JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Will the Governor be Recalled?
Brief #1—California Dispatch
By Patrick Dwire
The vote for the recall of Gavin Newsom as the governor of California is now a political certainty, with a Special Recall Election to be scheduled later this year. If a simple majority of voters decide Newsom should be removed from office, then the highest vote –getter on the ballot, even if less than 50 percent of the total number of votes cast becomes the next governor of California. If the 2003 recall election in California is any kind of historic guide, scores of colorful candidates from all walks of life can to be expected to get qualified for the ballot.
Ransomware on the Uptick: A Clear and Present Danger
Brief #45—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
The Colonial Pipeline Company, which describes itself as “the largest refined products pipeline in the United States” transporting gas and jet fuel through a pipeline system spanning 5,500 miles between Texas and New Jersey reported on Friday May 7 that it was the victim of a ransomware cybersecurity attack. The company assured the public that the attack had only affected its information technology systems and not its operation capacity but, as a precaution, it was proactively taking certain systems offline to contain the threat. The action temporarily halted all pipeline operations effectively cutting supplies to much of the Eastern seaboard.
Forever Chemicals May Not Last That Long
Brief #115—Environement
By Shannon Q Elliot
“But I suspect most people across the United States are still unfamiliar with PFAS and don’ t realize the exposure that occurs. I’m going to continue doing what I can elevating that awareness.”- Robert Bilott
Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) and Perfluorooctanoic (PFOS), are not only impossible to pronounce, they are toxic chemicals that wreak havoc on all living and breathing beings. According to Scientific American, of the more than 9,000 known PFAS compounds, 600 are currently used in the U.S.
Wood Pellets: The New Renewable or the Same Old Story?
Brief #114—Environment
By Jacob Morton
In 2012, the U.K.’s Department of Energy and Climate Change published its guidelines regarding new British renewable energy policy. These guidelines encouraged the transition of coal-fired electrical generation plants to biomass or wood pellet burning plants, as a way for utility companies to meet European Union air pollution and renewable energy standards. Burning wood pellets to generate electricity has been touted as a renewable energy source because it requires new trees to be grown, offsetting the carbon released by the burning of the trees that preceded them.
Power for Power’s Sake: The Motto of the Modern Republican Party
Brief USRN Blog
By Sean Gray
The Republican Party is disdainful of democracy. In 2021 it has become an authoritarian personality cult led by disgraced former President Donald Trump.. It’s members have embraced blatant electoral untruths and stoked cultural wars in a a cynical political game. 30 state legislatures are controlled by the GOP. Voter suppression and cracking down on dissent are on the docket in many of them.
Stolen elections and burning cities received a disproportional amount of election coverage in the last few years. Neither represented an accurate portrayal of the 2020 election or the widespread well founded Black Lives Matter Protests. Nevertheless, as spurred on by Trump, the GOP and their chums in conservative media have spent a fair amount of time inciting their base over election fraud and antifa terrorists. The phony hysteria sounding these issues serves as a pernicious pretext to cripple democratic institutions. Self-governance and freedom to assemble and criticize said government is a bedrock of a free society. Those tenets are under assault in Republican-led state houses.
Is Change on the Horizon for Gig Workers?
Brief #115—Economics
By Lily Lady Cook
U.S. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh told Reuters in an exclusive interview at the end of April that he supports reclassifying certain gig workers as employees. In 2017, approximately 34% of the workforce in the US were independent contractors, and even more supplement their income with freelance work. These types of jobs can allow for greater flexibility and independence with regards to hours and variety of work. Yet the tradeoffs can be disproportionate: there’s often less job security, no employee-provided health or retirement benefits, and more expensive taxes.
Attorney General Merrick Garland Brings Back DOJ Consent Decrees As A Tool For Police Reform
Brief #160—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On April 16, 2021 new U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum titled “Civil Settlement Agreements and Consent Decrees With State and Local Governmental Entities.”
The memo was comprised of four points. First, the new memo rescinded a November 2018 memo that imposed restrictions on the traditional use of consent decrees against state and local law enforcement entities. That November 2018 memo was issued by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Second, the new memo instructs that settlement agreements and consent decrees would return to the traditional process of approval that had been in place prior to Attorney General Sessions November 2018 memo. Third, the use of consent decrees again must lay out specifically what the violations are, what remedies are being proposed and how the remedies will address the violations. And lastly, the memo instructs that if monitors are brought in to help oversee the proposed consent decree that the monitors are independent, highly qualified and free of conflicts of interest. LEARN MORE
The Many Important US Foreign Policy Questions Raised by Alexei Navalny
Brief #109—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
The saga of Alexei Navalny continues to play out in Russia. Navalny, the dissident anti-corruption activist, was jailed on January 17, after returning to Russia from Germany, and ultimately sentenced to over two and a half years in prison. He was in Germany recuperating from what appears to be an attempting poisoning by the Russian government.
Navalny is a popular and controversial figure in Russia and is increasingly well-known abroad. For the last several years, his profile and stature have grown in Russia, as he’s become the most prominent anti-Putin voice in the country. His movement largely centers on “anti-corruption,” and his exposes—like this recent one on Putin’s apparent luxury retreat on the Black Sea coast—are extremely popular in Russia. He’s also become a heroic figure in the West for his strident opposition to Putin
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 4: Ending Violence Against Women
Brief #105—Health and Gender
By Erin Mcnemar
President Joe Biden has stated that ending violence against women has been a priority for him throughout his career. During the 1990s, Biden pushed for legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act to empower and protect women who had become the victims of violence. Since then, he has worked to continue strengthening and renewing that act. In The Biden Agenda for Women policy, Biden has pledged he will continue to build upon VAWA and provide better support for survivors.
