JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Where Do Things Stand with Iran?
Brief #102—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
A central premise of the Biden candidacy was reentering the JCPOA (the Iran Nuclear Deal), which was negotiated and signed by the Obama administration in 2015, and subsequently exited by the Trump administration in 2018. This goal was seen as both a rebuke to Trumpism, as a means for international diplomatic re-engagement, and as practical step to avoid increased nuclear proliferation and potential war in the Greater Middle East.
Leading Environmental Organizations Went Public with a Letter That Supported the Impeachment of President Trump
Brief #110—Environment
By Shannon Q Elliot
Leaders of America’s most prominent environmental organizations penned a letter to the US House of Representatives in support of House Resolution 24; a second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The letter was authored by The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Greenpeace US, and the Natural Resources Defense Council who concluded the letter gently reminding our leaders that the “health of our democracy and environment are inextricably linked”
Fishing Boat Dispatch
USRN Environment Blog
By Katherine Cart
The Gulf of Alaska last summer was warm. The edge of wind was warm. The water in Yakutat Bay, when I jumped from the boat to swim, was warm. When the July storms came, waves swamped decks. The entirety of our horizon would be green water and foam for days. At night deck lights showed rain and rime flying laterally, our flags ironed straight out, as though the wind would carry what it caught until land’s mountains put up a wall.
Biden Pledges to Admit 125,000 Asylum Seekers Annually
Brief #116—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The Biden Administration has pledged to increase the annual refugee admissions cap to 125,000 and has already begun efforts to undo the effects of the Trump era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that left up to 20,000 in Mexican tent camps while they await their judicial proceedings in the US. Biden plans to enact this new process of bringing asylum seekers, particularly with active Migrant Protection Protocol (Remain in Mexico) cases in phases. Eligible migrants are to be registered and tested for COVID-19 before entering the US at three ports of entry. About 300 migrants may be admitted daily before the need to expand to other ports of entry.
California Introduces Bill Banning Non – Disclosure Agreements (NDA’s) In Workplace Discrimination Cases
Brief #151—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On February 8, 2021 California State Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) introduced Senate Bill (SB) 331, popularly known as the Silenced No More Act. The bill is intended to supplement the Stand Together Against Non – Disclosures (STAND) Act which was also introduced by State Senator Leyva and which was signed into law in California in 2018.
The Importance of Preserving the Biodiversity of Our Planet
Brief #109—Environment
By Jacob Morton
The biodiversity of our planet is declining at an accelerated rate. Populations of plant and animal species around the world are dwindling to the point of near extinction, more rapidly than at any other time in our planet’s history. Sir Partha Dasgupta, an economist at Cambridge University, says this rampant and unheeded degradation of our planet “could have catastrophic consequences for our economies and wellbeing,” pointing to Covid-19 as “just the tip of the iceberg.” Earlier this month, Dasgupta and the UK Treasury released an independent report on the economics of biodiversity. The main takeaway? We are draining the bank of our most valuable asset, natural capital. And the consequences are not going to be pretty.
Dasgupta explains it like this, “Just as diversity within a portfolio of financial assets reduces risk and uncertainty, diversity within a portfolio of natural assets increases nature’s resilience in withstanding shocks.” The widespread impacts of climate change and a coronavirus run rampant across the globe are just a couple examples of nature’s loss of resilience. As the report points out in its opening remarks, “Our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing all depend on our most precious asset: nature. We are part of nature, not separate from it.”
The Minimum Wage of $7.25 Has Not Been Raised Since 2009
Brief #110—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The debate regarding the efficacy of a $15 minimum wage is heating up since Biden included it in his Corona virus stimulus package. The bill would have a gradual phasing in of the wage over the next four years. Currently, it would be $9.50 and go to $11, then $12.50, then $14 annually until it reaches $15 in 2025. Future increases would be tied the median wage rate, thereby assuring the consistent value of the minimum wage.
The consequences of the increase are debated and the research demonstrates some mixed outcomes but overwhelmingly it supports the increase. Most show it does not actually decrease jobs. One study shows no impact on jobs in 138 state and local areas, over five years and another shows no impact in thirty years. One analysis of 60 studies of wages and jobs shows no net loss of jobs. Increased wages actually are more likely to increase jobs due to the enhanced purchasing power of the lowest income groups. More money would be spent in local businesses and services, increasing revenue and creating jobs.
Both Sides of the Aisle Want to Preserve the Filibuster
Brief #16—Elections and Politics
By Zack Huffman
The Democrats now have slight control of the 50-50 Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaker vote. Much like the former time the Democrats held the Senate, there is some discussion about whether or not to remove the filibuster, which allows the minority party to block votes on bills they are fighting. The fact that the Democrats failed to move the John Lewis Civil Rights Act past a filibuster in 2020 has further compelled some legislators to favor an end to the filibuster before the GOP can block future Senate bills. The longest filibuster to date is still the one Sen. Strom Thurmond preformed in his failed attempt to block passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The late Dixiecrat spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes before the law was finally passed 72-18. Thurmond would later switch parties from Democrat to Republican in protest over the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Artificial Intelligence —Will It Really Take Away Our Jobs?
Brief #37—Technology
By Linda F Hersey
Artificial intelligence is poised to take over many job functions beyond bolting doors on vehicles at auto plants or filling orders at Amazon warehouses. Jobs that many people assume require a human touch are at risk. They include roles in telemarketing, bookkeeping, employee compensation, office administrative duties, delivery services, proofreading and market research analysis. Within five to 10 years, driverless cars and trucks are expected to transform road transport services, including long-haul trucking and popular door-to-door food delivery. Should humans performing more complex business functions be looking over their shoulder? Perhaps. Emerging roles of artificial intelligence across industries are diverse and sweeping in scope, including entertainment/media, financial services, health care and energy.
America Needs to Rethink Its Use of Military Force
America Needs to Rethink Its Use of Military Force
By Will Solomon
November 4, 2020
Policy Summary
It can be difficult to find coherence in Trump’s agenda, foreign policy included. In contrast to almost every prominent Republican since at least World War II, Trump has espoused (at least rhetorically) a doctrine of isolationism since his run for and during his time as president, railing against NATO and American involvement in the Middle East—and specifically bucking Republican orthodoxy in vocally criticizing the Iraq War. (Arguably, this latter position was a major reason Trump won the Republican primary in 2015-16).
One of the more bizarre aspects of the Trump presidency has been the increased militarism and aggressiveness by Democrats in response to both this rhetoric and Trump’s actualized foreign policy. But does this quasi-role reversal reveal a genuine strategic shift by the Trump administration, and a significant move away from a previously-existing bipartisan consensus on American overseas commitments? It is helpful to examine two regions in which Trump has sought to reduce American troop commitments.
