JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Police Use of Deadly Force : Something Must Be Done
Brief #14—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The police use of deadly force in America is a plague; the Washington Post reports that cops kill around 1,000 people per year, a number that has remained steady since 2015. There is an even bigger problem with the police use of deadly force – they disproportionally target black Americans in deadly force incidents, and this issue is unfortunately nothing new.
The numbers are alarming in cities across America. If we take a look at Minneapolis, where ex-police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, Minneapolis Police use force against black people seven times more than against white people. Since 2015, there were 11,5000 instances of force documented in Minneapolis; at least 6,650 of those instances involved black people. While white people make up 60% of the population in Minneapolis, force was only used against them 2,750 times. These numbers are similar to the rest of the country, where black Americans are twice as likely to be killed by police as white Americans. The Washington Post reports that police will kill 36 out of a million black Americans, while police will only kill 15 out of a million white Americans. The statistics are troubling, considering that black Americans only make up 13% of the population, yet account for so many instances of police-involved deadly force.
Will Biden’s Bold Climate Plan See Its Way Through the Political Storms?
Brief #113—Environment
By Todd J Broadman
The world is in need of a climate action plan; the U.S. under President Biden is proposing one. At its core, the proposed plan is a set of policies that shift or transition energy from fossil fuels to renewable sources. The glaring challenge to this shift though, is current and future projections for energy demand. Americans are accustomed to the luxury of 24-7 access to energy at the touch of a button. As the Biden plan points to, solar and wind power are the go-to sustainable energy sources. Electricity though, accounts for only a quarter of CO2 emissions – carbon-intensive manufacturing, agriculture, and transportation demands comprise the vast majority. Biden’s plan subscribes to Bill Gates’s “Show me a problem, and I’ll look for technology to fix it,” approach. Others, particularly in Europe, place more emphasis on ‘degrowth’ as the direction the developed world ought to be heading.
States Launch Assaults on the Rights of the Transgender Community: Part I
Brief #104—Health & Gender
By Taylor J Smith
More than 100 bills that threaten the rights of transgender people have been introduced across thirty-three states as we approach only the fifth month of the year. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, tracks such dangerous bills and has on record 117 bills that take aim at the transgender community, the majority targeting trans youth. This is the number of anti-trans bills since HRC began tracking anti-LGBTQ+ legislation back in the early 2000s.
States Launch Assaults on the Rights of the Transgender Community: Part I
Brief #104 – Health & Gender Author Taylor J Smith Brief Title: States Launch Assaults on the Rights of the Transgender Community: Part I May 1, 2021 More than 100 bills that threaten the rights of transgender people have been introduced across thirty-three states...
Show some courage! Defy your tribe!
Show Some Courage
By Robert Wright
Last week LeBron James, who has 50 million Twitter followers, tweeted a picture of a policeman in Columbus, Ohio who had shot a 16-year-old Black girl to death. The tweet said, “You’re next. #Accountability.”Coming right after the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial, the tweet seemed to mean that this cop, like Chauvin, would be convicted of murder and imprisoned—though some took James’s message as more menacing: a threat of vigilante justice.On either interpretation, the tweet didn’t make sense. The cop’s body cam had captured the killing, and the video told this story:
A cop responding to a 911 call arrives on the scene and sees the 16-year-old, Ma’Khia Bryant, with a knife in her hand, approaching another girl. The other girl is backed up against a parked car, with no means of escape, as Bryant draws the knife back and seems poised to stab her.
A New Wave of “Anti – Protest” and “Anti – Riot” Bills Threaten First Amendment Rights In The United States
Brief #159—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
During the 2021 legislative session “anti – protest” and “anti – riot” bills have been introduced in a number of states across the United States. The bills vary in a number of key features but it is clear that these bills are being put forward in response to the protests last year against police misconduct and institutional racism. There have been more than 80 anti – protest bills introduced this year alone. Here is a list of the most noteworthy of those state bills.
On April 19, 2021 in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed the Combatting Public Disorder Act. That act creates a new charge of “aggravated rioting” which is focused on acts committed during a declared riot such as blocking a highway or the threat of force against a bystander. The bill also enhances the penalties for battery and burglary charges during a riot. Additionally, a mandatory sentence can be imposed on a person convicted of battery against a police officer during a riot.
Student Loan Forgiveness: Who Should Benefit and By How Much?
Brief #114—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Americans owe 1.7 trillion dollars in student debt. This figure represents an increase of 102% from 2010. The issue is seen by many as one of racial and economic equity. This is because the greatest portion of student debt accrues to lower and middle income students and to students who are Latinx , African American and/or women. Twenty five percent of African Americans and twenty percent of Hispanic Americans are behind in their debt payments. Students of color are also more likely than other bearers of student loans to have left school without a degree or to have jobs where their pay is not commensurate with the average college graduate’s pay scale.
President Biden’s recent corona virus relief bill provided for a moratorium on loan payments until September 30, 2021 and exempted them from accruing interest during that time period. He has also exempted debt forgiveness or cancellation from being taxed. At the same time, a recent US Court of Appeals ruling has made it more difficult to excuse student loans if a person declares bankruptcy. This would not impact a one-time loan cancellation but applies to people making payments on existing loans which would not be canceled under a new guideline.
# 5 Fishing Boat Dispatch
Brief #5—Fishing Boat Dispatch
By Katherine Cart
Prince William Sound is a quiet place. Storms in the Gulf of Alaska die on the western edges of islands; Montague, Hitchinbrook and Hawkins Islands rise like barbicans about the calm inlets. When one flies low over the Sound, little islands appear as shadows stretched westward: storm waves crush beaches from craggy outcrop. On the leeward side rise unblunted cliffs. At the scooped back of the Sound, one can, in most seasons, drive aluminum skiffs for miles on flat water, jigging for halibut and pulling from 30 fathoms by hand shrimp pots in which an octopus is more likely to be found than shrimp. Treed mountains rise up from the water, are striated by waterfall from glacial seeps, summits. In winter, the bays beneath slush are aquamarine, incredibly clear – the season of rot not yet begun – and the hills are stilled beneath a fathom of snow. The winter nights are long: sun up and down occur near the middle of the working day. In clear dawns and twilights, if one stands in view of the sweep of the Sound, all the snowed islands blaze in alpenglow. On Esther Island, where storms rarely come, the winter sun flits around the periphery of the bay, slinking behind mountain ridge. There is a small cluster of buildings on Esther Island, in which a dozen or so people live and work, hatching and releasing Chum salmon[1] by the millions each year. In the darkest months, daylight is the blued shadow of the mountain across the bay, and night is, with clear skies and luck, the greenish aurora borealis beyond the humped blocks of snowed peaks. Strong moons reflect silver on frozen waterfalls.
