.7 million b/d less than in May 2019.
Photo taken from: GoLocalProv
The question is, if fossil fuel consumption is expected to grow, how long will that growth last? Moves by major companies in the automotive industry and by the Federal and State governments to shift away from fossil fuels in an effort to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals by 2030 and 2050, indicate a trend favoring the clean and renewable energy industry. Pension fund and other public investments in fossil fuels could prove to be less fruitful in the long term, particularly for states already suffering from the economic impacts of climate change.
Richard Brooks, climate finance director at Stand.earth, an environmental group that uses a strategy known as “markets campaigning” to hold irresponsible natural resource extractors and the companies that source from them accountable for their actions, and which advocated for the new Maine law, said more pension funds should divest. “It is past time for every other public pension to address the mounting climate risk in their portfolios by holding onto fossil fuel investments,” Brooks said. “These are a ticking time bomb and fiduciaries must act.”
Not everyone feels the same as Brooks, however. MainePERS opposed the new law, and in testimony delivered to the legislature in February, executive director Sandy Matheson said divestment would have “no impact” on carbon emitters. “The only real impact making a statement of principle might have is to create a newspaper headline which in turn might further elevate the discussion around climate change,” Matheson said at the time.
Photo taken from: upriseri.com
But perhaps that is just the point. Elevating the discussion around climate change and encouraging other states to act through similar legislation represents another angle by which to collectively shift the nations focus away from traditional energy sources and towards a more sustainable future, not just for the planet, but for all our bank accounts as well. Even Matheson says the new law will not result in less money for public employee pensions. “We won’t be taking any actions that would result in a loss to the plan or achieve below expected earnings.”
One of the bill’s key provisions requires that any investment actions must be in accordance with sound investment criteria and consistent with the fund’s fiduciary obligations. “We have not developed a plan at this point,” says Matheson, “but any plan that we do develop has to put the financial interests of our members first.”
Though Matheson says the move is more symbolic than it is impactful, other states have been looking to do the same, including California, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. “It’s beginning to look like there’s kind of a groundswell,” says Brooks. “It’s a snowball effect. That snowball is accumulating speed and size as it’s rolling down the hill.”
In Rhode Island, General Treasurer Seth Magaziner announced in April that the state’s pension fund reduced its investments in oil and gas by 50 percent. He predicted that the state would be fully divested by 2030, even though there is no mandate from the state legislature to do so.
In Massachusetts, Deb Pasternak, the Sierra Club’s Massachusetts director, said, “Maine legislators deserve enormous praise for this visionary and deeply responsible piece of legislation. Massachusetts should follow suit.” Pasternak added, “Pension funds, which are fundamentally about the long term, should divest from the greatest threat posed to our collective future. Let’s hope this inspires more action here in Massachusetts, in New England, and across the entire country.”
Maine state Senator Cathy Breen, said of the new law, “We want to make sure that [the pension] fund is healthy and it’s going to be sustainable for generations to come. But we also have an obligation to the planet and to the next generation of people who are going to be managing all of the climate change impacts.”
Photo taken from: The Maine Monitor
The original bill was sponsored by Democratic Rep. Maggie O’Neil of Saco, Maine and was backed by State Treasurer Henry Beck, local environmental group Maine Youth for Climate Justice, and other environmental advocacy organizations who say that it is “past time for public pensions and others to address the mounting climate risk by dropping fossil fuel investments from their portfolios.”
When asked why she believes the new law is so important despite claims that Maine’s divestment will have no impact on the fossil fuel industry, Representative O’Neil told me, that argument just does not hold weight. O’Neil says, “The movement to divest from fossil fuels is having an impact in the aggregate: To date, more than 1,325 institutions representing more than $14.5 trillion in assets have committed to divest from fossil fuels, including governments, philanthropic organizations, universities, non-profits, faith-based organizations, and national and state pension funds. Maine and the states that follow us will protect our future by pushing the divestment movement forward.”
O’Neil pointed to an annual report from Shell, which admits the divestment movement is having an impact on their business model and if the mounting pressure on investors from these campaigns continues, “it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access equity capital markets.” O’Neil also notes that “For many years, fossil fuel holdings provided returns for retirement savings, but times have changed. In fact, independent analysis shows that if MainePERS had divested from fossil fuels in 2014, when similar legislation was first proposed, the retirement fund would have avoided hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and could have instead achieved roughly $1 billion in additional gains.” O’Neil referenced a recent news release that Maine’s retirement system “lost around $30 million via a private equity fund that backed a risky oil refinery in the Virgin Islands that had been closed by the EPA.”