First, the War in Afghanistan, which remains the longest-running war in US history. As noted above, a major feature of Trump’s 2016 campaign was a rhetorical commitment to reducing American involvement in the Greater Middle East. However, over the first two years of the Trump Administration, the number of soldiers in Afghanistan actually increased, possibly to a maximum of over 15,000 soldiers. This number has reportedly decreased over the past two years and was listed around 8,600 earlier this year—roughly the level they were at when Obama left office—after the February 2020 peace deal with the Taliban. Earlier this fall, Trump announced without warning that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by Christmas—and yet it appears there is no substance behind the claim, and a gradual if indefinite process of withdrawal will continue.
Trump has also repeatedly made a spectacle of criticizing NATO allies for not contributing enough to the mutual defense pact. This summer, the US announced its intent to remove 12,000 troops out of Germany. While Trump claimed this was because of German failure to sufficiently pay into the treaty, Pentagon officials stated this was consistent with long-term strategy—and it is noteworthy that about half those troops were to be redeployed to Belgium and Italy, which pay a lower percentage of GDP towards their defense budgets than does Germany. This is arguably also consistent with the “pivot to Asia” that began during the Obama Administration.
Policy Analysis
While Trump’s rhetoric has signaled a marked shift from prior postwar American presidents, thus far, his actions with regards to military deployments overseas have been fairly consistent with recent precedent. Like Obama in particular, Trump has relied heavily on airstrikes, drone warfare, and special forces raids in military engagements across the globe.
Which is not to say this is good: despite frequent proclamations to the contrary, the seventy-five years since the end of World War II have been marked by violence and destabilization around the globe, much of it directly instigated by the United States. The most significant war of the twenty-first century—the War in Iraq—was the result of a largely unilateral American decision to invade a sovereign nation. The war may have resulted in a million dead, including several thousand American troops, and Iraq remains a broken nation. The War in Afghanistan—frequently characterized as the more just war—has, again, become the longest-running war in US history, and is acknowledged by senior US government officials as unwinnable.
Trump’s rhetoric should not be downplayed, and having an erratic mouthpiece at the head of government is a major threat to international security. But the media ought to pause on its reflexive opposition to Trump and ask, broadly, whether American military engagements overseas are achieving their aims. Indeed, what exactly are these aims? This does include questions like: what is the purpose of NATO in the year 2020? Are these deployments of American soldiers helpful, or destabilizing? While answers may vary by case, recent history (not just including Trump’s tenure) would suggest that this broad strategy ought to be reconsidered, regardless of who is president.
Resistance Resources
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.”
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.”
Election Legal Challenges Part 1 Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan
Election Legal Challenges Part 1
By William Borque
November 6, 2020
Pennsylvania:
In Pennsylvania, President Trump launched a lawsuit to stop counting the votes in key counties still counting votes. Pennsylvania law requires votes to not be counted until polls close on election day, so that is exactly what counters did, wait until the polls closed. Trump and his campaign claimed that votes were coming in after the polls had closed that weren’t postmarked Nov. 3rd, which would invalidate the votes. However, the problem was that there was no evidence of this fraud that Trump had claimed. The campaign then sued because they alleged that there weren’t enough supervisors watching the votes be counted in places like Allegheny and Philadelphia counties, where many of the later votes, from mail-in ballots, were for Biden. As returns continued to pile in, Trump maintained that the votes were illegal and illegitimate. The case was heard in federal court by U.S District Judge Paul Diamond, who said that both sides had to come to an agreement, suggesting that 60 members of each party be allowed to view the vote counting. Votes were counted with observers from both parties present and Pennsylvania turned blue.
Michigan:
In Michigan, in a similar vein as Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign sued to stop counting absentee votes in major cities, mostly Detroit. Attorney for the Trump Campaign, Thor Hearne, said the campaign wanted “meaningful access” to vote-counting in addition to surveillance cameras around ballot drop boxes from October 1st. Michigan was seen as a close swing state before the election and many expected the race to come down to mail-in votes, so this shouldn’t have surprised anyone. However, it’s clear that Trump knew that they would lose if they continued to count legitimate mail-in votes, so they decided to sue. Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens dismissed the case and allowed vote counting to continue and says that it was completed on Thursday morning. Judge Stephens said that there was no precedent for surveillance cameras for drop boes. Vote totals indicate that Biden won Michigan by about 150,000 votes.
Arizona:
In Arizona, votes continue to be counted, but several large news outlets, including Fox and The Associated Press, have called the state for Biden. The Trump Campaign has claimed that they entered a lawsuit with several Arizona GOP candidates that claims that sharpie pens used during election day tainted ballots. Trump campaign lawyer, Alexander Kolodin, says that other concerns were raised in the lawsuit including problems with vote-counting and observers of the counting. Much like in Pennsylvania and Michigan, protestors donning MAGA gear were seen trying to enter vote-counting facilities in Arizona’s Maricopa County, where many of the remaining votes are being counted. We expect that Judge Margaret Mahoney will make her ruling against the GOP because of the lack of the basis of the claims. A ruling is expected on Friday.
Social Security in the Time of Covid-19
Brief #97
Social Security in the Time of Covid-19
Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
November 3, 2020
Policy
There are several ways in which older Americans will be impacted as a consequence of the Covid epidemic. Anyone who was planning on retiring in 2022 will suffer the most severe repercussions in that they will collect less Social Security over their lifetimes than they would have pre-virus. This is due to the mechanisms which determine Social Security payouts. The social security formula is configured on wages, age and the growth of average wages. Since millions are suffering unemployment and/or reduced hours, overall income is down. For people born in 1960, eligible to retire at 62 in 2022, the loss could be 1428 dollars per year with inflation adjustments (per SSA chief actuary). These workers would benefit by waiting for the year of their maximum benefit or until age 70. The reason that the projection is for those retiring in 2022 is that there is a two-year lag in current employment and the time it is figured into the Social Security formulas. Those who will retire in 2023 are predicted to be unaffected IF the economy rebounds. Predictions are that four million people, workers and also their dependents and spouses, will be impacted.
Older Americans face a deteriorating employment situation. In the past, older workers were protected from layoffs due to tenure and other factors. Today, their higher pay scales and increased vulnerability to the virus has disadvantaged them. The youngest workers (16-24) are still the most vulnerable to unemployment though the 55+ group has jumped to the number two place on the vulnerability scale.