The Public Health System in the US: Does it Work?
Brief # 91
Health and Gender Policy
The Public Health System in the US: Does it Work?
By Justin Lee
January 19,2021
Policy
Newly inaugurated President Biden nominated Xavier Becerra to lead and be the next Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS is comprised of various public health and human services agencies and offices that provide guidance, oversee and regulate operations, and establish laws and regulations. Agencies like the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (lead by the Surgeon General) all branch within the HHS.
As the HHS presides as the federal entity in setting public health policies and guidance, the responsibility of protecting the public health of Americans primarily lies within state and local governments. State health agencies collect and analyze health data and are responsible for implementing national and state mandates. The states also have the power to set certain policies and standards of their own. Local health departments are more the “front line” agencies, responsible for health education, screening, immunizations, disease control and health/mental/ambulatory services within its jurisdiction.
This system of distributing public health responsibility and power between federal, state, and local levels provides a level of autonomy and governance to the state and local health agencies. But does this system work? Like China, should the federal government dictate public health and decrease the power of state and local agencies to ensure federal orders are carried out nationwide?
Analysis
It is clear that China, and many east Asian countries, have handled the COVID-19 pandemic more efficiently than the US and Europe. Some of the east Asian countries had existing agencies and organizations already established to track and implement measures in an infectious disease outbreak, such as Japan. Many of the same countries also have previous experience with large scale coronavirus outbreaks, such as SARS and MERS. For many of these governments in regards to social distancing, wearing facial coverings, and contact tracing, the question was not if these measures should be implemented but rather how quick can these measures be implemented.
So given the failure of the US to establish any real nationwide contract tracing measures, and the inconsistent messaging from federal, state, and local agencies in regards to social distancing, facial coverings, and other protective measures for protecting Americans, should the US reconsider how we structure our public health system? The answer is no. The American public health system is designed to protect the public health system of all Americans, from those living in urban Los Angeles to those living in the Kentucky countryside. The state and local health agencies should have the direct power and authority to regulate and implement measures needed for the benefit of their citizens. Federal lockdown measures will affect urban Americans differently than Americans living the countryside. State and local governments should know and be able to take federal guidance and implement specific measures to their jurisdiction.
That being said, the federal government and HHS plays a critical role in American public health by setting the tone and guidance for state and local governments. The failure of the US in controlling the spread of COVID-19 and distributing approved vaccines lies from the failure of the Trump administration to provide effective leadership and guidance. Inconsistent messaging and directives regarding the importance of facial coverings, social distancing, and contact tracing in combination of delayed decisions critical in controlling the spread of the pandemic has lead to the worst health crisis in American history. Despite many east Asian countries having had a pandemic blueprint that America could have built their own response from quickly, the federal government failed to provide the consistent messaging and guidance needed to exemplify its role in protecting public health for Americans.
President Biden comes into power at a critical time where COVID-19 continues to surge in urban cities across the US, but also has the means to finally take control of the pandemic through the distribution of treatment and vaccines. President Biden and his new administration has made it clear that the pandemic is a priority in his first 100 days in office; a hopeful sign for state and local health agencies that the federal leadership and guidance that was missing could finally arrive to help.
Learn More
Helpful links
NCBI: Summary of Public Health
Reuters: Biden Pick for HHS Secretary
MarketWatch: Asia Response to COVID
Engagement Resources
The American Red Cross heavily relies on volunteers to assist during a health crisis; including the COVID-19 pandemic. Volunteers play active roles in clinical and non-clinical settings. The American Red Cross also operates one of the largest blood donation networks in the US. To volunteer in a clinical setting and/or to give blood, use the links below:
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:
Fixation on Fixtures; The Showerhead Rollbacks
Environmental Policy
Brief # 106
Fixation on Fixtures; The Showerhead Rollbacks
Shannon Q Elliott
January 18, 2021
President Trump has rolled back the Department of Energy’s (DOE) standards for consumer appliances. It was concluded that the performance exhibited by showerheads, washers, and dryers is a burden on the American consumer. In December, our sitting president told the press; “People are flushing toilets 10-15 times, water is dripping out of faucets, and water is plentiful in the United States.” As a result of this statement, the administration aggressively pursued the current rule and revised it without conclusive evidence that the rule needed to be amended.
The initial rule set by Congress in the 1990s allowed showerheads a flow rate of 2.5 gallons of water per minute. It was determined that the definition of the term showerhead was to be interpreted as “the part of the shower that water flows out of”. As newer showerhead models entered the market with multiple nozzles, the Obama administration narrowed the definition. If four nozzles were now part of a showerhead design, 2.5 gallons per minute is what the four nozzles were able to collectively dispense. The quick math will show that under Obama’s redefinition, .62 gallons of water could be dispensed per nozzle on the showerhead, per minute.
When the term showerhead was reworked in December of 2020 to appease Trump, multiple jets, and various models of showerhead systems will now be counted individually. The four nozzles mentioned above are able to spit out 2.5 gallons per minute each, collectively using 10 gallons of water per minute.
