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.
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.
The CDC Under Trump and Biden: What A Difference!
Brief # 98 Health and Gender Policy
The CDC Under Trump and Biden: What A Difference!
By Erin McNemar
March 29, 2021
Policy
Since the beginning of his administration, former President Donald Trump gave the impression that he was skeptical of the scientific community. This information came to a head when Trump was faced with how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the course of his final year in office, Trump chose to spread misinformation regarding the virus rather than relying on the information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With Trump leaving office and President Joe Biden stepping in, the American people are seeing a change in how the CDC is utilized.
Analysis
Much of Biden’s platform when he was running for President was based around the idea that science would be at the top of his agenda. Before making decisions regarding climate change, coronavirus etc. he would consult with a team of experts. The concept of listening to experts and following recommendations was a dramatic shift from what we saw in the Trump administration. With that in mind, it was not surprising to discover the muzzle placed on the CDC during the Trump presidency.
Once Biden took office, newly appointed CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky came out and said that the Trump administration attempted to silence the agency in order to downplay how severe the pandemic actually was. “They [CDC] have been diminished. I think they’ve been muzzled. That science hasn’t been heard…This top-tier agency, world renowned, hasn’t really been appreciated over the last four years and really markedly over the last year, so I have to fix that,” Walensky said.
Accusations of the administration’s dismissive nature for science were also echoed by Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci. Throughout his pandemic response, Trump continuously undermined the CDC with misleading comments regarding treatment and by appointing officials to carry out his messaging. Essentially, Trump decided to sideline the agency’s expertise and knowledge and tried to take matters into his own hands according to Walensky. Trump wanted to be the one controlling the narrative, not the virus.
Moving forward into the Biden Presidency, Walensky has said the CDC is planning to revamp the agency’s communications. This will include regular briefings run by Walensky and engaging the public on social media. “Science is now conveyed through Twitter. Science is conveyed on social media, on podcasts and in many different ways, and I think that’s critical,” Walensky said. “We have to have a social media plan for the agency.”
Walensky said that interacting on social media will be an important tool in combating misinformation leftover from the Trump administration. The largest difference in the CDC between the two administrations is the willingness of the President to work with the agency and accept its advice. While the Trump administration wanted to silence the CDC and control their own narrative, the Biden administration turns to the agency for guidance on how to conduct policy. Rather than looking at the agency as a treat, the Biden administration views the CDC as an ally and an asset.
Engagement Resources
- Read about the Biden-Harris COVID-19 response plan.
- Learn about COVID-19 through the CDC.
- Read about the vaccine.
- Check your state’s government website to find out when you can get the vaccine.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Political Comments About Coronavirus Help Spark Rise in Asian-American Hate Crimes
Brief # 10 Social Justice
Political Comments About Coronavirus Help Spark Rise in Asian-American Hate Crimes
By Erika Shannon
March 29,2021
Over the course of the past year, there has been a rise in the number of hate crimes against Asian Americans. This is being credited to COVID-19 originating in Asia, along with the rhetoric of former president Donald Trump. Trump often referred to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus” on Twitter, and continued to defend his use of the term at a later press conference. While he finally agreed to not use the term, it had already done damage; it sparked a Twitter movement of anti-Asian sentiment and gave some people the fuel they needed to take that hate off the web and into the real world. According to The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, anti-Asian hate crimes spiked from 49 crimes resulting in charges in 2019 to 122 crimes in 2020. The findings are particularly disturbing because overall hate crimes actually dropped by 7% in 2020 due to the ongoing pandemic and associated business and school closures. In 2021, the racism towards Asian Americans seems to unfortunately not be slowing down.
This year, we have already seen Asian Americans being targeted, and sometimes murdered, due to prejudices that can be partially associated to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its origins. In recent news, a 37-year-old Asian American woman was on her way to a rally against anti-Asian violence when she was attacked. The man approached her and asked for her sign, proceeding to rip it up and throw it in the trash. When the woman asked him to stop, he punched her twice in the face. Since the incident, 27-year-old Erick Deoliveira has been charged with a hate crime.