Defendant Trump: A Review of Outstanding Charges
Brief #2—U.S. Resist News Blog
By Sean Gray
Post-presidential life promises little relief from the civil, and potentially criminal litigation. Whilst occupying the White House, Trump was able to weaponize the Justice Department to insulate him from trouble. Those protections are gone, and many chickens may be coming home to roost.The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel holds that indicting a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine his ability to execute his duties. That is no longer at issue, and private citizen Trump has no further pretense for refusing to comply with the subpoenas.
The American-Chinese Relationship & the Incoming Biden Administration
Brief # 103
Foreign Policy
The American-Chinese Relationship & the Incoming Biden Administration
By Will Solomon
January 4, 2021
Policy Summary:
Over its nearly four years in office, the Trump administration’s relationship with China has been nothing if not visibly inconsistent. Trump has, on the one hand, appeared to cultivate a dynamic personal relationship with Chinese leader Xi Jinping—he has publicly praised Xi on multiple occasions and, broadly speaking, clearly appears to revere the “strongman” image. His offhand comments about a desire to be “president-for-life,” akin to Xi, should probably not be dismissed so easily. On the other hand, Trump has taken a number of aggressive and inflammatory steps towards China—including imposing numerous tariffs, working to prohibit access to the US for certain Chinese companies and apps, cultivating a closer relationship with Taiwan—and perhaps most recently, consistently maligning China for being the source of the novel coronavirus, routinely in plainly racist ways.
The often incoherent approach, while characteristic of Trump’s general style, does reflect longstanding trends in US policy. Chief among these, in recent years, might be the Obama Administration’s so-called “pivot-to Asia.” The central component of this strategy involved a redeployment of American military and economic force towards Asia and the Pacific, in order to counter emergent Chinese power. In other words, the bilateral relationship has involved a high degree of recent competition and antagonism that predates Trump—including actions like reaffirming military relationships with countries like South Korea and Japan (and Taiwan, which China does not recognize as independent), calling out China for development in areas like the South China Sea, and bolstering American regional alliances and trade agreements. Broadly, these actions have wide bipartisan support.
However—this is only part of the story. The more complex component is obviously the interconnection of global capitalism, which inextricably enmeshes China with Western multinational corporations. Indeed, China’s entry into the global capitalist system was often supported by elite sectors within the USA and the West, for various reasons. We are seeing a particularly horrific example of the negative consequences of this recently, as a number of multinational companies have come under scrutiny for apparently profiting off slave labor in China’s Xianjiang region, where a mass internment program has been underway for several years.
Analysis:
When one considers the complexity of the American-Chinese relationship, it becomes increasingly clear that a change in administration in the United States may not dramatically alter the dynamics underlying the bilateral relationship. A cooling of rhetoric is certainly good, but represents only one aspect of a complex, competitive, (and at times, ideally cooperative) relationship.
It is noteworthy that one of Biden’s first ads once he clinched the Democratic nomination was a highly aggressive indictment of China. While not as vulgar or racist as Trump’s references to the “China Virus,” the ad was nationalistic and certainly did not signal a significant drawdown of tensions with China.
Indeed, Biden’s approach towards China has tended to ebb and flow over time, conforming to the orthodoxy of the moment. Thus, for much of his career Biden enthusiastically supported integrating China into the global economic order, under the then-widespread notion that such integration would help to spur reform and liberalization within China. That approach has now largely been abandoned as China has hewn to an anti-liberal approach, and the dominant political mood of the moment is, at the very least, mildly hostile to China.
Thus, it seems likely that Biden will continue to pursue a confrontational approach towards China, if a less erratic one than Trump. Recognizing this reality, it remains imperative that a Biden administration work with China on crucial international challenges: climate change, the global response to the pandemic, and denuclearization, among others. Biden may be limited in his ability to maneuver, and on some level, the ideal engagement that many progressives desire is unlikely to be pursued. Yet the seriousness of these issues demands collaboration, and a Biden administration would do best to pursue an approach that takes this seriously.
Engagement Resources:
https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing. Our country’s current circumstances demand it.”
https://www.democracynow.org — “Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues. On Democracy Now!, you’ll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events.”
https://chinadialogue.net/en/ — “China Dialogue is an independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting a common understanding of China’s environmental challenges.”
The Georgia Runoff Election: Who Will Win?
Brief # 14 Election News
The Georgia Runoff Election: Who Will Win?
By William Borque
January 4, 2021
Reporter William Bourque is U.S. Resist News’s elections correspondent and has had continued coverage of US Elections through election day. We will continue to have coverage of the Senate races in Georgia as control of the Senate remains in the balance.
Early voting for the Senate runoffs has finished in Georgia, and the races are closer than ever. As candidates and their colleagues in the senate clash over stimulus checks and Covid restrictions, democrats, republicans, and independents alike have begun to cast their ballots. As we saw in the initial senate elections in Georgia, there isn’t much that separates the candidates, especially with the incredibly high turnout in urban areas like Atlanta. According to the Secretary of State of Georgia, over 1.1 million Georgians have cast ballots that will determine the balance of the Senate.
