JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
How the Biden Administration is Helping Africa Address COVID-19
Brief # 116 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
Following the Trump Administration’s policy towards Africa which was largely characterized with expletives and apathy, the Biden Administration has significant room for improvement and a renewed relationship with the entire continent, especially in the context of the continued COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination process.
VP Kamala Harris Advises Migrants not to Come to the US in First Trip Abroad to Guatemala and Mexico
Immigration Policy Brief #125
By Kathryn Baron
Earlier this week, Vice President Kamala Harris took her first trip abroad in her new position, to Guatemala and Mexico. She announced the launch of an anti-corruption task force to be established for training law enforcement, aiding prosecutors, and targeting transnational crime in Guatemala; a young women’s empowerment initiative; the promise of $130 million in aid for the remainder of Biden’s term; and lastly, that the US would donate 500,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses.
Covid Vaccination Incentives; Do They Violate Ethics?
Brief # 109 – Health and Gender Policy
By Siam Bhimji
As of May 2021, nearly 172,423,605 Americans, or 53% of the population has received at least one dose of the Covid vaccine. Of these, 141,583,252 Americans or 43% of the population have been fully vaccinated. But that leaves at least over 110,000,000 ADULT Americans who still have not been vaccinated.
Biden Seeks Mandatory Global Taxation Level For Multinationals
Brief # 119 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Under current international tax rules, multinationals generally pay corporate income tax where production occurs rather than where consumers or, specifically for the digital sector, users are located. However, some argue that through the digital economy, businesses (implicitly) derive income from users abroad but, without a physical presence, are not subject to corporate income tax in that foreign country.
Israel’s New Coalition Government: Can It Succeed?
Brief #115 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
Over the past month, Israel has been a hotbed of political turmoil which has included mass protests, an 11-day war, and now a political coalition in the Knesset that includes eight political parties trying to remove Prime Minister Netanyahu. The eight party coalition is interesting in that it includes factions of the entire political spectrum in Israel with the exception of the ultra-Orthodox parties.
Many Americans Continue to Refuse the Covid Vaccine
Brief #108 – Health and Gender
By Siam Bhimji
Throughout 2020, there was a frantic search for medications that could end the Covid-19 pandemic which infected 6 million Americans and caused nearly 160,000 deaths, but despite extensive research, no viable drug was discovered. Scientists stated that the only way to cure the Covid-19 outbreak was by developing a vaccine.
The American Jobs Plan: A Spotlight on Airport Infrastructure
Brief # 119 – Economics Policy
By Lily Cook
After an initial review from the Oversight Board, Facebook finally announced the company’s decision on the fate of former president Donald Trump’s account. In a blog post, the Facebook Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg responded to the Oversight Board’s charge that the company’s initial decision of an indefinite punishment was ‘not appropriate’ by announcing that Trump’s ban would be in effect for 2 years starting from January 7th.
Facebook Extends Trump Ban For 2 Years
Brief # 48 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
After an initial review from the Oversight Board, Facebook finally announced the company’s decision on the fate of former president Donald Trump’s account. In a blog post, the Facebook Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg responded to the Oversight Board’s charge that the company’s initial decision of an indefinite punishment was ‘not appropriate’ by announcing that Trump’s ban would be in effect for 2 years starting from January 7th.
Governor’s Recall Failing to Gain Traction
Brief #21 – Elections and Politics
Patrick Dwire
The campaign ads of the Republican challengers of Galvin Newsom for governor of California in the upcoming recall election portray the state as suffering the same dystopian fate as Venezuela- with flash frames of despair and voice-over narratives of businesses and workers fleeing the economic collapse brought on by the government over-reach of Covid restrictions.
Biden Signs Three Executive Orders to Reverse Xenophobic Policies
Brief # 114 – Immigration
Biden Signs Three Executive Orders to Reverse Xenophobic Policies
By Kathryn Baron
February 8, 2021
Policy Summary
Earlier this week, President Biden signed three Executive Orders to begin the lengthy process of undoing Trump-era immigration policies that have stained American foreign policy and international perception. The Senate had just confirmed Alejandro N. Mayorka as Secretary of Homeland Security – in which all but seven Republican voted no, which accurately depicts the divisions in the US government about American attitudes towards foreigners. Mayorka will be the first Latino-American of his position.
Two of the Executive Orders call for reviews and of Trump’s policies that limited asylum, stopped funding to certain foreign countries, slowed down legal immigration, and made it more difficult to obtain green cards. One of these demands a review of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP – ‘Remain in Mexico’) that ordered 65,000 Asylum Seekers to wait in Mexico for their US court hearings. These reviews could trigger policy changes in the coming weeks following a thorough examination of the policies Trump put in place. The third Executive Order established a task force to reunite migrant families who were separated at the US-Mexico border as a result of Trump’s 2018 Zero Tolerance policy.
Analysis
President Biden stated he is “not making new law” but rather he is “eliminating bad policy.” All the necessary reversals of Trump-era immigration policies cannot be done properly and effectively in a short time-frame. The Executive Orders signed at the beginning of this week provide an avenue for thorough investigation and action to re-track American immigration and foreign policy measures to ensure the principles and values that defined the US throughout history are upheld and restored.
