JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
U.S. Targets China on Economic Espionage
Brief #55 – Technology
By Henry Lenard
In public remarks last week President Biden implied that China’s main intelligence service had a role in the cyberattack on Microsoft’s email software earlier this year. Biden’s remarks underscored China’s decades long history of economic espionage.
Analyzing the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Brief #123 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
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.
Updates on US Gun Reform Efforts
Brief #20 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
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. E
The Covid Pandemic Only Exists Now Among the Unvaccinated
Brief #117 – Health and Gender
By S Bhimji
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 6: What Have Subsidies Got To Do With It
Brief # 119 – Environmental Policy
By Katherine Cart
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.
Proposed Scientific Integrity Act Would Help Reverse Trump’s “War on Science”
Brief #54 – Technology
By Henry Lenard
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.
U.S. Supreme Court’s Brnovice v. Democratic National Committee Decision Further Weakens Voting Rights Act of 1965
Brief # 169 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
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.
What The CDC’s School Reopening Guidelines Tell Us
Brief # 116 – Health and Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
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.
Maine Becomes the First State To Commit to Fossil Fuel Divestment Through Legislation
Brief # 118 – Environmental Policy
By Jacob Morton
The state of Maine has passed a law forbidding any state pension fund or other public savings funds from making new investments in stocks or securities of fossil fuel companies. As other states and organizations follow suit, divestment could spell trouble for the fossil fuel industry.
# 4 Fishing Boat Dispatch
Changing Tides : A new blog post on the marine environment written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter Katherine Cart
# 4 Fishing Boat Dispatch
April 8,2021
On trawl vessels targeting demersal fish in the North Pacific there is always a government contracted worker – usually a recent college graduate – whose job it is to monitor fishing practices. The Observer’s duties include sampling netted fish for biodiversity, collecting otoliths, sex, length and maturity data, and among many other oddities, standing on deck while a writhing codend[1] the size of a school bus is hauled up the stern ramp. The codend is dumped into the trawl alley; fish flood, flapping dimly, shocked to be, so suddenly, in alien air.
Deckhands begin the onerous task of pushing fish towards the hatch doors that open to the live tank. This happens at any hour, in any weather. Deckhands sort out halibut, pass them to the Observer waiting at a sampling table. Length and viabilities (a judgement call made on the likelihood of an individual’s survival) are taken, and the halibut, dead or alive, are discarded overboard. Generally, the total halibut caught per codend ranges from nil to five hundred.
For several years, I worked as one of these Observers. As I type, from the firmness and immobility of land, there are, undoubtedly, people dressed in Grundéns[2], checking for blood in a halibut’s gills.
Trawl fishing, sometimes, has the familiar, messy feeling of tilting back the Cheezit bag, pouring crumbs over oneself in the aim of eating the corner dust. Reliably stocked fish counters lend themselves to the fictitious notion that the ocean, too, is reliably stocked. This is not necessarily so: vessels fish (and fish) until quotas are satisfied (a topic I’ve discussed here). Bering Sea commercial vessels and others, for example, obey a quota system dubbed “use it or lose it,” which means precisely what it sounds like: if a company doesn’t catch full quota during one season, the next year, that quota ceiling will sink to match the previous year’s catch. This incentivizes vessels to fish hard and wide, regardless of abundance, until quota is met. If species stocks are found by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to be consistently low, the quota will be likewise lowered, or a fishery or fishery region closed. If, however, companies are able to scrape bottom until regulations catch up, how long before the bottom is scraped through?
The well-stocked supermarket fish counter, to the consumer, suggests consistent abundance. Such externalities as “bottom dredging fouls spawning grounds,” or “deckhand’s chest fatally crushed by snapped gear,” are not trumpeted along with “Alaskan, wild caught!” and “rich, flavorful meat,” and “straight out of the Pacific Ocean.” We buy ignorantly, blissfully from the safety of a counter’s remove.
Those halibut fillets we’re serving? If they’re wild Alaskan they were most likely caught by a longliner, a type of vessel that sets humongously long lines of baited hooks at the sea bottom. This type of fishing, like pot fishing, is relatively friendly for ecosystems. Longline and pot bycatch is low and has higher survival rates than a trawler’s. The fishermen of longliners often target halibut and black cod, two species that bottom trawlers inadvertently scoop up with their ‘cheaper’ fish, such as yellowfin sole or flathead sole.
Halibut are a no-go for Alaskan trawlers: that contractor on board reports total halibut numbers daily to NMFS. If a trawler targeting yellowfin sole consistently encounters halibut in one area, it is likely that the vessel will move to avoid penalty. This law protects the longliners twofold: the halibut stock, theoretically, will not be carelessly scraped clean, nor will the market be flooded by cheaply-caught halibut. The central protective focus of this regulation is livelihood, not preservation of ecosystem biodiversity. Healthy oceanic ecosystems, in the law’s language, are not ends but rather means to ends. This fact jars against the fantastical notion I have that the human species can persist without impacting the environs we exist in. A feat, of course, that no other species in the history of evolution has ever achieved. I eat fish. My food speak is, in part, like “Alaskan, wild caught!” theatrics. Nonetheless, that the ‘we’ that closes eyes and consumes today can do better is a no-brainer.