The pandemic will affect social security recipients in other ways. About one fifth of baby boomers have no other retirement beyond Social Security. This year’s COLA (cost of living adjustment) was 1.6%, and it was 1.4% for the past decade. Economists are fearful that the COLA might be zero for 2021 as a consequence of the unemployment and reduced hours of today’s workers. Between 2000 and 2009, the average COLA was 3%. Even with a more generous COLA, many of the elderly suffer due to the increases in living expenses, particularly in healthcare and housing. Medicare premiums, groceries, heating oil and home owner’s insurance are also rising. Out of pocket expenses for prescription medications have increased 252% since 2000 and other expenses have seen similar increases. The average benefit today falls $380 short of maintaining the same buying power as the average benefit in 2000; buying power has fallen about 30%.
Analysis
The major policy response to the plight of older laid off workers is to allow them to draw 1% of their social security now to help with living expenses. This would amount to a median draw of $4300. A half percent advance would yield about $2500 and would be of great relief to low income households for whom it would comprise a larger proportion of their income. It would not add to the national debt because it would be taken out of the Social Security budget. It is estimated that the loss would be restored if people worked six weeks more than currently planned. Economists point out that 401Ks permit “hardship withdrawals,” though they usually apply to the wealthier American households
Learn More References
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/covid-19-may-be-why-your-social-security-benefits-drop-2020-07-30
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/social-security-recipients-may-be-in-for-a-rude-awakening-later-this-year-2020-05-12?mod=article_inline
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/increase-in-unemployment-hits-older-workers-harder-than-prime-age-workers-2020-05-11?mod=article_inline
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-radical-idea-to-rescue-us-households-nowwithout-adding-to-the-national-debt-2020-05-07?mod=article_inline
Resistance Resources
https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-help-ussi.htm
This website provides information on how a person can get someone to assist them with obtaining social security benefits.
Our Election Predictions
Brief # 11 Congressional Campaign Update
Our Election Predictions
By William Borque
November 2,2020
Congressional Campaign Updates is an exclusive feature of U.S. RESIST NEWS. Written by reporter William Bourque. The updates will help our readers follow key races in the House and Senate that are key to the ability of democrats to gain control of both houses of Congress.
As we wind closer and closer to election day races are tightening and hearts are racing. Key senate races such as Maine and North Carolina are closer than they have been all race and we are seeing surges in donations as the final days of the campaign trail wane. Here is the official election forecast of U.S. Resist News.
Alabama:
Doug Jones has faced an uphill battle since he beat Roy Moore in his initial recall election several years ago in a state that is historically red. He has voted with democrats most of the time, voting against confirming Amy Coney Barrett and in favor of impeachment on both charges levied against the President. He faces football coach Tommy Tuberville in his race and, despite being the incumbent, we expect Jones will lose this seat in a tight contest. As for the presidency, we expect Trump to take all nine electoral votes that Alabama has to offer.
Alaska:
In Alaska, a tight senate race is brewing between incumbent republican Dan Sullivan and democrat-backed challenger Al Gross. Gross, who is on the ballot as an independent, has been gaining momentum in the wake of Lisa Murkowski’s vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. Polls suggest that Sullivan has a good chance of maintaining his seat, but Alaska is historically hard to poll. Despite this, we think that Sullivan will hold onto his seat and President Trump will win all 3 of Alaska’s electoral votes.
Arizona:
In Arizona, a Senate race that many forecasted to be down to the wire seems to have already been decided, with Mark Kelly having a clear polling edge against incumbent Martha McSally, who took over John McCain’s seat when he passed away in 2018. As for the presidency, Arizona generally goes red, but with this much enthusiasm for Kelly, not to mention Cindy McCain’s endorsement of Biden, we expect that Arizona will go to Biden.
Colorado:
A tight senate race between former governor John Hickenlooper and Cory Gardner has been brewing for months now and it has just about reached a boiling point. Recent polls have Hickenlooper with a sizable polling lead, but all bets are off as it gets down to election day. Gardner has seen his favorability rating plummet with his recent support of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, so we expect Hickenlooper to take this seat and flip it blue. In the presidential race, Colorado is generally a safe blue and we expect nothing to change here, with Biden winning comfortably.
Florida:
Florida has long been known as a toss-up in every presidential election, and this year is no different. The voter turnout in the presidential race has been incredibly high this year and many are saying that this bodes well for democrats, who typically suffer from low turnout in Florida. That being said, we expect Florida to go blue, with a large amount of the Latinx vote pushing Biden forward to secure the victory. Florida also has a race that could push the House even more to the left, with democrat Margaret Good pushing against incumbent Vern Buchanan, who’s popularity in his district has taken a hit after his close ties with President Trump. We expect Good to win the 16th district and to help secure the House for the democrats.
Georgia:
Georgia has emerged as a battleground in recent election cycles and 2020 is the most promising for a democratic win since Clinton in 1992. Trump beat Hillary Clinton by about 5% in 2016, but recent polling data indicates a dead heat between Biden and Trump. We expect Biden to squeak out a victory because of the record-breaking turnout. In addition to the close presidential numbers, Georgia also has several close Senate races. In the special election incumbent Kelly Loeffler seems to be struggling to stay afloat against two opponents, fellow GOP member Doug Collins, and democrat Raphael Warnock, who has polled at +6, according to Monmouth University. In the other race, incumbent David Perdue has struggled to keep up with upstart democrat Jon Ossoff, who holds a narrow polling edge, again according to a Monmouth University poll. We expect Warnock and Ossoff to win in tight races that should tip the balance of the Senate.
Iowa:
Iowa, home to the caucus, has again become a hotspot of the presidential campaign. Former presidential hopeful Pete Buttigeg has been a staple of the midwest, seen campaigning in many states for Biden. On the Trump side, the President himself has been making appearances in the state, with some democrats worried with a new poll indicating a Trump lead. We think that the President will hold onto Iowa where he won by almost 10% in 2016. In the Senate, incumbent Joni Ernst, elected in 2015, is holding a small lead over democrat Theresa Greenfield. Many expected Ernst to have a stronger lead coming into election day, but we don’t expect that this should have an effect, and we expect that Ernst will hold onto her seat.
Maine:
In Maine, it’s a tale of two districts. In ME-01, the southern district in the state, all signs point towards a resounding Biden win. In ME-02, however, the race is coming down to the wire, with many expecting Trump to eke out a victory after several recent visits. We expect that Biden will take all four electoral votes, narrowly capturing district 2, which will likely be decided by mail-in ballots. As for the Senate, the most expensive race in state history is historically close, with challenger Sara Gideon the favorite to unseat four term incumbent Susan Collins, long-regarded as a moderate, fair senator. It seems that Mainers have grown tired of the party loyalty and we expect that they will opt for a change by electing Gideon.
