JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Supreme Court Approved Trump Administration’s Request to Limit Abortion Drug Access
Brief #100—Health and Gender
By Taylor J Smith
During Donald Trump’s final days as president, the US Supreme Court granted a request by the administration to reimplement restrictions on patients attempting to obtain mifepristone, a drug used to terminate early pregnancy. The Supreme Court decision reinstates the requirement for patients to pick up the medication in person. Three lower courts had previously blocked the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement for an in-person pick up. The lower court rulings were fueled by the coronavirus pandemic and assumed risks of entering a hospital, doctor’s office, or clinic at this time. The court split 6-3, with the liberal justices in the opposition.
Biden Infrastructure Plan’s Secret Winner: Public Health
Brief #99—Health and Gender
By Justin Lee
The American Jobs Plan, introduced by President Biden last week, proposes a whopping $2.25 trillion to revamp and modernize multiple industries. As the plan allocates and focuses most on American infrastructure upgrades, significant parts of the plan also directly and indirectly revamps American public health. As capitol hill will likely continue to debate the size and funding of the legislative package, it is important to outline how this package can move American public health into the modern era.
How Biden’s Tax Plan Will Help Bolster the Economy
Brief #113—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Biden is proposing an ambitious two part tax plan to expand the American economy. The cost will be 2.3 trillion dollars and it will make America more competitive, create jobs, re-establish the infrastructure and help Americans’ quality and standard of living. Biden’s plan is in direct opposition to the prior administration’s massive budget cuts of 2017; that plan benefited only the wealthy and failed to produce promised increases in business investments. The Trump administration cut corporate taxes to 21%, down from 35%. Biden will increase them to 28%. In 2020 the fortune 500 companies paid 11.3% in income taxes and many companies paid nothing; for example, Amazon, Chevron, IBM, and Halliburton. In addition to raising the corporate tax level the plan will stop multinational corporations from avoiding taxes on overseas profits, instead treating them as if they were domestic income. It will establish an effective minimum tax on foreign investment. A large part of this increase will fall to “foreigners” who comprise 40% of shareholders. This will fund phase one of the program which will focus on infrastructure development in highways; mass transit; broadband access; support for electric vehicles; and veteran hospitals. It will also address research and development to fund home healthcare for the elderly and the disabled, an expenditure that can be reduced significantly by keeping people at home rather than institutions.
Shortcomings in Biden’s Diplomacy Towards Russia and China
Brief #106—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
The Biden administration is making dangerous foreign policy decisions in its dealings with Russia and China, choices that may have negative, long-term repercussions. Through an unnecessarily aggressive foreign policy, the administration is undermining prospects for geopolitical cooperation, heightening the chances of future war, and bringing its “adversaries” closer together—largely in the name of nationalistic bluster.
The Myanmar Crisis Reflects a Geopolitical Contest for Influence
Brief #105—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
As the world sees rampant authoritarian rollbacks against progressive and democratic freedoms, perhaps no country stands out more in the current moment than Myanmar. For those that have not been tuned in to the realities on the ground over the past two months, the Burmese military has seized power, arrested dissidents and political opponents, and fired upon and killed unarmed civilians to name but a few crimes. Although the Western democratic world and many other world governments have either condemned or expressed concern over the coup, regional powers in Southeast Asia have been reticent about denunciation and many have signaled that they see it as an internal matter for Myanmar to deal with on its own.
The Google Files: How Washington’s Past Failures Paved the Way for Big Tech Dominance
Brief #42—Technology
By Scout Burchill
The loaded but unanswerable question “What if?” popped into the minds of many who follow the tech world last week when Politico published an article exposing 312 pages of confidential internal memos from an Obama-era government investigation into Google. These never-before-seen documents from 2012 raise serious questions about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision not to sue Google over antitrust charges for illegally using its monopoly power to favor its own products and services over those of its competitors.
Georgia’s New Voter Law Does More Harm Than Good; March 2021
Brief #157—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On March 25, 2021 Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia signed Georgia SB 202, which is known as the “The Election Integrity Act of 2021.” The sweeping 98-page bill purports to make changes to voting and elections in order to make them more secure. The bill was passed by the Georgia Legislature in the aftermath of an election where claims of election fraud and irregularities were made when in fact there has been no evidence of election fraud in Georgia or around the country.