Analysis
Contrary to Trump’s belief that “water is plentiful” in the United States, The Waterproject.org reports that water scarcity is an emerging reality. Southwestern states are unable to replenish their water supply, and the shortage will soon affect other regions. Macroeconomics tells us that a larger population equates to more demand. If the water supply continues to dwindle, because the government fails to regulate usage responsibly, the United States may find itself among the countries that ration water.
Other countries struggle to find clean water sources for survival. Trump is dissecting legislation that shows no indication or need for revision. According to David Friedman, Assistant Secretary; DOE under Obama, there was no justification to revise the current rule. This is just another presidential vexation to an Obama era rule, being dissected. As a result, the new administration will have to revisit it, using their time, and taxpayer dollars to protect the water supply, and piece back together legislation that served the country until the last hours of Trump’s presidency.
Learn More:
Leblanc, P. (2020, December 15). Trump administration finalizes rollback of showerhead standards. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics/showerhead-standards-trump/index.html
Sprunt, B. (2020, December 17). Trump Bemoaned Water Pressure. Now His Administration Has Eased Standards.: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/17/947251937/trump-bemoaned-water-pressure-now-his-administration-has-eased-standards
Resistance Resources:
Appliance Standards Awareness Project . (2020). https://appliance-standards.org/
Natural Resources Defense Counsel . (2020). https://www.nrdc.org/.
The Water Project . (2020). https://thewaterproject.org/.
Trump’s Final Days in Office – the Beloved Wall
Brief #113 – Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Trump’s Final Days in Office – the Beloved Wall
January 18, 2021
Policy Summary
Shortly after the events at the Capitol earlier this month, President Trump traveled to Texas to observe the border wall that defined his presidential campaign. Rather than celebrate his ‘accomplishments,’ as defined by his support base, during his term – such as tax cuts, rolling back federal regulations, and transforming federal courts with the appointment of Conservative judges – he is harping on his border wall. Trump was advised to highlight his ‘successes’ in his final days of office but to no avail.
Analysis
President Trump has attempted to shift the blame for inciting the insurrection that occurred last week, but even Senior Republicans have turned on him. Chad Wolf, the former Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security resigned within a week of the events at the Capitol and will not be accompanying Trump to Texas. His frivolous trip to the border will only further fuel the violence and lead to more harm.
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.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- 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.
Re-engaging with Allies and International Organizations
U.S. RESIST NEWS
Investigative Reports
Re-engaging with Allies and International Organizations
For 4 years the Trump administration pursued failed a go-it-alone foreign policy, withdrawing the US from its commitments to its allies and international organizations. The Biden administration has indicated its intention to reverse course and take a multi-lateral approach to foreign policy. In this series U.S. RESIST Reporter Will Solomon analyzes the challenges involved in the US re-engaging with international organizations such as the International Criminal Court, the World Trade Organization and others.
# 1 The International Criminal Court (ICC)
By Will Solomon
Summary:
The United States has a troubled history with international law. And is that so surprising? Much of the architecture for contemporary international law was established as and after the United States became the dominant world power; the USA has had a long incentive and privilege to promote an international rules-based system that favored this country, and that if needed, it was free to break.
One institution in this nexus is the International Criminal Court. The ICC was preliminarily voted into existence by 1998’s UN Rome Statute—seven countries voted against its founding, including the United States. The ICC was then formally established in 2002—at which point the United States withdrew its preliminary signature (by Clinton in 2000) and announced it was not party to the treaty. This was followed by the 2002 congressional passage of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, colloquially called the “Hague Invasion Act,” which effectively allows the United States to use force to protect any American or allied person who has been imprisoned or come under the court’s jurisdiction.
The American attitude towards the ICC has, in practice, only hardened in the nearly two decades since, and much of the discourse around the ICC may be seen as a rhetorical cudgel in the “national vs. international sovereignty debate”—i.e., “nationalists” seek to prevent the court from extending its jurisdiction over the US and nullifying this country’s sovereign laws. But this disagreement largely obscures US bipartisan opposition to the ICC and a major US position towards the court—namely, protecting American and allied (Israeli, for instance) complicity or active engagement in war crimes.
The Obama administration, in fairly typical fashion, signaled a willingness to cooperate with the ICC without rejoining it. Thus in practice, while the US adopted a less aggressive outwards posture towards the Court, it did not substantially alter its position. Predictably, the Trump administration renewed the Bush administration’s aggressive hostility towards the ICC. This was amplified recently after the ICC began investigating American war crimes in Afghanistan, in 2019. In response, the US withdrew the visa for the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda.
Analysis:
The US holds a unique position with respect to international treaties, and in particular, to organizations like the International Criminal Court. As suggested above, on the one hand, the modern international order came into effect largely due to US design in the post-World War II era. The US is thus incentivized to adhere to the system and promote its legitimacy. On the other hand, the US has always been careful to maintain a dominant position in that order, and has in many ways become more assertive in this respect since the collapse of the USSR and American emergence as “sole superpower” in the 1990s. Increasingly—particularly post 9/11—this has led the US to effectively function as a “rogue state” within the order it designed.
All this said, we are no longer in the world of the 1990s. In many ways this is a multipolar world, with China existing as dominant US competitor, and a series of secondary but significant powers around the world, including Russia, India, and others (notably, neither China, Russia, nor India are currently a party to the ICC). While an extraordinarily complex topic in its own right, Trump’s America-first posture ought to be seen in this light of this relative American decline.
