JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
GameStop, Reddit and Free Trading Apps A Threat to Economic Recovery?
Brief #36—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
The drama surrounding the wild trading and social media fueled speculation in the shares of stocks GameStop, AMC Entertainment, Bed Bath & and Beyond, Blackberry and other underperforming companies has thrust Wall Street near the top of a crowded list of issues that President Joe Biden’s regulatory team needs to tackle early in its term.
The wild fluctuations in these stocks which played out in the waning days of January revealed a new dynamic of Reddit subgroups, trading apps with no business model for profit and sophisticated social media personalities. There is excitement that the individual investor will be able to reap the benefits that had been only available to savvy and secretive Wall Street types. There is equal concern that we are creating bubbles that will seriously damage our economy when it can least sustain any more shocks.
Who gets a second chance?
Opinion Editorial
By Anand Giridharadas
In theory, second chances are a good thing. I mean, we all need them. Many of the ancient religions counsel mercy, and second chances are the natural consequence of that. Situations are not identities. Your worst deed is merely a situation. You should have the chance to become more than that deed, to transcend it.
But as the Trump era fades and a new wave of second-chance-seeking gets under way, I have been wondering: Who gets second chances and who doesn’t, what must you do to get one, and how is that connected to all the people who don’t even get first chances in America?
After President Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, what we’ve known all along was confirmed once again, and flagrantly: that certain people, especially if they are rich and powerful and white and male, enjoy total impunity in American public life. There will be no consequences for Donald Trump. Maybe some prosecutor somewhere will find a spine, but I wouldn’t bet my coffee on it.
Democrats Take Control of Committees Increasing Chances the Senate Will Get Things Done
Brief #150—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On January 3, 2021 Vice President Michael Pence administered the oath of office to six new senators who had been elected in the November 2020 elections. Additionally, those senators who had won re – election in November were also sworn in. Two days later, elections were held in Georgia for both of Georgia’s Senate seats and a Democrat won each race. Their victories ensured that seats in the U.S. Senate would be equally split between Republicans and Democrats 50 – 50. Kamala Harris’ election as Vice – President gave the Democrats the ability to cast the tie – breaking vote if any vote in the chamber resulted in a tie.
Biden Administration Seeks to Curb Unnecessary Arrests and Deportations
Brief #115—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
This week, the Biden Administration issued new guidelines for ICE in attempts to curb arrests and deportations. Anyone unlawfully in the US is still subject to arrest, but ICE will no longer deport immigrants for crimes such as DUIs, simple assault, fraud, tax crimes, solicitation, money laundering and fraud, and charges without convictions. Biden announced he aims to focus more on national security threats and individuals with aggravated felony charges and/or convictions.
Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene
Us Resist News Blog
By Sean Gray
Last week’s vote to remove freshman Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee posts didn’t end the GOP’s problem with her, but underscored it. Many Republicans were no doubt hoping for a return to normalcy after four years of Donald Trump’s chaotic leadership. This was always a pipe dream and the representative from Georgia’s 14th district illustrates that Trump’s presidency may have been unprecedented, and the political movement he inspired has staying power. Greene has no experience in government. She is a half-hearted businesswoman with more bombast than sense. She gained political recognition through the creation and dissemination of absurd conspiracy theories. Sound familiar? If Donald Trump was a symptom rather than the disease, Greene is a next-gen mutation. She can’t inflict the damage Trump did from the Oval Office. But her presence in Congress is a troubling commentary on the state of American politics. And her Republicans colleagues know it.
New Efforts Seek to Reduce Growing Rates of Child Poverty
Brief #109—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
President Biden seeks to raise the child tax credit to $3600 for children under 6 and to$3000 for school age children under 18. This is up from the current level of $2000 per child. As part of the stimulus, this change would become effective in July and last for one year though many Democrats would like to see the change made permanent. The credit would be available to individuals making $75,000 or less and couples making $150,000 or less. It would be based on income data from 2019 or 2020. To increase the effectiveness of the tax break, families could receive monthly payments of between $250 and $350 to meet their routine bills. Researchers at Columbia University estimate that this measure could reduce the child poverty rate by close to 50%. The proposal gained support with the weak jobs report released last week. The cost of the program would increase the federal deficit by 120 billion dollars.
General Motors and Wall Street can’t wait to plug into the new economy
Brief #108—Environment
By Todd J Broadman
Soon after President Biden’s election victory, General Motors Corporation (GM) publicly stated their vision: to manufacture vehicles that feature zero carbon emissions. That vision is the leading feature of their “triple zero,” which also includes zero congestion and zero crashes (through advanced safety technologies and self-driving vehicles). Over the next 15 years, GM will completely phase out the production of petroleum powered vehicles and will solely manufacture electric vehicles (EV). There are to be 30 such EV models available by 2025.
Will the US Approach to the Security Council Change with the Biden Administration?
Brief #106—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
The relative weakness of the Security Council can be ascribed to multiple factors: its limited budget, differing interests among members, the veto power of permanent members. With respect to the US, its weakness of late is certainly due in part to the aggressive anti-internationalism of the Trump administration. But the problems in the Security Council have far deeper roots, many of which stem from a long history of US (in particular, but other states’ as well) unilateralism as regards the UN and other international institutions.
Our Decentralized Health System Creates Vaccine Rollout Challenges
Brief #95—Health
By Erin Mcnemar
Confusion. Disorganization. Decentralization. All across the country, states are struggling with the vaccination process. From deciding who should be a priority to simply not having enough vaccines, many states are facing criticism for what seems like a failure to plan. These issues are due to the decentralized health system present in the United States. According to the World Health Organization, “Health systems decentralization involves moving decision making away from centralized control and closer to the users of health services. Many countries have embarked on a process to decentralize their health systems as a means to improve their responsiveness and performance.”
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuses to Protect Wolverines Under the Endangered Species Act
Brief # 100 The Environment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuses to Protect Wolverines Under the Endangered Species Act
By Jacob Morton
October 27, 2020
Policy
The wolverine is a rather elusive character. Only about 300 of these iconic mammals exist in the United States’ lower 48 states. With a broad head, short round ears and long snout, wolverines resemble a miniature bear with a bushy tail. Each animal covers a wide range, traversing mountainous terrain, trotting across snowpack with large snowshoe-like paws. Wolverines feed primarily on scavenged carrion and can use their strong jaws to pry open frozen carcasses, providing a food source for other scavengers once they have had their fill.
Wolverines were nearly eradicated from the contiguous United States in the early 1900’s, victim to “fur trapping, predator poisoning and lack of prey due to sheep farming” and overgrazing. Over 90% of their potential habitat in the U.S. lies on Federal lands and wilderness areas. Efforts to protect wolverines by placing them on the Endangered Species List, have existed since 1994, but continually face denial by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Previous protection attempts have been denied by the FWS, because “conservation groups could not provide empirical data on how wolverines’ range had changed over time because of humans.”
However, in 2013, under the Obama administration, the FWS acknowledged evidence suggesting climate change as an existential threat to wolverine populations due to decreasing snowpack throughout their range in the lower 48. The FWS proposed a rule to federally protect them as “threatened,” under the Endangered Species Act. Female wolverines rely on a substantial snowpack between February and April, seeking out “the deepest snow available to make their dens in snow tunnels or under snow-covered rocks or logs.” The FWS described the wolverine population in the lower 48 as distinct from its neighboring population north of the Canadian border, and thus deserving of protection.
Despite the position taken by the agency in 2013, the FWS withdrew its proposal the following year, rejecting previous studies and insisting that “Even under conditions of future reduced snowpack, sufficient habitat will likely remain.” Following this reversal, Judge Dana L. Christensen of Federal District Court in Montana ordered the FWS to reevaluate their decision. Judge Christensen and the District Court determined that, “immense political pressure that was brought to bear on this issue, particularly by a handful of Western states,” was the reason for the reversal. He called the agency’s rejection of previous studies “arbitrary and capricious,” even pointing to written documents within the agency that “expose the likely motives — freedom from perceived federal oversight, maintaining the public’s right to trap — behind the states’ efforts against listing the wolverine.”
On October 8, 2020, per Judge Christensen’s order to reevaluate its refusal to protect wolverines, the FWS under the Trump administration announced its final decision that wolverine populations in the United States do not require federal protection. The agency wrote, “The best available science show that the factors affecting wolverine populations are not as significant as believed in 2013. … Accordingly, the Service has withdrawn its listing proposal.”
Analysis
In a press release, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service wrote, “New research and analysis show that wolverine populations in the American Northwest remain stable, and individuals are moving across the Canadian border in both directions and returning to former territories. The species, therefore, does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” Noreen Walsh, Colorado’s Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director said, “In the time since our original proposal, the science on wolverines has been greatly advanced thanks to the work of state wildlife agencies and researchers in the U.S. and around the world.”
Despite the agency’s own 2013 determination that wolverines south of the Canadian border represent a distinct population from those northward, todays FWS claims “New information from genetic and observational studies shows that wolverines in the lower 48 are connected to populations in Canada and Alaska, these populations interact on some level, and migration and breeding is possible between groups.” Thus, “Wolverines in the lower 48 states do not qualify as a distinct population segment and they are instead an extension of the population of wolverines found further north.” Leader of the agency’s Montana project, Jodi Bush, claims the decision was based on new science and “was not a political decision.” Bush says, “If wolverines need snow, we think that there’s going to be enough snow out there for them.”
Environmentalists and conservation groups are skeptical of the agency’s credibility. Jeff Copeland, wolverine expert and director at The Wolverine Foundation says, “My primary concern is that [FWS’s] decision was not based on good science. Either it represents a gross misinterpretation of the science or a purposeful misrepresentation of the science in order to produce a preconceived result.” Copeland notes that wolverines avoid areas used by snowmobilers and backcountry skiers, but climate change has reduced the degree of separation and has forced wolverines to find new habitat. However, as Copeland points out, “This is an animal with extremely specific habitat requirements. It lives in a very narrow environmental niche that can be easily impacted by climate change. There is no reason to believe that it is adaptable to other climate situations.”
Brad Smith, director of the North Idaho chapter of the Idaho Conservation League, said of the agency’s decision, “It’s a continued pattern of wanting to stick their heads in the sand about climate change and not do anything about the impacts that greenhouse gas emissions will have on species. With the current administration, there’s been a rollback of many protections for the environment and for listed or proposed species.” Opinions are mixed however, over how best to manage wolverine populations and habitat. Bob Inman, the carnivore and fur bearer coordinator for the state of Montana, feels that leaving regulation decisions up to local governments might actually “persuade landowners to grant easements for wolverine corridors, connecting one mountain peak’s wolverine population with another.” Inman says, “People get the perception that ‘the feds are coming to take my land.’ That’s not the way to be successful. The way to be successful is to convince people that they would be part of something important.”
Conservationists however, such as Copeland, feel that relying on local regulation may not be enough. Copeland explains that, “Some of the places I worked in the ’90s, where I was able to readily capture wolverines, they’re gone now. These little sub-populations could blink out and be gone without us even knowing.” Eric Odell, species conservation program manager at Colorado Parks and Wildlife argues that with federal protections, “We might be able to increase the [wolverine] population by a third, because there is so much suitable, unoccupied habitat.” But, because of financial and regulatory obstacles resulting from the federal government’s decision, “Now we’re back to square one.” If wolverines had been approved for protection under the Endangered Species Act, “the FWS would have to draft a recovery plan that applies across the species’ entire US range and designates certain areas as critical wolverine habitat.”
Jodi Bush says the Western States Wolverine Conservation Project will continue to fight to protect wolverines at the state level. Andrea Zaccardi of the Center for Biological Diversity says, “We’ve been fighting to get wolverines the federal protection they deserve for decades. And we’re going to keep fighting.” Jonathan Proctor of Defenders of Wildlife says, “With this decision, the Fish and Wildlife Service has abandoned its moral and legal obligation to protect these animals. But we will not abandon our efforts.”
The fight is a contentious one, and as explained by New York Times reporter, Catrin Einhorn, the debate is about more than just wolverines. In this country, there are “deep-seated cultural and political beliefs about how best to protect animals, how much power the federal government should wield over states and even how humans should interact with nature in the first place.” As EarthJustice lawyer, Timothy Preso puts it, “There is a group of people in the Northern Rockies that traps and snowmobiles and wears Carhartt, and another group that wears Patagonia and wants to see a wolverine track in the snow. A lot of these issues are characterized by the tension between those people.” Finding ways to ease those tensions and establish authentic dialogue may prove a necessary step to creating sustainable solutions for the many complex issues facing our country.
Resistance Resources
The Wolverine Foundation
- A non-profit organization comprised of wildlife scientists with a common interest in the wolverine. The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. (TWF) was formed in 1996 to promote interest in the wolverine’s status and ecological role in the world wildlife community. http://wolverinefoundation.org/
Defenders of Wildlife
- Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America. https://defenders.org/
Earthjustice
- Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. https://earthjustice.org/
Learn More References
Einhorn, C. (2020, October 08). Wolverines Don’t Require Protection, U.S. Officials Rule. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/climate/wolverines-no-federal-protection.html
Supertrooper. (2020, October 12). ‘Heads in the sand’: Conservationists condemn US failure to protect wolverines. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/12/wolverines-endangered-species-act-us-fish-wildlife
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2020). Wolverine: US Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/wolverine.php
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Mountain-Prairie Region. (2020, October 8). Science Shows Wolverines in the Contiguous U.S. Are Healthy. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/2020/10082020-Science-Shows-Wolverines-in-the-Contiguous-US-Are-Healthy.php
Can Social Media Companies Regulate Their Own Content?
Brief #22 Technology
Can Social Media Companies Regulate Their Own Content?
By Scout Burchill
October 25, 2020
Summary:
As the 2020 election approaches, social media platforms have been taking major actions to moderate content in an attempt to combat growing amounts of misinformation. The controversial steps signal a major policy shift for the social media giants, especially Facebook and Twitter, on issues of free speech and the need for content regulation.
The list of actions that social media companies have taken to slow the spread of misinformation grows longer by the day, however the most high-profile cases have become the topic of mainstream political discourse. On October 14th, the New York Post published a story on Hunter Biden’s business connections in Ukraine that contained unverified emails obtained through questionable means. In response, Twitter quickly responded by blocking users’ ability to share the story. Facebook, taking a different approach, limited the extent to which the story would appear in users’ News Feeds.
This incident, along with others including crackdowns on QAnon conspiracy groups across social media platforms, comes at a time when the spread of misinformation continues to grow online and social media companies are facing increasing scrutiny from politicians and the public. According to a new study by the Digital New Deal project of the German Marshall Fund, engagement with media outlets that regularly publish misleading or false articles on Facebook has almost tripled between the third quarter of 2016 and the third quarter of 2020.
Analysis:
The actions that social media companies have taken in the run up to the 2020 election to curb the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories online mark an unprecedented shift in how these companies will be scrutinized and held accountable going forward.
The actions taken by social media companies, which include bans, content removals and new features designed to slow the spread of misleading articles such as labels warning users of misleading information, have largely proven to be ineffective. As noted earlier, studies show that misinformation is now more popular than in the run up to the 2016 election. Furthermore, newly published data suggests that Twitter’s aggressive moderation tactics seemed to have backfired. The unprecedented decision to ban users from sharing the story made it go viral. In a report from MIT’s Technology Review, which used data from Zignal Labs, a media intelligence firm, it was found that shares of the New York Post article roughly doubled after Twitter attempted to suppress it. This sequence of events perfectly illustrates what is known as the Streisand Effect: the phenomenon in which attempts to conceal, censor or suppress information has the opposite effect and ends up bringing more attention to it[1]. On top of this unintended consequence, Twitter and other social media platforms came under immediate attack by Republican politicians, pundits and influencers for having a left-wing bias and censoring speech online. This incident seems to have lent further credence to this long-running political talking point on the right.
Twitter explained its decision, which even went so far as to lock the account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, by stating that the story violated its policies of distributing hacked materials. Obviously, this policy is extremely hard to defend considering that banning hacked or stolen materials would inevitably block countless important stories from reaching the public. For example, just recently the New York Times published a damning expose of Trump’s tax returns that, according to this Twitter policy, could conceivably be subject to the same treatment as the New York Post’s Hunter Biden story. Even the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, facing a massive amount of political pressure especially from Republicans, acknowledged that it was wrong to block the article and the company announced it would change its policy, citing fears that the policy was too sweeping and would affect journalists and whistle-blowers.
It was not so long ago that both Facebook and Twitter championed unregulated free speech on their platforms. In a sense, it was simply smart business strategy. For years social media platforms have made the argument that they are platforms not publishers and therefore cannot be held responsible for content. However, with political pressures mounting, as calls for government regulation and anti-monopoly sentiment grow on both sides of the aisle, social media companies seem to be back-tracking from this previous position and are attempting to impose their own content-moderation regimes. In some instances this new stance has been celebrated, in others condemned. As of recently, this approach has been somewhat of a disaster as new crackdowns and moderation tactics have only brought further scrutiny and a growing sense of distrust. Ultimately, these incidents bring to the fore an increasingly urgent and important question: Should we trust private companies to regulate content and political discourse online?
As many commentators point out, social media platforms have little economic incentive to actually slow the spread of misinformation. At the end of the day, they are private companies motivated by profit and viral content is good for their bottom lines. These current content-moderation decisions are probably attempts to weather the political storm that is brewing concerning how much power these companies wield in shaping political discourse. However, in the absence of a coherent and well-articulated framework for content regulation that clearly draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech attempts to moderate will likely continue to backfire.
Resistance Resources:
Countering Truth Decay Initiative:
https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation.html
Tools to educate and combat misinformation: https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/fighting-disinformation/search.html
Maplight Election Deception Tracker:
https://maplight.org/story/election-deception-tracker/
[1] This term was coined after a 2003 incident in which the singer Barbra Streisand sued a photographer for taking aerial photos of her Malibu mansion and posting them online in a project documenting coastal erosion in California. Prior to Mrs. Streisand’s lawsuit, the obscure photo was one of thousands in a database and had been viewed only several times, a few of those by her own lawyer. However, all that changed when she attempted to have it removed from the database. The lawsuit was reported in the media and subsequently hundreds of thousands of people searched for it, viewed it and shared it.
An Update on House Races in Florida
Congressional Campaign Update
Congressional Campaign Updates is a new 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.
Brief # 10: An Update on House Races in Florida
Another tightening race in Florida is for the 16th district in the House, where upstart Margaret Good is slowly closing in on Vern Buchanan, the incumbent who is one of the richest members of congress. Good wasn’t expected to be competitive in the race, but after the former-republican gained national support the race began to tighten. Change Research, on behalf of the Good campaign, polled 527 likely voters several weeks ago. The results showed Buchanan with a 3 point lead, which was within the margin of error for the data. Good still has an uphill battle but had received a significant amount of recent funding from ActBlue, as well as garnering endorsements from national figures like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, as well as organizations like Emily’s List and the Tampa Bay Times. As signs of a second wave of Covid begin to show up in Florida, Good may just get the push she needs for a close win in a district that is historically red.
In District 15 there is another tight race that could indicate how the state will fall in the Presidential election. Incumbent Ross Spanos is finishing his first term in office but lost his primary to Scott Franklin, an insurance executive. Franklin faces a tough competitor in Alan Cohn, a former television reporter who has run for the seat once before, in 2014. Cohn was known for his work uncovering political corruption as a reporter and even won an Emmy for a story about a Vietnam War veteran. Cohn is well-funded and has raised more money than his competitor, according to opensecrets. It is a tough uphill battle to win the district that is home to Lakeland and it’s metropolitan area, but Cohn may have the funding and campaign that could do it. A poll from October 12th shows that Franklin only has a 3 point lead, which is within the margin of error for the dataset. Cohn will rely on Franklin’s endorsement of President Trump to drag him down to win this race in a historically red district.
