JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
It’s Time to Start Taking UFOs Seriously
Brief # 50 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
By the end of this month a long-anticipated report will be released by the U.S. Intelligence community on UFOs. A once fringe, conspiracy-laden topic, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs as they are called by the Pentagon, have infiltrated the Washington establishment as of late and captured the fascination of the wider public.
Global Perspectives: India’s Draconian New Digital Media Laws and the Responsibilities of U.S. Tech Companies
Brief # 49 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
In late May, the Indian government enacted sweeping new laws to regulate social media companies and digital platforms. The laws will require digital content providers, from Twitter and Facebook to Netflix and independent news organizations, to remove content that government authorities find objectionable within 36 hours of being flagged.
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech and Conflict At The ACLU
Brief #164 – Civil Rights Policy
By Rodney A. Maggay
On June 7, 2021 the New York Times published an article that illustrated conflicting priorities in the ongoing free speech vs. hate speech debate.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….” On the other hand “hate speech” has no precise definition.
Obamacare Lives for Another Day
Brief #110 – Health and Gender Policy
By S. Bhimji
Healthcare is the one topic that concerns all Americans, irrespective of their political affiliation. For the past 40 years, the privileged Americans with private medical insurance have received first-rate healthcare from the top medical institutions in the country.
Review of the Biden–Putin Summit
Brief # 117 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
Presidents Joe Biden and Putin’s meeting on June 16th came after months of tensions, cyberattacks, and both leaders acknowledging that relations between the two nations are at a historic low point. Not much was expected from this meeting and as thought not much was gained.
The Unemployment Disconnect in California
Brief # 120 – Economic Policy
By Patrick Dwire
As restaurants, hotels and entertainment venues begin to open up in California as the state officially re-opens with virtually no Covid restrictions, many of these employers are having trouble finding workers. Low-income workers are getting blamed for not jumping at these job openings, which seems to lead many Republican policy makers immediately to the conclusion that unemployment benefits must be too generous.
Drought and Plans to Deal with Running Dry
Brief # 116 – Environmental Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
A prolonged period with little or no precipitation combined with an extended period of abnormally high temperatures has created “extreme” drought conditions in much of the western half of the U. S. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has placed 41 counties under a state of drought emergency. In some areas of Oregon and California, scientists conclude the drought is the most severe it has been in centuries.
A Preview of the Biden–Putin Summit
Brief # 116 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin are having their first meeting on June 16 in Geneva, Switzerland. The two have a history that goes back a decade, their first meeting was in 2011 when Biden was the U.S. vice president and Putin Russia’s prime minister. They now sit as the head of their nuclear-armed states and are scheduled to meet in Biden’s first overseas trip since taking office and after the first face-to-face meetings between the leaders of the G7, which now excludes Russia.
Department of Homeland Security Sets Sights on Domestic Extremism Online
Brief # 17 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The rise of the use of social media has also led to a rise in crimes that can be tied back to social media. We have seen murders on Facebook Live, events for extremist groups to gather and spread propaganda, as well as events planned such as the Capitol riots on January 6th, where lives were lost. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is aiming to fight domestic extremism and terrorism online with a new Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, or “CP3.”
Artificial Intelligence —Will It Really Take Away Our Jobs?
Brief # 37 Technology Policy
Artificial Intelligence —Will It Really Take Away Our Jobs?
By Linda F. Hersey
February 15, 2021
Artificial intelligence is poised to take over many job functions beyond bolting doors on vehicles at auto plants or filling orders at Amazon warehouses. Jobs that many people assume require a human touch are at risk. They include roles in telemarketing, bookkeeping, employee compensation, office administrative duties, delivery services, proofreading and market research analysis.
Within five to 10 years, driverless cars and trucks are expected to transform road transport services, including long-haul trucking and popular door-to-door food delivery.
Should humans performing more complex business functions be looking over their shoulder? Perhaps. Emerging roles of artificial intelligence across industries are diverse and sweeping in scope, including entertainment/media, financial services, health care and energy.
- Computers are much quicker and less prone to error in detailed jobs that require acumen in math or grammar.
- A new generation of computers are adaptive, meaning they learn and change – much like humans — to meet the challenges and opportunities of their environment.
- While machines have steadily replaced unskilled labor jobs for decades, artificial intelligence increasingly can perform many functions of high-paying professionals, such as lawyers, medical doctors and accountants.