This brief summary brings us to the present. The Biden administration seesms to be committed to rebuilding international alliances, perhaps the most practical way to advance national interests in a multipolar world. The reinstitution of alliances and multi-lateralism has the potential for addressing complex international issues like climate change and nuclear proliferation. Many of our traditional allies belong to and support the International Criminal Court.
The ICC has played and could continue to play an important role in prosecuting the practitioners of state-sponsored terrorism (Charles Taylor of Liberia) war crimes
(Slobodan Milosevic ) genocide, and human rights violations. The US should welcome the court’s ability to intervene in these matters. However, it is unrealistic to think that the US would be willing to have its own citizens tried by the ICC under international law. Unfortunately US domestic politics is not ready to recognize the court’s jurisdiction. We still cling to the outdated belief that we are better than and outside of the international legal system.
It is, for these and other reasons—above all, the longstanding bipartisan commitment to unilateral hegemony—unrealistic to expect that Biden will choose to seriously cooperate with the International Criminal Court. But he should. Democratic candidates further to the left have frequently said as much since the ICC’s founding, and it would be enormously significant as a gesture of international engagement.
At the very least—Biden must pursue a less antagonistic approach to the activities of the ICC. It seems likely Biden will remove the sanctions placed on Fatou Bensouda, and pursue a line more akin to Obama’s mediated approach. (Likewise, Biden will likely take a less hostile approach towards the United Nations than Trump has done). But the Biden administration ought to seriously consider the global implications of a multipolar world. Rising powers like China will increasingly hold sway in international relations, and graceful international cooperation is the best strategy in this respect. Reengaging with the international community, including the ICC, is a meaningful component to this approach.
Democracy At Risk
U.S. RESIST NEWS Investigative Reports
Democracy At Risk
By Ron Israel
Democracies across the planet are imperiled by a variety of forces—the failure to address the needs of rural poor and lower-income populations, the growth in income inequality, populist authoritarianism, changing demographics, the rise of social media and fake news, and the disregard for science and the rule of law. Are modern day democracies capable of withstanding these forces? What needs to be done to increase the effectiveness of democratic forms of governance? We will explore these and related questions in this new Democracy At Investigative Report series written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Managing Editor Ron C Israel.
Part 1 Democracy Necessities
January 14, 2021
Democracy, derived from the Greek word demos, or people, is defined as government in which the supreme power is vested in a country’s citizens. In small communities democracy can be exercised directly by citizens; in large societies it is by the people through their elected representatives.
Democratic governments are designed to protect basic human and civil rights, such as the right to free speech, freedom of religious worship, freedom of expression, and freedom to associate and protest. In large communities and countries people elect others to make and enforce laws that ensure that these rights and the safety of citizens are protected, and that citizens have access to the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, and work.
But democracy is fragile and depends on social/political norms and institutional practices to keep it in place. The following norm and practice guidelines can help t determine the effectiveness of a democracy. We will explore each of them in greater detail in subsequent episodes of this Report
# 1 A clearly defined and respected rule of law, i.e. a system of agreed upon laws and regulations that guide peoples’ behavior.
# 2 A means for holding elected officials accountable for their actions, for example by having them regularly run for re-election or by punishing them if they violate the rule of law.
# 3 A clearly defined set of citizens’ rights, and mechanisms (such as courts and police) that ensure those rights are protected.
# 4 The provision of equal opportunity for all citizens to have access to jobs, a fair minimum wage education, health care and other human rights.
# 5 An independent judicial system that ensures everyone access to a fair trial.
#6 A free, fair, and secure electoral system where all citizens have the right to vote on a regular basis, and where there are reasonable campaign finance limits.
#7 The separation between church and state that allows people to practice a religion of their own choosing.
# 8 Civilian rule of the military.
# 9 The ability of citizens to assemble, peacefully protest, and express their opinions.
# 10 A free and independent press and media that is enabled to question and criticize the government.
# 11 . The regulation broadcast and Internet political advertising and hate speech.
# 12 Political parties with different perspectives and points of view on public policy.
# 13 Legislators who are have the ability to work together and, when needed, make compromises that put country over party.
# 14 Government ethics that help prevent and prosecute corruption
The United States has witnessed an erosion of the above norms and practices for the past quarter century, culminating with the Presidency of Donald Trump. Trump unearthed large holes in the ways that our democracy is supposed to work. Now that he is no longer President we have an opportunity to repair the damage that the Trump administration wrought. This series explores what is broken or near broken and how to fix-it.
Next: The Rule of Law
Biden Makes Exceptional Choice For Attorney General
Policy Summary: On January 7, 2021 President – elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr. nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the position of Attorney General of the United States.
Judge Garland had first served in the Department of Justice (DOJ) from 1979 – 1981 where he was special assistant to Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti during the Carter Administration. In 1993 he returned to DOJ as deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division. While in this position he oversaw prosecution of domestic terrorism cases, notably the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombings in Centennial Park.
In 1995, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Garland to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. However, Republicans in the Senate did not schedule a vote on his nomination at that time. After President Clinton was re – elected in 1996 he re – nominated Mr. Garland again to the same seat where he was confirmed 76 – 23 by the Senate. Judge Garland served on the court and even was promoted to Chief Judge of the court from 2013 to 2020. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. However, Republicans in the Senate, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY-R), refused to consider the nomination and preferred to wait for the outcome of the election which was eleven months away. After President Trump won the election, Judge Garland’s nomination expired and President Trump selected Neil Gorsuch to replace Justice Scalia. Judge Garland returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia where he continues to serve as a judge.