Prior to this incident, a 38-year-old man by the name of Elias Guerrero was arrested for punching a 66-year-old Asian man in the face and striking a 54-year-old Asian woman with a metal pipe. He was charged with assault as a hate crime, harassment, criminal possession of a weapon, resisting arrest, and criminal possession of a controlled substance. A few weeks ago, an 83-year-old Asian American woman was punched in the face and spit at in New York. While the attack was unprovoked and there is no clear evidence that it was motivated by hate, it is troubling nonetheless due to the disturbing uptick in attacks against those of Asian descent. In New York City alone, there have been 29 incidents of hate reported against Asian Americans just this year, according to the NYPD.
The crimes we are seeing committed against Asian Americans do not always end with people’s lives being spared. On March 20, a 27-year-old Asian American woman was gunned down in Compton, California. With the rise in prejudice, her family wants the murder to be investigated as a possible hate crime. This is not an outrageous request with all things considered, and while the investigation is ongoing, hopefully some light can eventually be shed on her needless murder.
On March 16, there was a mass shooting in the Atlanta area that took place in three different massage parlors. Eight victims succumbed to their wounds, and six of those victims were of Asian descent. While again, there has not yet been an official link announced between Asian American prejudice due to the pandemic and the mass shooting, the facts are still disturbing and have left many reeling in its wake. With tensions and hate already on the rise, crimes like these are senseless and may serve to foster fear in the Asian American community.
While there has been a large rise in hate crimes towards Asian Americans, we have also seen a movement emerge to combat these crimes. Large companies, such as Amazon, are using their platforms and influence to spread messages of positivity towards Asian and Pacific Island communities here in America. Many organizations have also surfaced to put forth information and put racist stereotypes about Asians to rest. California State University has formed a Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism and put efforts into combatting anti-Asian sentiment. The organization “Stop AAPI Hate” has also become a resource for those who would like to get involved, donate, or report incidents of hate. From March 19, 2020 to February 28, 2021, the Stop AAPI Hate reporting center received 3,795 incident reports of discrimination and harassment against Asian Americans. The types of discrimination they report include verbal harassment, physical assault, civil rights violations, and online harassment. The only way to combat hate is to educate and spread correct information, which we finally see being done on a larger scale. March 26, 2021 was deemed the #StopAsianHate Virtual Day of Action and Healing, and there is hope that raising awareness can stop these heinous and uncalled for attacks against our fellow Americans of Asian descent.
RENEWAL RESOURCES
- Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism
- To report a hate incident against an Asian American, visit the Stop AAPI Hate website.
- Asian Americans Advancing Justice
Fishing Boat Dispatch
Changing Tides: A new blog post on the marine environment written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter Katherine Cart
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 2
March 1, 2021
I came to Amaknak Island by plane. The mountains the plane passes between were, in June, very green. The visual sense that the Aleutian Chain gives is of a treeless Hawaii – its geology is similar; the landscape is very young, and active volcanoes grow the islands sporadically. Extending like a hooked arm, the Aleutians delineate the southern edge of the Bering Sea. Amaknak rises from the North Pacific, 800 miles south of Anchorage. Around the smidge of land that is the Aleutian Chain, there is very little but sea.
Amaknak’s Iliuliuk Bay, where 300 foot vessels dock, offload fish, and fuel, drops dramatically to twenty fathoms. The basalt and andesite flows and pyroclastic rocks that form the cliffs of Mounts Ballyhoo and Split Top, and through which obdurate roads have been blasted, rise nearly two thousand feet from the bay edge. Thin soil, reddish, capped by tall grasses and shrub like a fur, holds tremulous purchase on the volcanic substrate. There is a wildness and fragility to Amaknak. With nearly three thousand residents, Amaknak is the most populous of Aleutian islands, and where Dutch Harbor provides anchorage to the North Pacific fishing and shipping fleets. Billions of dollars pass through each year.
The litoral margins of islands Amaknak and Unalaska house factories, supply stores, dynamite-blasted roads, and small mountains of CONEX containers that grow and shift and diminish as they are offloaded, filled with frozen fish product, and locked onto the decks of six-hundred foot carrier vessels. Semis move containers from factory to dock. Upon completing a two week trip, the lines of factory fishing vessels are caught by longshoremen, and crews of thirty or a hundred begin offloading into warehouse and waiting CONEX hundreds of thousands of pounds flash-frozen pollock, flatfish, rockfish, cod – reduced from individual entities to fillet, surimi, a gutted, buyable product. Everyday, at any hour, this churn twists. There is no night in Dutch Harbor.
I have walked across the island in winter, when the sun has set hours before and only rises perfunctorily. Darkness on the road is a brief punctuation between fluorescent, dazzling lights. Trucks drive back and forth and back again, from Westward Plant on Unalaska Island, to City Dock in Iliuliuk Bay, from Kloosterboer to town. Across the roads we have cut into the land, the dirt bleeds, sod hangs like skin, basalt is boney, black. There is the sense everywhere of wounds not quite healed. And very tired people scurry, moving fish.
Once, during the second world war, Dutch Harbor was a military base. Its ordnance formed Alaska’s Iron Ring and suffered in June of 1942 a Japanese air strike. You can see the remains of the fortification everywhere, and especially well from Mount Ballyhoo. Artillery digs make oddly geometric lines across the hump of Bunker Hill. Cement bunkers sit atop many hills, and beneath, into the rock, are bored caves like wormholes for storage and infantry movement. On Ulakta Head sits the highest battery in North America, at 897 feet. Below, anti-submarine nets once crossed the mouth of Iliuliuk Bay. On Hog Island, in spring, flowers nearly cover the gun shields of Fort Learnard. When the war ended, the U.S. navy leaked away, leaving the cement husks of conflict in the landscape.
Before the war, and before commercial fishing, and before Russian fur-trappers arrived in the eighteenth century and erected the green-steepled Church of the Holy Ascension on the slopes of Unalaska, indigenous Unangan people lived on the islands for thousands of years – though you’d be hard pressed to find their any obvious trace. The last several centuries of human development have been like the sudden, fitful seep of a volcano, radically amending landscape.
Beneath the water, we dig holes too. Trawlers whose nets scrape the benthos pull black mud, coral, old plastic, unsellable sculpin, sand lances and dollars, crab (last summer, a codend dumped five metric ton crab to deck – a slowly crawling mountain, up which deck hands ran, laughing), all to target this fish or that fish, at the whim of buyers. The seafloor we gouge with codends like bombs dropped from the sea roof is delicate spawning ground, quiet habitat in which competition has evolved for millenia. The act of trawl fishing seems to me much like spraying a machine gun through a forest, hoping to kill a deer. I don’t know how long it takes the mud to settle. Perhaps not so long as the ratifying of litigation that would eliminate wasteful fishing, but long enough.
Two noticeable heat “blobs” have bloomed off the west coast of North America over the last decade. In aerial heat maps of water temperature anomalies, the Bering Sea, during these events, registers a deep, brickish red. The color denotes an average temperature increase of 3ºC. Pacific cod, a fatty fish whose eggs are susceptible to heat flux took – and are taking – a beating. The alarmingly low cod stock, when I was collecting data aboard a pollock dragger last winter, limited catch size across fisheries and threatened to close areas to trawl fishing.
In 2019, another heat-bubble bloomed, moving from the South Pacific north, changing ecosystems, coastal climate, weather patterns. I saw, and became quite used to, many tons of northern sea nettle falling like giant raindrops from net to trawl alley. Jellyfish are impossibly durable invertebrates: they can survive in low-oxygen water when other species might seek cleaner currents. Warming trends boost plankton growth, diminishing oxygen. On a different boat, a factory vessel, there were, for a few days, as many jellyfish as pollock in my samples.
A broad sheet of sea ice seen on a clear winter dawn is a tremendous thing. It is soft and pinkish until the horizon, and behind you, the Bering Sea is black, gold, pink, translucent and green at wave tip – it is a field of rippling mirror. Sea ice, each winter, shrinks. Its southern edge moves north. Fish whose habitat is frontier ice move north. Do we follow?
Things are moving. We are moving. Of course, migration is a constant. Living matter seeks new ledges on which to root. Monarchs cross the Atlantic. Humans walk land bridges and steel bridges. Last week, the Perseverance Rover landed on Mars. Cold flamingos come down from the mountains, and the mountains rise up from the sea. The Earth grows callus in ridges, absorbing stampede, monsoon, quake and rot.
Looking at Dutch Harbor from Ballyhoo, I was reminded of a child’s playthings, spilt across a carpet. Blue-roofed houses, factories billowing fishmeal steam, roads that, from so high above, appear benign, even quaint. It’s impossible not to wonder what will happen to that place when, inevitably, we move onwards, perhaps northwards, and settle our boxes and buildings and giant semi trucks elsewhere. How long does it take an island to grow up, grow over, reclaim? And can the seafloor recover?
Learn More:
“New Marine Heatwave Emerges off West Coast, Resembles ‘the Blob’” NOAA (5 September, 2019), retrieved 27 February from: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/new-marine-heatwave-emerges-west-coast-resembles-blob
Fishing Boat Dispatch
Changing Tides : A new blog post on the marine environment written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter Katherine Cart
# 3 Fishing Boat Dispatch
March 26, 2021
Walk to Maine’s midcoast and look southwest. Unless you’ve gotten yourself in a spruce thicket, you will see Atlantic water filling the hole that is the Gulf of Maine. Likely, you will hear the sea, smell it, be standing in its sandy refuse. It will very possibly feel colder – or at least damper – here than a mile inland. Chilled oceanic air is sucked landwards, dumping sludgy precipitation, heaping fog, painting rime on roof, pine, window pane, dune hollow. A weathered-in gulf can be, to the casual observer, somewhat benign, rather like watching on a TV screen an avalanche shift some unpopulated mountain. Storms are spectacular to witness from the beaches, nasty to endure offshore. Inland Maine is a stronghold well protected from tidal degradation by granitic coastline, carved out over several millennia by the heaving of the Laurentide ice sheet over Appalachian stone. If you are standing at the coast and look down, between your feet you will see the long lateral scratches the Laurentide left, sloughing southwest into the sea. One cannot help but to think of fingernails, and a general determination to cling on.
I am a deckhand on a Maine lobster boat. We fish out of Bailey Island, in Casco bay, where the Atlantic can roll storms that break the shore rocks. The coastline, though mightily old, is still changing. Islands degrade by bits. The wind in the Gulf of Maine whips from the planar globe storm swells that feel sentient in their hostility. Like an obnoxious housecat, the wind comes and goes, hisses at you for no good reason. It will outlast us.
Yesterday, fishing offshore, the shaft of our old 40 foot Novi cracked. In the hour that we waited for a good samaritan to finish hauling his own strings and snag us for a tow to land, we were pushed by the wind against an outgoing tide nearly one mile towards Small Point, and began taking on a little water. Not too much. Enough to notice. Over the radio another captain warned: “supposed to breeze up.” We were lucky – yesterday was the first true day of warmth offshore. The wind, though sustained, was mild compared to the winter blows we’ve sat out or – miserably – fished through. It was a glorious day. A good day to be on the water. A good day to ride the bow, toss lines, catch a ride, if we must.
Twenty-eight miles northeast of us, eighty lobster boats congregated at Monhegan Island. In single file, they traced the path of the proposed underwater cable that would link a future 12 megawatt wind turbine to South Boothbay, linking offshore wind energy to the main power grid. This seabed path, since the beginning of March, has been under survey by research vessels. Lobstermen out of Friendship, Monhegan, Bristol, Boothbay and other port towns have experienced disruptions in set strings of traps, feel that the proposed wind turbine is a threat to current and future livelihood. I’ve experienced snarled and cut strings – detangling hundreds of pounds of lobster trap and line is hellacious, time-consuming, dangerous and costly. Another boat’s gear can be caught up, a string set over another by accident. Frustration is standard fare in lobstering. And while such frustrations are an expected, though unwelcome, part of the job, one does not relish the idea of an outside source – say, research vessels with no traps or profit to lose – causing further gear-loss. Tangled gear costs money. Time costs. Such aggravation is sapping in an already tiring day.