Immigration Policy Recommendations for the Biden Administration
Brief #119—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Thus far, 2021 and the Biden Administration have seen a major increase in unaccompanied migrant children crossing the US Southern Border – more than tripled. In the first 3 months of 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied minors were held by CBP and over 9,000 by the Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas refers to the phenomena as a challenge – as it is not a new phenomenon or crisis – but rather a pattern. During this fragile transition of power – particularly in the immigration sector – there are a few ways the Biden Administration can seek to strengthen the American immigration system, while dismantling the xenophobic Trump-era policies and still remain realistic in scope.
The CDC Under Trump and Biden: What A Difference!
Brief #98—Health Policy
By Erin McNemar
Since the beginning of his administration, former President Donald Trump gave the impression that he was skeptical of the scientific community. This information came to a head when Trump was faced with how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the course of his final year in office, Trump chose to spread misinformation regarding the virus rather than relying on the information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With Trump leaving office and President Joe Biden stepping in, the American people are seeing a change in how the CDC is utilized.
Kamala Harris Forges History-Making Path to the Vice Presidency
Transition of Power
A new blog post by U.S. RESIST Reporters on the transition of Presidential Power from the Trump to the Biden administration
Brief # 6 Kamala Harris Forges History-Making Path to the Vice Presidency
By Linda F. Hersey
December 7, 2020
Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is a woman of firsts.
As the highest-ranking female official elected in U.S. history, Harris will be sworn into office as vice president on Jan. 20, 2021, immediately before Joe Biden takes the pledge as president.
Indeed, the inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris is an important historical marker achieved by the Oakland-born daughter of immigrant parents whose life epitomizes the American story: After graduating law school in California, she rose to District Attorney in San Francisco and served as California’s 32nd Attorney General before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2017.
Now she is poised to make history as:
- The first woman vice president of the United States;
- The first African American to be U.S. vice president, and
- The first Asian American to hold the office of U.S. vice president.
Harris, 56, grew up in a family that values education and civic contributions. Her late mother, who was from India, served as a cancer researcher with a Ph.D. whose work helped to advance the treatment of breast cancer. Her Jamaican-born father is a retired Stanford economist who holds a doctorate degree.
Her parents met during the civil rights movement, while studying at the University of California at Berkeley.
Harris spent her middle and high school years in Canada, after her parents divorced and her mother accepted a teaching and research post at McGill University. After graduating from high school, Harris earned her undergraduate degree at Howard University, the historically black university in Washington, D.C., where she was active on the debate team and landed an internship with California U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston. The experience made an impression, as she would set her sights on a political career.
Harris returned to California for law school where she earned her JD at Hastings College of Law, at the University of California. After graduating in 1989, she launched her legal career in California and has yet to slow down. Her success has helped to redefine expectations U.S. women in politics can achieve.
District Attorney in San Francisco
Harris went on to serve as District Attorney in San Francisco, having a hand in increasing conviction rates, which brought both praise and criticism. The criticism was largely from leaders in the black community who felt her zealous approach to prosecutions unnecessarily targeted black men, who are arrested at a higher rate than other population groups.
Harris’ office lso was criticized for its aggressive prosecutions of marijuana offenses, she did not pursue jail time for people who were convicted. Her successor ended up wiping clean all of San Francisco’s marijuana convictions dating back to 1975, with the state as a whole legalizing recreational use of marijuana.
Harris received praise and media attention for her activism and support of teens and young adults who are LGBQ. A hate crimes task force she assembled as San Francisco’s District Attorney focused on prosecuting crimes against members of the LGBQ community.
In 2010, Harris made history as an elective female official in California, becoming the first woman, the first African American and the first South Asian American elected Attorney General in that state. Her tenure as AG was distinguished by aggressive prosecutions of fraud and abuse in the mortgage and healthcare industries, with her office recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in excess state Medi-Cal and federal Medicare payments.
‘Creating a Path for Those Who Will Come After Us’
In 2017, Harris sought a U.S. Senate seat – and won — becoming the second African-American woman and the first South Asian woman to hold the office.
‘’My mother would look at me and she’d say, ‘Kamala, you may be the first to do many things, but make sure you are not the last,'” Harris recalled, during a speech at Spelman College. “That’s why breaking those barriers is worth it. As much as anything else, it is also to create that path for those who will come after us.”
Harris is hardly alone among California women breaking barriers in higher office.