Policy Analysis: The nomination of Judge Garland to become the next Attorney General of the United States is a surprise pick in that there were other candidates who had significant support and were favored to receive the nomination. But the choice is not an unwelcome choice given Judge Garland’s credentials and what he can bring to the position at the start of Joe Biden’s presidency.
Judge Garland’s nomination illustrates how President – elect Biden wants to steer the DOJ after the tumultuous years of the Trump presidency. In his remarks introducing Judge Garland as his nominee Biden stated the “[N]eed to restore the honor, the integrity, the independence of the DOJ of this nation that has been badly damaged.” He also went on to say that “You are not the president’s or the vice – president’s lawyer. Your loyalty is not to me. It’s to the law, the Constitution and the people of this nation.” These statements are a clear rebuke to the leadership of the DOJ the last four years.
How does this relate to the nominee himself? The pick of Judge Garland signals that partisanship will no longer be a factor in the day to day operations of the department and that an emphasis will be placed on professionalism and ethical behavior. Tom Goldstein, writer of the popular SCOTUSblog, has called Judge Garland the model of a neutral judge and the judge has won acclaim as a jurist who can work with all judges as found by his court rulings and opinions that have a low rate of dissenting opinions from other colleagues. His nomination also signals that highly contested issues will be dealt with an eye towards following the rules and evidence wherever it may lead instead of investigations where some groups demand a specific result. From his first day as Attorney General, there will be ongoing investigations of President Trump’s obstruction of justice incidents (including the president’s incitement of the riot at the Capitol the day before Biden’s announcement of his Attorney General nominee), allegations of tax fraud by the president and a criminal tax probe of Biden’s son Hunter. With Judge Garland likely leading the Justice Department, Americans can feel much more comfortable that these issues will be investigated and handled in a professional and neutral manner instead of in the haphazard partisan way that President Trump wanted. And this is the key in the Judge Garland nomination – that the Justice Department will return to serving the best interests of this nation and her citizens instead of the selfish whims of a President who was looking only to shield himself from criticism and criminal liability on a number of different fronts. Judge Merrick Garland should be confirmed as soon as possible so the Department can turn the corner on the last four years of the Trump presidency. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General – news and speeches from OAG.
American Bar Association (ABA) – 2016 report of Judge Garland’s qualifications, integrity and professionalism when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
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.
Biden’s Health Policy Priorities
Health and Gender Policy
Brief # 90
Biden’s Health Policy Priorities
By Erin McNemar
January 12, 2021
Policy
In March of 2010 after a long fought battle between Democrats and Republicans, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. The policy made instrumental changes to healthcare in the United States. According to Reuters, over 23 million people are now insured by Obamacare. Since that law passed, Congressional Republicans have continuously tried to repeal it.
During his campaign, President-elect Joe Biden presented his healthcare policy as an expansion of Obamacare. In this expansion, Biden’s plan highlights how he will increase coverage to insure 97 percent of Americans by giving individuals a public health insurance option similar to Medicare. By negotiating with providers, this new public option will be more affordable to those who struggle to pay health insurance costs.
Additionally, the plan calls for lowering prescription drug prices by limiting price increases for drug companies facing no competition, allowing Americans to purchase prescriptions from other countries and getting rid of pharmaceutical corporations’ tax break. The plan also says Biden will repeal laws that prevent Medicare from negotiating lower prescription prices with drug corporations.
Lastly, Biden’s plan implements the idea that healthcare is a human right. Focusing on women’s healthcare rights, Biden states that his plan will expand access to contraceptive, reduced maternal mortality rate, especially among women of color, and protect the constitutional right to an abortion. Biden has also said he supports striking down the Hyde Amendment and restoring federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
Overall, Biden’s plan aims to protect healthcare coverage for those who are covered and expand coverage for those who are not. By bringing down the costs, repealing laws that prevent negotiating and investing in community healthcare, Biden hopes to expand and protect the policies created by Obamacare.
Analysis
Going into his first term in office, Biden has something that Obama didn’t; a Democratic majority in congress. With the Democrats maintaining their lead in the House and the Senate being split 50/50, making Vice President-elect Kamala Harris the tie breaking vote, Democrats will should be able to move their bills through Congress and sign them into law with ease. While this works in theory, it doesn’t necessarily ring true.
With division among Democrats and Republicans, there is also division among members of the Democratic party itself. More progressive Democrats often criticize moderate Democrats for creating policies liberals believe do not go far enough to help people. This interparty division could prove to be a challenge for Biden in implementing his plans such as healthcare reform.
Additionally, history shows us that healthcare reform can be difficult even with a one party majority in Congress. During President Bill Clinton’s time in office, he attempted to pass major healthcare reform. With Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, this task shouldn’t have been terribly difficult. However, the bill was declared dead on September 26, 1994 by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.
During the time of COVID-19, healthcare has become a pillar issue for many Americans. We will be watching carefully to see what kind of relief is provided for people in this country. While Biden’s plan to expand and protect Obamacare looks like it definitely has the potential to make it through Congress, we are going to have to see what kind of opposition it gets from Repuboicans as well as within his own party.