Many analysts claim that jobs lost from automation will be replaced by new careers in the knowledge economy, much in the same way that manufacturing jobs replaced farming. Future job growth may include technology, architecture, engineering and skilled trades, such as carpentry
A study titled “The Future of Work: Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained,” conducted by McKinsey, identified alternative energy as another source of new employment at a time of job displacement from automation. The company estimated that jobs in the renewable energy sector, including wind and solar technology, could number up to 10 million in the U.S. and another 10 million globally by 2030. . The nations with the strongest economies will be the ones that best transition to a knowledge economy that retrains
Automation expert Kai-Fu Lee told “60 Minutes” that he believes 40 percent of the world’s jobs will be replaced by robots in the next 15 years. He asserts that the economies of the U.S., China other advanced nations are in transition because of the disruptions from artificial intelligence, and it is essential for leadership to manage the impact.
Lee is a former Apple, Microsoft and Google executive based in China who developed an automated speech recognition system, as his doctoral project at Carnegie Mellon. In his book, “AI Super-Powers, China, Silicon Valley and the New World Order,” Lee outlines how automation and artificial intelligence will impact economic policy and global politics. Innovation and getting new AI products to market increasingly will drive GDP, gross domestic product.
Engagement Resources
- Globe Newswire is one of the world’s largest newswire distribution networks, specializing in the delivery of corporate press releases in technology and other industries.
- Janes provides news and information on U.S. national security and the military, including artificial intelligence.
- Nextgov has a mission to lead the national discussion on innovation and technology’s role in serving citizens and the U.S. government.
GameStop, Reddit and Free Trading Apps A Threat to Economic Recovery?
Brief #36 – Technology
GameStop, Reddit and Free Trading Apps A Threat to Economic Recovery?
By Charles A. Rubin
February 16, 2021
Policy Summary
The drama surrounding the wild trading and social media fueled speculation in the shares of stocks GameStop, AMC Entertainment, Bed Bath & and Beyond, Blackberry and other underperforming companies has thrust Wall Street near the top of a crowded list of issues that President Joe Biden’s regulatory team needs to tackle early in its term.
The wild fluctuations in these stocks which played out in the waning days of January revealed a new dynamic of Reddit subgroups, trading apps with no business model for profit and sophisticated social media personalities. There is excitement that the individual investor will be able to reap the benefits that had been only available to savvy and secretive Wall Street types. There is equal concern that we are creating bubbles that will seriously damage our economy when it can least sustain any more shocks.
As the Biden administration begins its work, free or low cost stock trading applications such as RobinHood, M1 Finance, ETrade and Acorns have made it simple for casual investors to gain easy access to markets as well as offering them financing and trading advice. They are proving a formidable counterweight to institutional investors and hedge funds but may perhaps introduce an element of instability to already volatile markets that were under stress due to pandemic related economic uncertainty.
Analysis
It all started with Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum where participants egged each other on to create a buying frenzy for several stocks that would not have attracted any attention otherwise. At the same time, several Wall Street Hedge funds were shorting those same stocks, meaning they were wagering that those same stocks would go down in value. Fortunes were made and lost in days to both institutional hedge funds and newly minted day traders. In one measure of the insanity of it all, GameStop’s stock soared 1,640% in 10 days
In many ways, this market blip was similar to the conditions that led to the Wall Street collapse of 2008 where financial instruments based on mortgages which were fundamentally worthless began to unravel. The instabilities in the January 2021 market were caused by two factors; irrational investors who were overvaluing stocks in companies that had not substantially changed their business outlooks and stock trading apps that were selectively halting trading in these stocks. The target company stock prices abruptly turned down when the trading app Robinhood and other brokerage firms announced a slew of restrictions on the trading of a handful of stocks that had been spiking.
This behavior by online trading platforms hardly represents a free market. It is clear that regulators need to monitor how these applications operate. Last year, Robinhood agreed to pay $65 to settle SEC charges of providing misleading or incomplete information on its dealings with the firms that actually handled their trades. It is a complicated business model and more scrutiny and transparency is warranted.
While many applaud the wide availability of free trading platforms and traders enjoy the gamification of the investing, markets are dependent on rational trading. A stock should only be worth its true value in the marketplace based on what it is producing or its potential to produce. The Biden administration would be wise to take a close look at the regulations governing the stock markets for both Wall Street and the lay investor.
Engagement Resources
- The Office of the Investor Advocate at the Security and Exchange Commission works to ensure that the needs of investors are considered as decisions are made at the SEC.
- The American Institute of Economic Research Founded in 1933 (AIER) is one of the oldest and most respected nonpartisan economic research and advocacy organizations in the country.
- FinTechPolicy.org serves as a hub for collating and analyzing global regulatory developments in financial technology. They are supported by a range of academic, nonprofit and market leaders and seek to provide an interactive forum for understanding fintech and the emerging rules and regulations devised to address them.