In the race between David Perdue and Jon Ossoff, it seems that Ossoff may be gaining an edge. According to polling data collected by FiveThirtyEight, Ossoff holds a narrow, 1 percentage point lead. As early voting closes and the polls open on January 5th, many think that Perdue’s loyalty to the President may end up being his downfall, as those who still seek to overturn the election of Joe Biden are being seen as increasingly delusional by their compatriots. Perdue has also been one of several key votes against a new bill which would put stimulus checks up to $2000 into the pockets of many struggling Americans. Ossoff has been campaigning hard on the fact that he would be highly in favor of a new, larger economic stimulus bill. With Ossoff’s poll numbers trending upwards, we expect that he will score a tight victory to become the youngest sitting U.S Senator.
In the race that features Kelly Loeffler and Reverend Raphael Warnock it appears that Loeffler has too much firepower to lose. Loeffler, a multi-millionaire, has largely been funding her own campaign, and it seems as though she has a key advantage, given the vote totals in the initial November election. Loeffler and Warnock were the top two finishers in a crowded race that included almost 20 candidates. Because of this, neither Warnock or Loeffler garnered anywhere close to the 50% of the votes needed to win in Georgia. The reported early voting numbers should be in favor of Warnock, who needs a large portion of the early votes to go his way to win this race. Loeffler will be hoping that election day numbers are just as high as they were on November 3rd, which would likely propel her to be re-elected to the seat she was appointed to in 2019. Recent aggregate polling from FiveThirtyEight suggests that Warnock has aslim lead, just under 2 percentage points. Despite this polling trend, we predict that Loeffler will squeak this one out to keep the Senate in the control of Republicans by just 1 seat.
As this tumultuous election cycle wraps up, U.S. Resist News will have continued coverage, as we expect the counting of these votes to take several days. Additionally, come January 20th, 2021, there will be a new leader in the White House, and U.S Resist News will have all the coverage.
Martial Law Is Not in the Cards
Elections
Brief # 13
Martial Law Is Not in the Cards
December 32, 2020
By Zack Huffman
Policy
After weeks of refusing to accept the results of last November’s election, President Donald Trump has reportedly discussed the possibility of declaring martial law as the latest in a series of attempts to retain power despite losing the election to President-elect Joe Biden.
Trump has repeatedly spoken out – and tweeted – about the election, which featured an unusually high amount of mail-in voting as a precaution against the spread of COVID-19. Due to the increase in mail voting, the results to the election in several swing states were unknown by the end of the night on November 3. Trump’s claims that votes that were officially counted after November 3 were illegitimate were predicted prior to the election, as the president spent the summer and fall attacking the validity of mail-in balloting.
The Trump campaign attempted to overturn election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin through lawsuits and recount demands, though none of those efforts were successful. The campaign then pivoted to appealing to state and federal legislators to override the electoral college, or at least legitimize Trump’s electoral voters. Those efforts were also unsuccessful.
This leaves the lame duck president with more radical options for retaining his power, including using the military to oversee a do-over election.
Analysis
The idea of using martial law for a new election was most prominently raised by retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn when he retweeted calls from an Ohio-based Tea Party group calling itself “We The People Convention.”
Flynn served as Trump’s first National Security Advisor. He lasted about a month before having to resign after failing to disclose his contacts with a Russian ambassador in the months between Trump’s 2016 electoral win and his inauguration in 2017. Flynn later retroactively registered as a foreign lobbyist after admitting to working as a paid lobbyist for the government of Turkey. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, but he was pardoned by Trump on November 25, 2020. Since being pardoned, Flynn reportedly met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss the possibility of declaring martial law.
University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck explained that the president could legally use martial law to subdue Black Lives Matter protesters In an analytical piece for the Washington Post last June, following the killing of George Floyd.
The power to declare Martial Law goes back to the beginning of the United States when Congress passed a law on May 2, 1792 that authorized the president to call upon a state’s militia, at the request of that state’s governor, to mobilize against a foreign invader or to quell domestic uprisings. President George Washington used those powers to stop the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
In the early half of the 20th century, martial law was used to oppose coal worker strikes in Colorado and West Virginia, and against other labor strike in Minnesota and California. The legal tactic was used in Alabama in the early 1960s against civil rights protesters. Martial law was also declared in 2005 in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In those cases when the president called for martial law, as opposed to the respective governor, it was done so at the request of the state. The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to weigh on the legitimacy of the president using martial law without the request of a state government authority, according to Vladeck.
Aside from legal precedent, Trump may not have the support from those he would need to enact and enforce martial law.
Newsweek reported that military leadership has had several internal planning discussions to prepare for the possibility of Trump calling upon them to enforce martial law. According to numerous unnamed sources there is “zero chance” that the military leadership would get involved in any effort to reverse an election.
An unidentified defense official told the Military Times that the concept of using the military to oversee a new election under martial law was, “insane in a year that we didn’t think could get anymore insane.”
Meanwhile, CNN reported that numerous White House staffers were quick to go to the press after the meeting with Flynn because they were alarmed about the talk of using martial law. This is perhaps why news of the meeting spread so quickly.
Learn More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/24/could-trump-declare-martial-law-try-steal-election/
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-donald-trumps-martial-law-talk-has-military-red-alert-1557056
William Arkin, 12-24-20
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/9/30/21454325/trump-2020-peaceful-transition-election-stealing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/19/under-insurrection-act-1807-heres-what-us-president-can-cannot-do/
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/12/02/calls-for-martial-law-and-us-military-oversight-of-new-presidential-elections-draws-criticism/ accessed on Dec. 27 2020.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/media/stelter-trump-martial-law/index.html
accessed on Dec. 27. 2020.
Biden Brings a Fresh Perspective to US China Policy
Brief # 102 Foreign Policy
Biden Brings a Fresh Perspective to US China Policy
By Brandon Mooney
As President-Elect Biden and President Trump squared off during the past campaign, we got a front-row seat to the past and current versus the future U.S. foreign policy strategy regarding China.
