JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Update on Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
Brief # 18 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
While it has been nearly six months since a group of right-wing extremists stormed the Capitol Building, we are still seeing late arrests being made, as well as justice finally being served as the first sentence has been given out in connection with the Capitol Riots.
Infrastructure Plan Update: Parties Haggle Over Content and Funding
Brief # 122 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Biden and the Democrats are currently haggling over a 1.2 trillion dollar plan to address infrastructural change. This figure is down from the original 4 trillion sought by Biden. For negotiations, the White House had trimmed the bill to 1.7 trillion and it now stands at 1.2 trillion.
A Review of Current Assistive Technology Policy in the United States
Brief # 51 – Technology
By M.J. Conaway
In the United States, there are several Federal laws that address technology accessibility for people with disabilities, including the American with Disabilities Act, the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The U.S. Access Board develops accessibility standards for the various technologies covered by the laws, which have been incorporated into the procurement regulations of the Federal government.
Global Herd Immunity Remains out of Reach– 99% of People in Poor Countries are Unvaccinated
Brief #113 – Health & Gender Policy
By Maria De Jesus, theconversation.com
Public health experts estimate that approximately 70% of the world’s 7.9 billion people must be fully vaccinated to end the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 21, 2021, 10.04% of the global population had been fully vaccinated, nearly all of them in rich countries.
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 5: Protecting and Empowering Women
Brief # 112 – Health and Gender Policy
By Erin McNemar
As President Biden continues with his first term , women’s issues remain high on his agenda. During his campaign, he introduced The Biden Agenda for Women. Through this plan, he highlights ways his administration will support gender equality in the US and around the world. Biden wants to help create a culture that protects and empowers women. In the final section of his policy proposal, Biden explains just how he plans to do that.
Should We Be Concerned About Inflation?
Brief # 117 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Inflation occurs when the value of money decreases, largely due to increases in prices which are not matched by rises in income. With the vaccine rollout, people are emerging from their pandemic cocoons and demands for goods and services are surging. High demand, coupled with reduced supplies, is causing prices to rise.
Court Blocks Biden Administration Efforts to Suspend Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands
Brief # 117 – Environment Policy
By Jacob Morton
On Tuesday June 1, the Biden administration temporarily suspended all oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), reversing one of former President Donald Trump’s most sought after and last-minute environmental policy changes.
The suspension comes after President Joe Biden’s executive order, given on his first day in office, placed a moratorium on drilling in the ANWR and requested a new environmental review “to examine possible legal flaws in the program approved by the Trump administration.”
The Moderate Republicans: A Guide to Who’s Who
Brief # 22 – Elections and Politics
By William Bourque
When it comes to political beliefs, a large portion of voting bloc seems to be wrought with radicals. However, the truth is that most Americans don’t have very extreme ideas at all, and are actually quite moderate. In recent elections we have seen this, with an increasing amount of folks with more radical beliefs being elected to Congress.
US Catholic Bishops Make Communion a Political Issue
Brief # 111 – Health and Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
In 1973 the landmark Roe Vs Wade decision by the US Supreme Court legally protected the rights of pregnant women who choose to have an abortion without excessive government intrusion. This landmark ruling struck down many state and federal abortion laws but at the same time has created an ongoing national debate as to who should decide the legality of abortion and to what extent is abortion legal.
Maryland’s New Tax – A Significant Step Forward in Digital Policy-Making
Technology Brief #38
Maryland’s New Tax – A Significant Step Forward in Digital Policy-Making
February 6, 2021
By Scout Burchill
Summary:
On Friday, February 12th the Maryland State Senate overrode Governor Hogan’s veto to become the first state in the nation to impose a tax on digital advertising revenue. Even though the new law is already being challenged in the courts, its passage reflects the dire need to plug gaping holes in state and local budgets due to pandemic losses as well as enact innovative new approaches to taxing and regulating big tech companies that have continued to rake in record profits over the past year.
Maryland’s Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax would impose a 2.5% tax on advertising revenue made by selling digital advertising within the state for companies that make over $100 million a year globally from digital advertising revenues. This tax rate increases to 5% for companies making between $1 billion and $5 billion, 7.5% for companies making between $5 billion and $15 billion and finally 10% for those companies making more that $15 billion, essentially targeting Google and Facebook. The new tax is expected to generate $250 million after the first year, which will be set aside for Maryland’s education system.
Critics, predominantly made up of big tech and advertising industry interest groups, claim that the cost of these new taxes will simply be passed on to local businesses who end up being forced to pay higher rates for advertising services in Maryland. They also question whether Maryland can tax companies and activities that operate outside the state. Strong legal pushback is expected and already underway as the Maryland model may present a framework for other states going forward. Connecticut and Indiana have already proposed similar measures.
Analysis:
Many eyes will be on Maryland over the next year eager to see what will come of the state’s efforts to redirect a percentage of Big Tech’s ever-growing profits to prop up local communities in the face of ballooning budget deficits. Whatever the outcome may be, this new legislation is a significant step in the implementation of digital policy and governance in the United States and highlights two trends that have been emerging in the tech policy world that will be outlined below.
Firstly, it is undeniable that the tides have decisively turned against the laissez faire approach the federal government has taken to regulating the technology industry. This long-time negligence is now resulting in a flurry of new efforts to regulate and tax Big Tech giants at state levels. There is a growing sentiment, compounded by the pandemic, that companies like Facebook and Google are not paying their ‘fair share’ relative to their massive profits and oversized influence on the economy and society. Bill Ferguson, a Democratic state senator who championed Maryland’s new tax law captures this growing sentiment well in a recent Facebook post (Ironic, right?), “At a time when Maryland’s budget is being impacted in unforeseen and astronomical ways due to COVID-19, Maryland families and businesses can foot the bill, or big tech can start paying their fair share.”