O’Neil explains that this demonstrates the risks of investing in the fossil fuel industry, and “As we transition to a reduced carbon economy, companies that are unable – or unwilling – to get out of risky fossil fuel production will lose value, making them a poor long-term investment. … Beyond ethical and environmental responsibilities, fossil fuel divestment fulfils the fiduciary responsibility to public employees who participate in the retirement system.” O’Neil says, “Maine, the United States, and the rest of the world have all made commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting those commitments requires a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and almost certainly will have negative impacts on the stock performance of companies involved.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Stand (Stand.earth) – Stand was created to challenge corporations and governments to treat people and the environment with respect, because our lives depend on it. Over the years, Stand’s work and approach has evolved from a dedicated focus on forest protection to taking on some of the root causes of climate change and environmental injustice. Join Stand in their efforts to protect our communities, climate and environment from the risks associated with outdated, climate-polluting energy.
Maine Youth for Climate Justice (MYCJ (wixsite.com)) – Maine Youth for Climate Justice (MYCJ) is a coalition of over 250 youth from all over Maine who fight for bold climate action, a just transition, and a livable future in Maine. MYCJ was founded by various high school and college groups, Maine Youth Action Network, and 350 Maine’s Youth Engagement team in February 2019. MYCJ is open to anyone under the age of 30 who is interested in engaging at the local or state level about climate justice issues.
Sierra Club Maine (Sierra Club Maine) – Founded in 1892, the Sierra Club is the oldest and largest environmental advocacy organization in North America. Their mission is to explore, enjoy and protect the planet. That includes divesting from fossil fuels.
References
Buckley, A. (2021, June 25). All pension funds in Maine must now divest from fossil fuels: The Optimist Daily. The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News |. https://www.optimistdaily.com/2021/06/all-pension-funds-in-maine-must-now-divest-from-fossil-fuels/.
Divestment Commitments. Fossil Free: Divestment. (2021). https://gofossilfree.org/divestment/commitments/.
Evans, C. (2021, June 22). Maine Moves to Purge Fossil Fuels from Pension Fund. Natural Gas Intelligence. https://www.naturalgasintel.com/maine-moves-to-purge-fossil-fuels-from-pension-fund/.
Sharon, S. (2021, June 17). Mills Signs Bill To Divest State Investments From Fossil Fuels. Maine Public. https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2021-06-17/mills-signs-bill-to-divest-state-investments-from-fossil-fuels.
Shell Annual Report Acknowledges Impact of Divestment Campaign. 350.org. (2018, June 22). https://350.org/press-release/shell-report-impact-of-divestment/.
Starr, P. (2021, June 12). Maine Lawmakers Move to Divest State Pensions from Fossil Fuels. Breitbart. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/11/maine-lawmakers-pass-bill-divest-state-pension-fossil-fuels-oil-usage-grows/.
The Wisdom in Bipartisanship
The Wisdom in Bipartisanship
U.S. RESIST NEWS EDITORIAL
By: Ron Israel | July 9, 2021
Header photo taken from: The University News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more U.S. RESIST NEWS editorials here
Photo taken from: Bloomberg.com
Many political observers question President Biden’s emphasis on bipartisanship. Why they ask should Biden put so much emphasis on bipartisanship when the other side of the aisle doesn’t seem interested.
Indeed today’s Republican party presents itself as a group of politicians aligned with former President Trump and his “big lie” that the election was stolen; who seem to want to see the Biden administration fail at all costs; who place power and party over country. The party’s Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, has pledged a platform of non-cooperation with the Biden agenda.
So what gives with President Biden? Why does he seem to be so obsessed with bipartisanship? The answer I believe is that Biden sees the main goal of his presidency to be the preservation of our democracy; to heal it from the wounds of the Trump administration. Biden sees bipartisan legislative agreement is a means to help achieve his goal.
And his approach may be beginning to work. Last month a bipartisan group of Republican and Democratic Senators agreed to a $1.2 trillion “hard infrastructure” bill to repeal America’s broken, bridges ports, and roads. While the bill has many hurdles to cross before being signed into law, it is an important signal that, even in this polarizing time, bipartisanship may be possible. Biden is trying to be a President for all Americans and his infrastructure bill is intended for everyone and not just for Democrats at the exclusion of Republicans.
Historically bipartisanship in most cases involves compromise. It means reaching an agreement on an issue that may disappoint those on both sides on the extreme ends of a political argument. But without compromise our country for the past several decades has languished in political gridlock as our quality of life diminishes.
So Biden may be justified in his obsession with bipartisanship. Bipartisan political agreement may be an important way of restoring Americans’ faith in our democratic system. It also might help drive a wedge between pro-Trump extreme right wingers and moderate Republicans who see the wisdom in bipartisan legislation.
Should the Supreme Court Have Term Limits?
Should the Supreme Court Have Term Limits?