Engagement Resources
- Read more about President-elect Joe Biden’s Healthcare Plan.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Trump’s EPA Seeks to Hide Science with New “Transparency” Rule
Environment Policy
Brief # 105
Trump’s EPA Seeks to Hide Science with New “Transparency” Rule
By Jacob Morton, 1/11/2021
Policy
On January 5, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a new rule requiring that any scientific evidence that is to be considered by the agency when crafting new environmental regulation, such as limiting the use of certain chemicals or determining levels of allowable pollution, must make all relevant data publicly available (including study participants’ personal medical records) to be considered credible. The rule specifically targets “dose-response” studies that aim to show the effects of exposure to certain toxins and pollutants on human health.
For instance, in the 1990s, a Harvard study, called the Six Cities study, “drew on anonymized, confidential health data from thousands of people to better establish links between air pollution and higher mortality.” The study was “instrumental in crafting health and environmental rules” and “led to new limits on air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.” The EPA’s new rule would require that same Harvard study to officially release all its subjects’ personal and confidential medical information, otherwise risk being categorized as weak or not credible, and potentially lead to rollbacks of its associated environmental policies.
The new rule, known as the Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information Rule, claims not to require the release of Personal Identifiable Information (PII) or Confidential Business Information (CBI). The EPA’s official news release announcing the new rule states that “when proposing a significant regulatory action, the Agency is required to clearly identify and make publicly available the science informing the rule.” However, the rule also states that, “Under certain criteria outlined in the rule, the Administrator can grant case-by-case exemptions to the requirements of this rule.”
Attempts to discredit influential, peer-reviewed science that runs counter to industry interests, in the name of “transparency,” is not new. Early in the Trump administration, former Texas congressman Lamar Smith unsuccessfully attempted to push the “Secret Science Reform Act” through congress, and the idea has floated around the EPA ever since. The New York Times has even traced the idea back to the Tobacco Industry’s attempts to discredit studies warning of harm from second-hand smoke.
Analysis
While a rule to require complete transparency of any study used as pivotal scientific evidence seems practical, it becomes problematic when a study uses patients’ confidential medical records. Many believe that by requiring the release of patients’ personal medical information used in these studies, the EPA will no longer be required to consider the evidence presented by studies containing the clearest indications of public harm, because those studies will not legally be able to release their subjects’ medical records. Environmentalists and public health experts fear this will lead to weaker protections or a decision not to regulate at all.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, praised the new rule for its angle on transparency, saying, “We’re going to take all this information and shine light on it, … It’s sunshine, it’s transparency.” Meanwhile, medical experts say the new rule, “essentially blocks the use of population studies in which subjects offer medical histories, lifestyle information and other personal data only on the condition of privacy. Such studies have served as the scientific underpinnings of some of the most important clean air and water regulations of the past half century.”
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, writes of the rule, “You can’t expect people to believe in science if data is kept secret. It’s impossible. Transparency, public access to underlying data, rigorous review are all key to building trust.” However, critics of the rule say it threatens patient confidentiality and privacy of individuals in public health studies. Richard Revesz, an expert in pollution law at the New York University School of Law says the kinds of studies being targeted are those which would “present the most direct and persuasive evidence of pollution’s adverse health effects” (“dose-response” studies). He says, “Ignoring them will lead to uninformed and insufficiently stringent standards, causing avoidable deaths and illnesses.”
Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has criticized the new rule, saying, “We’re going to put at risk the health of a whole lot of people and maybe even lead to their deaths.” Carper’s staff have pointed to several studies that could be deemed ineligible for use by the EPA, including a March 2020 study that describes “how various coronaviruses react on surfaces with chemical agents,” and a 2003 study observing “a statistical correlation between SARS fatalities in China and higher air pollution.”
The Trump administration has already used the policy to deny findings from several epidemiological studies including one from Columbia University, that shows exposure to the pesticide chlorpyrifos (widely used on corn, soybeans, almonds, grapes, and golf courses) can stunt brain development in infants and young children. Had this new rule previously been in place, the E.P.A. under the Obama administration could not have made the case to regulate mercury pollution from power plants “because it could not have shown that the heavy metal impairs brain development” without releasing confidential medical records. Despite the administration’s enthusiasm for the new rule, Trump administration officials have been unable to provide any examples of policies that they say, “were wrongly enacted based on studies that did not make underlying data available.”
Dr. Mary Rice, pulmonary and critical care physician, and chairwoman of the environmental health policy committee at the American Thoracic Society says, “Right now we’re in the grips of a serious public health crisis due to a deadly respiratory virus, and there’s evidence showing that air pollution exposure increases the risk of worse outcomes.” Rice says of the new rule, “We would want E.P.A. going forward to make decisions about air quality using all available evidence, not just putting arbitrary limits on what it will consider.”
An anonymous senior transition official for the incoming Biden administration says the new rule is simply another attempt by Trump to “make it more difficult for the next administration to rebuild the government to do its job.” President-elect Joseph R. Biden has not yet commented on the new rule, but activists expect he will suspend and repeal it. Even if the rule remains in effect, President-elect Biden’s pick for EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, may still be able to exempt studies, on a case-by-case basis, from the rule. Advocacy groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists have begun to discuss taking legal action.