The federal government’s lack of vision and political will to address these issues over the past years has created a vacuum that states are now attempting to fill on their own, especially in regards to regulating and taxing these companies. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ recent proposal to punish the censorship of tech companies is another example to this trend. The details of DeSantis’s proposal are vague and verge on the incoherent, but the proposal itself is evidence of this growing trend. It’s hard to imagine, but the end result may be a splintering of the nation’s digital sphere into separate fiefdoms with regulation and taxation deriving from state levels. Whether this is even feasible as a potential business model for tech companies is another question. A more probable outcome is that these state initiatives will end up being the testing grounds that pave the way for a more coherent national policy initiative, something akin to how Romneycare in Massachusetts created the model for Obamacare on a national level.
The second point is that these developments within the United States mirror many of the trends that have been emerging globally in the governance of tech and the digital sphere. The online world is increasingly splintering and territorializing as nations around the world impose their own moderation, taxation and regulation regimes in the digital sphere.
This trend is illustrated well by the fact that Maryland is not the first place to enact this tax policy. France and Austria already tax digital advertising revenue. In fact, European policy makers have been pioneering different approaches and taking on governance problems posed by big tech companies for a couple years now. Even though Maryland lawmaker Bill Ferguson credits an Op-Ed in The New York Times by Paul Romer as the source of inspiration behind the new bill, his colleague, Senator James Rosapepe offered his own explanation to the New York Times that reveals insight into a train of thought emerging globally in tech policy. He told the Times, “I don’t think the issue’s any different in Maryland than it is in California, India, France or Spain…Given that they’re so profitable, they ought to be paying taxes.”
For decades the United States’ greatest ‘exports’ have been the influence and power of tech giants like Facebook and Google, which have revolutionized the world and life itself, but now the United States may be looking abroad to ‘import’ policies that address the economic and social harms that these companies have wrought. In countries all over the world there are ongoing experiments, both good and bad, that aim to reign in the power of Big Tech companies and reshape the digital sphere.
A great example currently underway is happening in Australia. A new law proposed there would require companies like Facebook and Google to pay news organizations for content. The law is a response to Big Tech companies monopolizing advertising revenues which has caused funding for good journalism to be siphoned away toward clickbait and other less reputable sources of information. Healthy democracies are dependent on good information and many critics of Big Tech platforms argue that the built-in incentives of these platforms exacerbate polarization, misinformation and sensationalist news coverage, while eradicating the traditional sources of funding for news organizations. The law will enable the embattled news industry to bargain with tech platforms for the use of their work. The world will be watching to see how events unfold.
While individual states may become experimental testing grounds for larger nation-wide tech and digital policy initiatives, American policy makers should not lose sight of innovative policy attempts being implemented abroad. The United States may have unleashed the beast, but it is not alone in figuring out ways to tame it.
Bold American policy initiatives have languished in recent decades. The United States’ botched coronavirus response coupled with years of elite failures from the Iraq War to the 2008 financial crisis have sown distrust and cynicism in many Americans’ views of their government. But from failure perhaps a sense of humility can take root. A recent report by the Pew Research Center reveals that in the midst of the pandemic a majority of Americans, and especially younger Americans, believe they can learn a fair amount about policy issues from other countries.
As the Biden Administration looks to rebuild a sense of trust and pride in our government institutions at home as well as restore ties with new and traditional allies abroad, tech and digital policy may emerge as a fruitful domain. By looking within, at pioneering states in the union, as well as outwards to foreign governments and allies, the Biden Administration will be better equipped to craft tech policies that address the societal and economic harms of Big Tech while also promoting democratic ideals, economic rights, and open spaces for free expression.
Resistance Resources on Tech Policy:
https://www.internetgovernance.org/
https://www.economicliberties.us/big-tech-monopolies/
Sources:
NYT on Maryland Digital Ads Tax
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/technology/maryland-digital-ads-tax.html
Tech Groups’ Lawsuits against MD Digital Ad Tax
Op-Ed Referenced as Inspiration for MD Digital Ad Tax
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/tax-facebook-google.html
Australia’s New Digital Publishing Law
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/technology/facebook-google-australia-news.html
Pew Research Report
MIS-C: What is it, and Why it Matters
Brief # 96 Health and Gender Policy
MIS-C: What is it, and Why it Matters
By Justin Lee
February 24, 2021
Policy
There are multiple reports of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (in children, MIS-C) being seen across the world shortly after the onset of COVID-19. Children and teen patients with MIS-C can suffer from inflammation that can limit blood flow throughout the body, exposing danger to major organs such as the heart, kidneys, and other organs. While cases, which have ranged from ages 2 to 15 years, have been considered rare the outcome can be dangerous if left untreated. MIC-C can be treated with drugs that can control the inflammation and prevent prolonged, permanent organ damage.
These onsets and continued uncertainty affect President Biden as he continues to gear America for reopening and reestablishing a sense of normalcy. Should high-contact environments, like schools or entertainment venues, be reopened considering the spread of MIS-C?
Analysis
Before this question is addressed, it is important to outline that most children who are infected with COVID-19 have mild illness. It is rare that pediatric patients with COVID develop MIS-C, and most these cases are treated with early medical care. Current studies do link children with MIS-C with COVID-19 antibodies, but it is unclear which variant these children were infected with. More studies with analysis are needed to confirm whether or not certain variants expose pediatric patients more to MIS-C than other variants.
MIS-C joins a number of obstacles that fuel uncertainty of determining how much longer the pandemic will go on. In combination of different variants and the still trickling vaccine distribution, America reopening to a sense of normalcy seems distant. And that is correct. Protocols for face coverings, routine testing, and social distancing will not go away this year. Viruses have and will continue to mutate, and President Biden should focus on deciding factors for reopening; factors like COVID-19 hospitalization rates, new infection rates, and percentage of vaccinated or antibody-positive Americans. These factors should be considered when taking steps to reopen for all high contact environments like schools and restaurants.
As of mid-February, only 11.5% of American shave been vaccinated. However, with vaccines beginning to be distributed in nationwide pharmacies along with the likely Emergency Use Authorization approval for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine should help boost vaccination and COVID protection efforts worldwide. There will continue to be new obstacles to rid the pandemic, but America has to be hopeful that hope and progress for normalcy is clearly visible and welcome news.