Who gets a second chance?
Original Post Here
In theory, second chances are a good thing. I mean, we all need them. Many of the ancient religions counsel mercy, and second chances are the natural consequence of that. Situations are not identities. Your worst deed is merely a situation. You should have the chance to become more than that deed, to transcend it.
But as the Trump era fades and a new wave of second-chance-seeking gets under way, I have been wondering: Who gets second chances and who doesn’t, what must you do to get one, and how is that connected to all the people who don’t even get first chances in America?
After President Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, what we’ve known all along was confirmed once again, and flagrantly: that certain people, especially if they are rich and powerful and white and male, enjoy total impunity in American public life. There will be no consequences for Donald Trump. Maybe some prosecutor somewhere will find a spine, but I wouldn’t bet my coffee on it.
So now, with a kind of constitutional sanction, Trump will get his thousandth second chance. Just as he got after every business failure, just as he got every time he crossed some supposed red line in office. And is this surprising? Is this second chance to resume a role in public life all that different from the impunity of every police officer who has shot an unarmed Black person? Is it different from the impunity of every Republican who laid the ground for Trumpism, then bailed at the last minute, only to reinvent themselves as a democracy-is-fragile guru? Is it different from the impunity of the speculators who caused the 2008 financial crisis? Is it different from the impunity of those who brought us Guantanamo and torture and Iraq and Katrina and climate change and voter suppression and suffocating plutocracy and more?
Not only are these powerful figures who maim or defraud or starve or oppress other people immune from accountability in America today. They come back better than ever. The 21st-century second chance is a flashy, well-publicized, flex of a reentry in which one expects more than a chance to be back in polite society. One expects to lead, to become an expert in the problem one caused, in the vanguard of the search for solutions to the problem that one is, the fire chief of the department investigating the arson one has set.
See, for example, how many highly culpable figures of the George W. Bush presidency have now become well-published writers on the topic of saving democracy — saving it from the totally predictable consequences of everything they once worked toward. Or how the Lincoln Project guys, before the organization imploded, became media darlings, despite having somehow had no problem with the pre-Trump Republican Party of “welfare queen” slander, the Southern strategy, trickle down, WMDs, Sarah Palin, and more. Or how the Wall Street speculators who brought you the 2008 crisis around the world now run “impact” and “social” funds, promising to solve through their investing genius the problem of poverty to which they helped contribute. Or how Jeff Bezos is now donating money to fund free preschool for children from low-income families, which is another way of saying the families Bezos and his friends underpay and thwart from unionizing.
If you play your cards right, you don’t even need to atone for one of these second chances. You can go straight from the arson to the firefighting, straight from causing the problem to leading the search for solutions to it. You can do this by starting a foundation, or writing some attention-getting magazine cover, or, as Kellyanne Conway did the other day, dancing on “American Idol” to begin the reputation-laundering process that will surely get her a cable explanatory job soon.
This oversimplifies it somewhat, but I imagine a certain older arc of atonement that went something like: Sin>Accountability>Redemption. What we often see now is a very different arc, more like Sin>Sin-related expertise>Leadership of sin prevention. It will not be long before some of the most craven collaborators of Donald Trump are teaching seminars and leading panels on how to guard against future autocracy.
So one of the problems with this kind of second chance that so dominates our public life is that it isn’t really a second chance, because people don’t atone, don’t seek mercy, don’t show they’ve changed. They just clean their stink, which is different. And they go right to the helm of supposed solution-seeking, cutting in line everyone who was right all along, in fact battling them all along.
But another, more fundamental problem with these costless second chances for those at the top is they entrench a reality in which second, and often first, chances are withheld from most people. There is a zero-sum relationship between these second chances at the top and the chances people enjoy below the stratosphere. Because if bankers who wreck the housing market get costless second chances, bankers keep doing what they did, and people down below don’t get second chances to own a home after losing one to foreclosure. If people who lie the nation into war get costless second chances, there will be more lying into wars, and more young men and women who, meeting an IED on some dusty road, get no second chance. If people who enable fascism get costless second chances on cable and reality TV, it reduces the price of enabling fascism, and that makes it that much more likely that a refugee from violence won’t get a new start here. If the tax avoiders and union busters get costless second chances through reputation-laundering philanthropy, their workers will see their chances of ever experiencing a day of economic security withering and dying.
Their second chances, high up there, are the reason you perhaps often feel you don’t have a first one. Not everything in life is simple. This is. Either they keep getting second chances they don’t deserve — or you start getting first chances you do.