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.
First Lady Jill Biden Highlights Role As First Professor in the White House
First Lady Jill Biden Highlights Role As First Professor in the White House
By Linda F. Hersey
February 8, 2021
Twenty-four hours before Joe Biden was inaugurated as president, First Lady Jill Biden was teaching her English composition class as usual at Northern Virginia Community College.
The First Lady’s decision to keep her day job as she settles into the White House is symbolic. She said that she likes her job as a college professor, worked hard for her PhD and is committed to teaching.
Having a first professor in the White House energizes calls or free college education, which is available in many European countries, including Norway, Sweden and Germany, which have apprenticeships as well.
Her commitment and advocacy raise the status of higher education in the Biden presidency. The First Lady is a long-time member of the National Education Association (NEA), which is the nation’s largest labor union and whose members advocated for the Biden presidency.
The First Lady supports making community college free for all U.S. students. President Biden has pledged to do just that. He wants to make community colleges and historically black colleges and universities tuition-free for all students. The new president:
- Pledged as a candidate to promote new policy and enact legislation allowing students to attend community college for up to two years tuition-free. Funds also could be used to pursue training and certification that link students to meaningful employment.
- Endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ idea to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for all students whose family incomes are below $125,000 and forgive a portion of student debt for all borrowers.
- Outlined a plan to invest $50 billion in high-quality training programs that would be administered through community colleges, in partnership with businesses, unions and other organizations.
Jill Biden as the ‘Conscience’ of the President
On Day One of the Biden presidency, the First Lady showed her support for strengthening education. The Washington Post reported that she met with the nominee for education secretary, welcomed the leaders of the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions at the White House, and hosted an online forum with 11,000 educators from around the country. In the Post article, First Lady Jill Biden was described as her husband’s “conscience and confidante.
Higher Education, Training Emphasized
Higher education already is a priority for both the President and First Lady, who describe it as a necessity to stay competitive in the knowledge economy.
Jill Biden’s own background demonstrates that. At 69, she holds two master’s degrees and a doctorate awarded when she was 55 years old. Her doctorate in educational leadership was earned at the University of Delaware.
Her determination to continue as an educator sets her apart from all Frist Ladies who preceded her.
For the first time in 231 years, a First Lady has a career outside the White House. Of course, her dedication has required some logistics with security, such as Secret Service agents dressing as students with backpacks as they trail the First Lady through the halls of academia.
Jill Biden’s decision to continue working and having an independent career beyond the White House marks a shift from the traditional role of the First Lady.
Wives of U.S. presidents historically leave behind careers and professional identity to be the helpmate for the president. Michelle Obama is an attorney but ceased her job practicing law to take a high-profile role on many public health initiatives, including improving school lunch menus and planting a vegetable garden on the White House grounds, with the help of schoolchildren.
Jill Biden’s decision to keep her career is in line with millions of American families. The U.S. Bureau of Labor reports that in close to 50 percent of married households, both spouses work. “Teaching is not what I do. It’s who I am,” she said prior to the election.
The First Lady says she uses the honorific “Dr.” because she “worked hard” for her advanced degree. She taught writing during the eight years her husband served as vice president. She does not consider working outside the home – even when it is the White House – a departure from the norm.
The First Lady is known for being down to earth and personable. She eschewed having a ballgown to attend post-inauguration celebrations. Her focus was on more practical issues. She likes to tell people to call her “Jill.”
Jill Biden married Sen. Joe Biden in 1977, becoming mother to his two sons, Beau and Hunter, four years after his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden, a schoolteacher, and the couple’s year-old daughter Naomi died in a car accident. Jill and Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley, was born in 1981.
As First Lady, Jill Biden has prioritized education, cancer treatment resources and advocacy for military families. The issues have personal meaning and significance. In addition to being an educator, Jill Biden is a military mom. The Bidens’ son, Beau, the former attorney general of Delaware, died from brain cancer, in 2015.
Anita McBride, chief of staff for former First Lady Laura Bush, told the Washington Post that First Lady Jill Biden – after serving for eight years as the Second Lady during the Obama presidency — understands her high-profile role and how to advocate for issues that have personal significant for her family and millions of Americans.
“What this says to me is that [here] is someone who is so comfortable in this role,” McBride told The Washington Post. “It says, ‘I am thrilled and honored to have this position. These are the things I care about. I intend to be active. I intend to be visible and I intend to be a partner in the work of this administration.’ ”
Engagement Resources
Candidate Joe Biden’s Education Plan outlined his ideas for free college and training programs for all U.S. students.
White House Profile of Dr. Jill Biden articulates her interest in prioritizing higher education and supporting community colleges across America.
Washington Post reported on the First Lady’s commitment to teaching paired with her role as wife of President Biden.