- S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California has been the highest-ranking woman in line for the presidency as Speaker of the House, a post she has held since 2019 and previously served in, from 2007-2011. That distinction will change on Inauguration Day, when Harris becomes Vice President.
- Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco has served in the U.S. Senate since 1992, making history when she was first elected. She and Barbara Boxer, now retired, were California’s first female U.S. senators.
The achievements of women elected to Congress, even in 2020, cannot be overstated, with only a quarter of the U.S. Senate seats currently held by women. In the U.S. House, women only hold 23 percent of the seats. California has sent more women to Congress than any other state. Now one of their own is about to be Vice President.
First Second Gentleman Making History, Too
In 2021, Harris will enter office with the nation’s first Second Gentleman – her husband and fellow lawyer, Doug Emhoff. “I’m humbled, I’m honored to have put it all on hold — my career, family life, everything — to help Kamala on this campaign and really help Joe,” Emhoff said in a Glamour Magazine interview.
“Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves,” according to the bio on her Senate office website.
Outgoing and friendly, Harris has the uncanny ability to open doors with ease that previously were double-locked — to women and minorities.
On the campaign trail with Biden, she was candid in her criticism of Donald Trump and his administration: “We need a mandate that proves that the past few years do not represent who we are or who we aspire to be,” she said in the weeks prior to the election.
As is characteristic of her candor, Harris’ views on racial injustice are clear.
In an essay for Cosmopolitan magazine, Harris wrote: “Let’s speak the truth: People are protesting because Black people have been treated as less than human in America. Because our country has never fully addressed the systemic racism that has plagued our country since its earliest days, it is the duty of every American to fix this.”
Given the inclusive style of President-elect Biden, Harris is likely to be an activist Vice President, outlining her own agenda and mindful that she will be much more than a footnote in history.
Engagement Resources
- Oprah Magazine has an article on “Everything You Need to Know About Kamala Harris.”
- Center for American Women in Politics tracks the number of U.S. elected women serving in political office.
- Kamala Harris U.S. Senate website offers background information on the vice president-elect.
The Criminal Liabilities of Our President Once He Leaves Office
Transition of Power
A new blog post by U.S. RESIST Reporters on the transition of Presidential Power from the Trump to the Biden administration
Brief # 5 The Criminal Liabilities of Our President Once He Leaves Office
By Sean Gray
December 7, 2020
If all is equal and the courts are on the level, Donald Trump’s chickens should come home to roost sometime after noon on January 20th. In running for president, Trump shined the brightest light imaginable on a career of shady business dealings. Failing to secure a second term ensured the statute of limitations will not expire on many of the related charges before his presidential immunity does. Trump’s conduct in his time as president also consistently ran afoul of the law. A Justice Department policy dating back to Watergate ensured that he, nor any other sitting president, could be charged with a crime while in office. Following Biden’s upcoming inauguration, those protections are void and Trump becomes fair game for prosecutors in federal and state courts.
Trump’s impeachment saw him acquitted by a feckless, Republican-led Senate, unwilling to hold him to account for his misdeeds. The federal statute for extortion is defined as ‘’extracting a thing of value from another person them in fear of injury.” Trump’s attempt to strong-arm Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden (a thing of value) whilst withholding $400 million in Congressionally approved military aid (which placed Ukraine in a precarious war-time position with hostile neighbor, Russia) seems to easily meet that standard. Through all phases of the process, Trump ignored lawful subpoenas to produce evidence related to the inquiry. Refusal of witnesses to testify or produce documents is also a criminal offense under federal law, punishable by up to a year in prison. Given the partisan acrimony that accompanied the impeachment, it is unlikely to be rehashed in the form of a criminal trial, but serves as an excellent example of Trump’s abnormal lawlessness and ‘’what are you gonna do about it’’? reflex.
Robert Mueller was unable to establish a criminal conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government. He was however able to uncover a host of overarching contacts between the two. More significantly, he outlined 10 instances where the president may have committed obstruction of justice in his attempts to thwart and/or shutdown the Special Counsel’s investigation altogether. Mueller was caught between a rock and a hard place, being neither able to indict a sitting president and therefore not wanting to formally accuse him without the chance to adjudicate the case in court. Come January 20th, Trump is eligible to be charged with any or all instances in which he attempted to shutdown the investigation into his team’s collaboration with a hostile foreign government.