Resources
Environmental Defense Fund
- One of the world’s largest environmental organizations and a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Preserving the natural systems on which all life depends. https://www.edf.org/
Union of Concerned Scientists
- The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Union uses rigorous, independent science to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. https://www.ucsusa.org/
Learn More Sources Cited
Friedman, L. (2020, September 23). E.P.A. Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Children’s Brains. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/climate/epa-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-children.html
Friedman, L. (2021, January 04). A Plan Made to Shield Big Tobacco From Facts Is Now E.P.A. Policy. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/climate/trump-epa-science.html?auth=login-email&login=email
Johnson, S. K. (2019, November 13). EPA still moving to limit science used to support regulations. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/epa-still-moving-to-limit-science-used-to-support-regulations/
Knickmeyer, E. (2021, January 05). A final EPA rollback under Trump curbs use of health studies – The Boston Globe. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/04/nation/final-epa-rollback-under-trump-curbs-use-health-studies/
Price, A. (2021, January 7). Trump EPA’s Controversial “Secret Science” Policy Faces Pushback from Scientists. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/trump-epas-controversial-secret-science-policy-faces-pushback-from-scientists
Timmer, J. (2021, January 05). In a parting gift, EPA finalizes rules to limit its use of science. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/in-a-parting-gift-epa-finalizes-rules-to-limit-its-use-of-science/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, January 05). EPA Finalizes Rule Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-rule-strengthening-transparency-pivotal-science-underlying-significant
With 2 Weeks To Go Trump Incites Followers to Storm the Capital
U.S. RESIST NEWS Blog
The Trump Watch: A new U.S. RESIST NEWS Blog Post series intended to report on the
activities of President Trump at the end of his Presidency and after he leaves the White House.
# 1 With 2 Weeks To Go Trump Incites Followers to Storm the Capital
By Sean Gray
Wednesday’s grotesque spectacle at the Capitol building was an appalling affront without precedent in American history. Trump supporters formed a raucous mob and sought to prevent the certification of electoral college results. Five peoples have been reported dead with dozens more injured and arrested. Authorities continue to pursue those responsible for the melee. Bearing as much individual responsibility is President Donald Trump. Since the deadly Charlottesville rally of 2017, Trump has habitually encouraged the worst instincts of his cultish following. The scene at the nation’s capital was indeed nightmarish, but predicted by numerous pundits. It was in fact the logical progression of a would-be authoritarian in his desperate bid to retain power.
In four years at the helm Donald Trump has shown a consistent disdain for democratic processes. He has insulted the US’ longstanding democratic allies and fawned over brutal authoritarians. He has disregarded checks and balances, and operated with lawless abandon. Freedom of the press has been under consistent assault since Trump began his political ascendancy. He has kept a stranglehold on his party through deceit and divisive rhetoric echoed through social media. Trump has utilized every dictatorial tactic common to favorite strongmen.
Criminal charges, civil suits and staggering personal debt likely await him on the other side of his presidency. Trump was always going to attempt every conceivable gambit to stay in power, just as every aspiring despot would.
As soon as the Associated Press called the election in Biden’s favor, Trump unleashed a baseless stream of voter fraud conspiracy accusations to his 80 million Twitter followers and conservative media echo chamber that has served him so well. He hurled a gaggle of lawsuits (some so flimsy they didn’t even allege actual fraud) against the wall to see what would stick. 59 of 60 (some heard by Trump-appointed judges) were dismissed. It seems the president’s flunkies were less comfortable making empty claims of a rigged election under penalty of perjury.
The meeting of the electoral college put a serious dent in Trump’s subversive designs. However he repeated his various claims of voter fraud and irregularities with such effectiveness that a large chunk of the electorate came to believe him. A fact not lost on the collective GOP, who have spent the less four years kowtowing to Trump for fear of political retribution. By the time Congress was set to convene and certify the 2020 election results, some 13 Republican Senators and over 100 House members were prepared to challenge the results, without a shred of evidence to support their objections.
Overshadowed by Wednesday’s hubbub is the call between Trump and much-maligned Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, on the preceding Saturday. In said call, the president revealed himself to be still very much immersed in his alternate reality in which he rightfully won the state. Astonishingly, he asked Raffensperger to ‘’find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.” The number in question is the approximate margin of defeat Trump suffered in the Peach State. Over the course of an hour, Trump (with Chief of Staff Mark Meadows) harangued the Georgia Secretary incessantly, peddled his tired delusions and insisted that the state and its 16 electoral votes had been stolen from him. To his credit, Raffensperger resisted the pressure, contradicted Trump and reported the call. Had it not been for the events of Wednesday, the possibility of Trump standing trial for solicitation of election fraud would have received more media coverage this week.
Vice President Mike Pence has been loyal to Trump to the point of obsequiousness in their time in office together. As President of the Senate he presided over the certification of the election results. Trump, on Twitter and in person, pressured his right-hand man to reject the results, sending them back to the states, an unconstitutional move which Pence had no authority to make.
Which brings us to January 6th, 2021, a day that will be remembered among the ugliest in American history. The President of the United States called a rally of his supporters on the White House grounds. Primed with the stolen election rhetoric he’d been offering up for months, Trump whipped his supporters into a frenzy (not sparing his VP in the process), told them they needed to fight hard for the country, directed their attention to the ‘‘scene of the steal’’ and told them to walk on down. What ensued was the final lawless crescendo of a unhinged president, emboldened to do as he pleases. As MAGA-loving insurrectionists burst into the seat of government, Trump sat in radio silence. The siege was reminiscent of military coups in Argentina or Chile.