Michigan:
Michigan, which President Trump won by a hair in 2016, seems to have fallen back to the democrats. As final polls come in it seems that Joe Biden has done enough campaigning to win back the state that was so crucial in the 2016 loss. A new Emerson College poll reports that Biden has a 7 point advantage, a lead that many expect to wane when election day comes around. Despite this, we expect Biden to win by a comfortable 4-6% margin and to collect all 16 electoral votes. In the Senate race, incumbent Gary Peters seems to have staved off republican challenger John James, who has based his campaign off of his military service and business knowledge. We expect Peters to retain this seat by a narrow margin.
Montana:
Montana’s presidential race isn’t exactly high-stakes, with only 3 electoral votes in play. We expect Trump to win in the state that he won by over 100,000 votes in 2016. The Senate, however, is where Montana becomes of interest. Republican incumbent Steve Daines has faced scrutiny for his vote to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett last week and is facing a strong opponent, former governor Steve Bullock, in his race. Bullock is poling at +1 coming into election day, indicating that the race will be decided by a small margin. We forecasted a win by Bullock in early May and we are sticking to that pick, as we expect that the blowback from the Supreme Court confirmation vote will ultimately cost Daines his seat.
North Carolina:
North Carolina is once again expected to play a crucial role in the election of the President and, as of election day, it is still a toss-up. Sources tell U.S. Resist News that the mail-in balloting system in North Carolina has been full of bugs, with many voters waiting weeks to receive ballots. Another factor to evaluate in North Carolina is the African-American vote, something that many democrats worried Biden wouldn’t be able to win. However, recent data seems to show that voters of color favor Biden, which means that we expect him to secure victory in the state, albeit by a close margin. North Carolina is also home to a high-profile Senate race, with incumbent Thom Tillis polling behind former state senator Cal Cunningham. Cunningham’s lead has waned as election day approaches, but a recent Marist College poll has him securely in the lead at +10, a consequence of Tillis’s support of Amy Coney Barrett. We think that Cunningham will cruise to a win in a crucial state.
Ohio:
Ohio is once again a potential swing state and polling data represents that nobody has a clear lead yet. Much like Pennsylvania, many are concerned about Biden’s plan to reduce energy subsidies to fossil fuel companies, which could spell a loss for him. It is also worth noting Trump won in 2016 by just under 8%, indicating a swing that may be too much for Biden to make up. No republican in recent history has won the presidency without winning Ohio, so if the blue wave does in fact hit, expect that to be curtains for Trump. Despite recent polls indicating a Biden lead by 1%, we expect that Trump will take Ohio, along with its 20 electoral votes.
Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania, similarly to North Carolina, is again expected to be a crucial swing state in this election cycle. President Trump won an incredibly tight race in 2016, winning only 50,000 more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton. Biden has held a significant advantage in many polls, but his comments about fracking and the future of fossil fuels may have many Pennsylvanians concerned. Biden has assured his supporters he doesn’t plan to ban fracking, but rather to reduce subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. Trump has played these concerns up in recent weeks, and this has been capped off by a recent endorsement of Trump by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the largest newspaper covering Pittsburgh. Biden’s lead has been waning but we still believe that Biden will likely win the state in an incredibly tight fashion.
South Carolina:
The race for the presidency in South Carolina will likely fall to President Trump, given the fact that he won by almost 15% in 2016. Trump’s base is in the more rural, western parts of the state, and we expect that this population will be enough to win Trump the nine electoral votes they have to offer. The Senate race, however, is laced with uncertainty, as underdog Jamie Harrison has shown incredible tenacity in recent debates and is now leading Lindsey Graham in several polls. However, it is important to note President Trump’s impact on the state, and we expect that Harrison’s polling lead will vanish once votes are counted and Graham will retain his seat, albeit as part of the minority.
Texas:
Texas is a state that has been increasingly blue, with this election being the first in recent memory that Democrats will have a chance to turn blue. President Trump won handily in 2016, by just under 10%. However, recent trends, such as the 2018 senate race that saw Beto O’Rourke narrowly defeated, indicate that Texas may be ready to turn blue for the first time since 1980. Record turnout in high-population areas such as Dallas and Houston represent Biden’s shot to win the 38 electoral votes that Texas has to offer, and we forecast that he will come up just short. In the Senate, incumbent John Cornyn is facing a tight race with democratic challenger M.J Hegar, an Air Force veteran. Cornyn has been polling with a 4-point lead, which feels safe this close to election day. However, if a blue wave hits Texas on election day, don’t be surprised to see Hegar do what Beto couldn’t, to flip a Texas Senate seat blue. We still think that Cornyn will retain his seat, but if a blue wave does hit Texas, we could see Biden and Hegar both win narrowly.
Wisconsin:
Wisconsin is once again the home to a presidential battleground, and Joe Biden seems to have a secure lead in the polls. Of course, we all know the phrase that “polls don’t win elections”, but it feels safe to say that Biden is likely to secure the 10 votes that Wisconsin is allocated. In a recent New York Times and Siena College poll, 79% of those polled had already voted, representing the unique times that we are living in. In addition to this, Biden polled at 52% among likely voters, besting Trump by an 11 point margin. Although we’ve seen chaos in Wisconsin in recent years, we forecast that Biden will defeat Trump and flip Wisconsin blue.
The Rest:
Arkansas: Trump
California: Biden
Connecticut: Biden
Delaware: Biden
Hawaii: Biden
Idaho: Trump
Illinois: Biden
Indiana: Trump
Iowa: Trump
Kansas: Trump
Kentucky: Trump
Lousiana: Trump
Maryland: Biden
Massachusetts: Biden
Minnesota: Biden
Mississippi: Trump
Missouri: Trump
Nebraska: Trump
Nebraska-02: Biden
Nevada: Biden
New Hampshire: Biden
New Mexico: Biden
New York: Biden
North Dakota: Trump
Oregon: Biden
Rhode Island: Biden
South Dakota: Trump
Tennessee: Trump
Utah: Trump
Vermont: Biden
Virginia: Biden
Washington: Biden
West Virginia: Trump
Wyoming: Trump
Final Electoral Forecast
Biden Win 351-187
Democrats control senate 53-47
Trump Adviser’s Ties to Anti-Immigration Policies and Hate Groups Scrutinized
Brief # 106 Immigration
Trump Adviser’s Ties to Anti-Immigration Policies and Hate Groups Scrutinized
By Linda F. Hersey
October 29, 2020
SUMMARY
The Administration’s abject failure to secure identifying information on hundreds of migrant parents separated from their children at the U.S. border in 2018 raises new questions about the role of Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior adviser and chief architect of the plan, as well as Miller’s documented connections to organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In a 2018 interview with The New York Times, Miller described as a “simple decision” the practice implemented by the Administration to separate parents from their children by deporting the adults and forcing the families to leave their youngsters behind, often in detention and facing an uncertain future.
That practice is under intense scrutiny again, as lawyers and advocates report that they cannot locate parents of 545 of those youngsters, whose lives are in limbo in the United States, including some who were infants when their parents were deported.
A primary reason for the challenges in finding the parents may be fear of reprisal by the U.S.
Published news reports in 2019 revealed that Miller sought to use the orphaned children to further target undocumented adults in the U.S. He advocated a plan to embed border agents in refugee agencies working to unite the youngsters with extended family members living in the U.S. after the parents were forced to leave and return to their home countries in Central America, according to the Washington Post.
The Department of Health and Human Services rejected efforts to embed the border agents at agencies whose mission and goal is to reunify the children with relatives already in the U.S., no matter their immigration status.
“Congress has made clear that it does not want those who come forward as potential sponsors of minors in U.S. custody to be frightened away by possible deportation,” the Washington Post reported in 2019 when the secret plan was revealed. “But, in the reasoning of senior Trump administration officials [including Miller], adults denied custody of children lose their status as ‘potential sponsors’ and are fair game for arrest,” the newspaper reported. Under the plan, ICE would have collected fingerprints, DNA and other information from people seeking to claim migrant children in government custody as relatives. If the claim was not supported, ICE could use the information as intelligence to potentially arrest and deport the individual.
The Southern Poverty Law Center in October 2020 is raising questions again about Miller’s role in the most controversial anti-immigration policies by the Trump Administration as well as his connections to identified hate groups, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Miller was a keynote speaker in 2015 at a CIS convention. Miller has expressed support for the ideology and writings of John Tanton, the founder of FAIR.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many racist statements.” The group wants to “limit the number of nonwhites who enter” the United States, the law center reports.
Miller – in 900 emails sent to Bretibart News and later published by the New York Times – espoused his support for leaders of CIS and FAIR, and for other identified white nationalists and Far Right groups. Numerous other media outlets also dug into the emails and published similar stories, including Newsweek and Sludge, a political news website.
“Leaked emails from White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller from 2015-2016 reveal an obsession with white nationalism, the Confederacy and the denigration of black and Hispanic communities,” Newsweek reported in December 2019.
Civil rights groups have stepped into the fray to advocate for immigrants experiencing threats of deportation and other legal barriers in the immigration system. Those groups include the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, based in San Francisco.
The group described immigration policies under the Trump Administration as “increasingly punitive.”
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights strives to “address the unmet legal needs of immigrants and, in doing so, to combat the civil rights issues plaguing the current immigration enforcement system,” according to its website.
ANALYSIS
Dozens of leading civil rights groups – a total of 59 — signed a letter demanding that Trump end Miller’s advisory role, according to The Daily Beast.
But that did not happen. Miller, a key Administration adviser, has had a pivotal role in shaping the harshest of anti-immigration policies under Trump, which span the deportation of parents without their children, a Supreme Court-challenged effort to end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and another court-challenged policy to stop visas for individuals from Muslim-majority countries.
“Donald Trump and Stephen Miller have a view on immigration that is very different from [what] Republicans have traditionally believed,” said Alex Conant, former spokesman for U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, in an article published by The Guardian newspaper in 2017. Rubio, a Republican, came under attack by Miller, which was revealed in emails, when the Cuban-American senator explored a presidential bid in 2015.
Now Miller is back in the news as lawyers and human rights groups continue efforts to locate the families of 545 children displaced under the “zero tolerance” policy initiated and championed by Miller.
Resistance Resources
The Southern Poverty Law Center: Southern Poverty Law Center’s mission is to fight racial injustice and to oppose white supremacy, while advancing the rights of all people.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: The coalition includes 200 national organizations that work to support civil and human rights.
https://civilrights.org/heres-10-things-you-can-do-to-stop-white-supremacy/
Crime and Justice Institute: “A Framework for Public Safety” Report details how to protect U.S. communities during and after the 2020 presidential election.
https://www.cjinstitute.org/publication/elections/
The United Nations offers suggestions for overcoming racism and defending human rights in your community.
https://www.un.org/en/letsfightracism/
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: What is it and Why does Nobody Like it?
Title: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: What is it and Why does Nobody Like it?
By Scout Burchill
October 28, 2020
Summary:
Over the past few months, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed into law in 1996, has become ensnared in controversy from both sides of the political spectrum. Despite being a small part of a much larger bill, Section 230 establishes two important precedents that are being challenged today.
Firstly, Section 230 establishes that “internet computer services” are platforms and not publishers. This shields social media companies and websites from legal liability for almost all content posted by users. There are some exceptions which include copyright violations, child pornography and sex work-related content. Secondly, Section 230 also bestows platforms with “Good Samaritan” legal protections in blocking “offensive content.” This provision provides the legal underpinning for social media companies to moderate content.
Section 230 has become a special object of ire for President Trump and his ongoing feud with social media companies’ content moderation attempts. He has frequently tweeted that he wants to repeal Section 230 (often in all caps and followed by three exclamation marks) in response to Twitter’s attempts to fact check, flag and delete his tweets. His vexations are shared by many on the right who feel as though social media companies are biased against right wing speech.
The Trump administration is not alone in hoping to challenge social media companies over Section 230. Former Vice President and current Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has echoed Trump’s calls to repeal Section 230, albeit for very different reasons. During the Democratic primary he told the New York Times’ editorial board that Section 230 “immediately should be revoked.” He added that sites like Facebook should be held liable for the content posted and shared on their platforms because they are “propagating falsehoods that they know to be false.”
As the election nears and social media companies have been ramping up their efforts to clamp down on misinformation and political content, the government has been stepping up its own efforts to challenge Section 230. On September 23rd, at the behest of President Trump, the Justice Department introduced draft legislation to reform Section 230. Not too long after, on October 13th Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a decision not to reconsider an appellate court’s ruling involving Section 230 that he is in fact open to hearing a case that would define Section 230 in a narrower sense. In inviting a more “appropriate case” to consider, he argued that the court should consider whether, “the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms.” Two days later, on October 15th Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Communications Commision, citing “serious concerns” raised by all branches of government, declared that, “the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230.” Although the legal justification for this act is questionable and it remains uncertain what exactly the FCC intends to do, it is clear that the tides are turning against big tech and social media platforms and Section 230 is at the forefront of this debate.