Florida is a close state in terms of House of Representatives, with 14 republicans and 13 democrats. Matt Gaetz is considered one of Florida’s most important congresspeople, with many seeing him as a potential candidate for Senate next time a seat becomes available. In Florida, both Senators are republican with Marco Rubio and former Governor Rick Scott representing the state. The districts that are most likely to flip are 15 and 16, as discussed earlier in the brief. There is potential for some other districts to flip, such as 18 and 19. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another important member of the House from Florida who will likely be re-elected, although she is seen as more of a moderate democrat. Despite this, we expect Florida to be remain 14-13 with the republicans maintaining the advantage, although 15 and 16 both indicate some potential to be flipped, which could result in a 15-12 advantage for democrats. We will have continuing coverage of the whole US and Florida as it winds down to election day.
Trump’s Erratic Military Policies
Brief # 95 Foreign Policy
Trump’s Erratic Military Policies
By Colin Rugg
October 23, 2020
Policy Summary
In the wake of Jeffrey Goldberg’s September 3rd Atlantic report lambasting Trump for his disparaging comments about the United States Military, the president has come under fire from Military commanders and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Trump has a reported history of mocking veterans, calling soldiers who lost their lives abroad “losers,” making disparaging remarks about prisoners of war, and complaining that “nobody wants to see” disabled veterans injured in the line of duty at a military parade. On a Memorial Day visit to the grave of Lt. Robert Kelly, son of Gen. John Kelly, the president reportedly turned to the general and said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” The president denies these claims. But actions speak louder than words and the president’s lack of respect for domestic and international military norms goes much deeper than the claims of disrespectful language.
To understand the president’s current cagey relationship with the US military, it is important to understand the context in which he interacts with it. During his presidential campaign in 2016, Trump promised to swiftly pull troops back from “endless wars” The American people, tired of seemingly endless conflict with billions of dollars spent on a national defense budget in lieu of domestic needs, were generally in favor of the sentiment despite concerns of military top brass and Republican lawmakers. But the urgent demands of addressing the insurgence of the Islamic State and rising tensions between the Afghan government and the Taliban pushed the president to increase foreign military presence, raising the Obama-era cap of 8,400 troops stationed in Afghanistan to 15,000.
Now, under the shadow of a looming presidential election, Trump has been hasty to make good on his promises to reduce the foreign US military presence. In contrast to Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden’s stated goals to support longtime NATO allies and to pull out of the Middle East “in a manner that ensures we both guard against threats to our homeland and never have to go back,” Donald Trump does not seem concerned about such long-term concerns. Gen. Frank McKenzie, the top US military commander for the Middle East claims that at the current rate, the number of troops in Afghanistan could fall below 4,500 in November, and down to 3,000 in Iraq.
Analysis
While the withdrawal of troops might sound like good news to humanitarian and the America-First movements alike, the policy’s carelessness should be of concern to both parties. Iraq and Afghanistan are both in critical political moments that require support beyond what local governments can provide.
The Afghan-Taliban peace talks are only just beginning and are already steeped in contention. President Trump is clearly eager to disengage, proclaiming victory as soon as the Taliban came to the negotiating table, already having lowered the number of troops well in advance. In the wake of the president’s hasty retreat, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that the negotiations will be deeply contentious. They have already been marred by increased Taliban attacks on Afghan soldiers and assassination attempts, with scores of civilians killed in the crossfire.
Iraq has also seen Trump declare premature victory only to disengage with no thought for long-term consequence. The president announced in late 2018 that the US would withdraw nearly all its troops from Syria under the pretense that the Islamic State was decimated. And while the radical terrorist movement indeed lost all its territory and their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, military commanders from Iraq and the Pentagon urge caution. Both put the current number of Islamic State members between 14 and 18 thousand – 4 to 8 thousand more than when the organization first proclaimed a caliphate.
Not only is the Islamic State still growing and organizing underground, but those who survived the initial conflict have been further radicalized and trained in live combat. Masrour Barzani, the Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan and former leader of the Kurdish paramilitary force known as the peshmerga, claims the Islamic State is reorganizing at an alarming rate. Even at its nadir, the organization continued to launch an average of 60 attacks a month on Iraqi security forces. It is under these circumstances that Trump is removing antiterrorism forces from the country, leaving a nascent anti-American Islamist terrorist organization to develop undisturbed.
Trump’s ham-fisted attempts to make good on his electoral promises will have disastrous consequences in the Middle East. It has already cast doubt on the United States’ reputation as a loyal ally following the president’s removal of troops stationed in longtime NATO allied countries like Germany.
But the most frustrating aspect of the president’s military policy is the fact that these actions are deeply hypocritical. Trump boasts about delivering on his campaign promises to cut foreign military spending and bring American forces home, while in the same breath he signs into law the National Defense Authorization Act which drastically increased the military budget, redeploys soldiers elsewhere around the world, and bullishly enflames conflicts with the potential to pull the United States into deeper military entanglements. He recalls and redeploys forces to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain on a whim, baiting Iran into conflict. According to the Congressional Research Service, Donald Trump’s history of conducting unilateral military action against Iran could easily lead to future military conflict, including action against Iranian allies or proxies, retaliation against Iranian key targets and facilities as seen in the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, blockades, or even outright invasion. With the current breakdown of international military cooperation as well as the lack of communication and support between the United States and its NATO allies, it is likely that a regional conflict would be deeply taxing for the United States.
Trump’s blatantly hypocritical approach to military policy will have disastrous results for the American people and our allies abroad. It will risk American lives by pushing away our allies, enflaming our regional rivals, and allowing anti-American terrorism and instability to grow deep roots abroad, while skirting around the stated goal of decreasing the military budget. These policies were put in place to stroke Trump’s ego by allowing him to grandstand on an international stage, spend exorbitantly on nothing more than a show of force, and lend false legitimacy to the claim that he made good on his promises to the American people.
Resistance Resources
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) – TAPS provides a variety of programs to offer compassionate care to those grieving the loss of a loved one who died while serving in the Armed Forces, or as a result of service. TAPS has helped more than 70,000 surviving families, caregivers, and casualty officers since the nonprofit was founded in 1994.
https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/how-donate-united-nations-system/ – In the absence of a multilateral military mission from the United States, the best hope at maintaining stability and decency abroad is through the support of international organizations like the United Nations.
https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration – Vote in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. Foreign and Military policy are inextricably linked to the Commander in Chief. We need a responsible steward of our nation now more than ever.
Will “Ballot Harvesting” Play A Role In The 2020 Election?
Policy Summary: In 2016 the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1921 which expanded on who can return an absentee or mail ballot on another person’s behalf. Previously, the only persons permitted to return another person’s mail ballot were family members residing in the same household as the voter (spouse, children, parents, brother, sister, etc.). With the new law California allowed any person designated by the voter to return the mail ballot. Familial ties were no longer required nor did the person designated by the voter have to reside in the same household. The rationale for the law was to remove further barriers that could have prevented some people from returning their ballot.
Over the last few weeks, the Republican Party in California hatched an idea to collect ballots and deliver them to local election headquarters. In the cities of Fresno and areas around Los Angeles ballot collection boxes were set up at churches and gun shops. The ballot collection boxes set up at these locations by the Republican Party were in violation of state law and prompted a memorandum from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to provide clarity on the use of unauthorized ballot collection boxes. Republicans countered that their use of ballot collection boxes is perfectly within the law as written by the Democrats in the Legislature. On October 12, 2020, Secretary Padilla filed a cease and desist order with the California Republican Party and local Republican Parties in Fresno, Los Angeles and Orange Counties to stop the use of unauthorized ballot collection boxes. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The issue that triggered this fight in California just weeks from Election Day is known as “ballot harvesting.” It is also known as “ballot collection.” A voter can mail their mail ballot or absentee ballot back to election headquarters or simply drop it in an official ballot collection box set up by the local county. However, the laws from each of the fifty states are not uniform and some states permit another person to return their ballot, some states do not and other states have no laws addressing the issue. Some of the most common restrictions are the number of ballots that can be returned by one person (e.g. Montana limits a person to six ballots returned by him or her on behalf of another voter), a bar on political candidates or their staff from returning another person’s ballot and some technical requirements such as signing an affidavit on voter assistance forms.
The problem with the ballot collection boxes set up in California by the Republican Party, aside from the technical requirements, is that the collection boxes are only targeted at likely Republican voters. The intent of the ballot collection law in California and in a number of other states is to allow the individual voter to select one person to return their ballot. Many of the ballots have sections on the envelope where the designated person will sign their name and attest that the voter has voted. What the Republicans are instead doing is setting up a massive ballot collection effort that will operate outside the safeguards that many of these state ballot collection laws have implemented. If a person known to be a Democrat in the community drops his or her ballot in these unauthorized collection boxes there is no guarantee that the Republican Party will deliver the ballot. Additionally, there is no one signing for the receipt of these ballots which does not give anyone responsibility for the delivery of the mail ballot. And while the use of officially sanctioned ballot drop boxes have protocols for the security of the box and the retrieval of the ballots by known elections officials in the county these receptacles used by Republicans have none of those protocols in place. And it can be difficult to demand and monitor these kinds of protocols if the boxes are placed in a location like a gun shop.
While Republicans claim to merely be playing by the rules set up by California Democrats there is a dark chapter with the Republican Party when it comes to ballot harvesting. Just last year, a Republican political operative in North Carolina was indicted in a ballot harvesting scandal. Leslie Dowless, Jr. ran a ballot collection operation that included sending absentee ballots to voters who never requested one, filling in the ballots personally for multiple voters and signing the voter’s name himself. With this sordid incident happening so recently, it is questionable to allow the Republican Party to engage in another ballot collection effort on a large scale without ensuring that security and retrieval protocols are in place. Secretary Padilla of California has already sent out cease and desist orders to local Republican officials to halt their efforts at using unauthorized ballot collection boxes but it may take a few days to see if Republicans will comply or if they will continue to use this ballot harvesting method to try and sow confusion and try to manipulate an election that is only weeks away. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources:
LawFare – infopage on ballot collection issues and how it has been handled in courts.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – chart detailing ballot collection statutes in all fifty states.
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.
As Social Media Giants Move to Curtail QAnon Trump Steps Up His Misinformation Campaign
Brief #21 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
As Social Media Giants Move to Curtail QAnon Trump Steps Up His Misinformation Campaign
October 21, 2020
Policy Summary
With the U.S. presidential election only weeks away, Facebook and other social media companies are struggling to show that they take the use of their platforms to spread misinformation and hate speech seriously, Facebook announced on October 6, 2020 that it had removed nearly 1,000 QAnon conspiracy theorist groups and promised to halt political ads after the polls close on November 3. YouTube, owned by Google, followed suit on October 15, 2020 updating its hate-speech and harassment policies to prohibit “content that targets an individual or group with conspiracy theories that have been used to justify real-world violence.” These follow the July announcement by Twitter that it had begun taking sweeping actions to limit the reach of QAnon content, banning over 7,000 of the conspiracy theory’s followers because of concerns over harassment and misinformation.
At the same time the President has been using Twitter and Facebook to flood the public discourse with unsubstantiated pronouncements about the unreliability of mail-in balloting and amplifying conspiracy theories about his political opponents and the origins of the Coronavirus.
Analysis
Throughout the Trump presidency Twitter has been exploited to manipulate the news cycle by providing a direct unfiltered avenue to a large audience. The medium has been used to spread rumors, amplify the President’s positions and shift the focus to a different outrage when convenient. The platforms have taken little responsibility for the content posted on them arguing that these are free speech issues. As long as posts do not violate rules regarding pornogrpahy or violence they are left alone unless there is a complaint and those are sent to third party moderators to judge their propriety.
Under public pressure, the social media giants have attempted to moderate the content by employing artificial intelligence to root out factually incorrect information and posts that incite to violence. It is an art more than a science. With an average of over 500 million posts a day on both Facebook and Twitter this is a huge and ever moving body of work to monitor.
More importantly, though, the social media companies do not see this as their role. They see themselves as primarily corporations that provide a service but ultimately turn a profit by engaging their users. Engagement means recommending the types of material the user has read before and stoking controversy. The more the platform engages the user by “suggesting” similar content and reinforcing an already held view, the more revenue they earn.
The Federal government has failed in gauging and regulating the negative externalities of a company’s behavior. If a company pollutes the air or its service harms citizens it is the government’s responsibility to protect the public. If social media companies, through the spread of misinformation or incitement to violence, are harming our democratic processes then we should have an expectation that the government will move to regulate that behavior.
As we have seen with environmental regulations, civil liberties, workplace safety and many other spheres this administration’s priority is protecting the corporations. Add that to the fact that Trump has a vested interest in discrediting the election and the institutions that work to protect these institutions we can expect little regulation or meaningful discussion.
Resistance Resources
- AccessNow provides resources on keeping the internet safe and open.
- A group of prominent Facebook critics has launched a RFOB (Real Facebook Oversight Board) as a check on the internal Oversight Board that Facebook has created to police itself.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world.
The Center for Digital Democracy’s mission is to ensure that digital technologies serve and strengthen democratic values, institutions and processes. CDD strives to safeguard privacy and civil and human rights, as well as to advance equity, fairness, and community
The Corruption of John Ratcliffe
Blog Post # 26
The Corruption of John Ratcliffe
By Sean Gray
October20, 2020
The Corruption Blog digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Director of National Intelligence is a position created in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The new post was intended to streamline the sharing of key information concerning national security threats between the country’s intelligence agencies. Based on the responsibilities the job entails, it is necessarily apolitical. John Ratcliffe, currently serving in the role, is not, which compromises its function and ability to adequately respond to urgent threats.
Prior to his appointment, Ratcliffe was a three term Republican representative, and one of the most vocal Trump allies in Congress. He gained national profile for his combative interaction with Robert Mueller, when the Special Counsel was called to testify before Congress. Like many Trump supporters on the Hill, Ratcliffe expressed skepticism of Mueller’s findings critical of the president and hurled less than subtle insinuations of investigatory malfeasance at the career civil servant. His line of questioning was tethered closer to right-wing conspiracy theories than our shared reality.
Ratcliffe was first tapped to succeed Dan Coats as DNI in July of 2019. The nomination was withdrawn in the wake of intense media backlash and even some bipartisan concerns about his chances for confirmation. His political biases were a matter of public record. His intelligence credentials were troublingly ambiguous. George W Bush had appointed Ratcliffe to serve as Chief of Anti-Terrorism and National Security in Texas’s Eastern District within the Department of Justice. When campaigning for a House Seat, his website boasted the claim that he had personally overseen the investigation of dozens of terror-related suspects. However no evidence exists that Ratcliffe was ever involved in the prosecution of a terrorist case. A misleading claim of that nature is dishonest, but boilerplate on the campaign trail. In the confirmation process for the US’ top intelligence post, it only underscores how ill-equipped Ratcliffe is for the position. His nomination was reintroduced on February 28th of this year, less than a month after Trump was acquitted by his feckless allies in the Senate. Emboldened by the Congress’ inability to hold him accountable, Trump was able push forward with Ratcliffe’s nomination where it had previously seemed untenable.
Blind loyalty were his only qualification, Ratcliffe has done nothing to quell the concerns that delayed his confirmation by six months. Since taking the post in March he has prioritized the whims of the White House over the faithful execution of his responsibilities.
The US intelligence community has concluded that Russia is again actively seeking to influence the presidential race to the benefit of the incumbent. In late August, (a bit over two months before the polls close) Ratcliffe announced the termination of in-person briefings regarding election security. The move was met with outrage from Congressional Democrats and seen as an attempt to prevent leaks inconsistent with Trump’s worldview. Ratcliffe promised to keep the House/Senate Intelligence Committees abreast of relevant developments through written briefs.
Lawmakers maintain in-person briefings are essential to allow them to ask critical questions to better understand and assess threats facing the upcoming election. The closure of hearings came less than a month after the intelligence community issued a public letter equating Russia, China and Iran as potential bad actors in November’s contest, although only the Kremlin is working directly to the benefit of its preferred candidate. Ratcliffe endured backlash similar to that of his original nomination, and acquiesced to the demands to provide continual briefs to a bipartisan committee of eight Congressional members. It is difficult to interpret Ratcliffe’s initiative as anything other than an attempt to conceal any information potentially upsetting to Trump. Nevertheless, that he hoped obscure election interference threats as a form of Executive Appeasement underscores the concerns about his loyalties and fitness for office.
John Ratcliffe had little in the way of national profile before Robert Mueller’s appearance before Congress. That changed following his exchange with the Special Counsel. Ratcliffe spent his allotted time attacking Mueller and the legitimacy of his work. He claimed Mueller denied Trump the presumption of innocence in not charging him with a crime, but explicitly stating that he also could not exonerate the president either. Long-standing Justice Department policy dictates that a sitting president may not be indicted. Additionally, the report was written for attorney general, who then released a redacted copy for public consumption. Ratcliffe could not have plausibly been unaware of either fact, which means his indignant line of question was most assuredly a blindly partisan defense of the president. In doing so he shirked his responsibilities in the name of cheap political theater. It was effective. Four days later his name was first mentioned to fill the DNI position.
Ratcliffe also has been contributing to Trump’s long-standing vendetta against Hilary Clinton. Last week Ratcliffe declassified handwritten notes by former CIA-director John Brennan from a brief with President Obama. The brief contained US intelligence originating form Russia that Hilary Clinton had tried to connect the Russian hack of her emails to the Trump campaign. It was never verified and is hardly a pressing matter of public concern. Aside from the alleged tactic not constituting a crime, Ratcliffe acknowledged that the tidbit was unsubstantiated. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the US spy chief acknowledged he ‘’does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication. This is especially troubling because it appears Ratcliffe is boosting one of Trump’s many lines of lines of misdirection under a dubious stamp of approval from the intelligence community. Trump’s insinuation of wrongdoing on the part of Clinton and other Obama administration officials during the 2016 campaign are lame and feeble. That makes it no less egregious that the Director of National Intelligence seems to be lending credence to them. Information of questionable authenticity and of an obviously political nature should not be coming from a man in Ratcliffe’s position. It may also represent the man at the top of the US’ spy apparatus perpetuating Russian disinformation through official channels.
Last week Trump took to Twitter to call for the declassification of all info pertaining to Russian election interference in the 2016 election. Despite the DOJ arguing in court that Trump’s cyber outbursts don’t constitute official Executive Orders, Ratcliffe obliged his boss by releasing 1000 pages of previously secret information that Trump expects him to benefit him politically. That may have come to fruition anyway, but once again Ratcliffe has demonstrated a blind fealty that to Trump which was his most important, and only, credential.
Just How Unfair is the Tax Code?
Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
October 19, 2020
Policy
The recently published revelations regarding the status of President Trump’s tax record hardly come as a surprise. Many of us have the vague notion that the tax structure is unfair, but how bad is it? And, how is it structured?
It is very unfair. The burden on the wealthy versus everyone else is very little. As stated in The Guardian, “there is one set of rules for the richest 0.1% and another for everyone else.” President Trump exemplifies the former group. For the 15 years between 2000 and 2015 Trump paid no taxes for ten of those years and little for the remaining years. In 2016 and 2017 he paid $750 which he described, in a recent interview, as a filing fee. He has carried over business losses to multiple years accruing extra tax credit for the same losses. He has not denied that he owes more than 400 million plus in debt, due in the next four years, and he will not state whether any of this is to foreign banks or foreign governments. The NYT articles detailing his tax status have asserted that he has failed to make any payments on the principal of a 100 million dollar loan, from 2012, to fund the Trump Tower. They also report that Trump depends on money from businesses which represent significant conflicts of interest with the office of the Presidency. The full picture of his tax status is still missing in action since he asserts that he is under an audit and therefore cannot supply his records though there is no prohibition against him doing so.
Individual federal taxes are structured so that theoretically the more income you have the more taxes you will pay in terms of the percentage levied on your income. This rarely plays out, in fact, and so frequently the working and middle classes are paying more income tax than the wealthy. In 2018, the 400 top earners paid an average federal income tax rate of 23%, rather than their theoretical level of 37%. One wealthy banker reports paying a tax rate in the high teens. The bottom half of earners paid an average of 24%.
Tax levels for wages and salaries are greater than those levied on investments and property taxes. Capital gains from investments, certain dividends, and long term capital gains are capped at 23.8%. The tax burden is supposed to be “progressive” but the wealthy pay a similar portion, or less, than the middle groups and this imposes a far smaller burden on them. Those who can least afford to do so pay a bigger portion of their relatively low income to taxes. This is especially true in other “regressive” taxes such as Social Security and sales taxes. The social security tax is increased as incomes go up but only to 137,000 dollars and then there are no additional charges. Sales taxes, for example on food and gas, are equal for all though they are more costly to a household with a lower income. These tax differentials are adding fuel to the fire igniting the ever widening gap in wealth in the US and the stagnation of the financial picture of the working classes. The persistent separation of the very wealthy, from everyone else, is the most dramatic it has ever been and far outpaces the situation in other advanced democracies.
Policy
Trump and Biden favor different approaches to the tax structure. Overall, Biden seeks to make it more equitable and simple to utilize. Trump seeks to advance the interests of business and capital. A few highlights from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) exemplify these differences. Trump wants to maintain the theoretical tax celling of 37% whereas Biden wants to return it to the pre-2018 level of 39.6%. He feels the affluent should pay more because they can. Trump suggests that the 22% rate on the middle groups be lowered to 15% or the brackets be modified so that more people fall into the lower groupings. He has advanced no specific plans. Trump would move the investment rate down to 15%, from a ceiling of 23.8%. 15% OF WHAT? Taxes on investments..He also suggests tying the tax rate to the inflation index. Biden would like to see the rates be the same or similar for all types of income.
The TCJA doubles the standard deductions on annual federal taxes and limits the itemized deductions a person can claim. This has caused most people to stop itemizing. The rate went from 31% to 14%.WHAT RATE? Of people who bothered to itemize…Those with large mortgages and significant charitable contributions still benefit from itemizing. BUT ABOVE YOU SAY PEOPLE HAVE STOPPED ITEMIZING/EXPLAIN Wealthy who have the means to buy huge homes and significant contributions to charities The Act also increased child deductions to $2000 for children under 17 and $500 for other dependents. The Act, with regard to personal income taxes, expires in 2025. Biden seeks to increase the deduction to $3000 for children 6-17 and $3600 for children under 6. Trump would leave it as is.
Biden proposes increasing payments to Social Security, often referred to as the payroll tax for incomes up to $400,000 rather than the current stopping point of $137,000. Trump has suspended social security payments for September through December. These deferred payments would be due in 2021 unless Trump eliminates the debt with a tax holiday. A Congressional mandate is required to make these permanent. The deferments only accrue to those making less than $100,000.
The portion paid by corporations versus the overwhelming mass of individual taxpayers continues to plummet. Corporate taxes, under the TCJA, are at a flat rate of 21% rather than the previous range of 15-35%. These modifications are permanent under the Act. Trump prefers a set rate of 20% though he has made no proposal yet. Biden supports a 28% rate and a limit to how long a business can claim little to no income. A significant portion of corporate taxes are paid by employees, shareholders, and consumers rather than by the company.
Suggestions for improving the tax structure include: that the tax subsidies for failing businesses be limited to six years; preferential treatment for investment income should end; a 10% sur tax should be placed on incomes over two million dollars regardless of its source; and large charitable donations should not have repercussions which accrue to the personal lives of their donors outside of the tax deduction. It is estimated that the current set of rules results in 574 billion dollars of lost revenue annually and the wealthy comprise 70% of the noncompliant. Can we afford this?
References: Learn More
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/02/donald-trump-federal-income-taxes-legal
https://www.accountingtoday.com/opinion/trump-vs-biden-whose-tax-plan-makes-for-good-tax-law
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/politics/trump-tax-returns-nbc-town-hall-savannah-guthrie/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54364904
Resources
https://joebiden.com/ Biden campaign website
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/national-organizations-working-families/ Organizations seeking to change the federal tax structures
5 Key States Show a Close Presidential Race
By Linda F. Hersey
October 21, 2020
Presidential Campaign Update is an occasional series of Briefs on the US 2020 presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump
President Donald Trump’s recent comments to the press about what his next move will be if he loses the presidency to Democrat Joe Biden underscores the nervousness of the Trump team just days before the Election.
“Could you imagine if I lose?” Trump said at a campaign stop in Georgia, Politico reported. “My whole life, what am I going to do? I’m going to say, ‘I lost to the worst candidate in the history of politics.’ I’m not going to feel so good. Maybe I’ll have to leave the country. I don’t know.”
The most recent national polls show Biden in the lead but Trump gaining ground in battleground states.
Real Clear Politics released on Oct. 20 an average of national polls that gives Biden an eight-point advantage over Trump. The average gives Biden 51.1 percent and Trump 42.5, with the remainder voting for a third party candidate or undecided.
Those polls were done between Oct. 6 and Oct. 19 by the following organizations: Investor’s Business Daily, New York Times, JTN/RMG Research, the Economist, The Hill, Reuters, National Public Radio, USC Dornsife Presidential Election Poll, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and Rasmussen Reports.
Each of those polls gave Biden the advantage. The election is far from being called. If 2016 is an indicator, the polls four years later could be off again, as they were in predicting that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump.
In key battleground states in2020, the race has narrowed, according to the most recent polling data by state, with Trump gaining ground over Biden, and undecided voters having a bigger role in deciding the outcome. Here is a quick look at the most recent polling results in five key states and where the candidates rank as Election Day nears.
- Florida: Biden maintains a narrow lead over Trump, with a University of North Florida poll showing the candidates as Biden, 48.3 percent; Trump, 47.3. The poll was released Tuesday, Oct. 20. The poll was conducted from Oct. 12-Oct. 16. Florida is considered a swing state.
- North Carolina: Biden also has a one-point lead over Trump in North Carolina, according to a poll by the Washington Post and ABC News conducted from Oct. 7-Oct. 17. According to the website Real Clear Politics, Biden averages a 2-point lead over Trump, based on five key polls that the news site examined: the Washington Post-ABC News, the New York Times, Emerson College Polling, Monmouth University and Reuters. “There has been some shifting within the electorate but the overall picture remains the same – another tight presidential contest in North Carolina,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, in a press release issued by the university.
- Arizona: An Arizona poll by CBS News, in partnership with YouGov, conducted from Oct. 13-Oct. 16, awards Biden a three-point lead in the presidential race.
- Ohio: Biden has a narrow two-point lead in Ohio, according to Rasmussen Reports. A telephone and online survey was released Tuesday, Oct. 20, for Ohio, which historically votes Republican. The poll was conducted on Oct. 18 and Oct. 19.
- Wisconsin: Biden has a two-point lead over Trump in Wisconsin, according to the Trafalgar Group, which gives Biden, 47.6 percent, over Trump, at 46.3 percent. The poll was conducted between Oct. 14 and Oct. 16.
Resistance Resources
Politico: The political news website offers comprehensive national reporting on Washington, D.C., politics and policymaking.
Real Clear Politics: The political news website has a thorough look at the most recent polling in national campaigns, including the race for president.
Rasmussen Reports: National polling company that surveys voters and also looks at consumer confidence.
Emerson College Polling : According to the polling company, Emerson Polling “uses a combination of landline respondents and online panels that creates a representative artificial sample.”
American Association for Public Opinion Research: The nonprofit helps journalists and public understand the polling process and polls.
Investor’s Business Daily: The news company, which covers business and the economy, is predicting a tight election for president.
Prisoner Re-Entry Programs: Do They Work?
By Linda F. Hersey
October 21, 2020
Deshawn Grange says he is proud to have not just one but two jobs. He is a part-time worker assembling vehicle doors at a Tesla plant in California. He also is a monitor at a public restroom owned by the City of San Francisco.
Grange, a San Francisco native, said he landed the jobs through assistance from a prison re-entry program that connected him to life-skills training, job preparation and employment. “I work all the time now,” said Grange, who did not use his real name for this story.
With two thirds of state prisoners in the U.S. re-arrested within 36 months of their release, prison-to-work or so-called re-entry programs are a path for former offenders to enjoy a law-abiding life. The goal is to provide wraparound services, from help with housing to finding a job, to lower the risk of returning to jail or prison.
A growing body of evidence shows that offenders need a diverse range of support services as they transition from incarceration to their communities, to lessen the chance of re-arrest and landing back in prison or jail, according to the National Institute of Justice.
Research shows that the better educated and/or older offender is less likely to re-commit crimes, according to the Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization.
HIGH RATE OF INCARCERATION
Incarceration numbers in the U.S. are staggering for a western nation. More than two million people are behind bars in the United States, according to the Prison Policy Initiative.
More than a half-million Americans each year are released from prisons and jails after serving time.
Many go back to the communities and friends they left when they originally broke the law and got into trouble. The return to their former lives poses risks and challenges.
The ex-offenders face significant barriers:
- Having a criminal record makes it hard to find work.
- Many have a history of drug addiction.
- Offenders are less likely to have completed high school or have the skills to sustain a job.
- Many have no place to live.
Advocates for people who have served time focus efforts more and more on education, employment and housing. These support services, studies show, can determine whether a former convict succeeds or fails after release.
To reduce the $40 billion spent by state governments annually for corrections without compromising public safety, advocates say it is critical to identify programs and services like these that improve outcomes.
FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS REACH OUT TO EX-OFFENDERS
An array of nonprofits in the U.S., many of them faith-based, aim to help offenders post-release. Saved by Grace of the San Francisco Bay area, for example, is staffed by ex-felons and focuses on both the spiritual and economic needs of former offenders.
The agency offers case management, job training, education resources and help with writing resumes and contacting employers. The agency provides a positive and welcoming community with church pastors, employers, caseworkers and advocates who represent a new network of friends and associates for the former offender.
The agency not only directs former offenders to education and employment, it also tries to provide a constructive alternative to peer pressure and negative influences former offenders may encounter again in their communities.
“Throughout my life I have made some good and bad decisions, but through it all I truly believe God had, and still has, his hand on my life,” Pastor Ronnie Muniz states about his former criminal life and his founding of the prison-re-entry agency, Saved by Grace.
A FOCUS ON OUTCOMES
Nationally, two initiatives known as SVORI and the Second Chance Act, have shown the most promise and continue to evolve, according to research by the National Institute of Justice.
- SVORI – the Serious and Violent Offender Re-entry Initiative — is considered the pioneering federal grant program for integrating support services for former offenders, including job and life-skills training, education, and treatment and release plans. Research shows that participation in SVORI-funded programs have resulted in fewer re-arrests and longer times between arrests, compared with former prisoners who did not participate. Women, especially, experienced better outcomes in the areas of employment and overcoming substance abuse.
- The Second Chance Act, reauthorized by President Trump in 2018, is a follow-up to SVORI. Its goal is to improve outcomes for former offenders. In looking at outcomes for close to 1,000 former offenders in Second Chance, the National Institute of Justice found that the men and women had better rates of long-term employment and earnings but were not less likely to be re-arrested. Researchers are trying to determine why and how to change that. The legislation signed by Trump provides federal funding to programs considered essential to an offender’s re-entry.
Now a new generation of programs and research aims to identify high-risk populations that are more prone to re-offend and land back in jail or prison, according to the National Institute of Justice. Former offenders in this at-risk group may have literacy challenges, dropped out of high school, struggled with drug addiction, and a long rap sheet, including with the juvenile justice system.
The First Step Act (FSA), also signed into law in 2018, centers on developing a risk and needs assessment for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to better identify this high-needs population. Increasingly, a strong body of research shows that successful outcomes do not depend on just one factor but a whole host of supportive services and positive connections in the community.
Resistance Resources
Trauma During Re-Entry Study: This report by the Institute for Justice Research and Development looks at the effects of violence and trauma on offenders returning to their communities after serving time.
https://ijrd.csw.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu1766/files/Publications/Trauma_During_Reentry.pdf
National Institute of Justice and Recidivism: The institute researches, reviews and evaluates programs for the U.S. Department of Justice.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism
Prison Policy Initiative: The nonpartisan, nonprofit organization offers research and advocacy around prisons and prison reform in the U.S.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Saved by Grace is a nonprofit California agency that provides supportive services to former inmates returning to their communities.
https://www.savedbygracesf.org/
The Marshall Project is a nonpartisan, national news organization that covers the criminal justice system.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/09/seven-things-to-know-about-repeat-offenders