Learn More
Helpful links
US News: Biden and School Reopenings
Engagement Resources
Trust for America’s Health is a public health policy and research organization that advocates for a nation that values the health and well-being of Americans. Their organization has valuable information regarding health policies and issues on a federal and state level, and also actively publishes reports regarding public health on their website. To find more information or to get involved, use the link below:
The American Public Health Association is an organization aimed to Improve the health of the public and achieve equity in health status. As the main publishers for the American Journal of Public Health and The Nation’s Health newspapers, APHA educates the public on public health, policy statements, and advocacy for public health. To volunteer or become a member, use the link below:
Where Do Things Stand with Iran?
Brief # 102
Foreign Policy
Where do Things Stand with Iran?
By Will Solomon
February 24, 2021
Policy Summary:
A central premise of the Biden candidacy was reentering the JCPOA (the Iran Nuclear Deal), which was negotiated and signed by the Obama administration in 2015, and subsequently exited by the Trump administration in 2018. This goal was seen as both a rebuke to Trumpism, as a means for international diplomatic re-engagement, and as practical step to avoid increased nuclear proliferation and potential war in the Greater Middle East.
There were always logistical challenges in doing so—among them, that Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement led Iran to stop complying with aspects of the deal. Still, the onus was clearly on the United States, who had breached the agreement, to take the first steps towards re-engagement.
Why, then, has the Biden administration been slow to adopt practical measures demonstrating its intent to re-enter the deal?
Analysis:
The Iranian government continues to be clear that they expect all Trump-era sanctions to be lifted before re-engaging with the JCPOA. But the Biden administration has resisted taking this step. One likely issue for their intransigence seems to be domestic politics; the Biden administration presumably desires not to be seen as weak or caving to Iranian demands. Long-standing bipartisan hostility to Iran make this absurd policy more practicable.
Whatever the case, there is no good excuse. These tired debates over whether engagement emboldens Iranian leadership are of another era. The fact is that the United States reneged on a vital and complex multilateral agreement, and the burden has since been on the United States to (attempt to) make good on its previous failure.
This position is largely shared by American allies and other signatories to the deal. Other signatories have done what they could to keep the deal alive since the 2018 American withdrawal, though America unquestionably retained the most power in the agreement. This said, President Macron of France recently expressed support for strengthening the deal and bringing in other regional states, like Saudi Arabia, a position Iran is likely to refuse
Despite an effective months-long delay, the Biden administration has recently taken steps to indicate they wish to re-engage with Iran. But as noted above, Iran justifiably insists that sanctions imposed by Trump be removed prior to good faith negotiations.
There clearly is potential, in this moment, for renegotiation on this crucial issue. Multilateral diplomacy was successful in the past, and could be once again. But as Joe Cirincione writes in Responsible Statecraft: “Biden can’t simply put Iran on hold. Time is not on his side. There are too many things that could go wrong and too many saboteurs in both nations that want to kill the deal. The longer he waits, the more likely it is that an incident in the Middle East wars, such as Israeli attacks on Iranian sites and personnel, or the recent Iraqi militia attack that killed an American contractor in Erbil, will trigger a larger conflict.”
Indeed, the Biden administration must act quickly; there is no good reason for a delay. In doing so, they must implicitly acknowledge US fault in exiting the accord by committing to re-enter the deal in good faith—and this almost certainly will involve removing Trump-era sanctions. It is incumbent upon Biden’s supporters, and those who simply voted for him seeking a change from Trumpism, to push him to make the right decision.
Resources:
https://www.armscontrol.org — “The Arms Control Association, founded in 1971, is a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies.”
https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing.”
https://thebulletin.org — “The Bulletin equips the public, policymakers, and scientists with the information needed to reduce man-made threats to our existence.”
Leading Environmental Organizations Went Public with a Letter That Supported the Impeachment of President Trump
Environmental Policy Brief # 110
Leading Environmental Organizations Went Public with a Letter That Supported the Impeachment of President Trump
Written By: Shannon Q Elliott
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Leaders of America’s most prominent environmental organizations penned a letter to the US House of Representatives in support of House Resolution 24; a second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The letter was authored by The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Greenpeace US, and the Natural Resources Defense Council who concluded the letter gently reminding our leaders that the “health of our democracy and environment are inextricably linked”
The groups affirm that the letter reflects like-minded members who feel that the politically irresponsible actions of January 6, border on treason. They insist that we must hold public officials accountable for continued misuse of their platform. While it’s true that these organizations have their own agenda for disbarring Trump, the letter is not a reflection of their own fight for environmental justice. Their fight will continue in the courts and challenge the rollback back of over 125 protections. Collaboratively the groups have filed over 259+ lawsuits.
During the Trump Administration, the environmental sector saw last minute language changes to The Endangered Species Act; (ESA) which safeguarded land to conserve threatened species. Now, the federal government can commandeer the land if the benefits to humanity are greater than the retention of species. The changes also included a loss of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and axed the wolverine off the endangered species list. Additionally, Trump announced the successful installation of 450 miles of protective fencing securing southern points of California, New Mexico, and Arizona. The administration was laser-focused on the completion of the promised border wall and neglected environmental protections leaving the area susceptible to climate change, species diversion, harmful emissions, dwindling water supply, and irreversible landscape changes to the indigenous beauty of these three states.
Analysis
The letter was not written in a retaliatory or vengeful tone. Organizations such as The Sierra Club et al, harbor brilliant educated minds who can sharply articulate how the past four years have impacted the coexistence of democracy and environment. Ramon Cruz, President of the Sierra Club was the Deputy Director of the state environmental regulatory agency in Puerto Rico and held senior positions at the Environmental Defense Fund, Abigail Dillen, President of Earth justice served as the Vice President of Litigation for Climate & Energy; Sylvia Baca , Board of Directors for Defenders of Earth wildlife served as deputy assistant secretary at the Department of the Interior (DOI) from 2009 to 2012 and was assistant secretary from 1995 to 2001. These are just a few board members with outstanding credibility, and whose opinions should be revered.