Analysis:
Section 230 is under attack from both sides of the political aisle, but for opposing reasons, and as a result, the battle over Section 230 has come to be reflective of many of the trends in the culture wars at large.
Many on the right express the viewpoint that social media platforms are biased against them and actively try to censor or suppress their speech. While some anecdotal evidence may support this, the data just does not bear this out. A simple cursory scan of the top ten daily Facebook news stories contradicts this point nearly everyday. Overwhelmingly the top ten list is composed of right wing media outlets and figures such as Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Don Bongino and Breitbart to name a few (you can check this list yourself at https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10). If social media companies are actively trying to suppress right wing political speech, they are doing a pretty terrible job at it. This overall perception on the right of a perceived bias is reflected in the Justice Department’s suggested legislative changes, which aim to make platforms significantly more liable for content removals.
On the left, many express a similar view to that of Joe Biden in demanding that social media companies moderate their content even more and be held more accountable for the information shared on them. This sentiment has been growing on the left since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, and is largely due to the idea that social media played a decisive role in Trump’s massive upset over Hillary Clinton.
This view is particularly pernicious for a number of reasons, both ideologically and technically. For one, given the size of these companies, it is simply not possible for them to effectively and consistently moderate content in the ways that are being asked of them. The scale of these companies is difficult to wrap one’s head around. When employees at Facebook look at their dashboards to monitor activity, they are seeing numbers denominated in the millions and even billions. The sheer magnitude of the numbers behind any social phenomenon are daunting. Moderating content by removing pornographic images or videos of extremist terrorism is one thing, but asking these companies to be the arbiters of truth and acceptability is an entirely different demand. Furthermore, it totally misses the point that this type of moderation is just not feasible on a consistent basis. We are already seeing this in the types of overreaches and mistakes that tech and social media companies have routinely been making. These overreaches inevitably affect the left just as much as the right. Just last week Facebook blocked a video by Jacobin, an established voice of the American left, that covered topics such as Bolivia, Bernie Sanders and the Jeffrey Toobin incident. Even Zoom decided to take action against the Palestinian activist and former terrorist Leila Khaled by blocking a webinar event sponsored by San Francisco State University where she was scheduled to speak on issues of gender, justice and resistance.
The current debate over Section 230 reflects the increasingly partisan divide on issues of free speech principles. Newly released research by the Pew Center shows that in 2017, people, regardless of their political affiliation, tended to hold similar views on the balance between free speech and feeling safe online. However, between 2017 and 2020, changes in views seem to track with partisan divides. In 2020, 60% of Democrats hold the view that it is more important for people to feel welcome and safe online than for people to be able to speak their minds freely. On this point only 45% of Republicans agree. Conversely, only 38% of Democrats compared to 54% of Republicans hold the view that being able to speak one’s mind freely online is more important than feeling welcome and safe.
For now, the battle over Section 230 resembles mere political jousting as both sides attempt to tip the scales of the power of social media platforms in their direction. Unfortunately, this obscures the larger problem of the unprecedented power that social media and tech platforms hold in shaping political discourse and imposing standards of acceptability. Rather than repealing or revoking Section 230, there may be a way forward in the example of the antitrust case that the Department of Justice is bringing against Google. Over the past decade, Google and Facebook have come to dominate the entire news business, having incredible power over revenues, advertising and information flows. The amount of power they wield can determine whether or not a media outlet is successful and what types of information a user is exposed to. Rather than forcing them to commit to the ideologically and technologically fraught job of responsibly wielding that power, a workable solution might be found in breaking them up and reigning in their power. This strategy would pull the focus away from the increasingly divided conversations of censorship and freedom of speech and would bring to the fore the proud and well-established American tradition of breaking up monopoly powers to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketplace of commerce and ideas.
Resistance Resources:
Internet Governance Project : https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/10/18/the-assault-on-platforms-and-section-230/
DOJ Proposed Section 230 Legislative Changes:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-proposed-section-230-legislation
https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
DOJ’s June Recommendations for Reforming Section 230: https://www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Justice Clarence Thomas’ Writings on Section 230:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf
FCC’s Chairman Ajit Pai’s Statement on Section 230
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-statement-section-230
Pew Research on Partisan Divide Concerning Offensive Content Online:
An Informative Thread Presenting Different Ideas for Revising Section 230:
https://twitter.com/ShiraOvide/status/1321447916867903496
Electronic Frontier Foundation – Leading Nonprofit Defending Civil Liberties in the Digital World:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/content-moderation-and-us-election-what-ask-what-demand
Children Remain Separated from their Families, as Election Nears
Brief #105 – Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Children Remain Separated from their Families, as Election Nears
October 28, 2020
Policy Summary
In June 2018, a Federal Judge in San Diego delivered an order that children in government custody were to be reunited with their families. Volunteers, human rights defenders, and attorneys have worked tirelessly to locate and reunite families, but 545 children remain separated still. These children were separated from their families between July 2017 and June 2018. It is estimated that two-thirds of the parents of these remaining 545 were deported and sent back to their home countries without their children.
Analysis
Efforts to locate still-separated family members has been hindered by recent COVID-19 lockdowns and social-distancing measures both in the US and abroad. Volunteers have gone door to door in Guatemala and Honduras – where many of these parents are believed to be – as US government tracking systems had proven to be subpar. The US government failed to maintain accurate, reliable, and comprehensive data surrounding children separated from their parents at the US Southern Border under the Trump Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy. In addition to this shortcoming, there are local roadblocks in Guatemala and Honduras that volunteers have faced: remote villages and limited access to technology, gang-controlled regions, and most recently, COVID-19.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Centers for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
How Non – Profit Groups Are Still Helping To Protect The Vote So Close To Election Day
Policy Summary: With the 2020 United States election only days away a number of states have already started the process of voting. Absentee ballots have been filled out and mailed back and early voting periods have seen a large turnout of voters in anticipation of the November 3, 2020 election. With a little more than a week until Election Day a number of recent incidents illustrate the difficulties that some voters are having in casting their ballot.
In some states, the wait in line to vote has been reported to be two, three or four hours. On October 25, 2020 Representative Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) reported that she waited two hours in line to vote in her precinct in the Bronx, New York. And the Washington Post reported that lines in New Mexico, Texas, Tennessee and other locales were having wait times that reached two hours causing some voters who didn’t vote to leave and come back the next day to try again.