Last summer, near Kodiak in the Gulf of Alaska, I was on the deck of a 180-foot trawl vessel targeting a small flatfish. Fishing had been very bad. We had dipped nets all across the gulf; the fishing trip extended so long that we ran out of milk, and – terror of terrors – coffee creamer. On that day, within a thirty-five minute period, I measured and discarded overboard some 970 halibut. Many were dead, choked on benthic mud, suffocated beneath several tons of sea meat. We quit discarding after thirty-five minutes; many halibut were left on deck, and would be sent through the factory. After thirty-five minutes in trawl deck swill, halibut are presumed dead.
The wheelhouse[3], though appalled, opted to stay in the area. They had a quota to fill. As ever, the choice was a juggling game of company numbers. Did they have room within their halibut limit to catch enough flathead sole to get the trip over and done?
The problems are complex and multifold; the solutions similarly so. Trawl fishing does not belong in a sustainably managed ocean. The waste is abhorrent. I have seen and normalized a magnitude of waste that brings to mind the lavish slaughter of the American buffalo (correlated so perfectly with the extension of the Transcontinental Railroad); the garbage can that a household fills each dinner with meat scrap, plastic wrap, wilted produce.
Regulatory measures requiring the discard of lucrative fish like black cod and halibut are necessary because, historically, these species have been overfished and stocks, currently, are low. Their meat is robust in flavor, fat, weight. They are celebrated fish. Conversely, less financially rewarding species like skates, sculpin, corals, urchins, grenadier, dogfish and starry flounder – I could go on, but I would fill pages – are discarded by trawlers every day by the tens of ton because, on shore, there is no eager, easy market, or because the vessel’s factory has not yet found an efficient mode of processing. Trawlers target mid-grade fish; the rest is a loss. The volume of discarded bycatch speaks to the blind, foolhardy nature of trawl fishing.
Billions of dollars in meat are taken from the North Pacific each year, supporting a broad financial ecosystem, families, fish traders and coastal businesses. The continuance of this ecosystem, however, requires an ocean healthy, balanced and unscarred enough to support life.
[1] Codend: rearmost section of active trawl net, into which netted fish are funneled. Codends, depending on the target fish, can often catch and hold between thirty to two hundred metric tons.
[2] Grundéns: Common brand of heavy-duty commercial fishing jackets and bibs. Quintessential (often orange) rain slicks worn by cold-weather fishermen and women.
[3] Wheelhouse: Command area and highest point in the vessel, from which the captain and mate guide the setting and hauling of nets, and make vessel decisions. E.g. Should we target Pacific Ocean Perch or Yellowfin? Should we fish through bad weather or shelter behind an island?
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 3: Helping Women Navigate Work & Family
Brief # 101 Health and Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 3: Helping Women Navigate Work & Family
By Erin McNemar
April 10, 2021
Policy
In President Joe Biden’s policy proposal, “The Biden Agenda for Women,” he highlights how women have been disproportionately impacted in a number of sectors. Biden explains in the United States women are typically the ones that end up having the responsibility of taking care of their families. While that alone can be a large task, typically only one in six American workers qualify for paid family leave. Additionally, Black and Latina individuals are even less likely to qualify according to Biden.
Therefore most parents are forced to make a difficult decision. They end up having to choose between their jobs and their caregiving responsibilities. Moving to a part-time position can sometimes be a solution but part-time workers will often earn lower wages and less benefits. According to Biden, the lack of policies supporting women and families cause lots of women to leave the workforce entirely. These decisions end up having long term effects. A study done by the Center for American Progress found that women that leave the workforce during their twenties for five years to take care of a child end up making around 20 percent less in their lifetime.
Analysis
Biden spells out policies that show how he plans to remedy this probllem. One of the key areas he targets is providing support for women who are trying to balance work and family.
In order to address this problem, Biden proposes a number of solutions. The first is providing high quality and affordable child care; beginning with free preschool for children ages 3 to 4. This creates a strong foundation for children’s learning and will save parents thousands of dollars. Additionally, Biden believes in providing lower income families with a tax credit to help pay for the cost of child care. To ensure a high quality of care, Biden also states that there should be an investment in establishing standards of child care and a well-trained childcare workforce.
While reducing the cost of childcare will absolutely lift some of the burden on women and families, Biden understands the importance of accessibility as well. This is why he wants to expand Child Care Development Block Grant subsidies that can increase the number of children that can benefit from afterschool, weekend and summer care programs.
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- See how women’s careers are being impacted.
- Learn more about the cost of child care.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Supreme Court Approved Trump Administration’s Request to Limit Abortion Drug Access
Brief #100 – Health & Gender
Brief Title: Supreme Court Approved Trump Administration’s Request to Limit Abortion Drug Access
Author Taylor J Smith
April 8, 2021
The Policy
During Donald Trump’s final days as president, the US Supreme Court granted a request by the administration to reimplement restrictions on patients attempting to obtain mifepristone, a drug used to terminate early pregnancy. The Supreme Court decision reinstates the requirement for patients to pick up the medication in person. Three lower courts had previously blocked the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement for an in-person pick up. The lower court rulings were fueled by the coronavirus pandemic and assumed risks of entering a hospital, doctor’s office, or clinic at this time. The court split 6-3, with the liberal justices in the opposition.