The groups were optimistic that the letter would show habitual evidence that the ex-president was inconsistent, and a danger to the American people. However, as we now know the Senate failed to convict President Trump and the letter from the environmental organizations is still worth publicizing as a catalogue of environmental abuses by the Trump administration that now urgently must be reversed. It is reproduced for our readers below.
United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510
Re: Environmental Organizations Support H.Res. 24, Impeachment of President Trump
Dear Representative,
The undersigned environmental groups write today on behalf of our millions of members and supporters to express our support for Congress using immediate and appropriate processes to impeach President Trump for inciting last week’s white supremacist violent insurrection at the United States Capitol.
President Trump remains a clear and present danger to the safety and security of everyone in this country. He encouraged and incited the deadly mob on January 6, and perpetuated the unfounded and harmful claims about the 2020 election that inspired their actions. The riot caused multiple deaths and directly threatened our national security, and the president responded with inaction followed by further defense of the violent behavior.
These actions, and President Trump’s refusal to take any responsibility or adequately disavow the acts of violence and insurrection, raise serious concerns about the harms he may continue to cause during his final days in office. Taking immediate steps to impeach President Trump ensures accountability for his dangerous behavior and sets a critical precedent that efforts to overturn free and fair elections are not tolerated.
In addition, members of Congress who joined in the incitement of violence, or who returned to the ransacked Capitol building hours later and voted to overturn an election based on the same unfounded lies that motivated the mob, must be held accountable for violating their oaths of office.
Holding elected officials accountable and ensuring our elections remain free and fair are essential for the preservation of our democracy. And the health of our democracy and environment are inextricably linked. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to support H.Res. 24, the impeachment of President Trump.
Sincerely,
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
Friends of the Earth
U.S. Greenpeace
US League of Conservation Voters
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Sierra Club
The Wilderness Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
Join the movement
Learn More:
Final Days of Trump . (2021). https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/11/20/what-to-expect-from-the-final-days-of-the-trump-presidency
Midnight Regulations . (2020, December). https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/06/politics/trump-midnight-regulations-record-rulemaking/index.html
The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. (2021). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
Trump Administration May Hurt Wildlife . (2021). https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2021/01/trump-admin-midnight-actions-hurt-wildlife-environment/
Resistance Resources
Earthjustice : Earthjustice.org
Defenders of Wildlife : https://defenders.org/
National Resources Defense Council: https://www.nrdc.org/
The Sierra Club : https://sierraclub.org
Fishing Boat Dispatch
Changing Tides: A new blog post on the marine environment written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter Katherine Cart
# 1 Fishing Boat Dispatch
February 22, 2021
The Gulf of Alaska last summer was warm. The edge of wind was warm. The water in Yakutat Bay, when I jumped from the boat to swim, was warm. When the July storms came, waves swamped decks. The entirety of our horizon would be green water and foam for days. At night deck lights showed rain and rime flying laterally, our flags ironed straight out, as though the wind would carry what it caught until land’s mountains put up a wall.
That storms at sea are swelling, budding like an unquittable pathogen is not news. It is the failure of fishing that felt everyday, every hour, like a hard slap to the face, and like something very old that has come very suddenly to the end of itself. In the Gulf of Alaska last summer, we dragged for spiny perch and dusky rockfish, for yellowfin sole and flathead. More than once, what the captain hauled onto deck was more black mud than fish. Deckhands with hoses broke apart mud balls the size of cars; the few fish we had caught drowned in silt and air.
We were not alone in the bad fishing. Often, on deck or from the captain’s wheelhouse, I could see many other boats on the horizon, like little floating castles, pulling up bags as empty as ours. The fleet moved generally en masse; one boat struck fish on her own, word would get out, the rest of us would follow. You can imagine us like children running between tidal pools, collecting limpets. The pools are not infinite, nor are the limpets.
It is the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) that provides most regulation for fishing U.S. Federal Waters. The MSA has been through several iterations since its passing in 1976, when Alaskan fishing grounds were booming and the Aleutian Basin’s “Donut Hole” had not yet been fished clean of pollock. Denoted in the MSA is regional management of waters, which specifies quota of target and bycatch species. In the Gulf, on Amendment 80 vessels (large, factory trawlers generally targeting flatfish and rockfish), there is now very little allowance for blackcod (sablefish) and no allowance for halibut bycatch. These species, however, live in the same areas as targeted flat and rockfish. Often, captains play obscure balancing acts: should I risk catching ten tons of blackcod for fifty tons of flathead sole? Or should I move, once again, and risk catching nothing? By the end of the desperate summer, my captain was opting for the first. Again and again, we hauled bags filthy with bycatch, corals, rock, mud. And, because part of my job was to document for NOAA the biodiversity of catch, I spent many hours of many days watching on a conveyor belt in the gut of boat tens of tons at a time of blackcod, sculpin, dogfish, skates be shipped overboard. These fish do not live; they have been hauled to the deck from many fathoms, suffocate in holding tanks, and, by the time they are propelled off the boat, are mangled and bleeding internally. On another boat that was targeting pollock in the Bering Sea, several years earlier, I once saw 120 tons of red rockfish floating in our teal wake. The factory on that boat could not process the fish’s spiny bodies, nor did they have a buyer lined up on shore. The captain is not autonomous, but an employee of a mega-corporation; in 2018, commercial fishing in Alaska was valued at nearly $5 billion. This is big business. We are strip mining the sea.
Our nonrelationship with food supply is the problem. The luxury of selectivity that is the modern consumer’s is the problem. The imbecilic notion that the state and federal government can predict and regulate fisheries stocks uninfluenced by lobbyists is the problem. At the fish counter, there are no records indicating the heinous waste necessitated for one fillet of yellowfin sole. A cod choking on offal is not a marketable scene. At the nice restaurant, you will choose from such a miniscule range of products that it would seem there are perhaps only five or ten species in the ocean, and all of them fat, flavorful. It is no fault of the consumer that the global food supply is teetering. Nor is it the captain’s, investor’s, conglomerate CEO’s. Solid land’s free market, in which the consumer can choose the overfished blackcod over the relatively more abundant (but still overfished) yellowfin sole, forces a snarl of regulation in fisheries. Some vessels, like longliners, can specifically target blackcod. Longliners would rather not compete with the mammoth codends of trawler vessels who can, in a few hours, sweep tons of marine meat from the benthos. This competition would drive prices down, depleting the resource further.