In Lucas County, Ohio, the Board of Elections has acknowledged that there has been a delay in counting returned absentee ballots because of a shortage of poll workers. Fear of COVID-19 had caused fewer volunteers than in years past but it remains to be seen if this shortage will translate to problems to in – person voting. Other regions have also reported a shortage of poll workers which prompted a number of non – profit groups and projects to try and fill in the void this week.
And finally, a number of voters in the New York area reported receiving harassing robocalls that were intended to intimidate them from voting. The robocalls stated that if the voter returned their ballot that the info would be used to track down old arrest warrants, be given to credit card companies to collect outstanding debts and be used by the CDC to administer mandatory vaccines. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law finally stepped in and filed a temporary restraining order to stop the false robocalls under an old anti-Klan statute. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While there are any number of issues or circumstances that can prevent a voter from casting his or her ballot, these three incidents help to illustrate that many of the problems and barriers are systemic but also that there are a number of good non – profit groups who are willing to do what needs to be done to fix the flaws.
Waiting in line to vote in – person can often cause a person to endure a long period of hours waiting in line but there are options a voter can use to avoid this. A voter does not have to wait to vote on Election Day but can instead utilize early voting periods which can help a voter better manage their time. A voter can also utilize the option of mail ballots which can be dropped off in person, in an officially sanctioned drop box or with the U.S. Postal Service. Waiting in line to vote might seem to be a one time situation to be tolerated because of COVID-19 but the Brennan Center for Justice has been studying the issue of long wait times in line to vote and offers policy suggestions to help manage this issue in the future.
In some areas, the shortage of poll workers is attributed to a rare pandemic that has kept usual election volunteers at home this year. But citizens were alerted to the news of this potential problem and efforts were mobilized by a number of non – profit groups to ensure that polling places had enough volunteers to ensure a safe and fair election. Power the Polls is a first of its kind initiative that was created to try and help recruit 250,000 Americans to sign up to staff a polling booth location. The ability to count and process ballots and staff locations should not run into some of the delays being reported due to the help that is available out there.
And finally, there are a number of right wing groups who are intent on following President Trump’s lead to sow chaos and division at the polls in the coming days. The situation with the recent robocalls in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio were coordinated by operatives Jacob Wohl of California and Jack Burkman of Virginia. Both men have a history of making statements about their intent to disrupt the 2020 election and harm the chances of many Democratic candidates. While this particular scam was discovered it is very likely that there are many other operations out there that are still trying to intimidate voters from casting their ballots and who may continue to try on Election Day. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was quick to file a temporary restraining order for this one scam. That might not be the case with other voter suppression tactics which reinforces the call to be vigilant as Election Day nears and to use any and all resources (governmental, non – profit groups) to combat what a voter may likely see out there heading into next week.
Engagement Resources:
Brennan Center for Justice – “Waiting to Vote” report on racial disparities in Election Day experiences.
Power the Polls – non – profit group’s website on their efforts to recruit polling booth workers and volunteers.
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.
Ben Shapiro and David Pakman’s Take on the 3rd Presidential Debate
The U.S. RESIST NEWS Media Blog reports on how media channels from the right and left are covering today’s news.
Blog Post # 4 Ben Shapiro and David Pakman’s Take on the 3rd Presidential Debate
By John McCabe
October 27, 2020
Covering news and politics on their respective radio shows, conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro, and progressive commentator, David Pakman, offer contrasting views as to who was the winner of the third presidential debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Shapiro is the editor-in chief of The Daily Wire, a right wing, conservative website, and the host of The Ben Shapiro Show. At the age of 17, Shapiro started a nationally syndicated column and wrote two books by 21, his debut title being Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth. Shapiro did not vote for Trump in the 2016 election but is voting for him in 2020.
Pakman is the host of The David Pakman Show, a nationally syndicated radio show with progressive leanings. In 2005, Pakman began hosting a program titled Midweek Politics with David Pakman, which first aired on Valley Free Radio in Northampton, Massachusetts. Shapiro has over two million subscribers on Youtube while Pakman has over one million. Pakman voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is voting for Biden in 2020.
Shapiro had three reasons for believing that Trump was the winner, the first having to do with Trump condemning Biden’s cautious and grave outlook on the pandemic. He began his commentary by calling Biden immoral for blaming Trump for the 200,000 plus American deaths.
“Joe Biden has been telling one lie on covid,” said Shapiro. “…that is that if Donald Trump had handled this wildly differently, then hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today…If you got an empty chair at your table, that is Donald Trump’s fault…But here was Joe Biden, overtly suggesting that Donald Trump is responsible for every American who died of covid, which is just crazy…it’s a crazy, immoral statement…”
Regarding lockdowns, Shapiro contends that Trump was successful in pointing out Biden’s plan as having “doom and gloom” connotations, suggesting that Biden’s outlook is too pessimistic for voters that were sick of the virus.
“…if Trump ends up winning the election,” said Shapiro, “one big reason is because people don’t want the doom and gloom…Joe Biden is preaching doom and gloom. Trump is not preaching doom and gloom…believe it or not, Trump is the candidate of optimism on covid. It is Biden who is the candidate of pessimism, doom, and gloom…”
Shapiro’s commentary also offered Biden’s view on the pandemic as impractical, asserting that Trump is correct in his view that the nation has to learn to “live with” the virus, and is also clever for saying Biden would rather lock himself up in his basement.
After Biden stated that he would not rule out another shutdown, Shapiro considered that another strength for Trump’s argument.
“…this is good from Trump,” said Shapiro. “All day long, he [Biden] just talks about shutdowns. Democrats keep talking about shutdowns. ‘We have to open everything’, is what Trump says. That may be a vision that Americans are going to embrace, particularly if you have kids…there are a lot of people out there who are not on board with lockdown culture.”
In his video title, Pakman suggested that Biden had “eviscerated” Trump in the debate. Regarding COVID-19, Pakman was relentless in his criticism of Trump from the moment the debate began.
“And even from the get-go,” said Pakman, “Trump entering with no mask. Joe Biden with a mask. All emblematic, a microcosm of the entire portion of the debate about coronavirus, which was usual, and, as I expected, one of the worst parts of the debate for Donald Trump. Trump immediately trying to defend his work on coronavirus, defending the indefensible, and predictably making no sense…”
While Shapiro thought Biden blaming Trump for the 200,000 plus coronavirus related deaths was immoral, Pakman saw it as a strong offensive maneuver.
“Joe Biden shot out of a cannon immediately says, ‘Listen, any president who oversees 220,000 deaths, they can’t continue to be president.’ You don’t re-elect someone on the heels of such a failure.”
Additionally, Pakman also dismissed Trump’s basement smear against Biden as “an example of Trump throwing a punch that just missed everything.”
In his breakdown, Shapiro believed that Trump’s second-best debate tactic was trying to promote Biden as a corrupt politician. However, when Trump referred to Biden as “the big man”, along with other vague assertions pertaining to corruption, Shapiro conceded that a lot Trump’s claims against Biden were conflated, as well as not true.
When Shapiro said that it was true that Hunter Biden picked up three and a half million dollars from Elena Baturina, along with other funds from Ukraine, he also granted that there was no direct evidence to suggest that Biden had directly benefitted from his son. However, Shapiro was still of the opinion that there were some questionable elements to Hunter Biden’s joint venture in China.
“It is true that Hunter Biden was picking up bags of cash in China,” said Shapiro, “and this is where things have gotten a little dicey…There are emails suggesting that perhaps Joe Biden had something to do with it. Joe Biden has denied all of that. But here’s the bottom line: if you’re watching this debate and this is the first time you’re hearing any of this, this does change your impression of Joe Biden just a little bit…”
As far as corruption is concerned, Pakman thought Biden won that side of the debate, especially in lieu of Donald Trump paying $750 in federal income taxes in 2017. Pakman not only tacitly dismissed Trump’s corruption accusations against Biden as desperate, but also mocked Trump for referring to Biden as the “big man.” Unlike Shapiro, Pakman didn’t seem to think that Trump’s mentioning of Hunter Biden had any weight as a debate tactic.
“And then this is where it almost seemed like Trump was unaware of his surroundings and not even understanding what he was saying,” said Pakman. “He starts using this mafia-esque language to accuse Biden of giving money to the ‘big men.’ Nobody could understand what he was talking about…One of the most incoherent attacks of the night…”
While both commentators predictably had opposing opinions as to which candidate won the debate, their concluding reasons are fascinating.
Shapiro seems to believe that Trump’s third strength was accusing Biden of being in politics for forty plus years and not accomplishing any of the policies he claims to be running on. Pakman, on the other hand, thought Biden’s final offensive strength had to do when Trump slammed pandemic aid as a “big bailout for badly run Democrats’ cities and states.”
“This was maybe the worst moment of the debate for Trump,” said Pakman. “Trump, again, pulling out this line of attacking so-called ‘Democrat’ cities and states, which is a message of complete division…Joe Biden perfectly responding to that divisive message, saying, ‘Listen, I’m not going to talk about blue states and red states. I’m a Democrat running for president. I will be the president running for everybody, regardless of what state you’re in.”
With the presidential election among the horizon, a short time will tell as to who the victor of last night’s debate was, an answer many Americans are anxious to find out.
End of Eviction Moratoriums Strains Renters’ Legal Support System
U.S. RESIST NEWS Legal Brief
The U.S. RESIST NEWS legal briefs report on the roles that our legal system plays in relation to the processing and adjudication of public policy issues.
# 1 End of Eviction Moratoriums Strains Renters’ Legal Support System
By Zack Huffman
October 27, 2020
Policy
Covid-19 brought record unemployment over the summer, which left millions of families unable to afford rent.With a federal moratorium on evictions expiring in January along with numerous states ignoring the problem, an impending eviction wave could further cripple nonprofit and pro bono legal organizations, further diminishing access to legal counsel for the nation’s neediest.
Somewhere between 30 and 40 million renters are in danger of losing their homes because they can no longer cover the cost of rent, according to data from the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program.
Those in danger represent about a third of all renters in the country, with concentrations in the South and the Rust Belt.
Data from the Aspen Institute and the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project show, as of early August, at least 37% of renters in Alabama and Nevada were in danger of eviction. Louisiana, New York and Oklahoma show 36% of all renters in danger, which 14 other states had rates above 30%.
Several states issued their own eviction bans, such as New York, Massachusetts and California. California’s lasts until 2021, but other states that previously issued moratoriums have allowed them to expire.
The Trump administration initially announced a federal ban on evictions, which expired in July. The Centers for Disease Control then issued its own eviction ban, which lasts until January 2021, as a means to reduce the spread of COVID-19.In October, the CDC clarified that its ban solely applies to the removal of people from a home and that landlords were still able to bring tenants to court as a means to start the eviction process or to collect unpaid rent.Whatever happens this fall and winter, it is almost guaranteed that 2021 will bring an avalanche of housing court evictions when there is already a limited supply of support for nonprofit and pro bono legal help.
Analysis
Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, tenants facing eviction need legal representation. Now with the economy reeling from the effects of COVID-19 shutdowns there is an even greater need for legal help on the horizon.Without adequate funding for nonprofit legal aid organizations and attorneys that provide pro bono help, there will be little that can help against the swelling eviction wave.
In the absence of federal action, cities and states can pass regulations that require full notification of tenants’ rights by the landlord before they can begin the eviction process. Few tenants are properly prepared to defend themselves from legal action. Most people lack a basic knowledge of housing law and are ill-equipped to defend themselves. At the same, few people who struggle to pay their rent have enough income to cover the cost of a lawyer. Aside from leaving people without a home, eviction can leave a black mark on their record, making it more difficult to obtain housing from skeptical landlords.
“Civil legal aid evens this unfair playing field and helps people protect their health, home, income, and family,” said the National Legal Aid & Defender Association in an open letter to all members of the U.S. Congress from June, seeking additional funding for the Legal Services Corporation. “This will be of particularly critical importance over the coming months as the legal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to develop and become clearer.”
Resistance Resources
The National Legal Aid & Defender Association
The NLADA advocates and raises funds for legal aid, particularly for those who cannot afford it. http://www.nlada.org.
The COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project
The CED Project was founded in March 2020 to respond to urgent questions about housing, homelessness and community recovery during the spread of the coronavirus. https://cedproject.org
Learn More References
Buhayar, N. (2020, August 26). Why a Historic Eviction Wave Is Bearing Down on U.S.: QuickTake. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/why-a-historic-eviction-wave-is-bearing-down-on-u-s-quicktake
The CDC and Health and Human Services’ FAQ on the Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/eviction-moratoria-order-faqs.pdf
Keating, D. And L. Tierney (2020, April 29). Which States Are Doing a Better Job Protecting Renters from Being Evicted During the Coronavirus Pandemic. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/29/which-states-are-doing-better-job-protecting-renters-being-evicted-during-coronavirus-pandemic/?arc404=true