JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Finally A Malaria Vaccine: A Monumental Discovery
Brief #136 – Health and Gender
By S. Bhimji
While much of the talk these days is about covid-19, the parasite that causes malaria is far more sophisticated and insidious than coronavirus. The malaria parasite has evolved to escape the immune system and it also has a complicated life cycle that spans across humans and mosquitoes. Even when it is inside the body, it escapes surveillance and different forms affect different organs.
How Redistricting In Oregon and Colorado Made The Case For State Independent Redistricting Commissions
Brief #175 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On September 27, 2021 Oregon became the first state in the union to pass congressional and state legislative redistricting maps after the 2020 Census. Soon thereafter one of Colorado’s two independent redistricting commissions approved a state map for Colorado’s congressional state map.
Russia’s Relationships with the Muslim World
Brief #134 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
As President Biden is reinventing American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the Muslim world, Russia has been able to further establish itself as a viable alternative for those unhappy with President Biden’s plans and stances.
Bipartisan Outrage Over Biden Administration Rapid Deportation of Haitian Refugees
Brief #130 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
After the July 2021 assassination of the Haitian president that plunged the nation into political turmoil and exacerbated existing violence, a 7.2 earthquake and major tropical storm hit the following month, displacing and killing thousands. The Biden Administration extended an existing Temporary Protected Status for Haitians already living in the US from deportation as a result.
Can Doctors Refuse Care to Unvaccinated Patients?
Brief #135 – Health & Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
The coronavirus pandemic has created a lot of friction and unhappiness in society. Despite the continuing spread of the virus by the delta variant, a significant number of Americans are refusing to get vaccinated for a variety of reasons. And in almost every industry hundreds of workers are now asking for all kinds of exemptions.
Analyzing the New Australia, U.K., U.S. (AUKUS) Security Pact
Brief #133 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On September 16, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden, along with U.K. Prime minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime minister Scott Morrison who joined in virtually, announced the creation of a new security partnership or the AUKUS pact, between the three nations that seeks to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Our Chance to Avert Climate Catastrophe May Have Gone Up in Smoke
Brief #131 – Environment Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
80% of the world’s energy comes from coal, oil and natural gas; carbon sources which account for 89% of human-derived CO₂ emissions. These daily emissions have accumulated in the earth’s atmosphere to produce a global climate crisis; a recent U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report forecasts global average temperature will rise 2.7 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Accordingly, the U.N. Secretary General António Guterres has warned, “the world is on a catastrophic pathway.”
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigates the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 2
Brief #28 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The case that is being built against those who participated in the January 6 Capitol riots is a slow one due to the sheer number of videos, pictures, and evidence related to the events. The House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack is doing their best to piece together the truth in the most non-partisan way possible.
A Primer on the Debt Ceiling Crisis
Brief #125 – A Primer on the Debt Ceiling Crisis
By Rosalind Gottfried
The deadline for Congress to pass a Bill to fund the government past the current fiscal year deadline of September 30th is fast approaching. The Republicans blocked a bill which would extend government spending and suspend the debt ceiling. The House passed the bill providing for government spending through December and suspending the debt ceiling through December 2022, after the mid-term elections.
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 5: Protecting and Empowering Women
Brief # 112 – Health and Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 5: Protecting and Empowering Women
By Erin McNemar
June 23, 2021
Policy Summary
As President Biden continues with his first term , women’s issues remain high on his agenda. During his campaign, he introduced The Biden Agenda for Women. Through this plan, he highlights ways his administration will support gender equality in the US and around the world. Biden wants to help create a culture that protects and empowers women. In the final section of his policy proposal, Biden explains just how he plans to do that.
Analysis
Biden begins this section by once again addressing the inequalities that women face, and how it impacts the world as a whole. Biden writes, “Governments, economies, industries, and communities everywhere are made stronger when they include the full participation of women. Yet, women are underrepresented in positions of power in most countries around the world. Trillions of dollars are lost each year from the global economy because women are excluded from full economic participation.”
Biden speaks about his support for women’s leadership globally. As he states, this includes breaking down political barriers and supporting civil education and leadership development for women and girls. Breaking down these barriers started with his own team. Biden pledged in the plan to “strive for gender parity and full diversity in his own national security and foreign policy appointments, elevating women into senior national security positions and ensuring that women of color are well-represented in senior ranks.”
Additionally, Biden also writes about the importance of elevating women economically. He comments that trillions of dollars are lost from the global economy each year by excluding women. In order to elevate women on an economic level, Biden proposes increasing education opportunities, enhancing inclusive banking and working with other world leaders to eliminate other barriers that women all around the globe face.
Biden also wants to work with other countries to confront gender-based violence. Biden explains, “Gender-based violence is a barrier to girls’ education, and inhibits women’s full participation in politics and the economy, holding back entire communities and countries.”
In order to confront the problem, Biden wants to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund, train law enforcement to root out the issues that cause gender-based violence and bring back America’s commitment to supporting refugees and displaced persons. Lastly, Biden states he plans to “pursue ratification for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), so that we can better advance the rights of women and girls here at home and around the world.”
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- Learn more about the U.N. goals for Gender Equality.
- Take action with the Women’s March Movement.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Should We Be Concerned About Inflation?
Brief # 121 – Economic Policy
Should We Be Concerned About Inflation?
By Rosalind Gottfried
June 20, 2021
Policy Summary
Inflation occurs when the value of money decreases, largely due to increases in prices which are not matched by rises in income. With the vaccine rollout, people are emerging from their pandemic cocoons and demands for goods and services are surging. High demand, coupled with reduced supplies, is causing prices to rise. Anyone trying to rent a car; buy appliances or cars; buy airline tickets or get building materials can attest to the rise in prices and the competition to get goods in a timely fashion. As a result, the May consumer price index showed an increase of .6% which would amount to a 5% annual increase—way higher than the “tolerated” 2% level.
The government has spent $5.5 trillion in pandemic relief and Biden has proposed a 6 trillion dollar budget for the year. Big spending and low interest rates, which have remained near zero level, often lead to inflation. These trends can be seen in the high inflation of the periods during the world wars and in the 1970s. In the past several decades inflation has been low, especially since the 2008 recession. Economists attribute the decades’ trend to the huge influx of global goods produced by workers especially in China and the former countries of the Soviet Union. Now we are entering an era of fewer workers and reduced production due to a larger aging population and a lower fertility rate. If production slows and good remain scarce, than prices will continue to rise.