That Amendment 80 trawl boats have quotas at times necessitating abhorrent waste is one byproduct of the attempt to regulate the molestation of an ecosystem. To expect to find a sustainable way to pull millions of tons of matter from a marine environment is absurd, and yet – year over year – because fishermen must work and companies must oblige investors and restaurants must run and stores must stock shelves and we must eat the choicest fillets, we subscribe to shoddy regulatory dogma. Innovations of industry and market are abiotic forces, with no inherent capacity for morality or logic. Though I would like to believe that we would step away before the seas are exhausted, muddied pools, I cannot help but remember the words of my captain this summer: “I’ve fished here, right here, for forty years. Never seen storms like these. Never seen fishing so bad.”
Biden Pledges to Admit 125,000 Asylum Seekers Annually
Policy Summary
The Biden Administration has pledged to increase the annual refugee admissions cap to 125,000 and has already begun efforts to undo the effects of the Trump era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that left up to 20,000 in Mexican tent camps while they await their judicial proceedings in the US. Biden plans to enact this new process of bringing asylum seekers, particularly with active Migrant Protection Protocol (Remain in Mexico) cases in phases. Eligible migrants are to be registered and tested for COVID-19 before entering the US at three ports of entry. About 300 migrants may be admitted daily before the need to expand to other ports of entry.
Analysis
Many migrants who are waiting for their hearings in Mexico have told reporters they are frustrated and weary about Biden’s promises. A concern commonly voiced was why the Trump Administration was able to make drastic changes that negatively impacted migrants on a daily basis, but the Biden Administration needs time to undo such policies. Justifiably, for those most impacted by Trump-era policies, it is torturous to continue waiting while the Biden Administration attempts to undo xenophobic measures over time, even though the impacts of the negative policies were felt almost immediately.
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.
California Introduces Bill Banning Non – Disclosure Agreements (NDA’s) In Workplace Discrimination Cases
Policy Summary: On February 8, 2021 California State Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) introduced Senate Bill (SB) 331, popularly known as the Silenced No More Act. The bill is intended to supplement the Stand Together Against Non – Disclosures (STAND) Act which was also introduced by State Senator Leyva and which was signed into law in California in 2018.
The 2018 STAND Act banned the use of secret settlements and non – disclosure agreements (NDA) in cases of sexual misconduct in both the private and public workplace in California. The STAND Act applied only to sexual misconduct incidents and includes sexual assault and sexual harassment. The 2021 Silenced No More Act goes further and extends the ban of the use of secret settlements and NDAs to all protected categories of discrimination as well as incidents of harassment. This bill would now prevent employers, as part of a settlement of legal claims, from requiring an employee to sign a non – disclosure or confidentiality agreement if the employee is the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability and religion while at work. The bill is scheduled to be analyzed in a state senate committee in mid – March and after passage in committee and likely passage in the state senate the bill will be sent to the CA Assembly. Due to the popularity of the 2018 STAND Act, Governor Newsom is expected to sign the bill into law but not until early Fall 2021 at the earliest. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The 2018 bill introduced by State Senator Leyva was partly due to the #MeToo movement that erupted in 2017. Far too often, powerful men who had been accused of sexual misconduct used secret settlements and NDAs to prevent their accusers from speaking about the facts underlying their accusations. Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein used NDAs to keep his predatory sexual behavior from becoming public and to protect his career all while continuing to engage in the same predatory sexual behavior against other women. And, the tactic of silencing women from revealing what happened was even used by President Donald Trump to protect him from the accusations of a number of women even before his election in 2016. Women who broke these agreements would often be sued which created a chilling effect for women who wanted to speak out on their experiences and try to help other women who found themselves in a similar position.
But the tactic of using NDAs was not used only for sexual misconduct cases. The STAND Act introduced by State Senator Leyva expands the law by banning NDA’s in instances of discrimination and harassment. Too many times, employees who had suffered harassment or discrimination based on one of the protected categories had to sign an NDA when the case was settled. That led to the same problem that emerged in the use of NDAs in sexual misconduct cases – that the employer would not be punished for the initial behavior and could continue with the offensive behavior. Additionally, the victim would be vulnerable to being sued for violating the NDA or confidentiality agreement by merely speaking out. State Senator Leyva’s bill seeks to include harassment and discrimination as a category that cannot use NDA’s to silence victims. As with the 2018 STAND Act, the expansion of that law with SB 331 to include workplace harassment and discrimination is a critical component to help prevent workers from being silenced and encourage them to speak out on unacceptable conduct. And, it encourages accountability of behavior of powerful employers who preyed on women, which had been going on in the workplace unchecked for far too long. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Workplace Fairness – workers rights organization’s infopage on NDA’s.
Harvard Business Review – article in respected business journal advocating for change in use of NDA’s.
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.
The Importance of Preserving the Biodiversity of Our Planet
Brief # 109 Environmental Policy
The Importance of Preserving the Biodiversity of Our Planet
By Jacob Morton
February 19, 2021
Review
The biodiversity of our planet is declining at an accelerated rate. Populations of plant and animal species around the world are dwindling to the point of near extinction, more rapidly than at any other time in our planet’s history. Sir Partha Dasgupta, an economist at Cambridge University, says this rampant and unheeded degradation of our planet “could have catastrophic consequences for our economies and wellbeing,” pointing to Covid-19 as “just the tip of the iceberg.” Earlier this month, Dasgupta and the UK Treasury released an independent report on the economics of biodiversity. The main takeaway? We are draining the bank of our most valuable asset, natural capital. And the consequences are not going to be pretty.