The Prosecution of Alexei Navalny
Brief # 105 Foreign Policy
Title: The Prosecution of Alexei Navalny
By Tim Irwin
February 4rd, 2021
Summary
Alexei Navalny was recently sentenced to three and a half years in prison for violating his probation from a 2014 case in which he was convicted of embezzlement. He violated probation because he was unable to contact his parole officer was because he had been poisoned . The poisoning occurred in Siberia and Navalny was flown to Germany where he was able to recover. Investigative reporters eventually were able to conclude the poisoning, caused by a military nerve agent, was carried out by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB). Navalny himself says that Vladimir Putin spearheaded the effort.
Alexei Navalny has been a thorn in the side of Putin ever since he came onto the political scene. He has been involved in a multitude of anti-corruption campaigns across Russia. These efforts have led to a number of criminal charges,, levied against him, he most recent and relevant being the embezzlement charge of 2014.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Navalny’s embezzlement trial was a violation of his right to a fair trial. However, after this ruling, a Moscow court repeated its’ sentencing, causing Russia’s Central Electoral Commission to bar him from running for president in 2018. Since then, he has led a number of other movements to combat corruption within Russia’s government, which we believe led in his poisoning. The Kremlin denies any involvement in the attack.
The poisoning occurred in August of 2020 while Navalny was on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow. The chemical weapon used was a Novichok agent developed by the USSR during the cold war. It was the same agent as the one used in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer just two years earlier. After being sent to a hospital in Moscow, Navalny was flown to Berlin to get further treatment. On December 29th, 2020, the Russian government a announced that Navalny was wanted on account of violating his probation period. Navalny was undaunted by this announcement, and chose to return to Russia where he was immediately arrested. A court recently has sentenced him to spend 3 years in a Siberian prison camp.
Analysis:
The responses to Navalny’s detainment and subsequent conviction were met with massive backlash both internally and internationally. From the moment he was arrested after touching down on January 18th, there were huge protests in Moscow, resulting in the arrests of over 5,000 people.
The call for his immediate release was echoed throughout the western world, with many countries pledging their support for Navalny. The new Biden Administration has followed suit and done the same. The U.S. Secretary of State has condemned the sentencing and has called for Navalny’s release, along with the many thousands arrested during the protests. The initial poisoning back in August resulted in many European countries placing sanctions on a number of Putin’s inner circle. According to Navalny’s Chief of Staff, Leonid Volkov, this is exactly the type of action needed to produce a desired change within Russia. Volkov has stated that using personal sanctions targeting Putin’s inner circle could incite infighting among the wealthy elites. However, sanctions, unless specific, such as what Volkov is stating, can be harmful to the general population because the government can easily shift the burden to them.
The Biden Administration and the administration’s National Security Team is currently reviewing the best course of action to take against Russia. Besides Navalny, the review also includes the SolarWinds hack as well as the alleged bounties placed on American troops
Engagement Resources:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/navalnys-arrest-is-bidens-first-big-test-heres-how-he-can-pass-it/ – Article detailing specific sanctions.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsAw3WynQJMm7tMy093y37A – Navalny’s YouTube Channel
Status Update on the Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
Brief # 8 Social Justice
Status Update on the Prosecution of Capitol Rioters
By Erika Shannon
February 5, 2021
On January 6th, as Congress was counting electoral votes, a crowd of far-right extremists rioted outside and eventually made their way into the Capitol building. Their actions prompted members of Congress, as well as former vice-president Mike Pence, to go into hiding and leave their session behind. Criminals sat in the offices of congressmen and congresswomen, and in the end lives were lost. Many people view the actions of these extremists as terrorist acts, for they were attempting to interfere with the results of an election that was already deemed fair by the DOJ and FBI. Whether they will be charged as terrorists or not, the Justice Department will be pursuing criminal charges against as many of the protest attendees as possible. It is no secret that the path to a trial is not always speedy here in the U.S., so many of those involved with the January 6th riots have only been charged and have not yet been tried for their crimes.
As of Friday, January 8th, thirteen people had been charged federally and forty people had been charged at the state level. According to the Department of Justice website, six individuals were charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.” Their names are Cindy Fitchett, Michael Curzio, Douglas Sweet, Bradley Ruskelas, Terry Brown, and Thomas Gallagher. Other individuals involved were charged with varying crimes; Cleveland Meredith was charged with “making interstate threats to Speaker Nancy Pelosi,” Richard Barnett was charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful entry; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and theft of public money, property, or records. Barnett allegedly entered a restricted area of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,” Lonnie Coffman was charged with “possession of an unregistered firearm (destructive device) and carrying a pistol without a license.” He also was allegedly carrying eleven explosive devices in his vehicle. Mark Leffingwell was charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; assault on a federal law enforcement officer; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.” Leffingwell had allegedly entered the Capitol building and struck an officer in the helmet and chest. Christopher Alberts was charged “with carrying or having readily accessible, on the grounds of the United States Capitol Building, a firearm and ammunition. Specifically a Taurus G2C, 9mm handgun and 9mm caliber ammunition.” Interestingly enough, Alberts was released after appearing in district court. Joshua Pruitt was charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.” Joshua Pruitt was also released after appearing in district court. Matthew Council was charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds,” and allegedly pushing an officer when he was stopped inside the Capitol building.