US Renew Op Ed |
By: Paul M. Collins & Artemis Ward | July 6, 2021
Header photo taken from: Progress Texas
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more US Renew Op-Eds here
Reprinted from The Coversation (www.theconversation.com)
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Pressure on Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to step downwill likely grow now that the court’s session has ended.
Breyer, 82, joined the court in 1994. His retirement would allow President Joe Biden to nominate his successor and give Democrats another liberal justice, if confirmed.
Supreme Court justices in the U.S. enjoy life tenure. Under Article 3 of the Constitution, justices cannot be forced out of office against their will, barring impeachment. This provision, which followed the precedent of Great Britain, is meant to ensure judicial independence, allowing judges to render decisions based on their best understandings of the law – free from political, social and electoral influences.
Our extensive research on the Supreme Court shows life tenure, while well-intended, has had unforeseen consequences. It skews how the confirmation process and judicial decision-makingwork, and causes justices who want to retire to behave like political operatives.
Problems with lifetime tenure
Life tenure has motivated presidents to pick younger and younger justices.
In the post-World War II era, presidents generally forgo appointing jurists in their 60s, who would bring a great deal of experience, and instead nominate judges in their 40s or 50s, who could serve on the court for many decades.
And they do. Justice Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush at age 43 in 1991 and famously said he would serve for 43 years. There’s another 13 years until his promise is met.
The court’s newest member, Donald Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett, was 48 when she took her seat in late 2020 after the death of 87-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images
Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee who joined the court at age 60 in 1993, refused to retire. When liberals pressed her to step down during the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama to ensure a like-minded replacement, she protested: “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
Partisanship problems
William Thomas Cain/Getty Images
Justices change during their decades on the bench, research shows.
Justices who at the time of their confirmation espoused views that reflected the general public, the Senate and the president who appointed them tend to move away from those preferencesover time. They become more ideological, focused on putting their own policy preferences into law. For example, Ginsburg grew more liberal over time, while Thomas has become more conservative.
Other Americans’ political preferences tend to be stable throughout their lives.
The consequence is that Supreme Court justices may no longer reflect the America they preside over. This can be problematic. If the court were to routinely stray too far from the public’s values, the public could reject its dictates. The Supreme Court relies on public confidence to maintain its legitimacy.
Life tenure has also turned staffing the Supreme Court into an increasingly partisan process, politicizing one of the nation’s most powerful institutions.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Supreme Court nominees could generally expect large, bipartisan support in the Senate. Today, judicial confirmation votes are almost strictly down party lines. Public support for judicial nominees also shows large differencesbetween Democrats and Republicans.
Life tenure can turn supposedly independent judges into political players who attempt to time their departures to secure their preferred successors, as Justice Anthony Kennedy did in 2018. Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh, one of Kennedy’s former clerks, to replace him.
The proposed solution
Many Supreme Court experts have coalesced around a solutionto these problems: staggered, 18-year terms with a vacancy automatically occurring every two years in nonelection years.
This system would promote judicial legitimacy, they argue, by taking departure decisions out of the justices’ hands. It would help insulate the court from becoming a campaign issue because vacancies would no longer arise during election years. And it would preserve judicial independence by shielding the court from political calls to fundamentally alter the institution.
Partisanship would still tinge the selection and confirmation of judges by the president and Senate, however, and ideological extremists could still reach the Supreme Court. But they would be limited to 18-year terms.
The U.S. Supreme Court is one of the world’s few high courts to have life tenure. Almost all democratic nations have either fixed terms or mandatory retirement ages for their top judges. Foreign courts have encountered few problems with term limits.
Even England – the country on which the U.S. model is based – no longer grants its Supreme Court justices life tenure. They must now retire at 70.
Similarly, although many U.S. states initially granted their supreme court judges life tenure, this changed during the Jacksonian era of the 1810s to 1840s when states sought to increase the accountability of the judicial branch. Today, only supreme court judges in Rhode Island have life tenure. All other states either have mandatory retirement ages or let voters choose when judges leave the bench through judicial elections.
C.M. Bell/Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images
Polling consistently shows a large bipartisan majority of Americans support ending life tenure. This likely reflects eroding public confidence as the court routinely issues decisions down partisan lines on the day’s most controversial issues. Although ideology has long influenced Supreme Court decisions, today’s court is unusual because all the conservative justices are Republicans and all the liberal justices are Democrats.
In April 2021, President Biden formed a committee to examine reforming the Supreme Court, including term-limiting justices. To end the justices’ life tenure would likely mean a constitutional amendment requiring approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of U.S. states.
Ultimately, Congress, the states and the public they represent will decide whether the country’s centuries-old lifetime tenure system still serves the needs of the American people.