The intended wind turbine does not immediately impact the waters that I fish in. Talk in Mackerel Cove, where I dock, hasn’t yet focused on wind energy, though the issue has gained central focus in the Maine Lobsterman’s Association Newspaper, which my captain brings to the boat and does not read. As a sternwoman, however, I feel the shuddering brace of the Maine lobstering community. Pulling wildlife from the ocean is a volatile vocation. This year, nearly every boat I knew of turned to pig hide for baiting: sandfleas, which prosper in warming waters, were cleaning traps of the standard baitfish before lobsters could wander their dim demersal way through trap kitchen to parlor. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of all global waters. American lobster are susceptible to infinitesimal changes in water temperature; in the larval stage, they can expire en masse, and as adults, shell disease, which appears like rot on the carapace, proliferates in warmer waters. Day after day last fall, we hauled empty traps. When I was given my 1099 last month, my captain looked at my total revenue: “should have been twice that.”
I have only lobstered since August and have no real dog in this fight. I have no payments to make on a boat, no family to support, no children who expect to apprentice under me, gain a captain’s license, buy their own vessel. The patterns of the day (up at 3:00 am, on the water by 5:00 am, hauling, hauling, reeking of ripe fish, ludicrously worn-out, docked by evening), however, are appealingly forthright. That women and men fish lobster their entire lives does not surprise me. These are hard, honest days.
In college, I interned with Aqua Ventus’s VolturnUS 1:8, the pilot wind project deployed by the University of Maine in 2013 near Castine, ME. (I spent, on average, an hour a day for a year and a half clicking through stilled images of the bobbing, yellow VolturnUS 1:8 turbine, watching for bird strikes and any evidence of detriment to marine life – I saw none.) During that time, former Maine Governor Paul LePage discouraged Statoil’s proposed $120 million Maine offshore wind project by reopening state waters to potential wind investors. Statoil has since relocated its investment to Scottish waters, and in 2017 began successfully producing energy. In May of 2014, Aqua Ventus was awarded just $3 million of the $47 million the project was hoping for in federal support. Four years later, as offshore wind energy in Maine again began gaining momentum, LePage ordered a moratorium on the development, citing potential risk to Maine’s tourism economy. It has not been an easy ride for wind power investors with sights on the gulf. Incidentally, LePage was the sole Atlantic Coast governor to support the former president Trump’s 2018 proposed “Outer Continental Shelf Draft Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” which would have opened Maine waters to oil drilling. Now, Maine Governor Janet Mills supports Gulf of Maine wind power. She has opened conversations with the Maine lobstering community and issued a ten-year moratorium on wind projects within three miles of the mainland and inhabited Maine Islands, excluding the Monhegan Island project. Today, that project is using the technology of the floating VolturnUS 1:8 scale pilot turbine. There is no doubt of the potential benefit for Maine energy consumers and job seekers.
These two perspectives have split for me an uncanny rift. The coastal strip that is the lobstering community is a Maine symbol. That it might face its end within my lifetime is wrenching. Fishing communities are so entrenched that peninsula-dwellers speak with unique accents; of the man who towed us ashore yesterday, my captain said: “well, it’s not strong, but he’s sure got the Small Point accent.” Small Point is seven miles as the crow flies from Mackerel Cove. Fishing is, perhaps, the most deeply generational tradition we have in our country. These are lifestyles passed hand over hand like line to kin. There is a romance to lobstering; even the casual observer, those who watch us fish through blows from the safety of shore, cannot deny that.
If you are reading this, there is a good chance you support renewable energy. I do. I have. I will. In my logical brain, I support wind energy in the Gulf of Maine, whatever it may mean for the lobstering community. And to be clear: nobody seems particularly certain what impact wind energy might have on the lobstering community. It is the unknown, yet visible (climate change, unfortunately, is less acutely so), that has piqued fear. Logic aside, in my gut I, too, fear for those few whose children are fed, clothed, housed, by what is pulled from wind power’s path. I worry for my captain, and his son who is one of the fastest sternmen in the cove. To lobster is to both slow time’s twist towards frenzy and to put your eye to the speeding time-keeper that is the warming, shifting Atlantic. I mourn the ending of things as they are.
Changing oceanic ecosystems will bring the end of Maine lobstering before wind power ever does. Of that I am certain. But for those fishing families who feel the acute pinch of wind development already – what comfort does the broader strokes of future history bring?
The Impact of Biden’s American Rescue Plan on Education
Brief # 57 Education Policy
The Impact of Biden’s American Rescue Plan on Education
By Emily Carty
March 23, 2021
Summary
President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, signed into law on March 11, 2021, has a wide range of implications regarding the school system and, more generally, education and development of our youth population. Under the Act’s Title II (Committee on health, education, labor, and pensions), Subtitle A (Education Matters), Biden’s plan for our education system is laid out. Throughout the entirety of the act however, there are various sections that impact children or education, particularly notable is an increased child tax credit that will be extended to benefit lower-income families.
The American Rescue Plan allocates just over $122 billion ($122,774,800,000 to be precise) to carry out the laws pertaining to the section on education. The funds will be available through 2023. The law outlines how funds will be distributed and what they can be used for. Block grants for public schools will go to states to be distributed to Local Education Agencies in the manner outlined by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
There are some guidelines as to how the general block grant money needs to be spent, since its primary focus is to remedy the havoc wreaked by Covid. At least 90 percent of money distributed to states must go directly to Local Education Agencies, the public education boards within states which administer federal and state education laws and funding. At a minimum, 20 percent of funds are for addressing learning loss throughout the pandemic. Educators define learning loss as a deviation from the “normal” level of learning students demonstrate based on grade, age group, or subject year after year.
The remaining 70 to 80 percent of funds from block grants could be spent on: updating technology and educational facilities to mitigate effects of the virus, developing mental health resources for youth, designing emergency preparedness and school closure plans, professional development for educators, or supporting learners with unique needs. There are other guidelines and recommendations, but it is ultimately up to Local Education Agencies how the money will be spent. The Act’s word choice and statements denote an equity-centered approach coming from the Biden Administration — something that states can take cues from.
In addition to public school support, the Act sets aside funds for other specific purposes. One of the first provisions listed is the allocation of 800 million dollars to support the identification of and development of support programs for youth experiencing homelessness. Additionally, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public schools which “enroll a significant percentage of low-income students” will be eligible for up to 2.75 billion dollars. Non-public schools are private or independent schools which do not receive money from the government.
Higher education institutions will receive a little over 39.5 billion dollars. The money can be used for a variety of things but is aimed particularly at making higher education institutions safe to reopen as well as providing mental health support through this crisis. The act primarily aims to distribute money to public high education institutions and particularly the ones which service low-income communities and students.
Additionally, the act requires states to maintain or increase funding for schools and Local Education Agencies in order to receive funds — this is under what is called “Maintenance of Equity.” The idea is that these funds are to support the recuperation of schools and students in the wake of coronavirus, they are not replacing the money already set aside to support education.
Analysis
The American Rescue Plan is a bold plan to address the effects of Covid and learning-loss on our schools and students. It also addresses long-held concerns surrounding funding for building upgrades, staffing, professional development, and support services, all with a focus on equity. The plan directly aims to reduce child poverty through the provisions related to schools as well as through child tax credits. With the new law raising the child tax credit from $2000 to $3600 per child, and extending it to more lower-income families, the Washington Post suggests it will work as “essentially a guaranteed income.”
All put together, the act provides a significant amount of money directly to states and Local Education Agencies to begin the work of reopening schools safely, implementing new learning plans to remedy a year of virtual-school, and repairing our school infrastructure. The maintenance of equity provisions are major wins for education advocates across the nation — the federal government is explicitly preventing states from cutting funding to schools because of general economic losses due to the pandemic. By providing direct money to families the Biden Administration is acknowledging the fact that educational outcomes are largely related to poverty, which has only been exacerbated throughout the pandemic. If we really care about students’ educational outcomes, we must address poverty and this is a good first step.
The federal government is not able to oversee the administration of all of these funds, especially since many will come in the form of block grants. While there are rules and recommendations, funding considerations will be largely left up to states and local educational agencies, for better or for worse. The “highest poverty” and “highest need” districts have extra protection from local budget cuts and staff cuts, however many districts are exempt from these rules — including the over 6000 districts with fewer than 1000 students. Either way, having these recommendations included in the first place will set the stage and provide guidance for all districts that wish to prioritize equity.
Critics of the education portion of the act suggest it may leave districts less flexible with their hiring practices or if an unexpected event occurs. While there certainly will be added complexities to state and district practices and teacher contract bargains, the emphasis on equitable and sustainable spending on students is greatly needed. The key here will be deliberate and intentional spending that will improve learning outcomes and focus on equity.