Dasgupta explains it like this, “Just as diversity within a portfolio of financial assets reduces risk and uncertainty, diversity within a portfolio of natural assets increases nature’s resilience in withstanding shocks.” The widespread impacts of climate change and a coronavirus run rampant across the globe are just a couple examples of nature’s loss of resilience. As the report points out in its opening remarks, “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature. We are part of nature, not separate from it.”
The report points out that the demands we have placed on nature far exceed nature’s capacity to supply us with all the resources we ask of it. For too long we have enjoyed the spoils, at no cost to us, of our fruitful soils, waters, and forests. Now, the costs to our global ecosystems have piled too high to be ignored. Dasgupta says, at this rate “We would require 1.6 Earths to maintain the world’s current living standards.” To frame these demands as costs, Dasgupta notes that “most governments pay people more to exploit nature than to protect it and that destructive farming subsidies cause … $4 trillion – $6 trillion [worth of damage] per year.”
The report presents humanity with “an urgent choice,” neither of which will be easy: continue business as usual or ensure that humanity’s demands do not exceed nature’s capacity to supply. According to the report, “Continuing down our current path presents extreme risks and uncertainty for our economies.” However, the alternative “will require transformative change, underpinned by levels of ambition, coordination and political will akin to, or even greater than, those of the Marshall Plan (under which Europe was rebuilt after the second world war).”
The report suggests six areas in which our global community must seek reform, ranging from food production to education. First, our food production systems must be redesigned to employ progressive practices such as “precision agriculture and genetic breeding.” For example, developing perennial wheat varieties that do not require annual tillage, using geospatial technologies to improve crop yields and reduce inputs, and transitioning from gillnetting to reef-netting practices in our oceans to reduce harm to unwanted by-catch, to name a few. Though these practices will help immensely, the most profound changes to our food systems must start with the consumer. Dasgupta says that overconsumption of food products known to cause the most ecological damage, such as beef, “must be cut.”
Second, the growing human population must be addressed. Dasgupta’s report argues that “Addressing the shortfall [in women’s access to education and family planning] is essential, even if the effects may not be apparent in the short-term.” The report suggests that “There has been significant underinvestment in such programs,” and that “improving women’s access to finance [and increasing] support for community-based family planning programs can shift preferences and behavior and accelerate the demographic transition.”
Third, conservation efforts must be greatly expanded. As the report notes, “It is less costly to conserve nature than to restore it once damaged or degraded.” The report suggests that we ought to be “expanding and improving the management of [already] protected areas,” and that “large-scale and widespread investment in nature-based solutions would help us to address biodiversity loss and significantly contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, not to mention wider economic benefits, including creating jobs.” Dasgupta also notes that most low-income countries acquire much of their wealth from “natural capital,” as well as “tend to rely more directly on nature.” Thus, “conserving and restoring our natural assets also contributes to alleviating poverty.”
Fourth, Dasgupta implores us to change the way we measure economic success, steering our focus away from GDP. He argues that as a measure of economic activity, GDP “is needed for short-run macroeconomic analysis and management. However, GDP does not account for the depreciation of assets, including the natural environment. As our primary measure of economic success, it therefore encourages us to pursue unsustainable economic growth and development.” Instead of simply focusing on GDP, Dasgupta recommends we develop a more “inclusive measure of wealth” as a means of judging the sustainability of economic development. The report demonstrates that, “By measuring our wealth in terms of all assets, including natural assets, ‘inclusive wealth’ provides a clear and coherent measure that corresponds directly with the well-being of current and future generations.” To do this, Dasgupta suggests, “Introducing natural capital into national accounting systems would be a critical step towards making inclusive wealth our measure of progress.”
Fifth, the report proclaims that we must unite ourselves around the protection of those biomes considered “global public goods,” such as tropical rainforests, whose impacts transcend national borders. The report suggests we ought to explore a system in which payments are made to the nations in which these biomes exist, to protect and conserve those vital ecosystems. Similarly, for the ecosystems that lie beyond national borders, such as the high seas, the global community should consider “imposing charges, or rents, for their use (for example, ocean traffic and ocean fisheries) and prohibiting their use in ecologically sensitive areas should be instituted.” Dasgupta proposes that perhaps the revenue from such charges and rents could serve as the funds for the payments to the nations charged with protecting those biomes considered global public goods.
Sixth, Dasgupta’s report highlights the critical need to begin incorporating the study of nature as a key component of our education systems. Dasgupta says that “The discipline to draw on nature sustainably must, ultimately, be provided by us as individuals;” arguing that the increased urbanization of our societies has created a disconnect between humans and nature. Dasgupta proposes that, “Interventions to enable people to understand and connect with nature would not only improve our health and well-being, but also help empower citizens to make informed choices and demand the change that is needed.” The report firmly states that, “Establishing the natural world in education policy is therefore essential,” and explains that “the development and design of environmental education programs can help to achieve tangible impact” through collaboration with scientists and community organizations to address local environmental issues. Additionally, the report argues, “Our education systems should introduce nature studies from the earliest stages of our lives and revisit them in secondary and tertiary education. … We [must] create an environment in which, from an early age, we are able to connect with nature.”
Analysis
Environmentalists and economists alike have praised the report for its ability to highlight the services we take for granted from our natural environments, and the impacts on our global economy from our failure to protect them. The report has received acclaim for its reinterpretation of economic health as a measure of our natural assets, and its proposal of a new economic model that factors in the sustainability of our natural capital. Peter Blom, Chief Executive at Triodos Bank N.V., says, “The decisions that the financial sector continue to make do not reflect today’s reality, let alone the future we face. … If we do not act on the recommendations of the Dasgupta Review, we risk bankrupting our greatest asset.”
Nina Seega, from the University of Cambridge’s Institute for Sustainability Leadership, says, “The review’s focus on completely rewiring mainstream economic and financial models is key to moving the nature debate on to the agenda of governments, financial regulators and individual financial firms.” Seega and Mauricio Claver-Carone, President of the Inter-American Development Bank, both point to the timely nature of the report as nations work to recover from a debilitating pandemic. Claver-Carone writes, “As we look to a post-COVID-19 economic recovery, the Review highlights evidence that all of us in development can agree with, that greater investment in biodiversity could help boost employment and support a green and inclusive recovery.”