Since the January 8th press release by the Department of Justice, there have been many other arrests related to the Capitol riots. Michael Sherwin, US Attorney for Washington DC, says that 135 suspects have been arrested out of the 400 identified in relation to the Capitol incident. Other updates include the arrest and release of Riley June Williams, whose charges include “aiding and abetting the theft of government property.” She claimed to have had Speaker Pelosi’s laptop, although it has not been found, and she was actually released from jail and is under electronic monitoring at her mother’s home. Kevin Seefried and his son, Hunter, were jointly charged with “entering a restricted building, violent entry, and disorderly conduct.” John Sullivan was charged with “entering a restricted building and violent entry or disorderly conduct,” and was then released from jail without bail. Eric Gavelek Munchel and Larry Rendell Brock, individuals who were seen carrying plastic zip ties and white flex cuff, were charged with “disorderly conduct and violent entry.”
While any and all arrests involving January 6th rioters are certainly victories towards justice, there are some arrests that have been made which involve some supposedly key players in planning an executing the storming of the Capitol. Some of these people stand out more than others for their willingness to voice, and sometimes wear, their ignorance for everyone to notice. Robert Keith Packer, a man wearing a “Camp Auschwitz” hoodie on the day of the riots, was arrested and charged with “trespassing in a federal building and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.” The QAnon Shaman, Jake Angeli, was charged with “violent entry and disorderly conduct,” and was photographed inside the Capitol Building wearing a fur hat, horns, and a painted face. Doug Jensen, a member of QAnon, faces five different federal charges, including “violent entry and disorderly conduct and obstructing a law enforcement officer during a civil disorder.” Jensen was seen in a video from that day chasing a police officer up a flight of stairs in the Capitol Building. Nick Ochs, of the Proud Boys, was charged with “unlawful entry of restricted buildings or grounds” after a picture of him smoking a cigarette inside the Capitol Building was circulated around social media. Derrick Evans, a Republican delegate from the West Virginia state legislature, was charged with “trespassing and disorderly conduct.” He also resigned from his seat in the state legislature.
In addition to the arrests already listed, more arrests are being made everyday related to the Capitol riots. While the DOJ feels confident that they are doing all they can to arrest anybody involved with actually planning and carrying out the riots, there have also been small-time arrests made. Some of these people are being charged federally, many are being charged at a state level for things like trespassing or disorderly conduct. Some of the arrestees include Nicholas Rodean, Aaron Mostofsky, William Pepe, Andrew Williams, Josiah Colt, Adam Johnson, Jenny Cudd, Klete Keller, Robert Sandford, Jacob Fracker, Thomas Robertson, John Schaffer, Tam Pham, Joseph Randall Biggs, Suzanne Ianni, Mark Sahady, Jorge Riley, Samuel Camargo, and Michael Joseph Foy. Most charges are for trespassing or disorderly conduct, but some are being charged with assault or obstructing justice. One of the most recent charges filed was against Patrick Edward McCaughey III, who is charged with “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees; civil disorder; entering restricted building or grounds; and violent entry or disorderly conduct.” The charges against these rioters will hopefully stick as we see more of them arrested and charged in the coming weeks.
Many of those who went to the Capitol riots felt that they were doing something to help ascertain justice for President Trump; weeks later, it is clear that could not be further from the truth. The election has been declared as fair, and a new President has taken his seat, just as everybody has suspected would happen. The actions of those present on January 6th were abhorrent and unnecessary.
January 6 is something that will undoubtedly keep coming back to haunt them, and even if they do not see any real jail time, that day has changed their lives. They will never be able to hide their racism under the guise of being a tolerant white person; their faces are plastered all over the Internet and social media for everybody to see. As more arrests are made and charges are filed, we will continue to provide updates.
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
- To provide a tip or digital media from January 6th, please visit this FBI webpage.
Nigerian-Born Grandmother Anticipates Taking Oath to Become U.S. Citizen
A U.S. RESIST NEWS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
AMERICANS ON AMERICA: WHAT MY COUNTRY MEANS TO ME
BY LINDA F. HERSEY
Americans on America is a U.S. RESIST NEWS investigative report series in which we interview ordinary American on the values they believe their country stands for, and what their country needs to do to live up to those values.
# 4 Nigerian-Born Grandmother Anticipates Taking Oath to Become U.S. Citizen
“Safety, equal opportunity for women and the quality of life in the United States mean a lot to me.”
By Linda F. Hersey
Nigerian-born, mother of six grown children, Celine Suala emigrated to the United States in 2012, landed a job as a private security guard, and learned to speak English fluently, in addition to her native Swahili.
At 65, she is not about to slow down either.
In February 2021, Suala will formally embrace a new identity and complete a personal journey when she takes the official oath to become an American citizen, pledging to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the United States of America.
In reciting the 140-word pledge, she will join millions of people who have become naturalized U.S. citizens. In the last decade, more than eight million people became U.S. citizens, with California having the largest foreign-born population, at 27 percent.