Analysis:
Requiring patients to make in-person visits to hospitals, clinics, or doctors’ offices places patients and hospital staff is in unnecessary danger amid a global pandemic. The justifications behind previous permissions were made with public health and safety in mind, as the pandemic rages on and a new strain is picking up traction, it should be expected that such permissions continue. Instead, the Trump Administration has pushed for the removal of these permissions, making the choice to use and get this medication harder for those wanting to terminate a pregnancy. Like other anti-abortion legislation pushed during the Trump Administration, this decision’s intention is to limit having access to abortions. The reason why this change has been made revolves solely around the fact that mifepristone terminates pregnancies; if this were any other medication, a tele-visit or phone call would suffice and patients would either pick up their medication at a local pharmacy or have it mailed, as millions have done prior to and during this pandemic. This rule must be reassessed for the betterment of public health and safety, not for ideological reasons.
Additionally, this is the first abortion case to come before Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the newest justice who replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Supreme Court’s ruling raises concerns of abortion rights supporters that she will swing the court too far to the right and threaten Roe v. Wade.
It will be interesting to see if the new Biden-Harris Administration. Which is pro-abortion rights, challenges the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Engagement Resources:
Planned Parenthood : Reproductive rights advocacy group that provided affordable and accessible health services to women across the US.
National Abortion Federation : Advocacy group which respects women’s ability to make informed decisions about her reproductive health.
Center for Reproductive Rights : Legal group ensuring the protection of reproductive rights for every woman around the world.
NARAL Pro-Choice America : An advocacy group fighting for reproductive rights across the US.
American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project : The branch of the ACLU dealing with reproductive rights, they provide advocacy, litigation, and public education on the rights of individuals.
Biden Infrastructure Plan’s Secret Winner: Public Health
Brief # 99 Health and Gender Policy
Biden Infrastructure Plan’s Secret Winner: Public Health
By Justin Lee
Policy
The American Jobs Plan, introduced by President Biden last week, proposes a whopping $2.25 trillion to revamp and modernize multiple industries. As the plan allocates and focuses most on American infrastructure upgrades, significant parts of the plan also directly and indirectly revamps American public health. As capitol hill will likely continue to debate the size and funding of the legislative package, it is important to outline how this package can move American public health into the modern era.
Analysis
Public health is a secret, underlying winner of the American Jobs Plan, as outlined below:
Safeguarding “critical” infrastructure and services
Part of the $650 billion proposed for infrastructure upgrades will include revamping community health clinics, hospitals, and food systems. In particular focus will be low income and people of color communities. The pandemic in the US has shown how a health crisis can, and continues, to affect lower income communities disproportionately. To further increase the “critical services” part, the Biden Administration should also focus on funding for community food banks, health education/awareness programs, and mental health programs.
Additionally, the plan allocates $10 billion specifically to modernize and revamp federal buildings, including VA hospitals.
Investment for essential care workers and facilities
The pandemic has and continues to put a strain on caregivers and care facilities. Biden’s plan invests more than $400 billion in increasing wages and benefits for caregivers in both home and community-based facilities for aging populations and people with disabilities. This proposal certainly has a positive effect on public health, as more people in critical need can get the proper, quality mental and medical care necessary with a qualified and trained workforce less strained.
Access to safe, clean drinking water
As seen in the 2014 Flint Water Crisis, many lower income communities and communities of color have water systems using lead pipes. The plan allocates over $100 billion to remove and replace lead pipes and upgrade water and wastewater systems. Lead poisoning can lead to severe brain impairments in infants and adolescents, and permanent kidney damage. Eroding lead pipes can also lead to a breeding ground of harmful bacteria. Clean water infrastructure is a foundational base for proper public health, and it is encouraging that the plan specifically addresses this issue.
Invest in digital infrastructure
Another $100 billion will go towards investing in American digital infrastructure, including broadband coverage and accessibility. These investments help public health as America utilized telemedicine services more widely as a result of the pandemic. These investments can give rural, lower income communities more access to health services and strengthen American cybersecurity as more personal health information gets processed as digital data.
Access and availability of affordable housing
Another foundation of proper public health is adequate housing, which promotes proper sanitation and hygiene. President Biden’s plan proposes over $200 billion to construct and/or convert existing apartment units into affordable housing projects.
President Biden is planning to unveil a 2nd part of his infrastructure plan that also will address public health needs. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki indicated last week a second, more “family focused” legislative package could be introduced in the coming weeks by the Biden Administration. This package, also estimated to be around $2 trillion, will include expansions in health insurance coverage, child tax benefits, and paid family and medical leave. This is encouraging as the US emerges out of the pandemic and into post-pandemic recovery. We will learn how the administration will address the millions of people who are still unemployed, uninsured, and without access to medical facilities.
Learn More
Helpful links
White House: American Jobs Plan
Washington Post: Infrastructure Plan
Engagement Resources
Trust for America’s Health is a public health policy and research organization that advocates for a nation that values the health and well-being of Americans. Their organization has valuable information regarding health policies and issues on a federal and state level, and also actively publishes reports regarding public health on their website. To find more information or to get involved, use the link below:
The American Public Health Association is an organization aimed to Improve the health of the public and achieve equity in health status. As the main publishers for the American Journal of Public Health and The Nation’s Health newspapers, APHA educates the public on public health, policy statements, and advocacy for public health. To volunteer or become a member, use the link below:
How Biden’s Tax Plan Will Help Bolster the Economy
Brief #113
How Biden’s Tax Plan Will Help Bolster the Economy
Rosalind Gottfried
Corporate Tax, Wealth Tax, Infrastructure, American Jobs Act
April 5, 2021
Policy
Biden is proposing an ambitious two part tax plan to expand the American economy. The cost will be 2.3 trillion dollars and it will make America more competitive, create jobs, re-establish the infrastructure and help Americans’ quality and standard of living.
Biden’s plan is in direct opposition to the prior administration’s massive budget cuts of 2017; that plan benefited only the wealthy and failed to produce promised increases in business investments. The Trump administration cut corporate taxes to 21%, down from 35%. Biden will increase them to 28%. In 2020 the fortune 500 companies paid 11.3% in income taxes and many companies paid nothing; for example, Amazon, Chevron, IBM, and Halliburton. In addition to raising the corporate tax level the plan will stop multinational corporations from avoiding taxes on overseas profits, instead treating them as if they were domestic income. It will establish an effective minimum tax on foreign investment. A large part of this increase will fall to “foreigners” who comprise 40% of shareholders. This will fund phase one of the program which will focus on infrastructure development in highways; mass transit; broadband access; support for electric vehicles; and veteran hospitals. It will also address research and development to fund home healthcare for the elderly and the disabled, an expenditure that can be reduced significantly by keeping people at home rather than institutions.
The second phase of Biden’s program will be funded by taxing the wealthy. This will affect only 98% of households because only those households making more than $400,000 will have a tax increase. Their rate will go to 39.6% from the current rate of 37%. This figure applies to households; it is not yet clear how high earning individual income will be affected. Median family income in 2020 was $68,400 while mean income was $97,973.This will be phase two of Biden’s plan and will be oriented to human infrastructure such as aid to the poor; paid leave for workers; decreasing expenses associated with childcare; and increasing the ease of working women by supportive measures and income equity.
Analysis
There has been no major tax increase since 1993, when President Clinton increased taxes. Biden’s increase has been assessed as the largest since 1968, according to reporting in the WSJ. Biden’s program breaks with the approach to improving the economy by bolstering business thAt was the dominant approach in the past thirty years. Though touted as a means of prompting business to invest, by maximizing retention of profits, the trend proved unsuccessful. The hope was that it would result in expansion of enterprises thus supporting both job development and the tax base. The outcome, in terms of income equity; jobs; or aiding ailing physical and human infrastructures never emerged.
The Biden infrastructure/economic development policy will cost 2.3 trillion dollars but it is estimated that the corporate tax will generate $1.5 trillion dollars over ten years and the personal and investment taxes will generate an equal amount in the same period. The projected outcome for the economy is expected to be great, as infrastructure support will lead to business expansion creating jobs and both of these will increase the tax base. Biden provides for 15 years of taxes to fund 8 years of development, an elongated time to pay in comparison to past budgetary compensations. The sustained time for repayment is expected to help the Democrats get the proposals through Congress by utilizing the Budgetary Reconciliation process. The momentum is there, both in the political environs and among the general population. Fifty four percent of Americans support increasing taxes on corporations and wealthy households while 27% support fixing the infrastructure without increased taxes. Recent history shows that reducing taxes has had a devastating impact on the crumbling infrastructure and safety net, it is time to develop a new sgtrategy.
Learn More References
https://www.wsj.com/articles/here-come-the-biden-taxes-11617231225
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/business/economy/biden-tax-plan.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/business/economy/biden-infrastructure-taxes.html
Shortcomings in Biden’s Diplomacy Towards Russia and China
Foreign Policy Brief # 106
Shortcomings in Biden’s Diplomacy Towards Russia and China
By Will Solomon
April 5, 2021
Summary:
The Biden administration is making dangerous foreign policy decisions in its dealings with Russia and China, choices that may have negative, long-term repercussions. Through an unnecessarily aggressive foreign policy, the administration is undermining prospects for geopolitical cooperation, heightening the chances of future war, and bringing its “adversaries” closer together—largely in the name of nationalistic bluster.
The consequences are increasingly evident in growing closeness between China and Russia—two ostensible antagonists the Biden administration claims to want to combat. While aggressive competition is arguably not a meaningful or realistic long-term strategic objective, even by that metric the Biden administration is performing questionably.
Ultimately, the dilemma the Biden administration faces transcends the policy preferences of both the Trump and Biden administrations (not to mention the Obama and previous administrations). The fact is that the US must accept its shifting role in the world and more deeply commit to good-faith multilateralism. Without doing so, the foreign (and domestic) consequences will grow considerably worse.
Analysis:
As stated previously in this space, the Biden administration predicated its coming-to-power on a restoration of a “traditional” American foreign policy role. In practice, this suggested a return to post-World War II norms, an era largely defined by American hegemony, expressed through ostensibly multilateral institutions. This hegemony has been threatened for a couple decades at least, and perhaps longer. But more troublingly, the American role as enforcer in a “rules-based” international order has always been misleading, obscuring the privilege afforded America by these rules, including the ability to break them at will. The concept was possibly irreparably undermined by the invasion of Iraq—among the many other unilateral (and illegal) foreign policy choices made through the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations—and that is not to even mention the devastation wrought throughout the developing world as a result of the American Cold War posture.
The restoration of a traditional American role was thus unclear in its implications; does a “traditional” role include the unilateral decision by the Bush administration to go to War in Iraq, under false pretenses (a war Biden and many of his advisors supported)? While a shift from Trump’s erratic and rhetorically volatile foreign policy is itself a meaningful change, it is only a partial one; global circumstances ultimately heavily influence American choices in a way American public discourse does not necessarily fully appreciate.
Consequently, the Biden administration comes to power at a moment in which global geopolitics are in the midst of a significant shift. One major change is the ongoing rise of China. Biden’s rhetoric towards China—while not as erratic (alternatively conciliatory and belligerent) as Trump’s—has been largely aggressive. The first bilateral meeting under the new administration in Alaska was seen as highly confrontational, by both sides. Chinese diplomats have pushed back on human rights criticism by the Biden administration by (perhaps fairly) pointing to domestic issues of racism in the United States, as well as illegal American interventions in countries like Iraq and Libya.
This dynamic is closely related to another: a growing closeness between China and Russia, as an attempt to push back against American hegemony. The Biden administration’s diplomacy towards Russia has likewise been shoddy, reinforcing these growing ties. In a recent interview, Biden referred to Putin as “a killer,” an unnecessary diplomatic faux pas that led the Russians to recall their American ambassador. This was one detail in an ongoing campaign of antagonism with respect to Russia, which has included US attempts to stop construction of the Nordstream II pipeline, which would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany—relatedly, a point of difference between the US and its European allies.
Biden, his administration, and his advisors, perhaps understandably want to reaffirm a global order that led America to be the most powerful nation on Earth. But this sort of 21st-century hegemony is just not practicable, and ultimately it is clearly not in American interests to pursue such a dominating foreign policy. While the Biden administration has tried to stress cooperation as a rhetorical principle, when applicable, in practice it has not lived up to this message, and is frequently resorting to threats and zero-sum diplomacy, if in a more understated way than Trump might’ve pursued.
Simply put, the challenges of the present are different from those of the past, and phenomena like climate change, pandemics, local wars, and other issues will be best addressed, to the extent they can be, by serious cooperation, even with unsavory regimes. Paradoxically, this will ultimately more effectively shore up the American position in today’s changing international order.
Engagement Resources:
https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing.”
https://www.democracynow.org — “Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues.”
https://thebulletin.org — “At our core, the Bulletin is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a bimonthly magazine. But we are much more. The Bulletin’s website, iconic Doomsday Clock, and regular events help advance actionable ideas at a time when technology is outpacing our ability to control it. The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these topics is a driving belief that because humans created them, we can control them.”
The Myanmar Crisis Reflects a Geopolitical Contest for Influence
Foreign Policy Brief # 105
The Myanmar Crisis Reflects a Geopolitical Contest for Influence
By Brandon Mooney
April 1, 2021
As the world sees rampant authoritarian rollbacks against progressive and democratic freedoms, perhaps no country stands out more in the current moment than Myanmar.
Policy Summary:
As the world sees rampant authoritarian rollbacks against progressive and democratic freedoms, perhaps no country stands out more in the current moment than Myanmar. For those that have not been tuned in to the realities on the ground over the past two months, the Burmese military has seized power, arrested dissidents and political opponents, and fired upon and killed unarmed civilians to name but a few crimes. Although the Western democratic world and many other world governments have either condemned or expressed concern over the coup, regional powers in Southeast Asia have been reticent about denunciation and many have signaled that they see it as an internal matter for Myanmar to deal with on its own.
If we are to understand the motivation for the Burmese military’s takeover, we must first take a quick look back in history. Enduring almost 65 years as a colony, Myanmar was granted its independence as the British colonial empire crumbled following World War II and Allied forces freed it from a brief period of Japanese occupation. However, bucking the yoke of foreign servitude did not bring stable civilian-control, as the country would suffer through nearly 53 years of an army-led junta, with two separate military coups wresting control from democratically elected governments.
Finally, in 2011, a transitional democracy was established, with the conservative but still pro-democratic National League for Democracy party winning significant victories. Yet the Burmese military did not cede all of its powers, still hanging on to a decent portion of seats in the new government and significant appointment powers. The entire situation is further complicated by a continuous, over 70-year-long civil war between five different ethnic states and various smaller ethnic groups fighting individually against the Burmese military (and ostensibly the national government) for a variety of political goals ranging from full independence to enlarged regional autonomy. There is also the not-so-insignificant historical and contemporary ethnic cleansing of minority Rohingyas by both government and extra-judicial groups, which has spawned a refugee crisis and numerous accusations of crimes against humanity.
But let us somehow put all of that history aside to look at the events of the most recent coup d’état by the Burmese military. After an absolutely colossal defeat in the 2020 elections, the military claimed that there was rampant election fraud, and after the cries of foul play were put down due to lack of evidence, it declared a state of emergency and followed what is now a pretty standard “coup handbook.” Cue the arrest of various political opponents, potential dissidents, and anti-military speakers. Cue shutting down the borders, imposing a curfew, limiting Internet access, restricting civilian communication, crafting policies reducing freedom of speech. Cue the instatement of martial law across the country, police raids, and the expulsion of the enemy party from the capital.
All of this was met with and continues to be met by momentous civilian protest and civil disobedience in the face of brutal repression, with soldiers even firing live rounds at demonstrators. Much like the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, the revolts of the Arab Spring, and many others like it in recent memory, the Burmese people are rising up.
Analysis:
I will not bother hiding my bias here, I support the protestors. As an advocate of democratic freedoms, I fail to see how you could not. Therefore, I will not spend any time discussing whether it is in U.S. foreign interest to support civilian-controlled governments because it simply is as long as we claim to stand for such ideals (although I would argue that we as a country have a staggering amount to atone for on our end when measured against them).
What I find far more interesting is the rather mixed international reaction to the coup. All of the usual Western democracies have called most strongly for an end to Burmese military rule, ranging from Australia to Germany to the U.S. However, almost every country in Asia has said that they are concerned but have asked for only dialogue between the military and deposed government. Myanmar’s direct neighbors have either remained neutral on the issue or signaled acceptance of the new military rule, with Thailand welcoming the army’s foreign minister and even being accused of supplying Burmese troops. Russia was an unsurprising absentee from criticism. South Korea, Japan, and Singapore have asked for a halt on the use of lethal force against civilians.
In fact, two days ago, India, China, Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand sent representatives to a Burmese military parade. It was officially reported that during that day, 90 civilians were killed. Out of these eight states, five are bordering Myanmar and all rank low on a scale for democracy barring one: India. India has interestingly stalled on deporting Burmese police defectors back to Myanmar. Yet there has been no official statement on where the Indian government stands on the issue, only vague motions that point to a regime unsure of where it should land. India will no doubt be a target destination for many of those fleeing the Burmese army, as it is a growing economic and political player in Southeast Asia and has already taken on a significant portion of Rohingya refugees. It has political leanings that put it at odds with the military junta and although the Modi regime is worryingly right-wing nationalist, it probably wishes for a less oppressive neighbor. The support of Burmese military rule by China, Russia, and Pakistan must be weighing heavy as well, with Pakistan and China being considerable regional threats and Russia having a recent history of supplying aid in return for fealty to struggling authoritarians.
We should watch India’s moves carefully when it comes to Myanmar, as its refusal to lockstep with other democracies and the lack of strong condemnation by Asian allies suggests that regional power may be a far more critical puzzle piece in understanding policy than believed under the model of U.S. international hegemony. America’s power is weakening in the face of China’s rise and Trump’s America has done much to destroy what reputation we had, but the situation in Myanmar may be a telling example of what is to come.
Engagement Sources:
SupportMyanmar – a great resource for advocacy, updates on the ground, and jumping-off point for getting involved more directly
Find Your Legislator – government resource for finding your legislators. Write them a letter, email, etc. showing your support for the protests
The Google Files: How Washington’s Past Failures Paved the Way for Big Tech Dominance
Technology Brief #42
The Google Files: How Washington’s Past Failures Paved the Way for Big Tech Dominance
By Scout Burchill
March 30, 2021
Summary:
The loaded but unanswerable question “What if?” popped into the minds of many who follow the tech world last week when Politico published an article exposing 312 pages of confidential internal memos from an Obama-era government investigation into Google. These never-before-seen documents from 2012 raise serious questions about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision not to sue Google over antitrust charges for illegally using its monopoly power to favor its own products and services over those of its competitors.
In fact, many of the same anti-competitive tactics outlined in these internal memos close to a decade ago are now at the center of the three antitrust lawsuits that are currently pending against Google. The revelation of these documents comes at a crucial time in the Biden Administration as it assembles its personnel, vision and plan for tackling the problems posed by Big Tech. President Biden has already expressed a much more adversarial role against Big Tech companies than his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. His nomination of antitrust expert Lina Khan to serve as a commissioner at the FTC, as well as his hiring of Timothy Wu, another antitrust expert and an outspoken advocate of net neutrality, at the White House’s National Economic Council, demonstrates an administration that is much more willing to take on the growing power and accumulated wealth of the corporate tech giants.
Analysis:
One of the most shocking revelations to emerge from the Google Files is that all the warning signs and evidence of Google’s harmful business practices were well documented even in 2012. The suits being brought against Google today are largely grounded in the same allegations that were investigated back then.
The allegations were two-fold. Firstly, the documents detail how Google reprogrammed its search algorithm in 2007 to ensure that Google’s own products and services occupied the top results in Google searches. This is known as self-preferencing. Competitors who offered specialized search engines that focused on specific topics, such as Yelp, were systematically relegated to lower positions in the search results. Not only did Google elevate their own products and services over these specialized, and often higher quality, search engines (think TripAdvisor, Expedia, Yelp, Zomato, etc.), the company also scraped, or stole depending on who you ask, user-generated content, like reviews, from these rival search services and then displayed them on their own competing service.
Secondly, Google paid Apple and other major wireless carriers and manufacturers enormous sums of money for exclusivity agreements that ensured Google’s search engine would come pre-installed on smartphones. In other words, they used their already massive market power to choke out competitors and make sure their stranglehold on user traffic, ad revenue and data would continue to tighten, regardless of the quality of Google searches or the preferences of users.
If all this was known back in 2012, why did the FTC choose not to act? The Google Files offer some insight into this question, as well. For one, there was division within the agency between lawyers who, on the whole, were more inclined to bring a suit against Google and economists who argued against doing so. Hindsight, of course, is twenty-twenty, but even so, many of the assumptions and predictions of the economists are just shockingly bad and divorced from the evidence that was available to them even at that time. Here are a few of their assumptions: computers and not smartphones will continue to be the main way people search online in the future, surveillance advertising that tracks users across the internet has only a limited potential for growth, the quality of a search engine isn’t primarily determined by data, and rivals like Microsoft and Mozilla would be able to compete with Google in the software market for smartphones.
Part of this lack of foresight is evident in how attitudes toward antitrust enforcement in the tech world have evolved since the early 2010s. A popular question used to be: how could a free service that costs consumers nothing do any harm to them? For many years this ‘consumer welfare’ standard effectively became an argument permitting Google to monopolize and stifle competition, as long as consumers weren’t harmed in the process. In fact, Google often argues that its business practices are better for consumers. This flawed logic doesn’t get as much traction anymore. Nowadays, it is far too easy to find stories of small businesses and startups whose bottom lines are at the mercy of Google’s algorithms and consumers who are tricked into buying products from paid ads or scammed into sending their loved ones to expensive, low quality rehab centers promoted by Google’s search engine. The harms to consumers, small businesses and start ups are well documented at this point.
Finally, corruption clearly played a role. The Obama Administration was extremely close with Silicon Valley, and especially Google. Although it may be hard to imagine now, this was a time in which tech and social media companies championed democratic ideals and values and were widely perceived by the public to be unequivocally good forces in the world. Obama was the first American president to build up a powerful grassroots movement through social media and the internet that ultimately carried him all the way to the Oval Office. During Obama’s first term, Google lobbyists averaged a meeting a week at the White House. In fact, Steve Schmidt, the then-CEO of Google, personally oversaw a voter-turnout software system for the 2012 Obama re-election campaign. About a month after Obama won re-election, the Google antitrust investigation was dropped. Today three out of the five FTC commissioners who voted on the case, as well as investigators, now work in some capacity for Big Tech companies, including Google. The lead antitrust staffer at the time, Barbara Blank, now works as an in house legal counsel for Facebook. Jay Carney, Obama’s former Press Secretary is now a top advisor to Jeff Bezos at Amazon. The list goes on.
Unlike President Obama, who seems to have seen himself as part of the burgeoning Silicon Valley elite, President Biden seems to have nothing but contempt for them. In his New York Times campaign profile, Biden brought up a meeting he had with Silicon Valley leaders while he was Vice President. His disdain for them couldn’t be clearer. He refers to a tech billionaire there as, “one of the little creeps sitting around that table,” and lambasts the whole lot of them for their “overwhelming arrogance.” So far, he seems to be matching that strong rhetoric with capable personnel who are serious about dealing with the economic and societal harms of Big Tech. Lina Khan and Timothy Wu are both well-respected, vocal proponents of stronger regulations and stricter antitrust enforcement.
Washington dropped the ball the last time around, and if anything, the Google Files present a searing indictment of the government’s ability to regulate corporate power and accurately analyze the evolving effects of technology. While doubt may still linger about the government’s ability to act, the Biden Administration is clearly signaling early on that it is willing to take on Big Tech.
Engagement Resources:
American Economic Liberties Project
https://www.economicliberties.us/
Sources:
Politico’s Reporting on the Google Files
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/16/google-files-ftc-antitrust-investigation-475573
American Economic Liberties Project’s Matt Stoller on the Google Files
The Verge Reporting on Lina Khan
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22321092/lina-khan-ftc-tech-antitrust-law-regulation-amazon
The Verge Reporting on Timothy Wu
Biden’s Campaign Interview with the New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html
Georgia’s New Voter Law Does More Harm Than Good; March 2021
Georgia’s New Voter Law Does More Harm Than Good; March 2021
Policy Summary: On March 25, 2021 Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia signed Georgia SB 202, which is known as the “The Election Integrity Act of 2021.” The sweeping 98-page bill purports to make changes to voting and elections in order to make them more secure. The bill was passed by the Georgia Legislature in the aftermath of an election where claims of election fraud and irregularities were made when in fact there has been no evidence of election fraud in Georgia or around the country.
Some of the new changes brought on with the passage of SB 202 are in the area of absentee ballots, changes to early voting periods and changes to how votes are tabulated. Absentee ballots will now require an accepted form of ID, the use of absentee ballot drop boxes (Georgia did not use absentee ballot drop boxes last year) and restrictions on who can request an absentee ballot. Early voting periods will actually be expanded with an additional mandatory Saturday although for early voting periods for runoff elections the bill simply states “as soon as possible.” The new law also changes how votes are to be processed. Absentee ballots can start to be processed, but not tabulated, two weeks prior to election day. And, Georgia counties must complete their tally of all votes by 5 P.M. the day after Election Day. The law also shortened the time period to certify the vote totals to six days instead of ten days. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Georgia’s new “Election Integrity Act of 2021” has been controversial from the beginning. Due to the changes that it will implement the new law has been called a new era of Jim Crow in Georgia, a blatant effort at voter suppression of minority communities and an unwarranted reaction by GOP legislators to unfounded claims of voter fraud that had been peddled by former President Donald Trump. A closer inspection of the bill shows that the bill is not necessarily as extreme as it is painted out to be. The bill still has numerous problems while having a few other noteworthy provisions.