Jennifer Morris, CEO of the Nature Conservancy, acknowledges the urgent need to act now on the recommendations of the report. Morris says, “The upcoming UN summits on climate and biodiversity in 2021 provide an unparalleled opportunity to redefine the relationship between people and nature. Our shared planet is counting on all of us to step up and protect our natural world for generations to come.” Professor Justin Yifu Lin, Dean of the Institute of New Structural Economics, and Honorary Dean of the National School of Development at Peking University shares Morris’s sense of urgency. In reaction to Dasgupta’s report, he says, “Decisive biodiversity actions at the community, national and global levels should be followed immediately for preventing devastating impacts on our health, well-being and economy from pandemics, similar to COVID-19, and other risks fueled by the accelerating loss of biodiversity.”
Dasgupta concludes his report with a sage and optimistic revelation, “To detach nature from economic reasoning is to imply that we consider ourselves to be external to nature. The fault is not in economics; it lies in the way we have chosen to practice it. Transformative change is possible – we and our descendants deserve nothing less.”
Engagement Resources
The Nature Capital Project
- Pioneering science, technology, and partnerships that enable people and nature to thrive. The Natural Capital Project aims to improve the well-being of people and our planet by motivating targeted investments in nature. Natural Capital Project | (stanford.edu)
Network for Greening the Financial System
- At the Paris “One Planet Summit” in December 2017, eight central banks and supervisors established the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS). The Network’s purpose is to help strengthen the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments. The Network defines and promotes best practices to be implemented within and outside of the Membership of the NGFS and conducts or commissions analytical work on green finance. NGFS
The Nature Conservancy
- Conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. The Nature Conservancy: A World Where People & Nature Thrive
References
Carrington, D. (2021, February 02). Economics of biodiversity review: What are the recommendations? Retrieved February 14, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/02/economics-of-biodiversity-review-what-are-the-recommendations
Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. (London: HM Treasury). Retrieved February 14, 2021, from Final Report – The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Einhorn, C. (2021, February 2). Study Recasts Biodiversity as a Vital Economic Asset and Warns of Depreciation. Retrieved February 14, 2021, from https://blendle.com/i/the-new-york-times/study-recasts-biodiversity-as-a-vital-economic-asset-and-warns-of-depreciation/
The Minimum Wage of $7.25 Has Not Been Raised Since 2009
Brief #110 Economic Policy
The Minimum Wage of $7.25 Has Not Been Raised Since 2009
Rosalind Gottfried
February 15, 2021
Policy
The debate regarding the efficacy of a $15 minimum wage is heating up since Biden included it in his Corona virus stimulus package. The bill would have a gradual phasing in of the wage over the next four years. Currently, it would be $9.50 and go to $11, then $12.50, then $14 annually until it reaches $15 in 2025. Future increases would be tied the median wage rate, thereby assuring the consistent value of the minimum wage.
The consequences of the increase are debated and the research demonstrates some mixed outcomes but overwhelmingly it supports the increase. Most show it does not actually decrease jobs. One study shows no impact on jobs in 138 state and local areas, over five years and another shows no impact in thirty years. One analysis of 60 studies of wages and jobs shows no net loss of jobs. Increased wages actually are more likely to increase jobs due to the enhanced purchasing power of the lowest income groups. More money would be spent in local businesses and services, increasing revenue and creating jobs.
In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a loss of 1.4 million jobs over five years, though other experts contest this asserting if job losses occurred they would be much less. For small businesses, temporary reprieves from the higher wage could be granted in times of economic constriction like recessions and/or subsidies could be made available to help defray costs. The benefits of the rising wage would accrue to 95% of people affected by it. Proponents risk/cost analysis weigh these potential losses against data showing that up to 40 million people would be lifted out of poverty (conservative estimates are closer to 32 million or 21% of the workforce). Women and people of color, who generally comprise a larger portion of low wage workers, would benefit most. Sixty percent of the gains would be to women workers. One third of all African Americans workers and one quarter of Hispanics workers would have increased incomes. One half of workers 25-54 and ten percent of youths also would benefit. Those making slightly above the minimum age would also gain an increase in wages. Twenty percent of the entire workforce would see income gains.
The history of the minimum wage dates to 1968 and had its origin in President Johnson’s War on Poverty. Since then the minimum wage has lost 31% of its buying power. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 dates back to 2009 and represents the longest stagnation of the wage since its inception. For the wage to remain equivalent in value to the earlier years of the wage, the hourly figure would be over $20. These data give support to the contention that the inequality between low and high wages workers has dramatically increased since the 1980s, indicating serious consequences for the lower wage workers standard of living and their lifelong outcomes.
Some people argue that the higher minimum wage is not necessary outside of high cost areas concentrated in the coastal areas but research shows this is a fallacy and the need extends to the Midwest, South, and Southwest. The annual income $31,200 is a figure estimated to be the minimum to take a single person out of poverty. To take a person out of poverty in high cost areas an hourly wage would need to be in the upper twenties. Currently, one quarter of Americans struggle to make ends meet while a whopping 40% could not cover an emergency bill of $400, as found in amuch cited study.
Analysis
The probability of passing the legislation is tenuous at best. To pass the bill in Congress would require bipartisan support unlikely to be gained in the Senate. Utilizing the Budget Reconciliation Act would require agreement among all the Democratic senators though two seem to be on the fence. Recent attention has been focused on the increasing gap in low and high wage earners.
This gaping income inequity among workers has occurred in a time of record breaking job creation, prior to the pandemic, and record breaking levels of corporate profits. Workers and their families should be able to live a life secure that they can handle an emergency such as a medical expense, a family crisis, a household or car repair without risking hunger or homelessness, situations which are all too common today. MIT researchers assert that a family of four, with two working parents, needs an hourly wage of $22.52 to get out of poverty.