For Suala, who has been working in California as a lawful permanent resident, the journey has been highly individual and filled with emotional significance. and a belief in the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” according to the Citizen Resource Center, run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, at the Department of Homeland Security.
Becoming a U.S. citizen is a personal quest, an opportunity to achieve a better life. More than anything, she enjoys the freedoms, both personal and economic, that living in a vital and dynamic democracy provides its citizens.
“Citizenship is a unique bond that unites people around civic ideals
Forging a New Life in a New Country
At 5’2” tall, and with a round cheerful face, Suala does not seem to pose a threat to anyone, even when she is proudly wearing her security guard uniform.
While she plans to maintain dual citizenship – keeping her birthright citizenship in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation – Suala said she feels more aligned with and connected to the United States than her birth country.
More than 250,000 naturalized citizens in the U.S. are from Nigeria. The Pew Research Center reported that a 2018 survey showed that up to 45 percent of Nigerian adults have considered moving from the West African nation to a different country, because of political strife and economic hardship. It was the highest share of any country surveyed.
Suala said it has been a worthwhile experience forging a new life in a brand-new country. With some college education, she quickly learned to speak English fluently in the U.S., as she knew the language from her native Nigeria. Her large extended family remains in Africa, but she helps out by sending some of her earnings to assist her adult children, raising families of their own.
At 65, Suala says that having a career as a woman on equal footing with men, feeling secure and safe in her California community, and enjoying the many benefits of a free society transformed her life.
“I like having the opportunities here that are not [available] to everyone in Nigeria,” she said. “Safety, equal opportunity for women and the quality of life in the United States mean a lot to me.”
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
U.S. Citizenship Resource Center is a government-run website that provides helpful news, information and resources, including studying material for people seeking citizenship in the U.S.
American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by working toward a more fair and just immigration system.
A World Without Borders engages in open dialog and public advocacy for immigration issues.
Upcoming Run-Off Elections
Brief # 15 Upcoming Run-Off Elections
BY William Bourque is U.S. Resist News’s election correspondent, based in Washington, D.C.
February 5, 2021
As we enter this post-Trump world, we now switch focus to runoff elections being held in the wake of cabinet appointments and other events that have taken place. Several runoff elections are being held in several districts, such as LA-02, LA-05, NM-01, and OH-11.
In LA-02, we will be seeing a special election due to the appointment of Cedric Richmond as Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. The district, which includes parts of Baton Rouge and New Orleans is a strong democratic seat. Several candidates have already announced their intention to run, with the frontrunners being state senators Karen Carter Peterson and Troy Carter, who will first have to face a primary on March 20, 2021. Senator Carter Peterson has served 20 years in Louisiana’s Congress, splitting evenly 10 years in the House and 10 in the Senate. Senator Carter has spent 30 years in public service, ranging from State House of Rep. to New Orleans City council to State Senate. Needless to say, the primary on March 20 is likely to decide who will ultimately win the seat.
LA-05 will be having a runoff election in the wake of the death of newly elected Representative Luke Letlow, who passed away from Covid-19, several weeks after his election. His wife, Julia Letlow, has said that she will run for her husband’s seat. In this highly republican district we expect that Letlow will win her husband’s seat comfortably, especially given the tragic circumstances surrounding his death. Several candidates have announced they are running for the seat as well, but with the endorsement of Representative Steve Scalise in her pocket, we expect to see Julia Letlow successfully win her husband’s seat.
In NM-01, the special election will be announced as soon as newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland is confirmed by the Senate. Rumors from the district suggest that the democratic candidate will likely be an indigenous woman, because of the strong indigenous connection to the district. Additionally, Representative Haaland is one of the first two indigenous women elected to Congress, so her constituents may wish to continue that legacy. So far, three state legislators have announced their intention to run, Representative Georgene Louis, Representative Melanie Stansbury, and Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez. Attorney Randi McGinn has also announced that she plans to vie for the seat. Once Haaland is confirmed, expect a fast and furious campaign for this seat.
In OH-11, Marcia Fudge is in the midst of confirmation to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and several folks have already announced their intent to run for the seat. Progressive former State Senator Nina Brown announced her campaign in mid-December, and is a frontrunner in the very liberal district. Another candidate is Cuyahoga County representative Shontel Brown, who is the chair of the Human Resources, Appointments, and Equity Committee. Additionally, Jeff Johnson, who serves on the Cleveland City Council and works as an attorney, has announced his candidacy. Once Fudge is officially confirmed an all-out sprint for her seat is expected.
We will have continuing coverage of all special elections in addition to extended coverage of November elections and beyond to 2022’s midterms.
Biden Signs Executive Orders Regarding Abortion and Obamacare
Brief # 94 Health and Gender Policy
Biden Signs Executive Orders Regarding Abortion and Obamacare
By Erin McNemar
February 4, 2021
Policy
On Thursday, January 28, President Joe Biden signed two executive orders regarding the future of health care in America. According to a press release from the White House, the Executive orders are being signed to strengthen Americans’ access to quality and affordable health care. The first of the executive orders was to roll back anti-abortion measures that were put in place during the Trump administration.