The American Rescue Plan Act addresses the effects of school shutdowns and increased poverty rates by putting low-income and high-need students and families first. The act leaves a lot of room for states to make major spending decisions, but it also provides guidelines and rules on what one cannot do with the money. While there is not a huge emphasis placed on what the educational outcome and goals for students are, it allows states and local education activists to call for and implement concrete, state- and local-specific plans to address equity and learning-loss in a way that makes the most sense for their community.
Renewal Resources
Children’s Defense Fund – This organization is dedicated to advancing justice for all children. They have a range of resources and programs designed to educate the nation and our government about children’s needs, and they have policy solutions and evidence-based ideas they lobby for. Check out their action page to easily text or reach out to your representatives about relevant child welfare policy issues.
The Education Trust – This group is federal and has regional chapters, it performs policy research and advocacy in all things education. Check out their advocacy pages to get informed, get resources, and find a way to reach out to your representatives.
The National Youth Law Center – A non-profit law firm specializing in low-income youth justice, NYLC represents youth interests by holding government and administrative systems accountable through legal action. Check out their detailed policy recommendations or wins around education (and other topics) and download templates to show support and send to your representatives.
Sources
District Administration – American Rescue Plan
US Department of Education – American Rescue Plan Announces State Funding
Washington Post – Biden’s American Rescue Plan is actually a huge new school reform …
Ed Week – Aid Package Protects Funding for Students in Poverty, But Could Challenge Schools
National Education Association – What American Rescue Plan Means for Educators and Students
Center for American Progress – ARP Could Help Prevent State Public Higher Education Cuts
The Federal Deficit and Uncollected Taxes
Brief #112
The Federal Deficit and Uncollected Taxes
Rosalind Gottfried
Federal Deficit, Tax Cuts, IRS
March 23, 2021
Policy
Biden’s 1.9 trillion dollar American Rescue Plan is viewed as adding to the already ballooning federal deficit. Certainly the pandemic has added to that burden but the structural issues go much deeper than the necessary expenditures to address the desperate economic situation which befell many Americans. The deficit is expected to reach 35 trillion dollars by the end of the 2021 fiscal year; it stood at 28 trillion prior to the latest stimulus. In the first five months of the fiscal year the deficit was 68% greater than for the same time in the previous year.
One source of the growing federal deficit can be found in the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS estimates that there will be 600 billion dollars in uncollected taxes this year and 7.5 trillion over the next ten years. That is more than one half of the projected deficit. Ninety five percent of taxes from wage earners are estimated to be collected due, in large part, to the way the system tracks wages which makes it hard for these to go unreported. This is not so with business profit and income from such things as royalties and rent. There are no mechanisms, at present, to provide third party verification for these sources of income.
A second cause for the anticipated 1.4 trillion dollars of uncollected taxes has its roots in the 2017 tax cuts passed in the Trump administration. These cuts were touted to help middle income Americans and to boost business investment. Neither of these things actually occurred. The insignificant decrease in taxes went unnoticed by most Americans while the greatest gains went to the top 20% of earners. Corporate tax was reduced to 21% from 35%, a decrease of 31% increasing the budget deficit by more than 50%. The tax cut’s selling point promised the corporate world would utilize the saving to boost the economy and create jobs. Though there were some short term gains the rate of economic growth was identical the rate in 2015, showing no permanent gains from the cuts.
Analysis
The IRS sustained budget cuts of more than 20% between 2010 and 2019. With the loss of personnel, and outdated computer systems, only one quarter of calls for tax help were answered and much tax revenue was lost due to the inability of workers to audit wealthy households. Improvements in the IRS would cost 100 billion dollars over the next ten years but would yield six times that in tax revenue collected. Suggestions for better computer system sand more personnel also need to be paired with new systems of tracking in/outflow of funds from businesses. This could be achieved with systems of verified reporting utilizing banks.
Most Americans, 75%, supported the latest stimulus and many would like to see increased government spending to create jobs and build back the infrastructure. To do so would take funds and it is clear that the weight of generating these has not been equitably distributed.
Learn More References