Currently, it is difficult to assess the severity of this trend because of the artificial lowering of goods and services during the pandemic and the subsequent pent up demand. It is debated how this trend will play out in the next year or so. The Biden administration and the Federal Reserve are banking on the temporary nature of the price increases. They recognize that people who have saved money during the pandemic are not put off by the higher prices and they hope demand will level out. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin has adopted a wait and see attitude regarding hoisting the interest rate and more economists agree with her than don’t though there is a growing minority who feel that if she waits for things to get worse it will be too late to effectively stall inflation.
The Fed is addressing stabilizing the economy by keeping interest rates low and buying 120 billion in long term bonds monthly to keep mortgage rates low. The policy currently suggests that the bond purchases will be reduced before interest rates will be increased. If sustained inflation hits the 3% mark, the Fed will likely step in.
Analysis
Currently Secretary Yellin is not concerned about inflation and is not ready to move on an increase in interest rates. She asserts that the price climbs will cease and the economy readjust. About one quarter of surveyed economists disagree with that assessment, predicting serious inflation. They see Biden’s budgets and programs, such as free childcare and community college, as amounting to irresponsible government spending matched with stimulus to grow the economy which they hold will lead to a more persistent inflation. It is hard to say what will occur as the country moves into a post-vaccine return towards normality. At the moment more economists appear optimistic than not though there is some evidence that the rate of inflation fearful experts is growing faster than their more optimistic colleagues.
Engagement Resources
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1005312213
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1005235227/inflation-climbs-even-higher-with-prices-rising-5-in-may
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22346376/inflation-rate-explained-federal-reserve
Court Blocks Biden Administration Efforts to Suspend Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands
Brief # 117 – Environment Policy
Court Blocks Biden Administration Efforts to Suspend Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands
By Jacob Morton
June 21, 2021
Policy Summary
On Tuesday June 1, the Biden administration temporarily suspended all oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), reversing one of former President Donald Trump’s most sought after and last-minute environmental policy changes. The suspensions came after President Joe Biden’s executive order, given on his first day in office, placed a moratorium on all new drilling leases on federal lands and waters, including the ANWR. That Executive Order requested a new environmental review specifically of the ANWR leasing program “to examine possible legal flaws in the program approved by the Trump administration.”
The review, conducted by the Department of Interior, found “defects in the underlying record of decision supporting the leases,” prompting Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to suspend them. Secretary Haaland announced a pause on the ANWR leases until her agency “completes an environmental analysis of their impact and a legal review of the Trump administration’s decision to grant them.”
However, on Tuesday, June 15, Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted a preliminary injunction declaring all the lease suspensions ordered under Biden’s original moratorium to be unconstitutional, and instructing the Interior Department to release those leases from suspension immediately. Judge Doughty’s ruling applies to all the oil and gas drilling leases suspended under Biden’s moratorium, not just the ANWR. Despite the Interior Departments argument that the decision to grant drilling leases in the ANWR may be legally flawed, Judge Doughty has included those leases in the court’s injunction.
For over four decades, Democrats and Republicans have fought over the decision to drill in the ANWR. The refuge covers 19.3 million acres, about 1.6 million of which are coastal plains that, according to the US Geological Survey, sits atop an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. The coastal plain between the Arctic Ocean and the mountains of the Brooks Range however, is also a winter home for pregnant polar bears, as well as the nearly 200,000 Porcupine caribou “that migrate between Alaska and Canada, using the plain as a nursery in the spring.” The entire refuge represents one of the largest “unspoiled, intact ecosystems left on the planet,” and has been protected since 1960, being designated a national wildlife refuge in 1980.
During his time in office, Donald Trump made opening up the coastal plain to drilling a top priority in his push for increasing domestic fossil fuel production. In 2017, the republican controlled congress proposed an environmental review be conducted of a potential land leasing program for the coastal plain acreage. That analysis was published last year and gave a green light to the administration to begin dividing tracts and selling leases.
Upon the release of that report, environmental groups immediately sued the Trump administration, arguing that amongst other issues, “the analysis discounted the impact of oil and gas production on climate change.” CBS News reports that the ANWR is “warming twice as fast as any other region on the Earth due to climate change.” Gwich’in tribal members in the Arctic Village and Venetie communities say, “the leases are an affront to their culture and way of life.” The tribes also filed a federal lawsuit against the selling of land leases in the refuge.
Despite the fact that the issue had not yet been settled in courts, the Trump administration began selling leases just weeks before leaving office after losing reelection in 2020. However, drilling in the refuge has become so contentious that only 9 of the 22 leases offered were even bid for. Two small companies ventured to make bids for “10-year rights to explore and drill for oil on two tracts totaling about 75,000 acres.” Major oil companies expressed little interest, at least publicly, in bidding for leases, “given the high cost of producing oil in the Arctic, the growing desire to reduce fossil fuel use, and the reputational risks of drilling in such a pristine area.”
Major banks even refused to finance any drilling projects in the refuge, facing pressure from tribal groups and environmental organizations. Another 7 tracts, totaling about half a million acres, were bid on by the state-owned Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. These bids however, raised legal concerns of whether or not the state could legally purchase leases. This and other legal issues have not yet been resolved. Interior Secretary Haaland’s suspension of the lease program was only temporary and “The administration had only committed to reviewing the Trump leases, not canceling them. If it determines that the leases were granted illegally, it could then have legal grounds to cancel them.”
Analysis
Elected officials in Alaska and other conservatives were disappointed and angered by the suspension. Republican Governor of Alaska Mike Dunleavy claims “Alaska does responsible oil and gas development in the Arctic under stricter environmental standards than anywhere else in the world. Yet the federal government is focused on trying to stop our ability to produce oil and gas.” Despite the lack of interest by major oil companies, as demonstrated by the meager success of the lease sale program, and the fact that major automotive companies like GM have committed to significant transitions to clean energy vehicles, Dunleavy still proclaims that, “Each action they take demonstrates a failure to comprehend the worldwide demand for oil and gas.”