Democrats Take Control of Committees Increasing Chances the Senate Will Get Things Done
Policy Summary: On January 3, 2021 Vice President Michael Pence administered the oath of office to six new senators who had been elected in the November 2020 elections. Additionally, those senators who had won re – election in November were also sworn in. Two days later, elections were held in Georgia for both of Georgia’s Senate seats and a Democrat won each race. Their victories ensured that seats in the U.S. Senate would be equally split between Republicans and Democrats 50 – 50. Kamala Harris’ election as Vice – President gave the Democrats the ability to cast the tie – breaking vote if any vote in the chamber resulted in a tie.
With the Senate chamber equally divided, the chamber adopted new rules. The “Organizing Resolution,” as it is popularly called, is a power sharing agreement that details how the chamber would operate with an equally divided Senate. The most significant portion of the agreement deals with the make up of the senate committees and how business would be conducted in the committees and the various subcommittees that make up the whole committee. The resolution states that membership of the committees and subcommittees would have an equal number of Senators from each party. And, since control of the chamber rests with the Democrats and the recently elected Democratic Vice President, the chairman or chairwoman of each committee, or “the one who holds the gavel,” will be a Democrat. Since the Republicans had been in control of the Senate the last six years, Republicans had more members on committees and they had been the chairman or chairwoman of every committee in the Senate during that time period. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The Organizing Resolution, which passed by unanimous consent on February 3, 2021, is significant because of the rules it lays out regarding committees for the Senate for this session.
There is a common misconception that bills that are introduced in the Senate or the House get a full vote by the Congressional chamber but that is not the case. (There are rare exceptions like the reconciliation process to pass budget bills). After being introduced in the Senate, bills get assigned to the Senate committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill. That committee and its members review the bill, make amendments and sometimes hold hearings to gather more information. If the committee votes to “report” the bill then the bill is sent to the full Senate chamber for a vote by the entire chamber. But if the bill is “not reported” then the bill “dies in committee” and there is no further action on the bill. This happens frequently especially when committee members vote on party lines. When Republicans were the majority in the Senate, committees were comprised of twenty-one members – eleven Republicans and ten Democrats. If Republicans did not approve of a bill, they often voted against it in committee, which effectively killed the bill’s chances.
With the even split in the Senate, the chances of Democrats advancing their legislative priorities have now increased. With Democrats now taking control of committee chairmanships they can control what is on the agenda for the committees. Republicans had often refused to schedule committee hearings for bills and other business that was not in line with their legislative priorities. Even before the passage of the Organizing Resolution, Republicans still took an obstructionist stance as when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) refused to schedule a hearing for Merrick Garland, Biden’s nominee for Attorney General. But now that committee chairmanships have been transferred to Democrats, government business can no longer be held up with this tactic.
With membership in committees equally divided and the prospect of bills dying in committee not likely to happen during this Senate session, the question arises as to what will happen if there are tie votes in subcommittees and later in full committees. Instead of party line votes that could kill a bill, tie votes will now be sent to the full committee for a vote there. And if there is another tie, the status of a bill will be sent to the full chamber where a vote will be taken whether to place it on the calendar for a full vote. This is key because now the full Senate can vote on bills. There are often hundreds of bills every session that never make it out of committee for consideration. Senators who are not a member of a relevant committee often never even hear about a bill much less get a chance to vote on it. But that will not be the case anymore. As long as the Senate is equally split, committees can no longer hold up a bill. Unless outright defeated in a committee vote, bills that pass or end up tied will finally make it to the Senate floor where the entire chamber can review the merits of the bill. And with Democrats in charge of committees by virtue of their appointment to committee chair posts, they will control what bills will get a hearing and a vote. This will result in the Democratic Party and the Biden Administration having a better chance of advancing their legislative priorities in this Congressional session. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
United States Senate Committees – webpage of Senate committees.
GovTrack.us – full text of the Senate’s 2021 Organizing Resolution.
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 Administration Seeks to Curb Unnecessary Arrests and Deportations
Brief #115 – Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Biden Administration Seeks to Curb Unnecessary Arrests and Deportations
Policy Summary
This week, the Biden Administration issued new guidelines for ICE in attempts to curb arrests and deportations. Anyone unlawfully in the US is still subject to arrest, but ICE will no longer deport immigrants for crimes such as DUIs, simple assault, fraud, tax crimes, solicitation, money laundering and fraud, and charges without convictions. Biden announced he aims to focus more on national security threats and individuals with aggravated felony charges and/or convictions.
Analysis
Biden announced he believed measuring ICE’s performance according to the number of arrests and deportation – as the Trump Administration did – is not sound law enforcement, but rather a method of hiking up statistics with low-hanging fruit and at the expense of migrants for minor infractions. Rather than operating with the mindset of looking for a reason to detain, arrest, and deport migrants, the Biden Administration will maintain migrants’ dignity and innocence until proven otherwise.
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.
Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene
U.S. RESIST NEWS Blog
The Republicans A new U.S. RESIST NEWS Blog Post series intended to report on the activities of the Republican Party and Its Members in a Post Trump Era
Post # 1: Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene
By Sean Gray
February 12, 2021
Last week’s vote to remove freshman Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee posts didn’t end the GOP’s problem with her, but underscored it. Many Republicans were no doubt hoping for a return to normalcy after four years of Donald Trump’s chaotic leadership. This was always a pipe dream and the representative from Georgia’s 14th district illustrates that Trump’s presidency may have been unprecedented, and the political movement he inspired has staying power. Greene has no experience in government. She is a half-hearted businesswoman with more bombast than sense. She gained political recognition through the creation and dissemination of absurd conspiracy theories. Sound familiar? If Donald Trump was a symptom rather than the disease, Greene is a next-gen mutation. She can’t inflict the damage Trump did from the Oval Office. But her presence in Congress is a troubling commentary on the state of American politics. And her Republicans colleagues know it.
Trump displayed combination of dishonesty and disconnection from reality whenever he found facts disagreeable. Marjorie Taylor Greene has gladly accepted the torch of fantasy. She came to prominence as the ‘’Qanon candidate on the campaign trail.” Her views somehow got more reprehensible following her election. Greene is a full throated conspiracy theorist on subjects too numerous to list comprehensively in this space. She has cast doubt on the Parkland School Shooting, the 9/11 attack at the Pentagon and that lasers from a George Soros-owned company were responsible for California’s devastating 2018 Camp Fire. Her support for such insidious doggerel extends beyond a tip-of-the-cap bit of political opportunism. Prior to her election she authored 59 articles in the now defunct American Truth Seekers. Her 2A zeal goes beyond the usual rhetoric and harassing survivors of school massacres. Greene has also advocated for the executions of political opponents. There is no hope of sane and reasonable discourse with someone like this. She is deluded, race-baiting and as committed to Trumpian bluster as the ex-president. Yet she now commands $180K to shape legislation through the prism of her badly skewed worldview.
Trump may be gone, but he still looms large in Republican political calculus. By aligning herself so closely with the MAGA crowd, Greene has put her Republican colleagues in a tight spot. Many likely believe her to be a disgraceful albatross. But she is for all intents and purposes a Trump surrogate – which makes a formal repudiation of her dangerous nonsense unpalatable. Accordingly, when Democrats took a procedural vote to remove her from two committees just 11 Republican House members crossed the aisle against her. Trump pulled the party away from reason and reality. Greene has blindly followed suit. Her colleagues refuse to acknowledge the obvious pulls the entire party further away from reason and reality.
The dilemma posed by Greene’s activity is a serious problem for the party. For the most devoted Trumpophiles, Greene’s rhetoric is a selling point. They are not numerous enough to win contested elections. Furthermore the more outrageous of her positions (for instance, advocating the execution of the Speaker of the House) are antithetical to democracy and a turn-off to a plethora of voters. Trump’s personality in conjunction with his office made his political brand work. His allies could claim he had the mandate of the voters while working to further his agenda and tactlessly avoiding uncomfortable questions about the his behavior. Greene carries his water from much further down the trough. She occupies one of 538 House seats. Unlike Trump, whose lofty perch and cult-like following enabled him to browbeat Congress like subordinates, Greene is a liability. Her practice of Trump speak makes it much more difficult for her to actually accomplish anything. It also complicates any effort on the part of the GOP to move past four unsustainably chaotic years. Trump never had the support of approval of more than 50% of the American public. Those numbers dipped to around 33% in the aftermath of the Capitol riots. A less effective imitation is not what the doctor ordered.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is a problem for the nation, and not just those who lean right. Her landslide election based on a semi-comprehensible platform speaks to the erosion of political discourse in this country. She is a thorn in the side of many Republicans. However her presence in Congress is a pernicious threat to America as a whole. Last month’s coup attempt didn’t occur in a vacuum. It was the predictable result of a disaffected and propagandized group of people incited to violence by the man at the center of the lie they were fed. Opportunities exist for repeat performances. Right-wing extremism in general saw a sharp uptick during Trump’s tenure. To some extent, a sympathetic ear in the legislative branch legitimizes those kinds of beliefs. In a nation as polarized as this one, this bodes poorly beyond political prospects. Trump routinely fanned the flames of these divisions to his own end. An unscrupulous acolyte is likely to follow suit. Marjorie Taylor Greene represents the worst in American politics. She is a thorn in the side of Republicans and a blight on the US with far-reaching consequences.