The second of the two orders was to direct federal agencies to reverse Trump administration policies that weaken HealthCare.gov, and made it harder for individuals to get Medicaid. As Biden continues to roll back Trump administration policies, the American people are going to see the return of plans that reflect the Obama era.
Analysis
President Biden’s Executive Order regarding abortion laws reverses the Trump administration’s commitment to the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy, which is often referred to as a global gag rule, prevents federal funding and U.S. aid from going to organizations that provide abortions and related services. These services include referrals, counseling and advocacy concerning abortions. The Executive Order also calls on the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to review policies that are harming women on a global scale.
Additionally, the order withdrew the United States from the Geneva Consensus Declaration, an anti-abortion agreement that Trump entered into last year with several other countries.
The new Executive Order regarding health care reopens HealthCare.gov for a special three month enrollment period that is set to begin on February 15. The normal enrollment period for health insurance is November 1 through December 15. However, this Executive Order will allow individuals that don’t have health insurance to look at their state’s health insurance options offered through the Affordable Care Act outside the typical period. According to CNBC, “This can offer many Americans, particularly those who have dealt with unemployment amid the Covid-19 pandemic, another chance to get insurance.”
When talking about the Executive Orders, Biden said, “The best way to describe them, is to undo the damage Trump has done,” Biden continued. “There’s nothing new that we’re doing here other than restoring the Affordable Care Act and restoring Medicaid to the way it was before Trump became president, which by fiat, he changed and made more inaccessible.”
These Executive Orders are the first major policy changes President Biden has made to health care. However, Biden has made it clear that these orders are only the beginning of his health care reform plan. Biden has indicated that he plans to continue expanding health care coverage and affirm women’s right to choose as Constitutional Law.
Engagement Resources
- Read more about President Biden’s Executive Orders.
- Read the signed Executive Order regarding
- Read the signed Executive order regarding Women’s Health.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
President Biden Moves Forward With Creation of Court Reform Commission
Policy Summary: During the 2020 presidential election campaign then Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden said on the TV program 60 Minutes, “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want.” Biden was responding to talk over a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had passed away in September 2020. Republicans were then in control of the Senate and were pushing to speedily confirm nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett was eventually confirmed to the Supreme Court with less than a week until the November 3, 2020 election.
In response to the speed of the Barrett nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court Biden came under pressure, notably from the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to expand the Supreme Court. The Barrett nomination helped cement a 6 – 3 conservative majority on the Court and there were fears that the Court could make changes or outright reverse abortion and LGBQT rights, among others. In response, Biden promised a commission to examine possible reforms to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
Policy Analysis: President Biden has already begun staffing the commission with some notable names emerging. Reports are that Biden campaign lawyer Bob Bauer will co – chair the commission along with Christina Rodriguez, a Yale law school professor. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor, and Caroline Frederickson, a former president of the American Constitution Society, have also been mentioned as persons being appointed to the commission.
The formation of the commission, which has yet to be formally announced, and the staffing of the committee signals that President Biden is willing to listen to the concerns of the Progressive wing of his party who want to implement change in the wake of the Barrett confirmation. But his choices for staffing the commission also signal that he is open to all proposals and not just the “court – packing” option. “Court – packing” refers to the tactic of adding additional seats to the Supreme Court and has become a talking point among Democrats because of how they feel that a Supreme Court seat was stolen from them due to McConnell’s actions on the Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett nominations. But while this has been a popular proposal with some Democrats, President Joe Biden has admitted that he is “not a fan of court packing.” With the other members of the commission so far, it is becoming clear what proposals they support. Caroline Frederickson supports expanding the Supreme Court while Bob Bauer supports term limits for federal judges. But could there be other proposals or suggestions?
The court – packing and term limit proposals have received the most attention and pushback from opponents but there is a proposal not mentioned that should be a point of consideration by the commission. In order to reform the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court the commission should consider the experience a nominee has with conducting trials either as a district court judge or as a litigator. In – court trial work is a factor when the American Bar Association rates persons nominated to the federal bench and so this experience of understanding what people involved in a lawsuit go through should be considered. By emphasizing in – court trial work the Biden commission can limit nominees who are simply party idelologues and instead encourage justices and judges who know what it takes to work with people and solve their everyday problems. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are people certainly well – versed in the law and bright persons but much of their career lacks in – court trial work because they had been spent years working in Republican administrations. They can recite the law according to their political party but may be inexperienced in how the application of the law affects the ordinary person on the street.
If Biden’s commission is to make any real change to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary as a whole, it needs to consider whether the courts and the people who are nominated to the bench can connect with ordinary citizens. Adding additional seats to the Supreme Court and limiting the period for how long judges can serve are valid proposals but making a concerted effort to select justices and judges who have first had experience dealing with ordinary people and their daily problems and concerns in trial court can go a long way in reforming the judiciary and making it more responsive to what a person needs when they have their day in court. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
American Bar Association (ABA) – association’s webpage on its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and how it rates nominees to the federal bench.
Demand Justice – non – profit group seeking to reform the Supreme Court.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Which Companies are Profiting from the Pandemic?
Which Companies are Profiting from the Pandemic?
Rosalind Gottfried
February 3, 2021
Policy
With the roll out of COVID 19 vaccinations, and the Biden administration’s pledges to speed their dissemination, it might be imagined that the drug companies are reaping enormous profits. This would be, in large part, an incorrect presumption. Because many of the pharmaceutical companies took money to develop the vaccine, there are limits on how much they can charge for the product. Pfizer, one of the first to bring a successful vaccine to market, did not take government funds for research and development of the vaccine; they did join Operation Warp Speed, at a cost of $1.95 billion to the government to provide the first batch of 100million free to the public. They will charge the government $39.99 per two dose protocol. While the vaccine costs $15 per person to produce, there are also shipping, administration, and distribution costs. They are expected to sell $14bn orth of vaccine in the first year.
Multiple factors will contribute to modest profits from the vaccine. Competition from other companies will limit the price any one company can charge. Moderna and Merck plan to sell vaccines for profit but AstraZeneca says they will sell 300 million doses at no profit and Johnson and Johnson has asserted that it will not profit during the emergency pandemic.
The pandemic fat cats are the online retailers and services. E commerce nearly doubled in May 2020. Amazon spending was up 60% in May-July compared to the same time the previous year. E commerce increased 38% and Wal-Mart 6% during the same months. Before the pandemic, Amazon accounted for 4% of retail sales and that figure increased to 15% by 2020. Economists project a potential rise to a 25% share by 2025. Amazon is valued at 1.5 trillion dollars, an increase of a half trillion in 2019. Predictions suggest that 100,000 brick and mortar stores will close by 2025.
Amazon charges their third party merchants a fee to be on the site and takes a percentage of the price of each item sold. Average sellers fees typically range from 6-15% of the product but can be significantly higher in some cases. Additionally, they charge to advertise; a company is compelled to place ads because research shows that their sales will fall if they are not in the top of lists for an item. Amazon is ranked third in advertising revenue behind Google and Facebook. In fact, around 50% of consumers go straight to Amazon when doing a product search.
In addition to the charges to third party merchants, Amazon has been known to change policies with little, or no, warning and also provide little clarity. For example, in March 2019 Amazon allowed only household essentials, medical supplies, and high demand items in their warehouses though they failed to clarify these terms, particularly the latter one. Merchants complained that the items in their stock deemed acceptable appeared arbitrary and also that when the constraints were lifted many items were lost, unpacked, incorrectly counted, and delivered unpredictably. This could cause merchant ratings to drop and that not only reduces business but runs the risk of having the merchant dropped from the site.
Amazon is facing an anti-trust suit from a consumer law firm that alleges price-fixing of their e-books.It is anticipated that a government anti-trust suit against the company is coming soon. In addition the Federal Trade Commission has ordered Amazon to pay $61 million in stolen pay.
Some accusations have been made that Amazon uses data showing high demand products to develop a private competing brand. Amazon has denied these accusations but they were mentioned in the House anti-trust hearings last spring. Though the practices are difficult, most merchants cannot afford to stay in business if they are eliminated from the Amazon site. Amazon merchant practices were brought into question in the Judiciary hearings as was their propensity to acquire companies which would compete with them or could promote their activity. For example, Amazon bought Zoox, a company working on self-driving cars, for 1.2 billion dollars; these cars could eventually be used to deliver the Amazon purchases.
Apple is another company that has made huge profits in the Covid-19 era. Similarly, revenue for Microsoft was 40 billion dollars and 28 billion for Facebook in the last quarter of 2020. Apple had sales of 111.4 billion dollars in the past three months of 2020. Part of this was due to the new Iphone 12 and to the holiday season. Their profit was up by 29 % for the same period from the previous year in spite of some temporary store closures during the shelter at home periods. Apple shares soared by 84% in 2020.
Analysis
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee antitrust subcommittee’s report, on competition in Digital markets suggests that policies regarding these online enterprises may soon be subject to anti-trust and business practice legislation restricting their operations. Google, Amazon, and to a lesser extent, Facebook were prominent in the report’s narrative. However, so far it has been difficult to restrict the practices and marketing of these entities.
It has been suggested that the taxation of global digital companies should be harnessed to pay for the pandemic and related expenses. The state of California has seen a coalition promote a bill to increase the corporate tax from 8.84 % to 9.6 %, that would produce 2 billion dollars a year to go for housing the homeless. Critics suggest that this legislation would produce a flight of businesses from the state which some analysts believe is already under way. The Bill, however, would increase the taxes on any company earning over 5 million dollars of profit in the state, regardless of where they are located. Governor Newsom declined to support an increased tax on the wealthy, which was another strategy promoted by some to alleviate the lack of services and revenue in the state.