What Governor Dunleavy may not comprehend is that just last month, the International Energy Agency, the world’s leading authority on energy policy, released a new report warning that governments around the world “must immediately stop approving new coal-fired power plants and new oil and gas fields and quickly phase out gasoline-powered vehicles if they want to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”
U.S. Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, said of the suspension, “This action serves no purpose other than to obstruct Alaska’s economy and put our energy security at great risk. Alaskans are committed to developing our resources responsibly and have demonstrated our ability to do so safely to the world.” Conservative groups, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an organization that worked closely with the Trump administration to overturn numerous environmental protections throughout Trump’s single term, contest the lease suspensions as being illegal. Devin Watkins, an attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute says, “The government cannot enter into a contract to take over $14 million and then invalidate the contract without cause. No cause for canceling the ANWR leases has been provided.” Alan Weitzner, executive director of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, also argues that “the Biden administration had yet to provide documentation of any deficiencies that would warrant a suspension of leases.”
Governor Dunleavy says, “We are not going to allow the Biden administration to turn Alaska into a giant national park.” Perhaps the Governor is unaware that the ANWR has already been designated a national wildlife refuge, with even greater restrictions than a national park, since 1980. It was only during the Trump administration and through what Kristen Miller, acting executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, calls a “flawed and legally deficient process,” that the prospect of opening the land to drilling became possible.
Environmental groups and Tribal communities have expressed gratitude for the suspensions. Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, says, “Suspending leases in the Arctic Refuge is a major step forward in keeping President Biden’s campaign promise and cutting carbon pollution.” Tonya Garnett, special projects coordinator for the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, acknowledged the importance of the administration’s decision, saying “this goes to show that, no matter the odds, the voices of our tribes matter.”
Policy experts, however, were quick to point out the timing of this decision, suggesting it may be a response to the criticism President Biden has received for recent fossil fuel-friendly actions taken by his administration. The White House recently approved a multibillion dollar oil drilling project with ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s largest oil producer, in the National Petroleum Reserve; in court opposed shutting down the Dakota Access pipeline, which carries 550,000 barrels of oil daily through private farmland in Iowa and the Upper Sioux Tribe territory in Minnesota, including the Big Sioux Wildlife Management Area and Tribal burial grounds; and upheld 440 oil and gas leases on federal lands in Wyoming previously issued by the Trump administration.
Supporters of the suspensions recognize the timing of the decision but viewed it as an opportunity for the administration and congress to set a new standard for environmental justice and stewardship in the ANWR and across the country. Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, said in a statement, “After fighting so hard to protect these lands and the Porcupine caribou herd, trusting the guidance of our ancestors and elders, and the allyship of people around the world, we can now look for further action by the administration and to Congress to repeal the leasing program.”
Karpinski, with the League of Conservation Voters, presses this point, saying, “Going forward, we also need to ensure the administration keeps its climate commitment across the board. A ‘drill here, don’t drill there’ approach will not get the job done.” Miller, with the Alaska Wilderness League, points to the road ahead, “Until the leases are canceled, they will remain a threat to one of the wildest places left in America. Now we look to the administration and Congress to prioritize legislatively repealing the oil leasing mandate and restore protections to the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain.”
That threat is all too real and present. In March, Jeff Landry, the Republican attorney general of Louisiana, along with attorneys general (all Republican) from 12 other states sued to revoke President Biden’s Executive Order to halt all new drilling leases on federal lands and waters, including the ANWR. As mentioned, just this past Tuesday, Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (appointed by Donald Trump) granted a preliminary injunction against the administration’s lease suspensions, stating that the power to suspend those leases “lies solely with Congress” because it is the legislative branch that originally voted to open those lands and waters for leasing. The injunction was granted nationwide, a rare move by a federal court.
Judge Doughty argued that the 13 states that filed suit “had demonstrated that their economies could be irreparably harmed by the pause on drilling,” and that the White House’s pause on new drilling leases should end nationwide. Doughty wrote, “Millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake.” Judge Doughty ruled that Secretary Haaland and the Department of Interior “are hereby enjoined and restrained from implementing the pause of new oil and gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters” until final rulings are decided for the cases of the 13 plaintiff states. Those 13 states include: Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
According to a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, the agency will continue to work on an interim report for President Biden “about the state of the federal oil and gas drilling programs, as well as recommendations on the future of the federal role in drilling on public lands.” Secretary Haaland is expected to deliver those recommendations to the President by the end of the summer. Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, says, “The judge’s order turns a blind eye to runaway climate pollution that’s devastating our planet. We’ll keep fighting against the fossil-fuel industry and the politicians that are bought by them.”
Engagement Resources
Alaska Wilderness League – Alaska Wilderness League
- URGE CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE ARCTIC REFUGE! With drilling leases in oil company hands and another lease sale on the horizon, we need Congress to make legislative action a reality. It must restore protections as soon as possible. Alaska Wilderness League protects Alaska’s public lands by fighting for wilderness, wildlife, Indigenous rights, and a cleaner energy future.
League of Conservation Voters – STOP THE GIVEAWAYS TO BIG OIL
- Tell your Representatives: STOP THE GIVEAWAYS TO BIG OIL! Big Oil is pressuring members of Congress to oppose Biden’s leasing pause and their allies in Congress have introduced legislation to roll back the pause. To protect our environment, our climate, taxpayers, and frontline communities from drilling projects we need Congress to hear from you now.
Center for Biological Diversity – Center for Biological Diversity
- We seek to strengthen our core environmental laws, support lawmakers from all political parties that believe in a healthier environment, and to hold accountable any politician regardless of party who does not.
References
- Davenport, C. (2021, June 16). Federal Judge Says Biden Cannot Pause New Leases for Drilling on Public Lands. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/climate/biden-drilling-federal-land.html.
- Davenport, C., Fountain, H., & Friedman, L. (2021, June 1). Biden Suspends Drilling Leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/climate/biden-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge.html.
- Eilperin, J., & Partlow, J. (2021, June 16). Louisiana judge blocks Biden administration’s oil and gas leasing pause. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/06/15/louisiana-judge-blocks-biden-administrations-oil-gas-leasing-pause/.
- Lewis, S. (2021, June 2). Biden administration suspends Trump-era oil and gas drilling leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-suspends-trump-oil-gas-drilling-lease-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-alaska/.
- Plumer, B. (2021, May 18). Nations Must Drop Fossil Fuels, Fast, World Energy Body Warns. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/climate/climate-change-emissions-IEA.html.
- Thiessen, M., & Daly, M. (2021, June 2). EXPLAINER: The suspension of Arctic refuge drilling leases. Yahoo! News. https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-suspension-arctic-refuge-drilling-213925795.html.
The Moderate Republicans: A Guide to Who’s Who
Brief # 22 – Elections and Politics
The Moderate Republicans: A Guide to Who’s Who
By William Bourque
June 21, 2021
Policy Summary
When it comes to political beliefs, a large portion of voting bloc seems to be wrought with radicals. However, the truth is that most Americans don’t have very extreme ideas at all, and are actually quite moderate. In recent elections we have seen this, with an increasing amount of folks with more radical beliefs being elected to Congress. On the right side of the aisle, folks like Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Madison Cawthorn are examples of extremes who don’t represent the majority of Americans, or even the majority of their party, yet get some of the most airtime and screen time of any folks in Congress. However, moderate Republicans also get a lot of time to talk, and these are some of the most popular people in Congress, mostly because they are willing to work with the President and the other side of the aisle. We will now highlight several prominent moderate Republicans who we think may end up running for president.
Analysis
Liz Cheney:
Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney has been under some scrutiny from her own party recently, with much of the heat coming from the far right of her party that supported former President Trump. Cheney, the daughter of infamous vice-president Dick Cheney, has been in office since 2017, and was often loyal to Trump during his time in office. However, since the January 6th insurrection, it has become clear that Cheney wished to remove herself from the far right Trumpian wing of her own party. She was removed as the chair of the House Republican Conference following a closed door meeting. Many think that Cheney has put herself in pole position for a run against a Trump-backed candidate, which would likely put her on the good side of many moderate Democrats—only time will tell.
Mitt Romney:
Romney, who has already famously run for and lost the race for the presidency, is another moderate Republican who has broken with Trump on a number of occasions. Romney is seen as a traditional conservative, with particularly staunch views on marriage and abortion. However, many moderate Republicans have praised Romney on his condemnation of Trump on many issues, which indicated that he had, and still has, some sort of respect for the values of democracy and integrity. However, Romney must adjust his views on marriage if he is to have any sort of shot at a presidential run, and must also be able to explain to conservatives his choice to vote to impeach Trump. Of course, if there is a swing towards a more moderate candidate, Romney will always be a name that folks bring up. We see him making a run to the Republican nomination and is a dark horse to win the nomination if the Trump-backed candidate makes any mistakes.
Lisa Murkowski:
Murkowski, the second-longest serving female senator, represents the state of Alaska. Much like her state, Murkowski is seen as a bit of a wild card, leading a moderate cohort of conservatives while also voting with democrats on a select few issues. Murkowski was one of several Republicans who voiced their deep disturbance and sadness with Trump’s January 6th insurrection, even calling for his resignation a number of times. This, of course, is representative of her disdain for Trump, something that may end up helping her should she decide to seek the nomination. Murkowski would likely be a popular candidate for moderates on both sides of the aisle, but her more partisan votes, such as the one to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett, may prove to hold her back if she were to reach a general election. Nevertheless, Murkowski is one to watch if the Trump faction of the party begins to splinter.
Susan Collins:
Susan Collins is often regarded as the most bipartisan of Senate Republicans, having worked closely with both Republicans and Democrats as the longest-tenured female senator. Collins is almost certainly going to end her illustrious career as Senator after being reelected for another term last year. Despite this, she still has lots of work to get done in the Senate, where she will continue to be an asset for the right and left alike. Despite her bipartisan record, Senator Collins voted with Trump a large majority of the time, indicating her still staunch conservatism. Unlike the others on this list, we don’t think Collins will consider running for the Republican nomination, mostly because of age. However, it is possible that the Senator may aim for a term as Governor in her home state of Maine. But that is a long six years away. For now, we expect to see Collins remain as a vital swing vote in the ever-changing Senate.
US Catholic Bishops Make Communion a Political Issue
Brief #164 – Civil Rights Policy
US Catholic Bishops Make Communion a Political Issue
By S. Bhimji
June 19, 2021
Policy Summary
In 1973 the landmark Roe Vs Wade decision by the US Supreme Court legally protected the rights of pregnant women who choose to have an abortion without excessive government intrusion. This landmark ruling struck down many state and federal abortion laws but at the same time has created an ongoing national debate as to who should decide the legality of abortion and to what extent is abortion legal.
And this topic has also divided the democrats and republicans. Besides the politicians, democratic Americans are also more likely to state that abortion should be legal. But now the Catholic Bishops have voiced their sentiments over the issue and are about to clash with President Biden and many of his fellow democrats.
Just this past week, the Catholic Bishops sent a letter to their US Ministries that democrats who support abortion will be barred from the Holy Communion. The Democrats, fearing that they will not be able to enter ‘heaven’ are now calling on the Catholic bishops to stop the “Weaponization of the Holy Communion.” The Democrats say the church should not be targeting democrats who support abortion and they are acting like hypocrites.
The democrats have countered by drafting a ‘long letter’ or ‘statement of principles’ to admonish Bishops who are considering withdrawing communion services from politicians who support legalized abortion. The democrats state, “We solemnly urge you to not move forward and deny this holiest of all sacraments, the source and the summit of the whole work of the gospel, over one issue.”
Analysis
The new Communion document still needs approval from at least 2/3rd of bishops and has to adopt a language so that it does not scrutinize one individual but a group. The Bishops have become upset over the recent comments by President Biden and fellow Democrats who support abortion policies.
The Democrats state that they are being unfairly targeted over one issue whereas the republicans who support the death penalty which is also against the church’s pro-life teachings have had a free pass.
The catholic Democrats insist that the sacrament of the holy communion is sanctified and vital to the practice of catholicism and exploiting of the Eucharist to denounce democrats who support safe and legal abortion is outlandish.
What is even more alarming is that the Catholic church has never threatened the holy communion of any other politicians who have supported the separation of migrant children from their parents, denying illegal immigrants access to healthcare in the USA, or limiting food to the asylum seekers.
The democrats have acknowledged that the most fundamental catholic teachings have helped many disadvantaged people including advocating for universal healthcare and fighting poverty amongst children. But they state that there has to be a separation of the state and church when it comes to certain policies.
Overall, there is no perfect political party and the Catholic church has to condone the sinners as well as the pure. In the words of Pope Francis who remarked, “the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. The blanket refutation of the Holy Eucharist to certain democrats can gravely harm the Holy Spirit and deny the individual from living the life of a true Christian.”
However, even if the Bishops do decide to deny the Eucharist, it will not be a universal policy. The ultimate decision to deny democrats Holy Communion will rest with the individual bishop.
President Biden is only the 2nd Catholic elected POTUS, after JFK. While nothing is for sure, it is possible that he could become the first US President to be denied Holy Communion.
Engagement Resources
After Debate On Biden’s Abortion Views, Bishops Vote to Rethink Communion Rules
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/1007794929/catholic-bishops-abortion-biden-communion
Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Bidenhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57531070
Nearly 60 House Democrats call on Catholic bishops to stop targeting pro-abortion pols in Communion dispute
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/60-house-catholic-democrats-bishops-communion
It’s Time to Start Taking UFOs Seriously
Brief # 50 – Technology
It’s Time to Start Taking UFOs Seriously
By Scout Burchill
June 17, 2021
Policy Summary
By the end of this month a long-anticipated report will be released by the U.S. Intelligence community on UFOs. A once fringe, conspiracy-laden topic, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs as they are called by the Pentagon, have infiltrated the Washington establishment as of late and captured the fascination of the wider public. In preparation for the unclassified report due out later this month, members of the House Intelligence Committee received a classified briefing last week.
The report is not expected to make many firm conclusions on the existence of alien technology or life forms; however it will be a major victory for UFO enthusiasts and advocates of government accountability and transparency. Already some pretty shocking details have emerged. The classic weather balloon theory has been debunked in a number of cases and the validity of numerous videos capturing inexplicable UFOs has been confirmed. The general impression is that UFOs are definitely real and that the Pentagon simply cannot explain many of these phenomena.
As a topic that has been flying under the radar for a number of years, U.S. Resist News cannot independently confirm the existence of alien technology or extraterrestrial beings, but it can relate to you the incredible story of how UFOs began to be taken seriously by the Washington establishment and explain why this story really matters.
Analysis
For decades UFOs were widely perceived to be the obsession of conspiracy-rattled individuals and eccentric loonies. Culturally, fascination with UFOs peaked at times of deep distrust in our institutions and the military-industrial complex. Most of the information leaked to the public about UFOs came from military veterans, particularly from the Air Force and Navy, who reported seeing strange objects themselves while on duty. However, formal admissions and comments never quite made it to the mainstream without a sarcastic smirk and a wink, despite a well documented history of government cover ups and secrecy.
The modern history of UFO disclosures is entirely different thanks to former Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and his deep fascination with UFOs. The origins of the report due later this month trace their origins back to 2007 when Reid became Senate Majority Leader in Congress. Reid was determined to get answers from the Pentagon, and so he reached out to Hawaiian Senator Daniel Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, who himself had a long-standing personal interest in UFOs after reportedly spotting one as a pilot in World War 2. Together, they placed a secret $22 million appropriation in the nearly $600 billion 2008 Defense Department budget called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which compelled the Pentagon to study UFO related phenomena. Reid received considerable push back from the intelligence community, but used his position as the most powerful Senator in congress to demand an investigation.
In 2010, a man by the name of Lue Elizondo was promoted to head the AATIP. At the time, Elizondo had absolutely no opinions about UFOs or the existence of alien lifeforms. Under his direction, the program began studying national security implications of UFO encounters. Whatever Elizondo learned as head of the AATIP changed his opinion about UFOs in a dramatic way. His requests to brief the Secretary of Defense on what he found in the Pentagon files were routinely rejected, leading him to believe his program was being suppressed. Growing increasingly frustrated, he decided to resign from his position, but not before briefing journalist Leslie Keene on the nature and existence of the AATIP. This meeting led to the first articles published in the New York Times and Politico back in December of 2017 about the Pentagon’s mysterious UFO program. As an interesting aside, Elizondo left the AATIP to work with Blink 182 frontman and fellow UFO enthusiast Tom DeLonge at a business DeLonge co-founded that aims to explore the outer edges of science and technology.
Since 2017, persistent bottom-up pressure from the public, congress and activists have forced the Pentagon to begrudgingly acknowledge the existence of things it probably never wanted to see the light of day. Those 2017 articles, coupled with the growing curiosity of the public and lawmakers, forced Washington to take UFOs seriously and hold the Pentagon to account. Late last year, former president Donald Trump authorized a $2.3 trillion appropriations package that included a provision requiring the secretary of defense and director of national intelligence to draft the unclassified report on UFOs expected later this month. Just a few weeks ago 60 Minutes devoted an entire segment to UFOs, interviewing Lue Elizondo as well as a number of former military pilots who encountered unidentifiable phenomena. In other words, UFOs have gone mainstream and the social stigma associated with them is slowly fading.
While some skeptics claim that this UFO frenzy is merely an elaborate ploy for the Defense Department to secure more funding, particularly for the newly established Space Force, the evidence just does not bear this out. Russian interference, Chinese aggression and threats of terrorism would be far easier topics to fundraise and lobby on and would require a lot less manufacturing of consent. Furthermore, the Biden Administration has already proposed a massive $754 billion Defense budget for 2022.
Instead, the modern history of UFO disclosure, which began in earnest back in 2007 with Harry Reid, is actually a much more hopeful story of public accountability. This is an important point to remember, even as the report will most certainly lack the juicy details so many people desire. Who knows, perhaps we could use a little bit of help from beyond to restore some public trust in our institutions and inspire a healthy dose of humility. After all, there are plenty of things that we simply do not know and cannot explain. Isn’t that simultaneously awesome and terrifying?
Engagement Resources
Paradigm Research Group: The only Registered Lobbyist in Washington Dedicated to UFO Disclosure
https://paradigmresearchgroup.org/
Sources:
The Definitive New Yorker Piece
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously
2017 Reporting
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111/
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/16/16785122/ufos-harry-reid-pentagon-defense-blink-182
NYT Reporting on Upcoming UFO Report
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/ufos-report.html
Acknowledgments to Saagar Enjeti’s coverage at Breaking Points and The Hill Rising
Global Perspectives: India’s Draconian New Digital Media Laws and the Responsibilities of U.S. Tech Companies
Brief # 49 – Technology
Global Perspectives:
India’s Draconian New Digital Media Laws and the Responsibilities of U.S. Tech Companies
By Scout Burchill
June 17, 2021
Policy Summary
In late May, the Indian government enacted sweeping new laws to regulate social media companies and digital platforms. The laws will require digital content providers, from Twitter and Facebook to Netflix and independent news organizations, to remove content that government authorities find objectionable within 36 hours of being flagged. This includes anything that threatens “the interests of the sovereignty of India,” and other vague signifiers such as morality, decency and incitement.
Tech companies must also appoint local representatives, called grievance officers, within the country to cooperate with government orders and respond to user complaints. Nicknamed the “hostage-taking law” by free expression advocates, this requirement can put employees in a dangerous position in which they are subjected to threats and even detainment and prosecution if they refuse to comply with government requests or hand over users’ personal information.
Another provision of the law requires companies to provide information about users to the Indian government, including from encrypted messaging applications like Whatsapp. This provision forces applications to keep track of the “first originator” of a message, even if it is widely shared or forwarded, so that authorities can track down the sources of speech they find objectionable. Whatsapp is currently waging a legal battle in Indian courts over this regulation.
Championing these new laws as “progressive” and “liberal,” government officials and allies argue that these new regulations are necessary in order to “curb misuse,” “combat fake news,” and make tech companies more “responsible and accountable.” These talking points clearly attempt to couch these draconian new measures in the language of a surging global tech backlash that is emerging within governments and societies around the world, and particularly in the United States and Europe.
Analysis
These new internet regulations are sure to produce a chilling effect on India’s democracy and are in lock step with the slow erosion of democratic rights in India and across the globe. India had already become an unrivaled world leader in internet shutdowns, particularly targeting the Kashmir region, which experienced the longest internet shutdown in any democracy ever two years ago. Still, these new laws pose a unique threat to global tech governance. As the largest democracy in the world and a massive market for tech companies, the consequences of these new regulations will ripple far and wide, educating and emboldening other would-be digital authoritarian states to take similar aggressive measures in order to crack down on dissent, target enemies and control civil society.
While these new regulations have been floating around for some time now, recent events have greatly exacerbated tensions between social media companies and the Modi government. In the past year alone, the protests of farmers against new agricultural laws and the government’s mismanagement of the pandemic has turned social media platforms into spaces where opposition voices have been outspoken and able to organize. Through social media, the farmer’s protest captured the attention of the world, gaining the support of celebrities like Rihanna and activists like Greta Thunberg. Social media also served as an important tool during the worst months of the pandemic, helping organizers track down critical medical supplies and allocate them to those most in need. The Modi government has not taken these challenges to its authority lightly. Tensions reached an all time high late last month when Indian police raided Twitter’s offices after the company labeled a member of the ruling party’s false allegations against an opposition party as manipulated media.
No platform better illustrates social media’s fall from grace in India than Twitter. In 2014, Modi announced his election victory first on Twitter, writing “India has won.” The Modi government was quick to integrate social media into its governing practices through various initiatives that lent a sense of immediacy and responsiveness to the new government’s interactions with citizens. Twitter also became weaponized by pro-government forces for much more nefarious purposes, co-opting it as a platform for trolling, manipulation and targeted harassment. Similar to the government sponsored troll armies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the Modi government built up its own cyber troops to coordinate trending topics, manufacture narratives, mobilize supporters and engage in targeted harassment campaigns against dissidents and journalists. However, Twitter, cutting both ways, was also harnessed by activists and others to voice opposition, expose corruption and state violence, air controversies and societal problems, and organize.
By 2018, Twitter had become an incredibly polarized and contested space even as its user base in India continued to grow. Jack Dorsey’s visit to India around the same time was the stuff of PR spokespeople’s nightmares. Dorsey met with Modi in a sweatshirt and sneakers, crossing his legs in a manner traditionally regarded as disrespectful, and later when meeting with feminist activists he was photographed holding a sign that read, “smash the brahmanical patriarchy,” a shot at both the entrenched patriarchial system as well as the caste system in India.
The controversies that engulfed Dorsey’s visit capture quite well the precarious position Twitter and other U.S. based tech companies find themselves in in foreign markets where democracy is on the decline. Eager to make everyone happy, they end up infuriating everyone instead. While activists demand that these companies stop amplifying misinformation, manipulation and violent threats, governments are increasingly pressuring them to work in service of their power by complying with more censorship requests, take down orders, and inquiries into private and personal information.
The truth is, tech companies want it both ways, too. They want access to massive markets all over the world, but they also don’t want to become censors and informants or political actors. Over the past few years this dynamic has played out time and time again, in which Twitter or some other platform refuses to comply with government orders, receives plaudits for their principled stance, holds out for a bit, but then ultimately caves to government pressure and profit losses. Recent reporting has revealed considerable infighting within Facebook over the company’s willingness to censor and suppress on behalf of foreign governments. This poses a difficult dilemma for both U.S. tech companies and potential models of good global tech governance.
As a preface to this issue, it’s important to dispel any illusions about the nature of these companies. They are first and foremost corporations and will unfailingly act in accordance with their corporate interests. However, as U.S. entities, often subsidized by taxpayer dollars and the U.S. government, perhaps we should start asking whether they should be held to higher standards of practice around the world. There are some obvious caveats to this question. The notion that U.S. companies should or could operate as principled actors and promoters of democratic values around the world is a naive one, especially given their track records abroad. Furthermore, defying democratically elected governments, even if they are acting undemocratically, is a serious infringement of a nation’s sovereignty. Despite the fact that U.S. corporate interests have not always been so stellar at respecting the sovereignty of other nations, openly defying democratically elected governments would be counter-productive, to say the least.
One possible, and admittedly idealistic, solution would be to establish a code of conduct that U.S. tech companies must abide by when policing speech online. Rather than bowing to local laws that suppress speech and invade privacy, perhaps social media companies should be compelled to abide by international standards of human rights and free expression wherever they operate. This would mean these companies would have to become a lot more transparent about the decisions they make and own up to the fact that they will be cut out of certain markets entirely. Unfortunately, as calls for more censorship, content moderation and tracking prevail in the United States, this may become an increasingly untenable position for the U.S to champion on the world stage.