New Efforts Seek to Reduce Growing Rates of Child Poverty
Brief #109
New Efforts Seek to Reduce Growing Rates of Child Poverty
Rosalind Gottfried
February 8, 2021
Policy
President Biden seeks to raise the child tax credit to $3600 for children under 6 and to$3000 for school age children under 18. This is up from the current level of $2000 per child. As part of the stimulus, this change would become effective in July and last for one year though many Democrats would like to see the change made permanent. The credit would be available to individuals making $75,000 or less and couples making $150,000 or less. It would be based on income data from 2019 or 2020. To increase the effectiveness of the tax break, families could receive monthly payments of between $250 and $350 to meet their routine bills. Researchers at Columbia University estimate that this measure could reduce the child poverty rate by close to 50%. The proposal gained support with the weak jobs report released last week. The cost of the program would increase the federal deficit by 120 billion dollars.
On February 8th the American Family Act was re-introduced in Congress; it would maintain these increases and extend them to individuals making up to $150,000 and couples making up to $200,000. In order to maintain the value of this increase, future credits would be tied to the rate of inflation. Mitt Romney has introduced a competing bill which would provide a tax credit of $3000 for school age children and $4200 for children under 6 but the net gain would be undermined by the elimination of the TANF program (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, often referred to as “welfare”); the end of the State and Local Tax deduction (SALT); the loss of the head of household designation; and cuts to the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit.
Analysis
The losses of family income and resources, from the pandemic, have increased food insecurity in families with children from 14-28% and roughly 20% of these families are behind in rent. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin has promoted the child tax credit as one mechanism to help the economy, especially given the tepid rate of the jobs recovery. She cautions that failure to act quickly and large will result in a long and slow economic recovery like the one seen in response the to 2008 recession. Though there would be a cost to the fiscal budget, the ultimate cost of child poverty will be far greater in hunger and housing loss as well as in the future well-being of children who will suffer setbacks in education, health, and work.
Learn More References
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/democrats-include-3000-dollar-child-tax-credit-in-covid-relief.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/us/politics/child-tax-credit-stimulus.html
General Motors and Wall Street can’t wait to plug into the new economy
Environmental Policy Brief #108
Title: General Motors and Wall Street can’t wait to plug into the new economy
By Todd J Broadman
February 12, 2021
POLICY
Soon after President Biden’s election victory, General Motors Corporation (GM) publicly stated their vision: to manufacture vehicles that feature zero carbon emissions. That vision is the leading feature of their “triple zero,” which also includes zero congestion and zero crashes (through advanced safety technologies and self-driving vehicles). Over the next 15 years, GM will completely phase out the production of petroleum powered vehicles and will solely manufacture electric vehicles (EV). There are to be 30 such EV models available by 2025.
In addition, GM has a goal to transform their internal operations to be carbon neutral by 2040. Their path to that aim includes powering all of their facilities – U.S. and abroad – with renewable energy by 2035. They estimate the cost to re-tool at $27 billion dollars.
Mary Barra, GM’s CEO since 2014, was hired in part for her vision and enthusiastic attitude towards technology. She is aligning GM with the new administration and met recently with: Gina McCarthy, climate change adviser to the President, and Brian Deese who heads the White House National Economic Council. Both administrators will play a lead role in creating the new auto rules.
Other political actors of importance to GM include: California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) who issued an executive order that 100% of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state will be zero-emission by 2045. Former GM executive Debbie Dingell and now a Democrat Representative of Michigan, had cautioned Barra, “When Joe Biden gets elected, your world will turn upside down. You’ve got to be at the table or else this thing gets jammed down your throat.” States including Massachusetts and New Jersey have since laid the groundwork for setting the same goal as California.
Barra has also found a strange bedfellow in Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund. Mr. Krupp is confident they can reach “common ground” and create a “shared vision for an all-electric future.” Mr. Krupp’s annual compensation is nearly $600,000 and among EDF’s major contributors are the Walton Foundation, Chevron, and Exxon-Mobil. And others like Larry Fink, CEO of the world’s largest hedge fund, BlackRock, who claimed their business model “will be compatible with a net-zero economy.” Like others, the transition to green technology represents the next sector worthy of major investment.
Curiously enough, GM did not join BMW, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and Volvo when those auto manufacturers signed onto California’s aggressive fuel economy standards: an average of 51 miles per gallon by 2026. Perhaps GM is awaiting the new 2026 – 2035 federal emission rules.