Policy Summary:
As President-Elect Biden and President Trump squared off during the past campaign, we got a front-row seat to the past and current versus the future U.S. foreign policy strategy regarding China. Both candidates were hawkish, with Trump maintaining his customary “tough on China” narrative and Biden breaking from his Obama-era neighborly tone to one of heavy condemnation. It would appear that Biden will steer the U.S. in a more joint, multilateral direction, juxtaposed by Trump’s largely go-it-alone strategy. This Brief will examine and then discuss the contrasting foreign policy styles of the present Trump and incoming Biden administration, and muddle over what Biden’s strategy could mean for the rapidly deteriorating U.S.-China relationship.
Of late, Biden has spoken repeatedly about the importance of strengthening international ties and allying with democracies across the world to stymy China’s rising power. He has also threatened economic sanctions and taken a tough line against the CCP, arguing that Trump’s measures have been largely ineffective and that the withdrawal of American power from the world stage has given China free reign. Biden has specifically called for the strengthening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with the U.S. taking a stronger role and providing greater military and economic support to the alliance. Biden has denounced the CCP’s mass incarceration of Uyghur Muslims and various human rights abuses, pushing for a foreign policy strategy founded around coalition-building. The apparent hope is that with more reinforcement, the U.S. can force China to the bargaining table through collective power and more effectively punish behavior that is deemed to be against its interests.
This multilateral approach is juxtaposed by that of the Trump administration, which has adopted a largely go-it-alone approach centered around tariffs and other financial penalties. Trump and his administration have enjoyed an essentially favorable view of being tough on China through the implementation of a widely publicized tariff campaign against Chinese goods. The trade deficit between China and the U.S. has been a significant talking point, with the leveling of tariffs being the supposed solution to balancing the books. Trump also famously went to bat against Chinese-owned social media giant TikTok. Less famously, the Trump administration also sanctioned Chinese officials in retaliation for CCP oppression in Hong Kong, has supported Taiwan’s independence and sovereignty claims, and banned Huawei from operating within the U.S. All of these moves were taken unilaterally, as Trump has been dismissive of and even combative towards international partnerships.
Analysis:
Biden and Trump engaged in a brutal tit-for-tat campaign battle over who was to be crowned the “toughest on China.” Trump relied heavily upon his track record in office and conspiracy theories surrounding the supposed China-Biden cabal, while Biden attempted to distance himself from the rather chummy talk espoused during the Obama administration and laid out a more put-together strategy than his opponent.
However, when you take a step back and look at what Trump’s strategy achieved, one finds that it had little intended effect. Following Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WTO), citing the organization’s kid-glove handling of China’s role in the pandemic, China promised to give $2 billion to the WTO for covid-19 relief. It would appear that by retreating, Trump has only strengthened China’s position. Turning to the sanctions, they have had little to no impact. China still put their national security law into practice in Hong Kong, has not let up on its sovereignty claims in South China Sea (despite its lack of blue power and obvious sword rattling), and has not reduced their theft of intellectual property. The Trump administration has said that China will buy more than $200 billion in U.S. goods and services by 2022, and yet China has only bought $56 billion so far. China has also refused to pay any tariffs and imposed tariffs on U.S. farm goods in response, forcing Trump to bail out American farmers with $28 billion in consumer tariffs. The trade war has cost 300,000 American jobs so far as well.
Looking at Biden, he was once a reasonably pro-China pundit, pushing the vision of a mutually beneficial relationship with U.S. hegemony securing economic growth and international recognition for China. For example, he was an outspoken supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) under the Obama administration. Although it is widely condemned by both progressives and blue-collar Americans as a boon to corporations rather than ordinary workers, the TTP was meant to counter China’s regional power and industrial complex by placing the U.S. at the helm of Asia-Pacific economic relations. It would appear that this vision of American supremacy united with Chinese economic power has been extinguished by a more hawkish view of U.S.-China relations, however.
Biden’s push for multilateralism is certainly a welcome change from Trump’s individualistic approach. It would be a boon to other democracies to have the U.S. firmly back in their corner, and with China’s increasing power on the international stage, the U.S. can’t stand to be alone. Collective power and alliance-building made the U.S. what it is today, despite the chest-beating around WWII, the Cold War, and other nationalist lightning rods. Yet I do have some reservations if the Biden administration relies overly upon teamwork. They would likely make headway on containing Chinese ambitions to some degree through global cooperation, but as the Obama administration learned later on, any hope for consequential collaboration with the CCP is a pipedream. The CCP is not interested in democratic change or sharing power with others. It would mean an end to the party’s unchallenged position, and every country ultimately wants to achieve the greatest ends possible. My other qualm is that almost everything Biden has spoken on when it comes to China is environmental and emission treaties. These are important issues, as climate change threatens us all, but there are far more issues facing the highly contentious U.S.-China relationship that require attention. It’s not that I doubt Biden’s willingness to address them, but that he hasn’t explained how he will do so. The publicized appointments of largely Obama-era supporters would suggest that he will tackle them much as Obama did, which does not inspire confidence.
Engagement Resources:
The Diplomat – a solid overview of the challenges facing the Biden administration when it comes to China.
Politifact – a look at the Hunter Biden scandal with China.
Foreign Policy – a pro-Biden but nonetheless interesting read about why Trump’s accusations of Biden being “soft on China” are baseless.
Income Inequality in California Points to Economic Shifts Nationwide
Economic Policy
Brief # 103
Income Inequality in California Points to Economic Shifts Nationwide
By Linda F. Hersey
December 29, 2020
As California goes, so goes the nation.
Whether it is culture, policy or innovation, the nation’s most populous state has long been a frontier for change and a reliable predictor of trends for the rest of the U.S. and around the globe.
That is among the reasons why the widening income gap between the state’s wealthiest and poorest citizens, coupled with an outmigration of the middle and working class, increasingly concerns economists and policy makers.
California may command the nation’s largest economy – indeed, among the largest in the world — but it also has among the highest poverty rates in the U.S. California’s poverty rate is 19 percent while the poverty rate for the nation is 14 percent.
Economists warn there is no easy fix. Income inequality in California, they argue, points to significant changes well under way across the economy, as high-tech automation deletes the need for human labor in manufacturing and other traditional jobs.
For Californians, these are the best of times and the worst of times, economically. The San Francisco Bay area, for example, enjoys a net worth of close to a half-million dollars per resident. Yet San Francisco’s historic Tenderloin neighborhood reports a poverty rate that hovers at just over 50 percent.
Fundamental Structural Shifts in the Economy
Richard Florida, who directs the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto, argues that California is experiencing fundamental structural changes in its economy that are likely to occur in other states.
Florida told the New York Times that income inequality seen dramatically in California is a “symptom of the bifurcation of the labor market into a small share of knowledge jobs and a much larger share of low-wage service jobs.”
California, the leading incubator state for knowledge jobs, ranks among the top 10 states in economic growth, outpacing the nation as a whole.
California also is experiencing a population decline – with a net outmigration of residents to nearby western states that include Texas, Arizona and Oregon, as people who are struggling move elsewhere.
People most likely to leave California are high-school educated, low- and middle-income adults with families, while college-educated high-income earners are more likely to move to the Golden State, according to a 2018 report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The Public Policy Institute of California reports that the biggest determining factor for economic prosperity for Californians is education.
The job market in the knowledge economy rewards people with a four-year college degree or higher, while median income has dropped for adults without college degrees.
There also are racial disparities in income levels that need solutions. The Public Policy Institute of California found that only about 10 percent of the state’s top wage earners – those with incomes above the 90th percentile — are Latino and African American, though they make up more than 40 percent of the state population.
Renewed Focus on Education, Economic Development
California is a bellwether for economic transformation in the U.S. and other advanced nations around the globe. While less dramatic, income inequality is up in other states, including Alabama, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Virginia and New Mexico.
The California experience, and the lessons learned, need to be recognized and applied in economies moving rapidly into the new Knowledge Age, which favors the well-educated and technological elite.
Closing the income gap will require a combination of policy changes to reduce disparities, including more tax and safety net programs, along with a renewed focus on improving opportunities for education, economic development, housing and transportation.
Engagement Resources
Public Policy Institute of California is a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to improving and advancing the state’s public policies through independent research.
Legislative Analyst’s Office of California is a nonpartisan fiscal and public policy adviser to the state Legislature.
U.S. Census Bureau follows a directive to measure poverty in the United States. Here is a primer on how the Bureau defines and measures poverty.
Biden and COVID-19: 100 Million Vaccine Doses in 100 Days
Brief # 87 Health and Gender Policy
Biden and COVID-19: 100 Million Vaccine Doses in 100 Days
By Justin Lee
December 28, 2020
Policy
In early December, President-elect Joe Biden announced the new members of his public health team and objectives he plans to implement within in his first 100 days in office. These objectives include a federal requirement for Americans to wear masks where Biden is legally able to enforce compliance and seeking strategies to open the majority of schools across the country.
Another objective Biden specifically mentioned is his plan to distribute 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine within his first 100 days in office. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11th, 2020 and for the Moderna vaccine on December 18th, 2020. Since then, over 9.5 million doses have been distributed across the nation, yet only a little more than a million people have been vaccinated as of the end of December.
The Trump administration had a federal goal of inoculating 20 million Americans by the end of 2020; a goal that was missed by a laughable margin. Is Biden’s plan to vaccinate 50 million Americans before May 2021 another laugh for skeptics?
Analysis
In short, Biden’s road to vaccinate 50 million Americans is possible but filled with many challenges. Here are some basics to consider:
Vaccine delivery timing: In late December, the Trump administration reached a second deal with Pfizer to secure an additional 100 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. This news follows a similar agreement with Moderna, with the government reaching a second agreement to double their initial order by 100 million doses. In total, the US has secured 400 million doses; enough to vaccinate 200 million Americans (over 65% of the US population) with additional options with both companies to purchase hundreds of millions of more doses.
The potential issue here is not necessarily “how much”, but of “when”. The government’s second agreements with Pfizer and Moderna for over 200 million doses indicate delivery completion well into Q2 and early Q3 of 2021. As the first 200 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are currently being distributed, Biden’s estimate of 100 million doses by mid Q2 does seem realistic. However, both vaccines have had slower-than-anticipated launches and distributions. As the supply seems to be readily available to hit Biden’s goal, administrating the vaccine into patients seem to have its own separate hurdles.
Manufacturing supply chain: Both vaccines are composed of the active ingredient messenger RNA, a series of lipids (fats), salts, and sugars. Each ingredient serves a different purpose as the vaccine is frozen/refrigerated, thawed, and administered. A shortage of one of these components, or a shortage of the laboratory equipment used to manufacture the vaccines, can lead to delays in dose delivery. As Pfizer, a global biopharmaceutical giant which generated over $50 billion in revenue in 2019, has experience in mass-scale global supply chains, Moderna is the opposite. Moderna has never had a marketed product, and their inexperience in global launches and the current unprecedented demand can lead to future supply chain bottlenecks.
Vaccine storage: As many are aware, both vaccines require storage under specific temperatures. Pfizer, in particular, require their vaccines to be stored in minus 70 Celsius, which in turn requires administering health clinics to have the specialized freezers for storage. Distributing vaccines requiring sub-arctic temperatures also require large amounts of dry ice and packaging compartments suitable for freeze delivery. A shortage or unavailability of either can also pose critical risks to delays in vaccine distribution.
Learn More
Helpful links
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-covid-vaccine-100-million-doses-first-100-days/
https://www.fda.gov/media/144412/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/144636/download
Engagement Resources
The American Red Cross heavily relies on volunteers to assist during a health crisis; including the COVID-19 pandemic. Volunteers play active roles in clinical and non-clinical settings. The American Red Cross also operates one of the largest blood donation networks in the US. To volunteer in a clinical setting and/or to give blood, use the links below:
https://www.redcross.org/volunteer/become-a-volunteer.html#step1
Trust for America’s Health is a public health policy and research organization that advocates for a nation that values the health and well-being of Americans. Their organization has valuable information regarding health policies and issues on a federal and state level, and also actively publishes reports regarding public health on their website. To find more information or to get involved, use the link below:
The American Public Health Association is an organization aimed to Improve the health of the public and achieve equity in health status. As the main publishers for the American Journal of Public Health and The Nation’s Health newspapers, APHA educates the public on public health, policy statements, and advocacy for public health. To volunteer or become a member, use the link below:
Still No Vaccine For Misinformation: Anti-Vax Conspiracies Spread Online Despite New Policies
Technology Brief #30
Still No Vaccine For Misinformation: Anti-Vax Conspiracies Spread Online Despite New Policies
By Scout Burchill
December 23, 2020
Summary:
As vaccines for the COVID-19 virus begin to be distributed across the country, social media platforms have pledged to combat anti-vaccination misinformation. Deceptive and unfounded conspiracy theories purporting a host of wide-ranging claims about the Covid vaccine have been spreading on social media for a number of months, but now that the vaccine is finally out, these claims are multiplying. These conspiracies allege, among other things, that the vaccine will microchip and track individuals, that it will cause genetic damage or cancer, that many people are experiencing adverse reactions to it, and that it has links to the Chinese Communist Party.
In response to this contagion of misinformation, social media sites have announced new policies to target debunked vaccine information. On December 3rd, Facebook announced that it would remove false claims about Covid vaccines that could result in “imminent physical harm.” Twitter followed suit by implementing a similar policy on December 16th, targeting the worst offenses and only labeling those that could mislead users. In spite of these more aggressive tactics, vaccine misinformation still runs rampant on these platforms. Among the worst culprits of this misinformation are the Children’s Health Defense, founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and WorldTruth.TV. The National Vaccine Information Center is another leading source of misinformation and fear mongering that is widely shared on social media sites.
Analysis:
Anti vaccine (Anti-vax) sentiment is nothing new on social media, and has been a part of the online ecosystem for years. Despite social media companies’ promises to combat its spread, anti-vax propaganda has taken root in many conspiracy minded groups on social media and there seems to be no penalty for the worst super-spreaders of these falsehoods. The Children’s Health Defense and the National Vaccine Information Center are both examples of well established organizations with links to important figures in American politics and society. The anti-vax community is organized and has been around for years, so attempts by social media companies to suddenly clamp down now, just as the Covid vaccines begin distribution, is a bit like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose.
One of the more uniquely pernicious aspects of anti-vax conspiracies is that they are appealing to large swaths of the population and are found across the political spectrum. For various reasons, anti-vax conspiracies appeal to the libertarian right, Big Pharma skeptics, helicopter parents, ‘cruchy-granola’ liberals, minority groups, the affluent and the poor and a number of other sub-sections of society. Even Robert De Niro, a celebrity champion of the left due to his outspoken criticisms of President Trump, joined forces with Robert F. Kennedy to promote anti-vaccine views in Washington D.C. a mere three years ago. At this point, it’s an entrenched feature of American society.
For now, as the vaccine roll out is well underway, far more people are demanding vaccinations than the number of vaccines available. On the whole, this is a good thing. Public health officials, however, have expressed concern about the effect of anti-vaccine misinformation down the road, as a significant proportion of the population will need to be inoculated to stop the spread of the virus. In a recent Pew study, a majority of Americans said that they would get the vaccine, but 21% of the adult population said that they would not get the vaccine and are fairly certain that further information would not change their minds.
On top of conspiracy theories and institutional distrust, attitudes toward vaccines have unfortunately been affected by their politicization. Anti-vax sentiments have mostly found their home in the Republican party, who just this month invited an anti-vax doctor to testify in front of a Senate Committee. Despite being miles ahead of the Republican party on this issue, Democrats have also needlessly undermined public trust in vaccines for political reasons. When asked whether or not she would take the vaccine, Kamala Harris was widely criticized for expressing doubt about any vaccines introduced under a Trump administration, saying she “didn’t trust Donald Trump.” Perhaps the greatest irony of the vaccine’s politicization is the predicament it now puts President Trump in. Despite wanting to claim all the credit for the vaccine, many of his supporters refuse to take it and Trump has so far been unwilling to get vaccinated publicly.
To be fair, it is rational to have at least some legitimate concerns about the safety of these vaccines, considering that they have not been approved by the FDA and instead were fast-tracked to authorization under an Emergency Use Authorization. However, these concerns have largely been addressed by scientists and health officials. In fact, the science on vaccines in general is pretty clear for those who care to put in the effort. Vaccine misinformation online is largely based on falsehoods, and those political actors and opportunists who frame the issue as one of individual freedom rather than public health are equally at fault for misleading the public.
At its core, vaccine misinformation is a public health issue and should be treated as such. Facebook and other social media platforms have certainly played a part in proliferating misinformation, and in turn they do have a role to play in tamping down its continued spread. However, social media companies alone cannot stem the spread of these pernicious and misleading falsehoods.
While it is heartening to see high ranking officials demonstrate the safety of these vaccines by being publicly inoculated, in the long-run there is no vaccine for misinformation. The best way to combat anti-vax propaganda is to treat it like the public health emergency that it is.
Engagement Resources:
CDC information on the COVID-19 vaccines
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits/facts.html
Learn More:
Vaccine misinformation spreading despite new policies
https://popular.info/p/despite-new-policy-vaccine-misinformation
Social media platforms’ policies and their failures
https://www.vox.com/recode/22188680/facebook-twitter-youtube-misinformation-anti-vaccine-covid-19
Facebook’s newest coronavirus policy
https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/coronavirus/
Pew Research on vaccine confidence
Anti-vax doctor at Senate hearing
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/06/us/politics/anti-vax-scientist-senate-hearing.html
Kamala Harris’s comments about vaccines
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/05/kamala-harris-trump-coronavirus-vaccine-409320
Recently Muzzled Voice Of America Fights to Renew its Voice
Foreign Policy
Author: Todd J. Broadman
Title: Recently Muzzled Voice Of America Fights to Renew its Voice
December 28, 2020
POLICY
Voice Of America (VOA) was established in 1942 to counter Nazi propaganda. The VOA is funded by the federal government and is overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). As a news broadcaster, the VOA’s mission is to provide “a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.” Since inception, the VOA has grown its weekly TV and radio programming to 1,800 hours in 40 languages with an audience of 236.6 million people worldwide. Its annual budget is $218.5 million and has about 1,050 employees.
In June of 2020, Trump appointed with US Senate confirmation, Michael Pack, as CEO of the USAGM. Pack is a conservative documentary filmmaker and close collaborator with Steve Bannon. Since his appointment, Pack has let go many senior VOA staff including its general counsel, dissolved its Board, begun an investigation of VOA’s chief White House reporter, and held up visas for many of VOA’s foreign journalists. His most flagrant move came recently when he lowered VOA journalist protections, limiting the independence of their reporting.
Significant among his replacements, Pack replaced VOA Director Amanda Bennett with conservative author and veteran broadcaster Robert Reilly as the VOA’s new director. According to Pack, “Bob’s inimitable experience and proven leadership as both a public servant and a private citizen will greatly benefit the entire agency.” Reilly, himself a former VOA director, authored “Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything,” in which he argues that widespread acceptance of gay culture harms society. For the past five years, Reilly has run the Westminster Institute, which focuses on anti-terrorism and the threat from Islamist extremism.
Because of its independent voice, the White House has termed the VOA a “disgrace.” In response, former Director, Amanda Bennet said that, “One of the big differences between publicly-funded independent media, like the Voice of America, and state-controlled media is that we are free to show all sides of an issue and are actually mandated to do so by law as stated in the VOA Charter.” In support of maintaining that charter and the integrity of the “firewall” between VOA journalists and political appointees, a federal judge has recently ruled that Pack’s decision to lower journalist protections was in breach of the VOA’s mission.
ANALYSIS
Pack’s appointment, and in turn, Reilly’s appointment, are in line with the Trump administration’s agenda and its “America First” policies. Due to their extreme views, VOA insiders have voiced the risk of reputational damage to the organization. What will listeners and readers overseas extrapolate from Reilly’s assertion that homosexual behavior is an “habitual moral failure?”
More damaging perhaps is abandoning balanced reporting altogether in favor of using this government media outlet to further an us versus them nationalistic stance. “VOA’s job should be to advance the justice of the American cause while simultaneously undermining our opponents,” wrote Reilly in a piece for the Wall Street Journal.
In stark contrast, VOA journalists who served overseas talk about their vital role in nourishing the many “information deserts” where the populace, particularly the poor, depend upon the VOA to deliver accurate information not only about the U. S., but more importantly, about their own country or area of the globe. Information blocked by governments that do not protect a free press.
In Chief US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell’s 76-page ruling – originated from a VOA whistleblower lawsuit – he underscored the VOA’s charter to aim for objective journalism even as applied to the US government and the President. Trump’s lawyers argued the opposite: that as an arm of the government and as funded by US taxpayers, the VOA media outlets are not protected by the First Amendment. Objective journalism, in their view, is not to include the “propaganda” of other countries such as a recent VOA report comparing Chinese and American coronavirus deaths or the re-broadcasting of threats issued by the Iranian Foreign Minister.
The turmoil within the VOA has not gone unnoticed by President-elect Joe Biden. He has indicated that he’ll replace Pack and “clean house”; his choice may be Richard Stengel, former State Department official and Time magazine managing editor. Stengel is currently tasked with looking into the changes at USAGM wrought by the Trump administration. As with other agencies under this administration, roadblocks are feverishly being put in place to help extend holds on positions of power. One such roadblock is legislation now underway requiring a Senate-confirmed bipartisan board approve appointments to the position of VOA Director.
Resistance Resources:
- https://www.voanews.com/
- https://nieman.harvard.edu/ The Nieman Foundation houses a dynamic set of initiatives to promote and elevate the standards of journalism and educate and support those poised to make important contributions to its future.
- https://freedomhouse.org/ The Freedom House speaks out against the main threats to democracy and empower citizens to exercise their fundamental rights through a unique combination of analysis, advocacy, and direct support.
- https://cpj.org/ The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide.
National Popular Vote Compact Best Bet To Reform Election Of U.S. Presidents
Policy Summary: Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution each individual State has the power to appoint the slate of electors who will vote in every presidential election. The Federal Government has no role in a State’s selection of its slate of presidential electors.
On February 23, 2006 the group National Popular Vote introduced their plan for a proposed interstate compact entitled “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by Nationwide Popular Vote.” The plan was formulated by Dr. John Koza, a former professor at Stanford University, and was initially endorsed by a number of former Republican and Democratic politicians. The plan would be an agreement by a number of states to award all of their selected presidential electors to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide. The goal is to sign on as many states whose total number of electors would be more than 270 since a candidate must win more than 270 electors to win the presidency. On April 10, 2007 the State of Maryland became the first state to enter the compact when the National Popular Vote bill was signed into law by Governor Martin O’Malley after having passed both houses of the Maryland Legislature. On January 13, 2008, the State of New Jersey became the second state to enter into the compact after Governor Jon Corzine signed it into law.
Since the time those two states entered into the National Popular Vote Compact an additional 14 jurisdictions have entered into the agreement – an additional thirteen states and the District of Columbia. The total number of electoral votes from these 16 jurisdictions is 196. The interstate compact needs an additional 75 electoral votes (for a grand total of 271) to go into effect.
As of December 2020 and by the count of the National Popular Vote group of the remaining states that have not officially entered the compact, a National Popular Vote bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in nine states (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA) that have eighty – eight (88) electoral votes combined. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: With the recent vote by the Electoral College to affirm Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election discussions about the role of the Electoral College have sprung up again. This time the discussion was a little more subdued and did not have the controversy of the 2016 election since Mr. Biden won both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote, which had not been the case in 2016 when Mr. Trump was elected. But with Mr. Biden’s razor – thin margins in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania and the likelihood that President Trump could have won re-election had he won those states the discussion turned to how to correct the flaws that are inherent in the Electoral College. Could a candidate who lost the nationwide popular vote win the presidency again?
The National Popular Vote Compact is one of the more intriguing proposals because of the support it has garnered. The fifteen states and the District of Columbia have been a good foundational step to get the interstate compact moving. But after closer inspection of the other states who have not joined yet the truth is that support for this compact is much more significant than what is being acknowledged on the surface.
Of the nine states comprising 88 electoral votes the bill has been approved in at least one legislative chamber, which means that there is some support for the bill in those states. And these are not states where Democrats are in control of the government. Arizona, Arkansas and Oklahoma are traditionally Republican states while Virginia and North Carolina are swing states that have voted both blue and red in recent years. In Nevada the National Popular Vote bill actually passed both state legislative houses but did not become official because Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak vetoed the bill. And in Colorado just this past election in November voters voted on whether to stay in the interstate agreement and the ballot measure passed with 52% voting to remain in the National Popular Vote Compact. (Colorado had officially joined in 2019 but the issue proved contentious and the issue was placed on the 2020 ballot for Colorado voters to vote on.).
What all of this information means is that this proposal is not a Democrat proposal or a Republican proposal. This plan has had bipartisan support from the beginning and has had bipartisan support as it has made its way through various state legislatures. And it has proven to have wide appeal as evidenced by the fact that it has passed at least one legislative chamber from states in various regions of the country and even has grassroots level support as evidenced by the 2020 ballot measure in Colorado. This indicates that support to reform the presidential election process is growing even if it has not cleared all of the bill enactment procedures in a number of states yet. The goal for the National Popular Vote Group is to continue lobbying state legislators in the remaining states and add enough states in order to surpass the 270 electoral vote threshold. There is real support behind this movement and once this agreement can add enough states the unique situation of installing a president who lost the nationwide popular vote can finally be discarded from the American political experience. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE,
Engagement Resources:
National Popular Vote – group pursuing National Popular Vote Compact to reform U.S. Presidential Elections.
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.
Congress Finally Agrees to a Tepid Stimulus and a Federal Budget
Brief #102
Congress Finally Agrees to a Tepid Stimulus and a Federal Budget
Rosalind Gottfried
December 20, 2020
Policy
A sustained disparity in the goals of Congressional Democrats and Republicans has ended in a compromise bill which leaves many Americans still vulnerable to the effects of the corona virus economy while providing a stopgap measure to avoid the worst case scenario. The 900 billion Stimulus bill is tied to a government spending plan which avoids a last minute government shutdown.
The stimulus includes a $600 direct payment to persons earning under $75,000. It includes money for people using Taxpayer Identification Numbers, making undocumented immigrants eligible who were barred for participation in the March stimulus. This figure represents a lower amount than proposed by the Democrats and more than that initially supported by the Republicans; it also had the support of President Trump. It also provides $600 per child. Direct infusion is necessary to help strapped citizens but insufficient for the 8 million who have fallen into poverty since June. It also may not be enough to help the unemployed avoid some of the consequences of long term unemployment.
The plan also provides for $300 a week of federal subsidies for regular unemployed benefits. It also extends the access of gig and freelance workers though these will expire in less than three months. Without the new stimulus, an additional 12 million workers would have lost their benefits at the end of the year. Both the direct cash payments, and the unemployment subsidies, are half of what was provided in the March stimulus.
The stimulus also covers $285 billion for businesses in Paycheck Protection Programs of forgivable loans; $20 billion in federal loans for small businesses, extension of aid to nonprofits, local news sources; and $15 billion for entertainment venues including independent movie theaters. The bill provides $82 billion in aid to colleges and schools; $13 billion in nutritional supplements; funding for tracing, testing, and vaccine distribution; $7 billion for broadband access; 25 billion in rental assistance; and an extension of the moratorium on evictions which had been set to expire at the end of the year.
In reaching this agreement, the Democrats dropped demands for aid to state and local governments which face large layoffs. They also won an extension for spending funds remaining from the March stimulus. The Republicans dropped demands for liability protections for hospitals and businesses. The two parties agreed on language limiting the power of the Federal Reserve to make loans and emergency funding for businesses, municipalities, and other institutions to prohibiting copycat programs passed in the March stimulus; the Republicans wanted to make a more sweeping limitation on the power of the Fed.
The government spending bill, scheduled to begin at 12:01 Tuesday (with a one day emergency provision for Monday) will see funding for twelve major federal departments, and the safety net, sustained to the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2021). The spending bill contains a provision to ban supplemental bills form out of network providers, forcing the providers to work with the insurance companies, as promoted by the Democrats. The budget will also expand federal Pell grants for tuition to low income students and revoke a ban on grants to prisoners pursuing education while incarcerated. Provisions for clean energy to counter climate change and to reduce hazardous chemicals in refrigeration and air conditioning are also in the spending plan for the first time in ten years. These are seen as a hit on President Trump’s administration.
Analysis
In the end, the program represents a huge step down from the over 2 trillion plan the Democrats supported and the more stingy plan proposed by the Republicans. Nancy Pelosi has called the current agreement an “initial step” and Biden sees it as a down payment on the stimulus plans he hopes to implement in his initial weeks as President.
The current program may help the most desperate situations from occurring in families with unemployed and curtailed workers but it comes too late for many workers and businesses. Research indicates that half of the businesses that shut down in the spring failed to reopen or did so but then shuttered again. The ultimate fate of these businesses is hard to predict. Biden’s commitment to provide more aid is highly likely to falter with the expectation of economic recovery anticipated by the availability of vaccination programs.
Long terms effects of the recession are disproportionately felt by the lower income workers who are more likely to be women and persons of color. The racial income gap has widened and women are leaving the labor force in greater numbers.
Time will tell whether President-elect Biden will successfully infuse more aid into the struggling economy but if the debacle of the prolonged debate on the current stimulus is any indication, he appears unlikely to meet the challenge, especially with the Republicans touting the return of commerce that the vaccine promises.
Learn More References
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/us/politics/congress-stimulus-deal.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/business/economy/stimulus-bill-congress.html
Resistance Resources
Organization to get out the vote in Georgia where two pivotal Senate seats will be elected in early January