Furthermore, the danger of this approach would be that governments refuse to allow these open, free spaces to operate in their country, resulting in fewer places where people can voice their opinions or dissatisfactions. The worldwide internet would become even more balkanized and fractured and in many places may even become a space completely controlled by government decrees. The moral upside, however, would be that U.S. companies would not be complicit in the oppression and censorship of people abroad. A pretty principled stance if there was any.
As a side note, any argument making the case that if American companies don’t censor and suppress, then a worse actor will, should be rejected outright. This notoriously disingenuous argument is almost always used to justify moral failings and corporate greed.
Another, perhaps more democratic and consensus based approach, would be to develop a multilateral framework of global digital rights and ethics. Democratic nations should lead the charge in formulating a model of global governance for online content moderation that ensures the internet remains an open and free place. They could promote this vision through international organizations and partnerships. Far be it from the United States or any other country to dictate what another society finds offensive, but companies and digital service providers should not be made complicit in perpetuating state violence, oppressing civil societies, and violating basic human rights and dignities. Far easier said than done, this would require America to wrestle with its own demons and rediscover its faith in free speech and open societies.
Engagement Resources
Article 19
Access Now
NGOs Fighting for Freedom of Expression Globally
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/non-governmental-organizations/
Resources:
India’s New Laws – Western Press
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/technology/india-internet-censorship.html
https://time.com/5946092/india-internet-rules-impact/
India’s New Laws – Indian Press
Story of Twitter in India
https://restofworld.org/2021/how-india-fell-in-then-out-of-love-with-twitter/
“Hostage-taking” Law
https://restofworld.org/2021/social-media-laws-twitter-facebook/
India Internet Shutdowns
Infighting at Facebook over Censorship
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/technology/india-israel-facebook-employees.html
Police Raid of Twitter Offices
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech and Conflict At The ACLU
Brief #164 – Civil Rights Policy
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech And Conflict At The ACLU
By Rodney A. Maggay
June 12, 2021
Policy Summary
On June 7, 2021 the New York Times published an article that illustrated conflicting priorities in the ongoing free speech vs. hate speech debate.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….” On the other hand “hate speech” has no precise definition. The United Nations acknowledges no legal definition but characterizes hate speech as any “communication…that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or group on the basis of who they are….” The United Nations also acknowledges that what can be considered “hateful” is often hotly disputed.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a national (with local affiliates) and non – partisan organization comprised of 500,000 members who continue to fight government abuse and who strive to vigorously defend individual freedoms such as speech and religion, the right to due process and many more civil liberties.
In the New York Times article by Michael Powell, he lays out how this debate has created a divide among the staffers who have brought cases on behalf of the clients the ACLU represents. On one side are those who have advocated that the free speech protections of the First Amendment should not apply to far – right hate groups and should not be defended by the ACLU. On the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that the ACLU should defend all speech even if the speech spouts hate and is viewed as offensive to marginalized groups. These competing positions have led to accusations that the ACLU is no longer interested in defending free speech as a positive legal concept but only in defending free speech cases that align with liberal and progressive values and causes. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Mr. Powell’s article regarding the internal divisions at the ACLU resembles a similar evolving view of free speech and the First Amendment among Americans in the twenty – first century. For the most part during the first one hundred years of its existence, the ACLU strived to defend the concept of free speech even if that meant defending the free speech of individuals, organizations and groups whose message was often viewed as repugnant and offensive. The current internal strife at the ACLU should not be considered a situation unique only to the ACLU but one that modern day American society is grappling with too in regards to how the First Amendment’s protections of free speech should be utilized.
While progressive and liberal policy proposals are the current best hope to transform America into a positive and more accepting modern society, free speech must not be tied to specific policy proposals or only to policies that are currently popular. The value of free speech is strongest when it applies to every citizen, every citizen knows it applies to everyone else and is applied in an even – handed manner that does not discriminate based on the subject matter of the speech. The ACLU demonstrated that it could defend all types of free speech with their prior defense of Nazis, white supremacists and other groups with hateful messages. The goal back then was not supporting or endorsing a specific message or viewpoint but ensuring that the right of free speech remained available to all regardless of message and that free speech was not merely available for just a select few.
Hate speech has complicated that. And, as described by Mr. Powell in his article it has caused a conflict among ACLU staff as to whether they can continue defending clients who spout messages of hate. But, the distinction being taken by ACLU staff and likely among most of modern society is not the best position to take. If the intent is to strengthen, encourage and transform free speech into a workable tool for the social media age the First Amendment must remain content neutral so that everyone knows that their message will not be censored because of its subject matter. What may seem to be a difficult viewpoint decades ago could turn out to be the accepted position today (e.g. Civil Rights Movement).
Also, a conundrum is who decides what is hate speech and what is not. There are segments of society who would be quick to label Black Lives Matter and their message a hate group. Legitimate speech communications and activities (such as the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) Movement) in favor of the Palestinians in the Middle East could also be labeled hate speech when it could simply be a discussion on the merits of U.S. foreign policy in the region. Since the U.N. has not definitively defined hate speech in a legal context and the U.S. Supreme Court has never created a category of hate speech and never determined whether it is protected speech, a distinction between free speech and hate speech may be premature. Other factors can be taken into consideration such as the immediacy of violent conduct and satire. American law currently permits speech that advocates incitement of lawless action unless the incitement is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and lawless action is likely to occur. When measured against this legal standard, most hate speech would not be banned. And it would appear that it could not be banned on social media platforms unless a social media post would incite violence “immediately” and it appears violence is “likely.” President Trump’s rally prior to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot might appear to satisfy this legal standard to hold the President accountable but even then it would be a close call. This helps to illustrate why it would be hard to pin down hate speech in terms of being banned because of its content and in formulating rules for social media platforms.