Many people debate the short term pros and cons of a wage hike but there is ample evidence that the net outcome is beneficial for both individuals/families and the society. Experts who study poverty would point to the long term expenses related to poverty which often do not figure into the debate about increasing wages. Poverty is highly correlated to all types of lifelong measures of well-being which have budgetary consequences. Poverty increases the number of residential changes affecting schooling, family stability, and access to sufficient neighborhood resources such as quality of education, recreation, safety, and livability. The health of people in poverty shows higher levels of diabetes; coronary, stroke, and vascular diseases; depression and other psychiatric syndromes; and obesity. Lower levels of educational attainment in impoverished children result in greater unemployment; lower wages; and erratic work histories, all of which increase societal costs. Low educational attainment and joblessness are also factors increasing the prevalence of incarceration.
Supporting low wage workers would also potentially go a long way in reducing the boiling point of the political animosity currently plaguing the country. Even in the state of Florida, where 51% of voters supported President Trump, 60% of the population supports increasing the minimum wage.
Given the recent public discussion of income inequality and lack of access to resources in society, the evidence supporting a rise in the minimum wages is compelling, especially with regard to the long term costs of failing to do so. The recent pandemic has highlighted the deficiencies of the safety net in the US, including such things as lack of affordable healthcare; high prescription costs; the ability to help care for sick, young, and old; the cost of basic internet access; costs of higher education; and more. The essential question reverts to an old one regarding what kind of society we want to be.
Learn More
https://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/01/28/biden-minimum-wage-stimulus/
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-21/don-t-fear-the-15-minimum-wage
Both Sides of the Aisle Want to Preserve the Filibuster
Brief # 16 Elections and Politics
Both Sides of the Aisle Want to Preserve the Filibuster
Zack Huffman
February 15, 2021
The Democrats now have slight control of the 50-50 Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaker vote. Much like the former time the Democrats held the Senate, there is some discussion about whether or not to remove the filibuster, which allows the minority party to block votes on bills they are fighting.
The fact that the Democrats failed to move the John Lewis Civil Rights Act past a filibuster in 2020 has further compelled some legislators to favor an end to the filibuster before the GOP can block future Senate bills.
The longest filibuster to date is still the one Sen. Strom Thurmond preformed in his failed attempt to block passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The late Dixiecrat spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes before the law was finally passed 72-18. Thurmond would later switch parties from Democrat to Republican in protest over the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
More recently, Senator Ted Cruz came a few hours short of breaking Thurmond’s record when he attempted to force the then-Democrat-led Senate to defund The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in the legislature’s latest budget bill in 2013 ahead of a possible government shutdown. Cruz’s speech, which infamously included a reading of Green Eggs and Ham, was not technically a filibuster, since he was not blocking a vote, and then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid agreed to allow Cruz to speak.
The term “filibuster” can accurately refer to a variety of different legislative tactics, beyond the common conception of a filibuster that features hours upon hours of speeches from a Senator to run the clock out on voting for a pending bill.
“The Senate has no specific rules for filibustering. Instead, possibilities for filibustering exist because Senate rules lack provisions that would place specific limits on Senators’ rights and opportunities in the legislative process,” said a Congressional report on Filibustering and Cloture in the Senate, which was last updated April 7, 2017.
Senate rules require a motion for cloture in order to end debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote. Cloture requires 60 votes – a figure that was lowered from 67 votes in 1975 by the Democratic majority. This means that all bills, not just those that are filibustered, require a cloture vote in order to be voted on.
The Democrats also modified the cloture rule in 2013 with the so-called Nuclear Option, which allows a simple majority to end debate and vote on appointed executive employees and judges. All other Senate bills require a majority vote of those in attendance to pass.
The Senate’s website lists the number of motions for cloture going back to the 1917-1918 legislative session, when there were just two. The need for cloture remained rare and never surpassed the single digits per two-year session until 1971-1972 when there were 24. In the years that followed cloture motions slowly increased until 2007-2008 when they jumped to 139 from the previous session’s 68. They continued to increase from there.
For the most part, filibusters now exist as an unspoken assumption. Throughout the 2019-2020 legislative session, 328 cloture motions to halt a filibuster were filed.
The Brennan Center for Justice argued, in an October 2020 article, in favor of eliminating the filibuster because of its history in being used to block civil rights improvements. The article noted that the filibuster has primarily served to block reform.
“Under current Senate rules, however, a minority can stymie efforts to fix our broken system,” wrote Brennan Center Senior Fellow Caroline Fredrickson. “Not slow those reforms, not deliberate, not debate, but simply block them. For that reason, democracy advocates and their elected champions must demand that the filibuster be eliminated.”
The Brennan Center also argued that the increase in filibustering correlates with an increased reliance on Executive Orders, but it is not clear that there actually has been a large increase in Executive Orders.
On the other hand, a recent article from the Federalist Society argued in favor of preserving the filibuster, suggesting that Republicans (who were still in control of the Senate at the time) would regret not having the filibuster if they failed to maintain majority control of the Senate.
It is also worth noting that Democrats were able to block a large part of Trump’s legislative agenda while breaking previous records for filibustering over the last four years.
As Congressional scholar Molly Reynolds argued in a New York Times editorial on April 5, 2018, the filibuster may just be one piece in a larger series of problems that have plagued the effectiveness of the U.S. Senate.
Learn More
The Guardian: ‘Jim Crow relic’: Senate filibuster stands in way of Democratic voting rights push.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/09/senate-filibuster-voting-rights-democrats
Politico: Cruz ends marathon speech
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/harry-reid-filibuster-government-shutdown-097263
Congressional report on Filibustering and Cloture in the Senate
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30360
The U.S. Senate’s online record of cloture motions by session
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm
The Brennan Center for Justice: The Case against the filubuster
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/case-against-filibuster
The Federal Registry of Executive Orders by president.
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders
The American Presidency Project: Executive Orders
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders
The Federalist Society: Why Both Parties Should Preserve the Senate’s Legislative Filibuster
New York Times: Trump’s Problem Isn’t the Filibuster. It’s the Republicans
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/trump-senate-filibuster-republicans.html
Vox: 7 myths about the filibuster
https://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster