JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Political Comments About Coronavirus Help Spark Rise in Asian-American Hate Crimes
Brief #10—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
Over the course of the past year, there has been a rise in the number of hate crimes against Asian Americans. This is being credited to COVID-19 originating in Asia, along with the rhetoric of former president Donald Trump. Trump often referred to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus” on Twitter, and continued to defend his use of the term at a later press conference. While he finally agreed to not use the term, it had already done damage; it sparked a Twitter movement of anti-Asian sentiment and gave some people the fuel they needed to take that hate off the web and into the real world. According to The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, anti-Asian hate crimes spiked from 49 crimes resulting in charges in 2019 to 122 crimes in 2020. The findings are particularly disturbing because overall hate crimes actually dropped by 7% in 2020 due to the ongoing pandemic and associated business and school closures. In 2021, the racism towards Asian Americans seems to unfortunately not be slowing down.
Fishing Boat Dispatch
Brief #2—Marine Environment
By Katherine Cart
I came to Amaknak Island by plane. The mountains the plane passes between were, in June, very green. The visual sense that the Aleutian Chain gives is of a treeless Hawaii – its geology is similar; the landscape is very young, and active volcanoes grow the islands sporadically. Extending like a hooked arm, the Aleutians delineate the southern edge of the Bering Sea. Amaknak rises from the North Pacific, 800 miles south of Anchorage. Around the smidge of land that is the Aleutian Chain, there is very little but sea.
Fishing Boat Dispatch
Brief #3—Marine Environment
By Katherine Cart
Walk to Maine’s midcoast and look southwest. Unless you’ve gotten yourself in a spruce thicket, you will see Atlantic water filling the hole that is the Gulf of Maine. Likely, you will hear the sea, smell it, be standing in its sandy refuse. It will very possibly feel colder – or at least damper – here than a mile inland. Chilled oceanic air is sucked landwards, dumping sludgy precipitation, heaping fog, painting rime on roof, pine, window pane, dune hollow. A weathered-in gulf can be, to the casual observer, somewhat benign, rather like watching on a TV screen an avalanche shift some unpopulated mountain. Storms are spectacular to witness from the beaches, nasty to endure offshore. Inland Maine is a stronghold well protected from tidal degradation by granitic coastline, carved out over several millennia by the heaving of the Laurentide ice sheet over Appalachian stone. If you are standing at the coast and look down, between your feet you will see the long lateral scratches the Laurentide left, sloughing southwest into the sea. One cannot help but to think of fingernails, and a general determination to cling on.
The Impact of Biden’s American Rescue Plan on Education
Brief #57—Education
By Emily Carty
President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, signed into law on March 11, 2021, has a wide range of implications regarding the school system and, more generally, education and development of our youth population. Under the Act’s Title II (Committee on health, education, labor, and pensions), Subtitle A (Education Matters), Biden’s plan for our education system is laid out. Throughout the entirety of the act however, there are various sections that impact children or education, particularly notable is an increased child tax credit that will be extended to benefit lower-income families.
The Federal Deficit and Uncollected Taxes
Brief #112—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Biden’s 1.9 trillion dollar American Rescue Plan is viewed as adding to the already ballooning federal deficit. Certainly the pandemic has added to that burden but the structural issues go much deeper than the necessary expenditures to address the desperate economic situation which befell many Americans. The deficit is expected to reach 35 trillion dollars by the end of the 2021 fiscal year; it stood at 28 trillion prior to the latest stimulus. In the first five months of the fiscal year the deficit was 68% greater than for the same time in the previous year.
The War On Government
U.S. Resist Blog
By Anand Giridharadas
Forty Januaries ago, Ronald Reagan, upon assuming the most powerful governmental office in the history of civilization, declared in his inaugural address that “in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” To show he meant it, Reagan soon proposed a budget that gutted social programs and cut taxes. The idea was that, down the road, it would be harder to restore such programs and still profess yourself dedicated to fiscal responsibility. Some years later, an incisive observer of American politics reflected on that pivotal moment in 1981: “The Reagan tax cuts have ended growth of the social agenda; it’s all come to a screeching halt.” The observer was a young senator named Joe Biden. He had voted for the Reagan budget. Now, like many of his Democratic colleagues, he would have to live in the political and moral — and narrative — universe it created.
The Five Things that Should Be On The Biden Tech Agenda
Brief #41—Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
As the Biden Administration fills out its policy teams, we at U.S. Resist News would like to suggest an urgent technology agenda for consideration. The geometric improvements in computer processor speeds and the dramatic breakthroughs in new technologies have made the need for leadership and open discussion imperative. We call on the Biden Administration to get out in front of these issues to make these technologies available to all Americans and ensure that these technologies work in the service of all Americans.
Biden and the American Relationship with Europe
Brief #104—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
The Biden campaign was extremely vocal about its intention to restore a “traditional” American role in foreign affairs, an essential component of this being a restitution of America’s typical postwar role with respect to its European allies. In theory, this would reverse Trump’s erratic position towards these traditionally central alliances, which involved the imposition of tariffs on European goods, mixed rhetoric on NATO (unusual for a postwar American president), and his rhetorical hostility to the European Union, among other phenomena.
A Surge of Unaccompanied Children at the US Southern Border
Brief #117—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The US is seeing a record-breaking influx of children held in government facilities after crossing the southern border. The amount of unaccompanied children crossing the border has increased 63% so far in 2021 and border facilities are over capacity due to COVID-19 social distance restrictions in addition to the sheer number of children needing accommodations. The US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is currently holding more than 13,000 unaccompanied children in custody. The children’s ages range from toddlers (usually with an older sibling) to teens. Those under 18 are being allowed to enter the US while their claims are processed.
How Will Amy Comey Barret rule on “Contentious Environmental Issues”?
Written by: Shannon Q. Elliott
Thursday, November 19, 2020
Policy
On Monday November 9th, 2020 Amy Comey Barrett heard her first case as a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. (SCOTUS) The conservative justice, a former Notre Dame Law School graduate, filled the seat which belonged to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. One of the first cases Barret will hear is The U.S. Forest Service v. The Sierra Club, a case in which the Sierra Club initially brought action against the Forest Service in 2014. USFS refused to release documents showing their proposed changes to cooling water intake systems. Barrett, a strict constitutionalist is expected to narrow in on how the statute was written, specifically dissecting the language to determine her ruling. Her conservative views could aggressively tip the scales changing environmental laws throughout the states.
The central argument surrounding the case is whether or not the Freedom of Information Act, specifically exemption 5 (FOIA) should protect internal government documents from public interference. To qualify for exemption 5 the court will have to satisfy two conditions, 1.) Is the source a government agency, and 2.) it must fall within the limits of privilege against discovery. It is important to bear in mind that the FOIA governs the release of information to the public generated by the federal government, however, overuse of exemption 5 undermines the FOIA. Overuse shields the public from information that is only privy to government agencies, working documents, unofficial emails, opinions, and pre-decisional documents that are still being negotiated are examples of privileged information. Sierra Club contests that the documents supporting the change to cooling structures do not qualify for the exemption. They are persistent the public has a right to understand how and why the regulation was changed. Their concerns are the injuries sustained to aquatic life, the release of chemicals, large animals being caught in intake screens; and how these changes will adversely affect the environment, and public health.
Though the central argument will be dissected and interpreted to the best of the court’s ability, environmentalists are waiting with baited breath, to see how a Barrett ruling for The U.S. Forrest Service will affect environmental protections that are awaiting judicial review at the SCOTUS.
Analysis
Barrett is a Trump-appointed judge. This suggests a theory that Barrett has allegiance to the administration and may rule in favor of many of the environmental rollbacks of the past four years. It’s not a definite, however her lack of environmental cases, and being quoted as “not holding firm views over contentious matters of public debate,” are worrisome to those who have done the calculations, and predictions that support conclusive evidence that the environment is on the brink of failure.
Totality of the circumstances, is a judicial test that refers to a method where analysis is based on all the available information rather then the bright lights rule. The rule allows courts to focus on all aspects of the case, rather than any one factor. Whereas environmental litigation is a new to the bench, and the statutes are broadly written, reaching for this tool may provide clarity when entering an opinion. Narrowing in on language and definitions, of statutes that are not clear, could be considered irresponsible on part of the justices because of the extremities of public debate over climate change, intrusion of habitats, disregard for waste water, and so on. All of these matters tie into public health; lung cancer, respiratory issues, asthma, and malaria are identified by the World Health Organization as causation byway of environmental exposure.
An appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is for the nominee’s lifetime. Let’s hope that the justices currently sitting on the bench are able to realize how destructive Trumps rollbacks are and focus on balancing competing interests.
Learn More:
- Amy Coney Barrett Takes Up First Supreme Court Case. (2020, Novmber ). https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/11/02/amy-coney-barrett-takes-up-first-supreme-court-case/?sh=27a3f9544037
- By Calling Climate Change ‘Controversial,’ Barrett Created Controversy. (2020, October ). NYTimes.com : https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/climate/amy-coney-barrett-climate-change.html
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, 19-547 (Supreme Court of The United States 2020 October ).
Resistance Resource:
(https://www.sierraclub.org/, 2020)
Ending the American War in Afghanistan
Ending the American War in Afghanistan
By Will Solomon
December 1, 2020
Policy Summary:
On November 17, the Pentagon announced that the Trump Administration would plan to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 2500 by mid-January. The plan has been advertised by the administration as a move consistent with Trump’s promise of ending “forever wars” in the Middle East, as well as a redeployment of resources to more pressing security threats. Critics of Trump’s announcement have argued that such a move would further destabilize the region, undercut ongoing peace talks, and allow the Taliban to continue gaining power in the country.
Rhetorical isolationism has been a Trump hallmark since his campaign for president began in 2015—and it is broadly popular. A poll conducted this past summer showed that approximately 3 in 4 Americans support bringing troops home from overseas. Indeed, it seems clear that Trump’s isolationist rhetoric was integral to his winning the Republican primary; his willingness to lambast Jeb Bush and other Republican candidates for their support for the Iraq War and other wars clearly set him apart on stage, and arguably also helped him against Clinton, who was often viewed as more hawkish then Trump.
But rhetoric aside, Trump’s policies in office have been in many respects contiguous with those of his immediate predecessor—eschewing major troop deployments in favor of air power, drone strikes, and special forces raids. While there have been some troop drawdowns, the defense budget has continued to balloon, and Trump’s presidency has not signaled a drastic shift in American policies overseas.
Analysis:
Trump’s cynicism and erratic choices are impossible to ignore in virtually all his policy decisions. With Biden’s victory and likely inauguration, it seems quite plausible that Trump’s move to drawdown troop levels in Afghanistan—and other Middle Eastern conflict zones—at the presumed end of his presidency is a means to demonstrate that he’s fulfilling a campaign pledge. It also enhances his credibility as he continues to emphasize American isolationism , and quite plausibly, support other Republican candidates for office, and maybe run again himself. The concern that such an abrupt move could be disorderly is legitimate, and the concerns of many over what will happen to a fragile Afghan state—will it be overrun by the Taliban or other fundamentalists? what will happen to gains made in areas like women’s rights?—with a lighter US presence is also legitimate.
That said, the US has now been at War in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years, with little to show for it, and no clear path forward besides maintaining an unsustainable course—a reality well-articulated in this piece from Andrew Bacevich and Adam Weinstein. Much of the country is now controlled by a resurgent Taliban, and newer jihadist groups like the Islamic State have sprung up in different places. The government is weak, heavily reliant on the United States to maintain legitimacy, and inextricably corrupt.
Assuming this drawdown actually occurs and Trump does leave office in January, Biden would be wise not to attempt to restore the status quo in Afghanistan, but to recognize that the strategy governing these wars has failed, and wholly re-approach the Afghan situation. This would mean bringing in new voices, and entirely reevaluating the American strategic position in the Greater Middle East. Given Biden’s decades of hawkishness and present reliance on a coterie of Obama-era advisors, one wonders whether this is the tack he will pursue.
Resistance Resources
https://responsiblestatecraft.org — “Responsible Statecraft is a publication of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. It provides analysis, opinion, and news to promote a positive vision of U.S. foreign policy based on humility, diplomatic engagement, and military restraint. RS also critiques the ideas — and the ideologies and interests behind them — that have mired the United States in counterproductive and endless wars and made the world less secure.”
https://www.codepink.org — “CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.”
https://www.veteransforpeace.org — “Veterans For Peace is a global organization of Military Veterans and allies whose collective efforts are to build a culture of peace by using our experiences and lifting our voices. We inform the public of the true causes of war and the enormous costs of wars, with an obligation to heal the wounds of wars. Our network is comprised of over 140 chapters worldwide whose work includes: educating the public, advocating for a dismantling of the war economy, providing services that assist veterans and victims of war, and most significantly, working to end all wars.”
Despite Trump Dismissal Christopher Krebs is Still Getting It Right
By Charles A. Rubin
Despite Trump Dismissal Christopher Krebs is Still Getting It Right
December 2,2020
Policy Summary
On November 17, 2020 – two weeks after election day and ten days after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the Presidential race, Christopher Krebs, the head of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, was fired in a tweet by President Trump. His termination came after Krebs vigorously defended the integrity of the election in the face of withering and unsubstantiated charges of election fraud and vote tampering from the Trump administration. Krebs has continued to defend his agency and provide evidence that the President’s claims of irregularities are false and themselves a threat to our election process.
Analysis
CISA, was founded in 2017 with the mission of defending the nation against cybersecurity threats from both foreign and domestic actors. By partnering with the Intelligence community, other Federal agencies, business, state and local governments they have provided a clearinghouse for information and tools to recognize threats, defend against intrusion and manipulation and repel attacks. They work with critical infrastructure agencies to help them prepare for the increasing scale and frequency of cyberattacks.
The agency’s original and only director until his termination earlier this month has been Christorpher Krebs. Krebs came to the agency with an impressive resume. He led Microsoft’s U.S. policy work on cybersecurity and technology issues. Krebs had previously worked in the Bush administration and written extensively on internet and network security. He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate for Directorship of CISA.
In regards to elections, though, Kreb’s took a decidedly nontechnical approach. He determined early on that the best way to defend elections was to ensure that a paper trail of votes existed. In 2016 only 65% of voting systems produced a paper record of a ballot. In 2020 that number had increased to 95%. Having this manual record ensured that in battleground states, like Georgia and Wisconsin, hand tallies could be conducted affirming the results of the machine counts further providing confidence that this most unusual election was conducted fairly and accurately. He established close collaboration with Secretaries of State, local and county election officials to discuss best practices and coordinate findings. They were instrumental in helping to roll out secure mail-in voting programs contrary to the President’s disparagement of them.
Despite the President’s efforts to cast doubt on the election, his action early in his administration in creating CISA and installing a well respected practitioner at its helm ensured that the taint of foreign influence in the election was far less likely.
As election day drew closer, Krebs realized that misinformation campaigns were the larger threat. In a brilliant move CISA created RumorControl.gov to bring to light false narratives and debunk election misinformation that was being spread by foreign actors such as Iran and even from the President’s Twitter feed. This ultimately led to his dismissal.
The nation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Christopher Krebs and to the many unsung election workers who worked tirelessly for many months to ensure that the election ran smoothly. There will always be actors or organizations that work to undermine the process but there are, thankfully, many other that put aside partisanship to ensure that the votes are counted and results are defended.
Resistance Resources
- AccessNow provides resources on keeping the internet safe and open and monitoring elections around the world.orld.
- The Center for Digital Democracy’s mission is to ensure that digital technologies serve and strengthen democratic values, institutions and processes. CDD strives to safeguard privacy and civil and human rights, as well as to advance equity, fairness, and community.
- The Voter Protection Program advances legal strategies and recommendations to protect the vote and make sure every vote is counted
- CISA’s RumorControl.gov continues to debunk misinformation about the 2020 Presidential Campaign.
Leading Contenders for Attorney General And A New Direction for DOJ
Policy Summary: One of the most significant decisions that President – elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will make in the coming weeks before his inauguration will be whom he will appoint as Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement official in the country and heads the Department of Justice (DOJ). Leadership and management of the department is vital because of the impact the divisions have on all aspects of American life. Well – known divisions at DOJ are the civil rights and the criminal division as well as the environmental and natural resources and antitrust divisions. DOJ also manages several law enforcement agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and, of course, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Due to the enormous responsibilities at leading so many varied divisions and bureaus, President – elect Biden’s choice to lead DOJ will have an effect on the direction the department will take on controversial issues and which laws will be prioritized for enforcement. Thus far, three names have emerged as leading candidates, each with perceived strengths and weaknesses based on the current situation in the U.S. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Former deputy attorney general Sally Yates, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland have all received serious consideration for the position.
Ms. Yates is believed to be the leading candidate for the job due to her long career and experience at DOJ, which started in the late 1980’s as a federal prosecutor. She also made headlines when she instructed DOJ not to enforce President Trump’s executive order restricting travel to seven Muslim countries. Former Governor Deval Patrick presents the most experience to lead DOJ as he was formerly head of the civil rights division under the Clinton Administration and has more civil rights experience from working for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. And in a bit of a surprise, Judge Merrick Garland’s name has emerged as a serious contender. Judge Garland is known for having his nomination to the Supreme Court blocked by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) but he has impeccable credentials and is well – respected by his peers for his time as the former Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
What these three choices signify is what the Biden Administration would like to prioritize in a post – Trump DOJ. The selection of Ms. Yates would be seen as the most direct rebuke of President Trump’s disregard for the Constitution and his policies as illustrated by Ms. Yates instruction to not enforce one of President Trump’s most controversial policies, the Muslim travel ban, because it was deemed unconstitutional. If Mr. Biden chooses her it would show that the DOJ would get back to following established processes and procedures instead of the bulldozing ways to get what they wanted as was the norm under President Trump’s DOJ. The selection of former Governor Patrick would be seen as prioritizing race and civil rights issues again in the department. This has become vitally important in the wake of racial protests in 2020, criminal justice reform and the Black Lives Matter movement. Under President Trump, the focus on civil rights and their impact on minority communities seem to have been neglected or outright mocked and if Mr. Biden selects former Governor Patrick then he can assure the nation that civil rights will not become an inconvenient afterthought. And finally, Judge Garland as a potential choice to become Attorney General is seen as a way to bring back professionalism and order back to a DOJ that had become chaotic under a Trump Administration. Judge Garland also has experience dealing with domestic terrorist groups as he led the prosecution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. With President Trump giving encouragement to domestic terrorist and white supremacist groups, the selection of Judge Garland would be another message to send that DOJ under a President Biden will not tolerate the encouragement of domestic terror groups.
While the choice for Attorney General has yet to be revealed the leading contenders are helping to signal the direction that DOJ will take under President – elect Biden. His focus is on emphasizing civil rights, combatting domestic terror groups and, most importantly, bringing back a high standard of competence and ethical behavior that was sorely lacking under the direction of President Trump and outgoing Attorney General William Barr. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – organizational chart of the department’s divisions and bureaus.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General – group that seeks to promote integrity, efficiency and accountability at DOJ with reports and updates on ongoing investigations.
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.
Trump’s Refusal to Accept Defeat: Another Reason Why He Is Not Fit For Office
By Linda F. Hersey
November 30, 2020
Although Donald Trump is the first sitting president to refuse to concede after losing a U.S. democratic election – shocking the nation and leaders across the world — his wild claims of conspiracy and election fraud come as no surprise to a handful of academics, attorneys and political strategists who weighed the danger of such an outcome prior to Election 2020.
They predicted that if Trump lost, he might treat defeat like the cancellation of his TV show or a real estate deal that failed to close – with bombast, anger and legal threats.
Under a headline titled “The Election That Could Break America,” journalist Barton Gellman wrote in Atlantic Magazine in September that if Trump lost the electoral vote, he might just try to “subvert the process” and “throw the election into chaos.”
Gellman, an author and staff writer for the Atlantic, wrote that without an obvious landslide victory by Biden, Trump might seek to create enough confusion and ambiguity to hold onto power after a loss. Barton based his essay on interviews with experts on the presidency and concluded that Trump, by his personality, cannot accept defeat.
“The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president’s term in office ‘shall end’ at noon on January 20, but two men could show up to be sworn in. One of them would arrive with all the tools and power of the presidency already in hand,” Gellman described.
Scholars note that the Constitution does not articulate the terms of a “peaceful transition” of leadership yet presumes it will take place.
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton proposed during the Constitutional Convention that presidents serve for life. The proposal lost – on a vote.
In 2020, Trump gave clues to his post-election behavior during the campaign as well as during his first run for office, telling interviewers that he was not prepared to acknowledge defeat and was not sure if he ever would.
While such tenaciousness in the rough-and-tumble Manhattan real estate world has worked for Trump over the years, the necessity for the leader of the United States to honor the election process calls for integrity and the graciousness to acknowledge loss, to ensure the continuity of a free government.
‘Calling an Election Unfair Does Not Make It So’
The Trump campaign instead has filed numerous lawsuits in six battleground states trying to disqualify mail-in ballots and block certification of the results. U.S. courts have rejected those efforts. Appeals were filed in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
“Several of the suits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies have been dismissed or withdrawn, and the ones that are still before the courts don’t appear to challenge enough votes to affect the race,” Bloomberg News reported.
A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania on Nov. 27, 2020, rejected the latest effort by Trump’s legal team to overturn election results: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.
Trump has vowed to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but some question whether he will pursue it. He does not want to face more failure.
A Nov. 28, 2020, article in The Washington Post raises questions about Trump’s mental fitness and ability to accept the reality of his loss. Instead, the reporters write that Trump surrounds himself with soothsayers more than willing to “indulge” his fantasies of victory over Biden:
“Sequestered in the White House and brooding out of public view after his election defeat, rageful and at times delirious in a torrent of private conversations, Trump was, in the telling of one close adviser, like ‘Mad King George, muttering, I won. I won. I won.’ ”
Casting Himself as the Victim of a Rigged Election
Trump may see the best strategy as casting himself as the perpetual victim, especially if he should seek to run again – in 2024. It is not surprising that the candidate who vowed to “drain the swamp” four years ago alleges a rigged system in 2020, when voted out of office after one term.
Such rhetoric keeps his followers agitated and energized, and in Trump’s mind, preserves his status as an outsider who does not cozy up to the D.C. elite — the same tack he took in 2016.
Another Trump run is possible.
Either Trump, or his eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, have been floated as potential GOP candidates, as Ivanka proved deft at fund-raising and speaking to Donald Trump supporters.
Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, are considering relocating to Bedminster, New Jersey, a sure sign that the entire Trump clan is moving on. Some speculate the Kushners will avoid returning to New York City and the liberal-leaning social scene, where Ivanka once flourished but now would be ostracized.
The president is spending more time on his favorite golf course in Virginia, away from the media and from public attention, avoiding answering questions and keeping people in suspense about his next move. The “what ifs?” and speculation on whether he will concede are a cliffhanger that give Donald Trump the attention he craves.
In the clearest statement yet of his intentions on stepping down, Trump said on Nov. 26, at a press conference, that he would leave office at the end of his term, though he did not admit he lost.
The press conference marked the first time that Trump took questions from the White House press pool since the election.
“Certainly, I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House.
Resistance Resources:
Atlantic Magazine covers news, politics and lifestyle, with long-form articles and in-depth reporting.
League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan group that encourages informed and active participation in the government.
Vote Smart, formerly called Project Vote Smart, is a national non-profit, non-partisan research organization that helps inform the public on candidates running for office.
www.justfacts.votesmart.org
Explaining the Minimum Wage
Explaining the Minimum Wage
Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
November 27, 2020
Policy
The term minimum wage actually refers to several different things. There is the federal minimum wage which is the lowest wage that employers can pay their workers unless they are in an exempt category of tipped workers. Many states have augmented the federal wage with a state or local minimum wage. Consequently, in referring to the minimum wage, it is imperative to elaborate what standard is the reference point.
The minimum wage was established in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act to stabilize the economy and provide for protections for workers. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, unchanged since 2009. This period represents the longest constant amount of the minimum wage in history. The real value of that wage is down 17% since 2009 and 31% since 1968, when minimum wage was at its peak value. Currently the mid-range for wage earners varies between $23-35 , depending on the industry and the level of education. So the Federal minimum wage number is considerably below the mid-range.
Employers can pay a minimum wage of $2.13 to wait staff and any other person who receives cash tips as long as the combined income equals the federal minimum wage, though this is usually not monitored very thoroughly, or at all. Although some people make a nice income from tips, others suffer in that their employers are not honoring the law guaranteeing the federal minimum.
In the same time period, 2009-2019, worker productivity has doubled certainly establishing the availability of funds for a more realistic minimum wage. Twenty one states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wages to address inflation, along with about two dozen cities and counties. Wages for low wage workers in those states rose much faster than for those in the 29 states that have not increased the minimum beyond the federal standard. Georgia and Wyoming have state minimum wages which are $5.15. In states with a more substantial minimum wage the gender gap has narrowed and women’s wage gains outpaced men’s. In states with the federal minimum wage, women’s wages gained only 50% of the increase sustained by men. About 30% of low wage workers earn near the federal minimum wage (between $7.25 and $10.10). Raising the federal minimum wage is expected to raise the wages of 33.5 to 40 million workers (depending on the source).
Analysis
A living wage, one which would guarantee that a person earns enough to maintain a stable standard of living providing basic needs, would be a lot more than the current standard. Though many state and localities have increased the minimum wage to, or approaching, $15.00 an hour others have remained stagnant or phased in smaller increases. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a Raise the Minimum Wage Act, in 2019, which would establish a $15 minimum by 2025. The wage would also have an annual automatic adjustment based on the middle wage worker so that the gap between low and middle wage earners would be consistent. President-elect Joe Biden supports raising the wage to $15 per hour; eliminating the tipping minimum wage; and basing the minimum wage on the median wage. If the Senate maintains its Republican majority, the chances of the Senate passing this wage act are slim. The Pew Research Center survey indicates that two thirds of the American population favors a $15 minimum wage. Some economists believe that even raising the rate to this level is insufficient to guarantee a minimum standard of living. Many minimum wage workers would remain in poverty, despite the rise in wages.
References
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/the-us-is-closer-to-a-15-federal-minimum-wage-after-biden-win-.html
Resources
https://onefairwage.site/ An organization promoting one fair wage for all workers, including the tipped one.
Police Wall of Shame: The Philadelphia Police Department
Policing in America Series
“Police Wall of Shame” is a Policing in America series by Laura Plummer.
November 30,2020
Summary
Philadelphia is the sixth largest city in the U.S. and the largest city in Pennsylvania. It has a population of just over 1.5 million, with roughly equal percentages of Black and white citizens (42 and 41 percent respectively). Its police department is the fourth largest in the country, behind only New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. It employs over 6,300 full-time sworn officers, around one for every 238 people.
While the defeat of Pres. Trump in the Nov. 3 election elicits hope for an end to police brutality in our nation, this is not a time to rest on our laurels. One need only examine the litany of untoward events involving the Philadelphia Police Department to be convinced of the ongoing need for radical and comprehensive police reform.
Date: Feb. 10, 2020
Incident: The department graduated 19 officers, none of whom was African-American, despite the city’s Black population of 42 percent.
Date: April 27, 2020
Incident: A report by the Penn. ALCU showed significant racial disparities when it came to traffic stops by the department. Black people accounted for 71 percent of all stops, despite only representing 42 percent of the city’s population.
Date: June 4, 2020
Incident: In his new budget, the mayor proposed a massive funding increase for the department while slashing funds for anti-violence programs and civilian oversight of the police.
Date: June 5, 2020
Incident: A high-ranking commander was charged with aggravated assault after being caught on video beating protestors with a baton. The same commissioner was cited in 2014 for failing to supervise four narcotics officers accused of theft and lying.
Date: June 6, 2020
Incident: Thousands of UPenn students and faculty urged the institution to cut its ties with the department, claiming a militarized police presence on campus.
Date: July 23, 2020
Incident: A report revealed that officers misused their body cameras. Misuse included not turning on the camera prior to handcuffing a person, not filing arrest paperwork, and, in one instance, turning off a camera to allow a fellow officer to beat a detainee.
Date: Sept. 17, 2020
Incident: A former officer claimed he was harassed and demeaned by his colleagues for his support of the Black Lives Matter movement, which he believed led to his unjust termination from the force.
Date: Oct. 9, 2020
Incident: A former officer was charged with murder in the 2017 fatal shooting of an unarmed Black man.
Date: Oct. 26, 2020
Incident: Police shot dead Walter Wallace Jr. in an incident captured on video.
The 27-year-old Black man was suffering from severe mental illness.
Date: Oct. 28, 2020
Incident: It was revealed that, at the time of the shooting of Walter Wallace Jr., only one third of officers was equipped with tasers, an alternative to firearms.
Date: Oct. 30, 2020
Incident: In an event caught on camera, officers smashed a woman’s SUV windows before dragging her and her infant out. A police union falsely claimed that the child had been missing.
Date: Nov. 6, 2020
An attorney for the family of Walter Wallace Jr. claimed that the police department ignored a 2015 report from the Dept. of Justice urging that tasers be given to officers in order to prevent fatal shootings.
Date: Nov. 23, 2020
Incident: The city board tasked with overseeing police shootings did not meet since Oct. of 2019 and did not have any meetings slated for the remainder of 2020.
Analysis
Non-profit organizations and advocacy groups are hard at work in Philly. Amistad Law Project and #PhillyWeRise aim to gut the city’s police budget. POWER launched its Live Free/Justice Reform Campaign in response to recent police violence. The ACLU of Greater Philadelphia and Black Lives Matter Philly continue to push for broad criminal justice reform.
Resistance Resources
ACLU Greater Philadelphia Chapter is the local chapter of the national American Civil Liberties Union
Amistad Law Project is a human rights organization based in Philadelphia
Black Lives Matter Philly is the local chapter of the global Black Lives Matter movement
#PhillyWeRise is a campaign of the Movement Alliance Project
POWER is an interfaith religious organization serving Pennsylvania
This brief was compiled by Laura Plummer. Did we miss an incident? Contact me@lauraplummer.me.
California’s Prop 22 and the Gloomy Future of the Gig Economy
By Scout Burchill
November 27, 2020
Summary:
While the presidential election earlier this November was still brimming with controversy and suspense, major tech companies Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Instacart and Postmates were celebrating a massive victory with the passage of California’s Prop 22. Passing with 58% of the vote, the proposition will provide exemptions to app-based rideshare and delivery companies from a California labor law called AB5, which was passed in 2019 and extended employee protections to gig economy workers.
Under Prop 22 (officially titled: “Exempt App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers”) rideshare drivers and delivery workers essentially remain as contractors and are not entitled to employee benefits. This means these workers are not entitled to typical employee benefits afforded under law such as minimum wage, overtime, expense reimbursement, paid sick days, paid family leave, employer healthcare options, or unemployment insurance. In effect, these exemptions created a new class of workers specifically for these app-based companies and allowed the companies themselves to set labor and wage policies rather than the state legislatures.
The importance of Prop 22 cannot be overstated. Silicon Valley spent more than $200 million, the most ever spent in the history of U.S. ballot measures, to ensure the success of their ballot initiative. On top of this massive pile of cash, app-based companies used their apps to bombard drivers and riders with messages claiming drivers would lose their jobs and riders would face longer wait times and higher prices if Prop 22 failed to pass. App-based delivery companies had their workers include stickers and delivery packages emblazoned with “Yes on Prop 22” to customers. Uber and Lyft executives also threatened to end operations in California if Prop 22 did not pass. On the No side, labor groups raised around $20 million, meaning they were outspent by about 10 to 1.
The passage of Prop 22 is a massive victory for Silicon Valley and the gig economy as a whole, and it brings to the fore an increasingly pressing conversation about labor rights and tech companies that the Biden administration will have to answer to. Although Joe Biden and Kamala Harris urged California voters to reject Prop 22, their own political connections suggest a more complicated picture.
Analysis:
The ballot initiative for Prop 22 is essentially a response by these companies to the State of California suing them for incorrectly classifying their workers as contractors. Rather than take the risk of losing in court, tech companies, specifically Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Instacart and Postmates, created this ballot initiative, threw an unprecedented amount of money behind it and practically wrote their own labor laws. The result is that drivers that work for these app-based rideshare companies are denied the rights of both employees and, in a sense, contractors as well, seeing that a typical contractor would be able to set their own rates. According to an independent study by the Labor Center at the University of California Berkeley, after considering the multiple loopholes for these tech companies in the initiative, the pay guarantee promised by Uber and Lyft for drivers under the new initiative comes to a measly $5.64 an hour. Much of these loopholes are the result of only counting a driver’s time “engaged” with passengers and not reimbursing drivers for the cost of driving while not engaged, among other things.
The battle over Prop 22 offers a glimpse into the future of corporate politics and the labor battles ahead, especially as the gig economy expands and becomes a larger part of the formal economy. Moreover, it offers a bleak preview of what workers are up against.
There is a growing awareness that much of the “innovation” in the tech world involves the skirting of labor laws and the exploitation of loopholes in regulation and grey areas in the law. While there is a strong and persuasive case to be made that there does indeed need to be a rethinking of labor laws particularly for gig economy workers, it’s hard to argue that the companies themselves should be writing these laws. Prop 22 includes the provision that it can only be overturned by a seven-eighths vote of the state legislature or a new ballot initiative. That’s a pretty tall order. However, state labor laws can be superseded by federal labor laws, which is where the stance of the Biden administration becomes really important.
President-Elect Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris openly opposed Prop 22 during the presidential campaign. In his November 16th speech on the economy, Joe Biden declared that he will be on the side of American workers and talked at length about the importance of unions and proclaimed that he was a “union guy.” His website explicitly makes the case that he will aggressively pursue companies that misclassify their workers as contractors and there has been reporting that he has plans to implement California’s AB5 labor law as a model for reforms at the federal level. These are all good signs for workers and labor rights proponents, however, the circles that surround the Biden administration suggests a more nuanced story.
Vice president-elect Kamala Harris’s close ties to Silicon Valley are widely known. Early in her career as a prosecutor, working as the district attorney for San Francisco, she forged strong relations with Big Tech and Silicon Valley. Later, Silicon Valley’s backing and donations helped her get elected as the attorney general of California. As attorney general, Harris allowed tech companies to grow unchecked and did very little to curb Big Tech’s growing power and influence. Big Tech became Big Tech largely under her watch.
As an example of how deep these relations go, the legal chief officer of Uber and leading advocate of Prop 22, is Kamala Harris’s brother-in-law, Tony West. West, as well as Silicon Valley as a whole, were major fundraisers for the Biden campaign. The connections between Silicon Valley and the Biden administration are well known and trace back to the Obama administration. A large number of Obama administration officials have worked on behalf of Big Tech. Seth Harris, the former Secretary of Labor and member of Obama’s cabinet, actually wrote the proposal for Uber and Lyft that called for a new categorization of workers for app-based companies. According to reporting at Politico, Harris is currently under consideration for the Department of Labor. Furthermore, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s pick for National Security Advisor, has previously consulted for Uber and Lyft as an associate working for the geo-political risk advisory firm Macro Advisory Partners.
All things considered, the Biden administration will have to find a balance between tech interests and the interests of American workers. App-based rideshare and delivery companies such as Uber and Doordash are examples of a specific type of tech company that deserves extra scrutiny. In evaluating the costs and benefits of these types of companies it is worthwhile asking the larger question of whether these companies actually add value to our society. Uber, Doordash and the rest are astoundingly unprofitable, losing billions of dollars every year. However, as “tech companies” with the backing of enormous piles of money from venture capital firms and massive economies of scale built on these investment dollars, these companies have convinced many of their value with promises of future profitability. Others however have already begun questioning whether these business models can ever truly be sustainable.
These points are worth our careful consideration especially when weighing the labor rights for the workers of these companies. If their business model relies on the exploitation of labor and still fails to turn a profit, what is the end game here? Driverless cars maybe? In the meantime, how much must workers lose in order for these companies to actually turn a profit? The downstream effects of these services to our society are hard to calculate. Riders do not bear the actual costs of these services, and if they did they may not be as inclined to use them. In a sense, customers using these types of app-based services are heavily subsidized by tech companies burning piles of cash and skirting labor laws. What if, for example, the ‘subsidies’ every customer enjoyed while using Uber and Lyft went instead to building and investing in a more reliable and modern public transportation infrastructure? There probably exists alternative ways of operating these services that are both fairer and financially viable, but as they currently exist the question of who really benefits from these services remains open to interpretation.
Resistance Resources:
Understanding Prop 22:
UC Berkeley’s Study of Uber and Lyft Wage Guarantees Under Prop 22:
Human Rights Watch on Prop 22:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/09/california-prop-22-strips-gig-workers-minimum-wage
Organizations Working on Behalf of Gig Workers
https://www.wedriveprogress.org/
https://www.gigworkerscollective.org/home
Excellent Articles to Better Understand the Harmful Business Practices of DoorDash
https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage
https://themargins.substack.com/p/doordash-and-societal-arbitrage
Rudy Giuliani-Misinformation Super Spreader
Transition of Power
A new blog post by U.S. RESIST Reporters on the transition of Presidential Power from the Trump to the Biden administration
Post # 3 Rudy Giuliani- Misinformation Super Spreader
By Sean Gray
November 24, 2020
Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is now spearheading the president’s efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election. Not a moment too soon as the previous carriers of his treasonous water have withdrawn from his various legal challenges. At this point, the fact that Mr. Giuliani is licensed to practice law seems secondary, if not altogether irrelevant. Short on standing and lousy with bug-eyed conspiracy, the man once known as ‘’America’s mayor’’ held a press conference last week, detailing baseless accusations of fraud, hairspray dripping down his face all the while.
Based on his childish and deluded personality, it is fair to wonder if Trump was ever going to leave office willingly. Fox’s Chris Wallace asked him point blank in June, (as his election prospects fizzled) andTrump declined to commit to accepting unfavorable election results. For what it’s worth, he made similar comments leading up to his improbable 2016 Electoral College victory. That kind of rhetoric intensified as November 3rd neared. There were never not going to be legal challenges to a Biden win. 12 lawsuits were filed and summarily rejected in courts in four states. Oddly enough, the Trump campaign alleged no fraud in any state in which their candidate was victorious. Lawyers were no doubt willing to take the case, but bristled when the time came to lie in open court, which ‘’substantiating’’ their claims would have required. Giuliani has spent much of the last four years as Trump’s private counsel. In that time he’s schemed behind the scenes, plunging himself from grace and set in motion events that would lead to his client’s impeachment. Who better to take the reins for a fact-free attempt at sedition than the man who famously said ‘’Truth isn’t truth.’’.
In his bizarre press conference hosted by the Republican National Convention, Guiliani laid out Trump’s ‘’legal strategy’’ for reversing the will of the American people. A graphic behind him titled ‘’6 Paths to Victory’’ highlighted in red, six battlegrounds state that went for Joe Biden. He made a host of farfetched accusations that he backed up with dangerous sensationalism rather than legal substance.
Giuliani stated matter-of-factly that the focus of the conspiracy in these states were corrupt big cities with Democratic bosses. Urban mostly black voters in cities like Detroit and Philadelphia indeed played a role in pushing their states into Biden’s column, but no evidence of meaningful fraud or irregularity has emerged.
Giuliani amplified Trump’s long-standing claim that mail-in-voting is especially susceptible to fraud. This has long been debunked as election experts estimate fraud via mail in votes to be .0025%. Giuliani doubled down on his hysterics by adding that it’s very easy for a dead person, or ‘’even Mickey Mouse’’ to cast a ballot unlawfully through the postal service. In reality, mail-in-ballots were sent only to applicants on registered voter rolls who requested one, in record numbers due to fear of Covid-19. To date, there have been no credible reports of dead people or cartoon mice voting in the 2020 election. Some states do exclude early-ballots by individuals who pass away before the actual date of the election. Not nearly enough are going to be counted to make a difference in anything other than an improbably close race.
No press conference in Trump world would be complete without some shots at the ‘’fake news. Why isn’t this scandal of epic proportions receiving adequate coverage in the press, Giuliani was asked. ‘’Because the media is as dishonest as the scheme itself’’ was Giuliani’s half baked rationale. Of course. The same media asking Giuliani to substantiate his outlandish claims are complicit in the widespread conspiracy for which he can produce no evidence. In fact, granting him audience at all could be more irresponsible than shunning him altogether. It is Giuliani from his pulpit making outrageous, unfounded claims of a rigged election that was broadcast onto millions of American screens. Even Fox News’ Kristin Fisher, who was on air before and after Giuliani was finished, largely dismissed the spectacle, calling it ‘’colorful, but light on facts’’ and adding ‘’so much of what he said was simply not true.’’
Why would Trump tap Rudy at this desperate juncture. He faces serious debt coming due and potentially criminal charges in NY state if he is unable to strong-arm his way into a second-term. One would think he’d want a more competent and credible advocate in his crusade. Conversely it may be that reports of Trump privately acknowledging his defeat are accurate. In that case, Giuliani’s appointment makes a bit more sense. Trump knows he cannot litigate his way out of this jam. Spreading lies to distort unflattering facts against him has been an effective strategy for Trump. So with no legal recourse, the only weapon in his arsenal is misinformation designed to rile his base and cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the incoming administration. That requires an individual lacking so lacking in scruples that he is willing to spread seditious conspiracy through mass media for the sake of appeasing a president with a wounded ego and a lot to lose. Who better than Run Giuliani?
FBI Hate Crime Statistics, 2019
FBI Hate Crime Statistics, 2019
By Erika Shannon
November 26, 2020
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has put out their annual report on hate crimes in the United States. The report is made public and can be found here if you are interested in looking over it yourself for reference. Hate crimes are defined here as offenses that are motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, or gender identity. Throughout 2019, there were 7,314 total incidents reported, with 8,812 total victims of those incidents. The incidents are broken down into whether or not the victim was targeted due to a single bias against them, or multiple biases. When looking at single-bias incidents, there were 8,552 victims; a staggering 57.6% of those incidents were motivated by the victims race, ethnicity, or ancestry. Most hate crimes committed were classified as intimidation, simple assault, or aggravated assault; however, there is also data of fifty-one murders, thirty rapes, and three offenses of human trafficking. According to FBI data, racially motivated hate crimes have been on the rise for the past ten years. This is disturbing information, and leads one to wonder why this number continues to grow. Besides crimes against people, there were also 2,811 hate crimes classified as crimes against property and 236 classified as crimes against society. Regardless of who or what the target is, hate crimes should not be on the rise in today’s society.
The numbers put forth by the FBI regarding hate crimes are troubling – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed 56 years ago, and it was one of the highlights of the civil rights movement. We also saw the passage of another Civil Rights Act in 1968, which came with more notable hate crime laws and punishments. Decades have passed, and one would assume that the amount of hate crimes would go down over the years; especially hate crimes motivated by a racial bias. Some hypothesize that the rise in hate crimes can be attributed to racist rhetoric being put forth, especially on social media platforms. Others blame our lack of a leader who will condemn white supremacist groups. While in office, Donald Trump himself told right-wing extremist group Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during a presidential debate just months ago. Confirmation of Trump’s influence came when one of the group’s social media accounts incorporated the phrase “Stand Back. Stand By” in their new logo. A nation’s leaders influence clearly stems far and wide, which is why there is concern when a leader will not condemn white supremacy himself. A leaders inactions can feed into a long-standing pattern of intolerance; it comes as no shock that white people commit the highest amount of hate crimes in any given year since data has been reported. In 2019, 52.5% of the 6,406 offenders were white. This statistic may be proportionate with the fact that there are a higher percentage of whites than any other race in the U.S. population; however, one must also take into consideration what race is the most targeted by hate crimes. 48.5% of victims of single-bias incidents were committed due to anti-Black or African American bias.. For a nation whose past is riddled with slavery, segregation, intolerance, and discrimination, we must do better to lower the amount of hate crimes and promote tolerance in our communities.
There is no clear solution on how we can overcome the evidently growing problems of racism in America. There are numerous programs that exist to attempt to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, schools, and other institutions, yet we still see it happening on all levels. For starters, a leader who condemns racism and works to unite America’s citizens, regardless of color, gender, religion etc., would be a step in the right direction. With an apparent Joe Biden victory, there is hope that his leadership will do something to discourage the rise of white supremacist groups.
While hate crimes have been on the rise in the past years, 2020 specifically was full of right-wing extremists spewing hate, antagonizing protesters, and at one point, even plotting to kidnap government officials. Something must be done to curb their hate-filled motivations. Besides the rise in white supremacist group activity, there are other issues that need to be addressed in order to make the U.S. a place where all feel safe and included. The FBI hate crimes report showed that of the 3,963 hate crimes motivated by race, 25.3% of those took place in or near homes, and 20.5% occurred on roads or highways. Minorities should not have to fear for their safety at all, much less in their home or on their commute. We live in such a fast-paced society that people seem to forget: everybody around them has the same rights that they do. No person is less significant because of his or her race, religion or gender. We as Americans must take a step back and remind ourselves that America is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity. Racism cannot be tolerated, and the FBI’s report is evidence that we have a long way to go before every American can live their life without fear of being discriminated against or harmed.
Resistance Resources
- If you or someone you know has been the victim a hate crime, you can fill out this form on the Anti-Defamation League website.
- To find out how you can join the fight to stop racism against African-Americans, check out the NAACP’s #WeAreDoneDying Campaign.
- Click here to find out more about hate crimes or to view Hate Crime Reports from past years.