Learn More Resources
https://time.com/5870826/amazon-coronavirus-jeff-bezos-congress/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/27/apple-profits-latest-quarter-surge-pandemic
https://www.accountingtoday.com/opinion/paying-for-the-pandemic-are-increased-taxes-the-answer
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/11/12/how-much-could-pfizer-make-from-a-covid-19-vaccine/
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/analysis-read-antitrust-case-amazon-key-takeaways/
https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/200336920
Resources
https://www.mediate.com/articles/awiener2.cfm Information regarding online dispute regulations
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Emoluments Cases
Brief # 7 Social Justice
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Emoluments Cases
Zack Huffman
February 3, 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court halted a pair of ongoing emoluments lawsuits against former president Donald Trump on Monday, Jan. 25, noting that the cases stopped being relevant when Trump left office.
One of the lawsuits was filed days after Trump’s inauguration in 2017 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The suit claimed Trump’s vast business empire, from which he refused to divest, created numerous ways for foreign interests to buy influence over the president.
“Applied to Donald J. Trump’s diverse dealings, the text and purpose of the
Foreign Emoluments Clause speak as one: this cannot be allowed,” said the original civil complaint, which was filed in federal court in New York City.
“President Donald Trump has been violating the Constitution since noon on January 20, 2017,” wrote Gabe Lezra, staff counsel for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “His decision in the months prior to his inauguration to retain ownership and control of his sprawling business empire—a move that went against both long-standing historical practice and the advice of career government ethics officials—put him at odds with the Constitution’s original anti-corruption provisions the moment he was sworn in.”
The second lawsuit, filed in June, 2017, came from the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington D.C. and alleged similar claims about Trump businesses functioning as a means for Trump to accept payments from foreign sources.
Both lawsuits cited the emoluments clause of the Constitution which dictates that Congress must approve all payments the president receives from foreign sources.
The rulings were part of an order list that was publicly released on Monday, Jan. 26. Each week, the Supreme Court issues an order list, which is series of brief rulings on cases. The Supreme Court’s order also included instructions for the lower courts that previous ruled on the case to vacate their actions, which effectively remove any precedents that may have been set.
Analysis
The emoluments clause, as it was originally intended, was created as a safety guard against corruption of diplomats. It was a reaction to the European royal tradition of gift giving by kings and queens, according to a 2016 report from the Brookings Institute. For example, the King of France an ornate box to Ben Franklin when he was serving as diplomat to France. Franklin had to seek permission from Congress to keep the box.
Although the clause originally applied to diplomats and ambassadors, as recently as 2009 the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that the clause applied to the presidency. The official interpretation was made after Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which the Department of Justice deemed exempt from the emoluments clause because it was not granted by a foreign government.
Despite the 2009 determination, the emoluments clause remains largely untested, especially in the case of someone like Donald Trump. By refusing to divest from his businesses, Trump maintained a vast network of opportunities for foreign interests to buy influence in a manner less direct than a simple jeweled box.
“Never in American history has a president presented more conflict of interest
questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Given the vast and global scope of Trump’s business interests, many of which remain shrouded in secrecy, we cannot predictthe full gamut of legal and constitutional challenges that lie ahead,” said the Brooking Institute’s report, which was written by Norman Eisen, Richard Painter and Laurence Tribe.
The two emoluments lawsuits filed against Trump were seeking a court order that Trump’s business automatically put him in violation of the Constitution. Essentially, the plaintiffs wanted a ruling the Trump broke the lawsuit, as opposed to seeking a specific punishment for the violation.
Both cases went from federal court to their respective circuit courts of appeal where there were rulings against President Trump.. Trump then appealed his losses at the circuit level to the Supreme Court.
A pair of briefs, filed on behalf of Trump before the Supreme Court at the end of December, argued that both cases were moot since Trump had lost reelection and Biden was, at the time, on the verge of being inaugurated. Basically, the court could not properly find that Trump was in violation of the emoluments clause if he was no longer bound by that clause as a former president. The Supreme Court agreed.
Despite the outcome, the attorneys general celebrated their lower court victories for laying a pathway by which the emoluments clause could be enforced by the court – provided legal action takes place before the president leaves office.
“The Emoluments Clauses were specifically inserted into the Constitution to prevent federal officials, including the President of the United States, from profiting from their positions in government,” said AGs Karl Racine and Brian Frosh in a joint statement following the Supreme Courts ruling. “President Trump illegally profited from his office by receiving improper emoluments in the form of money from foreign governments, federal agencies, and state governments that conducted business at his hotel to curry favor with him and his administration.”
On the other hand, Trump’s attorneys created their own blueprint for dragging lawsuits out until the end of a presidential term, rendering them irrelevant.
Learn More
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Order List for Jan. 25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.pdf
Profiting off the Presidency: Trump’s Violations of the Emoluments Clauses
Profiting off the Presidency: Trump’s Violations of the Emoluments Clauses
Brookings Institute: The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning, and Application to Donald J. Trump
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf
DOJ: President’s Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/applicability-emoluments-clause-and-foreign-gifts-and-decorations-act-presidents-receipt
Statement by AG Racine and AG Frosh on Conclusion of Emoluments Lawsuit
https://oag.dc.gov/release/statement-ag-racine-and-ag-frosh-conclusion?src=ilaw