Speech cannot be regulated by its subject matter because that will only lead to a narrowing of the concept of free speech. If that happens then that might give others pause about speaking out on current unpopular policies. In Mr. Powell’s article at the very end he relates a story where black civic leaders in New York City applauded a white ACLU lawyer who defended the Ku Klux Klan’s (KKK) right to march in New York City. The black civic leaders reasoned that if the government could block the rights of the KKK to march then that same government power could be turned around and used to prevent African – American leaders from exercising their own free speech rights. It is not about supporting repugnant ideas but about ensuring that free speech rights apply to all. This is the original mission of the ACLU and one they should not waver from even in these challenging times. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
United Nations Plan of Action on Hate Speech – summary of how hate speech is being researched and approached by the United Nations.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Defending Speech We Hate – summary of how the ACLU has defended “speech we hate” with list of cases.
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.
Obamacare Lives for Another Day
Brief #110 – Health and Gender Policy
ObamaCare Lives for Another Day
By S. Bhimji
June 19, 2021
Policy Summary
Healthcare is the one topic that concerns all Americans, irrespective of their political affiliation. For the past 40 years, the privileged Americans with private medical insurance have received first-rate healthcare from the top medical institutions in the country. For the poor or employed, it has been Medicaid, which is a lower-tiered insurance coverage policy with many restrictions.
Just twenty years ago, health care expenditure accounted for nearly 16.5% of the GDP and the US was spending more money on healthcare than any other industrialized country. Yet despite the enormous amounts of money, Americans still have a slightly lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates than other countries, which spend a lot less money.
To overcome the disparity in healthcare access, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) was signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. Obamacare is the most comprehensive reform of the U.S. healthcare system in the last 50 years.
The ACA has now made healthcare a right for all Americans and has transformed the lives of people with no health insurance. More importantly, the ACA has mandated that the majority of Americans must now have health insurance if they can afford it. Besides expanding the pool of people with insurance, the ACA also subsidizes private healthcare insurance plans, has raised revenues by introducing several new taxes, and has reorganized spending of government money on healthcare.
The core function of the ACA has been to expand healthcare coverage for the previously 40-60 million Americans who had no prior health insurance plan
So one would think that Obamacare is a good thing for Americans?
Analysis
For the past decade, the Republicans have tried numerous times to dismantle Obamacare by claiming it was the reason for high unemployment since employers could not afford to provide mandatory healthcare for all their employees. In addition, they claimed that the premiums were exorbitantly high and unaffordable by most Americans.
Ex-President Trump had vowed to get rid of Obamacare citing it was not effective. Finally yesterday the US Supreme Court rejected this last effort by the Republicans to dismantle ACA. The 7-2 ruling was the third time the US Supreme Court has rebuffed the Republican opposition to Obamacare, but what is more painful for the GOP was that the decision was made by a bench dominated by conservative justices of whom three were appointed by ex-President Trump.
What this means is that Republicans need to look beyond the legal system if they want to change the nation’s healthcare system.
So what happens now?
Despite the continued opposition by Republicans, it appears that at least for now Obamacare is safe. The one key feature that has helped Democrats grasp on to Obamacare is that it continues to deliver healthcare to more than 30 million poor Americans, which ensures that every single person has some type of healthcare.
After hearing the US Supreme Court decision President Biden remarked, “The Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. It’s not as sacred or popular as Medicare or Medicaid, but it’s here to stay.”
Overall, most Americans have gained from Obamacare either due to the expansion of Medicaid for the poor or federal subsidies that help offset costs for many others.
Public opinion polls over the past few years reveal that nearly 54% of Americans are happy with Obamacare, with less than 35% showing signs of disapproval. For republicans, it looks like they will now have to look for another ‘whipping boy’ if they plan to offset public opinion about the Democrats. Republicans need to start focusing on healthcare issues that Americans care about and promoting innovations rather than remain fixated on repealing Obamacare.
Engagement Resources
ACA. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act/
What is the Affordable Care Act? https://www.hhs.gov/answers/affordable-care-act/what-is-the-affordable-care-act/index.html
New, lower costs are here! Find health coverage now. https://www.healthcare.gov/
Review of the Biden–Putin Summit
Brief # 117 – Foreign Policy
Review of the Biden–Putin Summit
By Abran C
June 18, 2021
Policy Summary
Presidents Joe Biden and Putin’s meeting on June 16th came after months of tensions, cyberattacks, and both leaders acknowledging that relations between the two nations are at a historic low point. Not much was expected from this meeting and as thought not much was gained. The two met in Geneva, Switzerland after Bidens G7 meeting with U.S. allies in his first overseas diplomatic mission. The two did not dine together as Biden had done with the British Queen. Nor did they have a joint press conference as is common after diplomatic meetings. Biden’s affirmed goal going into the talks was not to reset relations in the way former President Obama had sought to, nor was it to take Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies as former President Trump did. Rather, Bidens goal was to establish a “predictable and rational” relationship with Putin.
Analysis
The meeting made very modest steps forward in cooling tensions. Both countries have agreed to return ambassadors that were recalled to their respective nations to restore basic barebones diplomacy and contact that was lost as tensions grew. The two leaders also came to an agreement to hold talks to update and solidify the NEW START arms treaty. Otherwise the meeting proved unfruitful and left the two standing firmly in the same positions they held when they began. They reached no agreements on the issues of human rights, cyber-attacks, or war in Crimea. Putin denied interference in elections, disavowed responsibility for cyber-attacks, brushed off concerns raised about the safety of Alexei Navalny, and was unwavering in his defense of Russia’s action in Ukraine, though he agreed to pursue diplomacy through the 2015 Minsk peace deal.
Both men described the talks are constructive, but with no illusions to immediate improvement. Biden, when asked about the meeting, described “This is not about trust, this is about self-interest and verification of self-interest,”. Putin similarly stated, “I think both sides manifested a determination to try and understand each other and try and converge our positions,”. The meeting set out to do just what President Biden had planned for, not a reset, not a show of unity, but an attempt to indicate where each leader stands and to draw a red line showing where the U.S. would work with Russia and what it would not tolerate.
Engagement Resources
U.S. Department of State: The United States Department of State (DOS), is an executive department of the U.S. federal government responsible for the nation’s foreign policy and international relations.
White House Briefing Room: The White House Briefing Room provides timely and accurate information about the President’s latest events and public statements. Here you will find photos, video, and transcripts, as well as proclamations, executive orders, and press releases.
U.S. Department of Defense: The United States Department of Defense is an executive branch department of the federal government charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government directly related to national security and the armed forces.