ANALYSIS
Underlying the “save the planet” ethic, what GM and other auto suppliers need is a sustainable business model. 68% of U.S. oil use is from transportation; petroleum is a commodity that will soon be in painfully short supply. Yet less than 5% of GM’s revenue comes from EV sales. Contrast that with the book value of Tesla, the world’s biggest EV manufacturer, at $752 billion, about ten times that of GM. And much of Europe has already said they will ban sales of new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2030.
President Biden wasted no time in signing an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency to develop tough tailpipe pollution regulations, vehicles being the U.S.’s biggest contributor to planet-warming pollution. In terms of the necessary charging station infrastructure, he has an immediate call for 500,000 more public charging stations. Federal agencies will be required to purchase EV. Consumers can expect tax incentives to make the switch. He sees the creation of vast numbers of “green jobs.”
In spite of these trends, The American Petroleum Institute (API), a leading oil trade group, suggested customers, not automakers, should be driving any vehicle transition. “This is a free market, and every auto company is going to do what makes sense for their customers and their business model. Ultimately, it should be up to American consumers to choose what kind of car they want to drive,” according to Frank Macchiarola, API’s vice president for policy.
Aside from the flimsy “free choice” argument, there are more substantial underlying problems with electric vehicles: their range is limited to around 200 miles before requiring a charge; they are still more expensive than gas-engine cars. EV battery technology is relatively new and it takes far longer to charge than to fill a gas tank. EV still isn’t practical for a multiday camping trip or long rural drives. The electric charging infrastructure will take time to build and plugging in thousands of cars could fundamentally alter the country’s electric grid’s patterns. According to Paul DeCotis, a former New York state energy official and an analyst for consultancy West Monroe, “Utilities are going to need to make significant investments in infrastructure to accommodate this.”
GM has already announced operational plans: three of its U.S. plants will immediately begin the transition to produce electric vehicles. An EV battery plant is being built in Ohio. The industry is leaning in the right direction. Whether society will lean with it and how soon remains to be seen.
Engagement Resources
- https://www.theverge.com/ The Verge is an ambitious multimedia effort founded in 2011 to examine how technology will change life in the future for a massive mainstream audience.
- https://www.greencarreports.com/ Green Car Reports helps consumers decipher the rapidly changing world of “green” cars: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles.
- https://www.greentechmedia.com/ GTM is the leading information services provider for this next-generation electricity system.
- https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek Bloomberg is the global leader in business and financial data, news and insight.
Will the US Approach to the Security Council Change with the Biden Administration?
Brief # 106 Foreign Policy
Will the US Approach to the Security Council Change with the Biden Administration?
By Will Solomon
Feb 12, 2021
Policy Summary:
The UN Security Council (UNSC) was established at the founding of the UN, in 1945, and first met in 1946. The Security Council is arguably the most powerful organ within the UN, as it is the only body that can pass binding resolutions, including the power to approve military action and sanctions. It is comprised of fifteen states, five of which are permanent—the United States, Russia (originally, the USSR), China, Britain, and France—and can exercise a veto on any potential resolution.
This veto power, coupled with the widely varying interests of its member states (often the United States, versus Russia, and/or China) make the task of promoting a functional and potent Security Council extremely challenging. The UNSC’s history has indeed been marked by significant failures of consensus: for instance, the inability to achieve peace, or prevent massacre, in Rwanda, Bosnia, Myanmar, Syria, and other states. When deployed, its peacekeeping forces have on multiple occasions been embroiled in severe accusations of sexual and child abuse, among other crimes. The United States has also faced accusations of bribery, exchanging foreign aid for support from non-permanent members of the Security Council.
Analysis:
The relative weakness of the Security Council can be ascribed to multiple factors: its limited budget, differing interests among members, the veto power of permanent members. With respect to the US, its weakness of late is certainly due in part to the aggressive anti-internationalism of the Trump administration. But the problems in the Security Council have far deeper roots, many of which stem from a long history of US (in particular, but other states’ as well) unilateralism as regards the UN and other international institutions.
As the bribery point above suggests, the US has exhibited a tendency in the post-World War II era to treat international institutions as tools of American global policy. Broadly speaking, the US is willing to support an international consensus so long as it aligns with US interests, but will act unilaterally, against and outside the UN, when desired. This policy has wide bipartisan support in the United States government and long predates the Trump administration; in many respects, Trump’s policy towards the UN was merely an intensification of longstanding American policy.
This said, an oft-expressed intention of the Biden administration has been to meaningfully engage multilaterally. What might this mean with respect to the Security Council?