One theme that can be discerned about this new law and why voting rights activists are rallying against it is because the act shortens time periods from what had previously been in place. For absentee ballots and the use of ballot drop boxes, the boxes now must be inside an early voting site and can only be accessible when the early voting site is open. In other states, ballot drop boxes are often outside and accessible at any time of the day similar to a regular post office drop box. This act, in effect, reduces the hours a ballot drop box is accessible. Another time period that is getting shortened with the new law is the deadline to finish counting all ballots in a county. Unlike the scene from the 2020 election where the counting of votes went on for days after Election Day this new law now mandates 5 P.M. the day after election day as when the counting of votes will be stopped. If the goal is election integrity, this act does not address how these changes will make an election more secure. Reducing the availability of a ballot drop box prevents a vote from coming in instead of making an election more secure. And by reducing the number of hours a vote can be counted opens up the possibility that properly cast ballots will not be counted, too. The shortening of these time periods does nothing to ensure that an election is being conducted properly and without undue interference.
Is the new law completely bad? While the new law has been vilified in the press, it does have two provisions which help improve the right to vote in Georgia. Georgia previously had a signature match system to verify absentee ballots and voter registration applications. The signature on each of those documents had to match a signature that Georgia had on file, like on a driver’s license. That made it very easy to dismiss and discard a properly cast ballot. That controversial system has been eliminated and poll workers will now verify an absentee ballot or voter registration application with personally identifiable information such as driver’s license number, date of birth and address. And the bill, as noted already, modifies the law by expanding some early voting periods.
But these welcome changes were overshadowed by some provisions that belied common sense. SB 202 imposed additional restrictions on third parties that worked to register voters for an absentee ballot and, in the most notorious provision of the entire bill, made it a crime to give a voter waiting in line to vote food or water. The additional rules on third parties registering voters for an absentee ballot were likely aimed at limiting voter registration drive groups which have long been used by black communities to encourage the black community to vote. But targeting a method used mostly by the black community made it easy to associate the act as a new incarnation of an old Jim Crow law. And the provision on prohibiting giving food and water to voters is simply a cruel gesture. People often spend hours in line to vote and so making it criminal to assist another person with a humanitarian gesture associates SB 202 with a callous image that filters down to all the rest of the provisions in the act.
Recently, two lawsuits have been filed in Georgia to challenge the new law and there has been talk of an economic boycott of the state. Hopefully a court can strike down some of the most contentious provisions and allow Georgia to approach the next election free of some of the obstacles contained in the new law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s infopage on recent wave of state voter suppression bills.
Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s analysis of Georgia’s SB 202 voter bill.
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.
Immigration Policy Recommendations for the Biden Administration
Immigration Policy: Brief # 119
Immigration Policy Recommendations for the Biden Administration
By Kathryn Baron, U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter
March 30, 2021
Thus far, 2021 and the Biden Administration have seen a major increase in unaccompanied migrant children crossing the US Southern Border – more than tripled. In the first 3 months of 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied minors were held by CBP and over 9,000 by the Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas refers to the phenomena as a challenge – as it is not a new phenomenon or crisis – but rather a pattern. During this fragile transition of power – particularly in the immigration sector – there are a few ways the Biden Administration can seek to strengthen the American immigration system, while dismantling the xenophobic Trump-era policies and still remain realistic in scope.
First, formally end Title 42, the Trump-era regulation ordered at the beginning of COVID-19 that effectively turned everyone away due to public health concerns. Within the US health law, under Section 265 is US Code Title 42 which grants the CDC authority to prohibit or prevent individuals from entering the US who may pose a threat of transmitting or introducing communicable diseases. Due to COVID-19 lockdown measures – as well as the inevitable congregate settings migrants often endure after crossing the border which would facilitate mass infection – the CBP was expelling migrants arriving at the border citing Title 42. In agreement with the Government of Mexico, most of these migrants – predominantly from the Northern Triangle – were sent to Mexico.
Second, provide more funding and resources for effective border support. Funding should be used by government agencies (e.e. Customs and Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security) and local NGOs such as to allow for a more seamless immigration process that protects the health and well being of migrant children and processes their cases in a timely manner.
Third, the Biden Administration also needs to address the root causes of mass migration. It needs to work with governments and NGOs in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador and promote programs that stem violence and offer would be migrants access to education, health, and employment opportunities in their own countries.
Fourth, immigrant children should be placed in licensed facilities that have high standards of care and are more child-appropriate than jail-like. Their stays should be as short as possible and there should be a high staff to child ratio at such locations, meaning an increase in the number of social workers, counselors and legal advisors, medical personnel, and translators working at each licensed facility.
Fifth, a mechanism should be implemented to prosecute drug cartels and coyotes who often charge large sums of money – to assist migrants in their journeys. Migrants are often physically, sexually, and emotionally abused by the people whom they pay to guide them to the US border. Perhaps representatives from the US and Northern Triangle countries could collaborate on an effort to arrest and prosecute migrant traffickers.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Through the Department of Homeland Security’s website, this link provides additional information regarding the Obama era program.