Wednesday’s debacle was hard to watch and represented a serious hit to American prestige. But it should not honestly elicit shock and awe from the viewing public. Conditions in American government have been trending in this direction for at least the last four years. Trump’s bellicosity and disregard for the rule of law is a volatile mixture which culminated in failed coup in D.C. this week. And it was the logical progression of his unlawful bid to undo his election loss.
Successfully putting down the insurrection was a positive, but hardly a lasting victory. If the United States is to remain a beacon of democracy the world over, the conditions that preceded Wednesday’s deadly events need be better combatted. American ideals of freedom and democracy are only of value if the public has faith in them. Based on what transpired at the capitol building, a troubling number of our fellow citizens do not, or worse, are so blinded by propaganda that they believe themselves to be fighting for these values. Depending on one’s philosophical vantage point, the riots at the Capitol building could be viewed as a successful stress test of American democracy or a harrowing bellwether of what the future holds. Regardless, it should serve as a reminder to all, that it can happen here.
AMERICANS ON AMERICA: WHAT MY COUNTRY MEANS TO ME
A U.S. RESIST NEWS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
AMERICANS ON AMERICA: WHAT MY COUNTRY MEANS TO ME
BY LINDA F. HERSEY
Americans on America is a U.S. RESIST NEWS investigative report series in which we interview ordinary American on the values they believe their country stands for, and what their country needs to do to live up to those values.
# 1 Tiffany Kay ( Manager of a Job Services Nonprofit) – “My dream of an America where equality and opportunity can flourish is now at-risk”
By Linda F. Hersey
Tiffany Kay is the first to admit she does not fit neatly into a single category or group. With ancestry that spans Europe, Africa and Central America, Kay more often than not checks the “Other” box on applications and forms asking about ethnicity.
Kay, who manages a San Francisco employment agency, is proud of her unique heritage, which reflects this nation’s history and personifies the American Dream.
Multiracial Americans like Kay are “at the cutting edge of social and demographic change in the U.S.,” with their numbers growing three times faster than the U.S. population, according to the Pew Research Center.
A California native, Kay grew up in an impoverished neighborhood, working her way through community college, earning an associate’s degree in early childhood education and steadily advancing her career to oversee the staff, budget and daily operations at a nonprofit company whose job services are stretched during business closings from the pandemic.
Kay credits her achievements to values of equality that her parents instilled in her, which have guided her life. “I live my values. That is how I was brought up,” Kay said. “I watched my dad treat people with respect. He taught me to treat others how I want to be treated. We followed the golden rule.”
But today that dream of equality and opportunity, the American Dream, is deferred and at risk to Kay and other Americans who report feeling marginalized by U.S. leadership and government, according to national polls.
Trump’s ‘Racially Divisive Rhetoric’
Kay says she is troubled by what she sees as a decline in traditional American values, “racially divisive rhetoric” by President Donald Trump and systemic racial injustice, most visible by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, videotaped by a teenage girl, that led to protests in the U.S. and across the globe.
“I have been on this earth for 37 years, and because of my ethnic background I always felt different than the next person. I did not identify with one group. That was OK,” Kay said, noting that she considers her diverse family background a positive source for opportunity and growth.
She did not see limits based on race, which she considered a “myth.” She believes that Trump sought to change that.
“In the area of racial politics, Donald Trump has divided us. Until Trump, I never had seen a president name individuals by their ethnic group. ‘I help the African Americans,’ is one of the things he says often,” Kay noted. “He is trying to reduce people to broadly generalized groups and stereotypes attached to them.
“Donald Trump made our differences personal. He revealed things about our lesser selves as Americans,” Kay said referring to the highly visible rallies by the Proud Boys and other hate groups that espouse bigotry and white separateness – and that Trump refused to disavow.
Fringe groups carrying weapons were spotlighted on social media and national TV marching alongside white, mainstream Republican Trump supporters in MAGA baseball caps.
Trump Sought to ‘Socially Engineer a Whiter America’
Kay worries about the safety of her school-age nieces and nephews. She has sought to shield them from conversations on social media about race-based violence and white nationalist rallies, while also addressing their questions about unrest in this country.
Trump abused the power of the Oval Office to “socially engineer a whiter America,” writes journalist Andrew Serwer, in a November 2020 article, for Atlantic magazine, “The Crisis of American Democracy Is Not Over.”
Serwer asserts that President-elect Biden will enter office during an economic — and moral — crisis in this country. Not only does he need to revive the economy post-pandemic, he also needs to restore faith in democracy. Biden received the most popular votes ever in a presidential election, but Trump holds sway over a sizable number of American supporters.
Indeed the incoming president needs to “make us comfortable and trust again,” Kay said.
She wonders what the future holds. Kay believes the nation needs to rebuild core values of racial justice, equal opportunity and freedom of speech that support democracy and define the American experience, not just for a select few but for everyone.
Said Kay: “We need to rediscover the moral leadership we once had.”
RESOURCES:
Here are resources to learn more about racial justice, equality and democracy.
NAACP: The NAACP fights for racial justice through legal advocacy, education and advocacy.
National Equity Project: The National Equity Project provides consulting and coaching to leadership, teams and educators in helping transform organizations for equality and supporting diversity.
https://www.nationalequityproject.org
Alliance for Justice
With more than 100 nonprofit members, the alliance mission is to advance justice and democracy and core constitutional rights.