First, we ought to acknowledge that meaningful reform of the UNSC is quite unlikely. Two-thirds of UN member states would have to agree on any reform, as would all permanent members of the Security Council. This said, moves toward meaningful multilateral engagement through the Biden administration may be possible through existing institutions. One obvious move would be to acknowledge international consensus on significant issues, one of which might be Israel. The UN Security Council has passed over 200 resolutions with respect to Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The United States has been a reliable ally for Israel, consistently shielding it from sanctions—particularly regarding Israeli settlements and occupation of Palestinian land—or even condemnation, a pattern that has intensified in recent years and particularly under the Trump administration. Among others, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967 after the Six-Day War, called for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders (prior to capture of the West Bank and Gaza). It’s over a half century later, and this still has not been enacted.
Another relevant topic is Iran. While not a UN agreement, UN Security Council Resolution 2231 endorsed the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), negotiated by the Obama administration Rejoining the accord that Trump exited would express a meaningful commitment to multilateral engagement adjacent to the UNSC. However, despite repeated campaign pledges that he would re-enter the accord, Biden recently indicated that he would not lift sanctions imposed by the Trump administration unless Iran returns to the deal, a position Iran refuses to support. It is difficult to find any meaningful justification for Biden’s action, given that the United States reneged on the deal, and signals a potentially growing blemish on a commitment to multilateral engagement.
In short—the globe faces countless challenges now, including the pandemic, a series of recent regional wars, failed states, domestic upheaval in many countries, climate change, and a collapse of multilateralism itself. Despite institutional limitations, the Security Council could have a role to play in addressing some of these challenges. To live up to a meaningful conception of promoting American leadership in a multilateral 2021 world, the US ought to abide by international norms and look for new ways to collaborate with other countries..
Resources:
https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing. Our country’s current circumstances demand it.”
https://thebulletin.org — “At our core, the Bulletin is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a bimonthly magazine. But we are much more. The Bulletin’s website, iconic Doomsday Clock, and regular events help advance actionable ideas at a time when technology is outpacing our ability to control it. The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these topics is a driving belief that because humans created them, we can control them.”
https://www.democracynow.org — “Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues.”
Our Decentralized Health System Creates Vaccine Rollout Challenges
Brief # 95 Health Policy
Our Decentralized Health System Creates Vaccine Rollout Challenges
By Erin McNemar
February 11, 2021
Policy
Confusion. Disorganization. Decentralization. All across the country, states are struggling with the vaccination process. From deciding who should be a priority to simply not having enough vaccines, many states are facing criticism for what seems like a failure to plan. These issues are due to the decentralized health system present in the United States.
According to the World Health Organization, “Health systems decentralization involves moving decision making away from centralized control and closer to the users of health services. Many countries have embarked on a process to decentralize their health systems as a means to improve their responsiveness and performance.”
Analysis
While this idea of allowing the people that are affected and impacted to make decisions seems just, it has proven to be problematic when facing the current pandemic. Due to the decentralized approach in the United States, the nation is trailing behind other countries in terms of the vaccination process. According to the University of Oxford, the United KIngdom’s centralized health system has been able to vaccinate 13.7 percent of the population compared to the United State’s 7.8 percent.
Part of this major issue is lack of preparation. According to CNN, in the final weeks of his administration former President Trump did little to nothing to develop a plan to distribute vaccines to states; even after vaccines were approved to be administered. When President Biden came into office, his team claimed that they had to work on developing a plan from scratch; which is also prolonging the process.
The frustrating vaccination process comes down to a lack of organization stemming from the federal level. Rather than creating a comprehensive plan that all states are required to follow, each state is responsible for coming up with their own plan for vaccinations. Governors have to ask, how will the vaccines be distributed? What groups of people should be prioritized? How will individuals register to get the vaccine? While these decisions are happening on a state-by-state basis in the United States, countries with centralized health systems are able to move quicker.
These countries only have to come up with one vaccination rollout plan. There isn’t a battle for resources and those disrupting the vaccine are able to focus on administering it to as many people as possible; rather than worrying about the politics of the situation. Additionally, the decentralized approach can create issues among the total percentage of individuals vaccinated across the nation. For example, if West Virginia is effectively vaccinating their population but Massachusetts is struggling, it’s not going to be beneficial to the country as a whole in stopping the spread.
While a decentralized health system has benefits in everyday life, addressing a pandemic response requires a more centralized approach. Evidence shows that with unified planning coming from a federal level, more vaccines would be efficiently distributed to the public. After a rocky start to the vaccine rollout process, it could be several months until the vaccine hits the general public and even longer until we see life begin to return to normal.
Engagement Resources
- Learn more about the
- Track the vaccine distribution by
- Check your state’s government website to find out when you can get the vaccine.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!