Trump committed numerous violations of the law his during tenure that don’t necessarily entail criminal penalties. In destroying documents relevant to his administration, he has violated the Presidential Records Act. In the run-up to the election, his hand-picked stooge, Louis DeJoy, attempted to sabotage the USPS in a contest where a record number of voters were expected to cast ballots through the mail. He regularly flouted the separations of powers and threatened war crimes against Iran on Twitter. California Representative Eric Swalwell has called for a Presidential Crimes Commission once Trump leaves office to investigate the full scope of his malfeasance.
All of these scenarios are powder kegs of political backlash. The country finds itself dangerously divided politically, and taking up any of these cases may be seen as doing more harm than good. President-elect Biden has demonstrated little appetite for pursuing what may be viewed as politically motivated investigations against an ex-president. He has said he would leave the decision to his chosen Attorney General, but it is unfathomable that the subject of prosecuting Trump would not be discussed during the vetting process for the person who becomes Biden’s AG.
All charges at the federal level could be rendered moot by the president himself. Trump’s pardon powers are near absolute and he has not been shy about issuing them to allies in his own self-interest. Already, the idea of preemptive pardons for himself and his family members have reportedly been discussed behind closed doors. No precedent exists for a president attempting to pardon himself, but no language in the Constitution explicitly forbids it. Trump’s former fixer and confidante, Michael Cohen, has predicted that before he is scheduled to leave office, Trump will sign in order for Mike Pence to take the mantle of president and issue him a pardon free and clear. Such a remedy would inevitably invite outrage and reek of corruption, but would put Trump in the clear without it ever needing to be decided by a court if a president’s pardon powers extend to himself.
Broad those powers may be, they are exclusive to potential criminal charges on a federal level. Upon leaving office, Trump would be as vulnerable to prosecution on state charges as any other American citizen. In his home state of New York, both he and the Trump organization have been under investigation for the bulk of his presidency.
Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., would appear to be the most likely candidate to haul Trump before a jury of his peers. His office is currently overseeing an investigation that began with hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels by Michael Cohen at the behest of Donald Trump. It has since expanded and probed into Trump’s personal finances and potential illegalities at his family business. When Vance subpoenaed eight years of financial records from Donald Trump’s bankers, the result was a landmark Supreme Court decision that determined a sitting president is not immune from investigation, including his activities before he took office. Per the decision, Mazars USA, must turn over the requested records to prosecutors. The charges most likely to trip up a post-presidency Trump are tax and bank fraud related. In separate stories, two years apart, the New York Times reported that Trump had inherited much of his wealth through legally dubious tax dodges and that in the years preceding his election he paid just $750 in federal taxes, and no federal taxes at all in three of the four years before his presidency. Michael Cohen, in his lengthy testimony before the House in 2018 stated that it was common practice at the Trump organization to inflate the value of properties when using them as collateral for loans and to deflate the value to tax assessors for the sake of lower liability. If those charges are accurate, and substantiated in court, it is a textbook case of continuous fraud.
Political deference and unscrupulous pardons may keep Trump from ever facing the music in federal court. They will do him no good should any prosecutor at the state or city level be inclined to charge him with a crime. Trump received a stunningly low 14% of the popular vote in Manhattan, where the DA’s office is up for grabs in a 2021 election. Prospective Democratic candidates have all made holding Trump to account a key part of their platform. This is to say nothing of the dozens of pending civil suits against Trump with allegations ranging from sexual assault, defamation and unpaid campaign bills. Trump’s presidency ends in a little over a month as of this writing, at which point his legal troubles are likely to intensify.
Effective COVID-19 Vaccines Emerge as the Pandemic Rolls On
Brief #84 – Health and Gender
Author Taylor J Smith
Brief Title: Effective COVID-19 Vaccines Emerge as the Pandemic Rolls On
The Policy
As the globe inches towards month ten of the coronavirus pandemic, promising vaccine advancements were announced last week. Companies Pfizer & BioNTech and Moderna released trial results deeming their vaccines to be 90%* and 94% effective, respectively. Both Companies have requested emergency FDA authorization in the US, with the hopes of distributing by the new year. The United Kingdom approved the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine earlier this week.
This news comes after the US reported record smashing 217,664 new cases, and over 100,000 of hospitalizations and 2,978 deaths on Thursday. With the continuous increase in cases and deaths, more than a quarter of a million people in the US have died from the disease, surpassing the White House’s projections. Experts like top infectious disease official, Dr. Anthony Fauci, conclude that the globe is reaching troubling waters and warned that January will be exceptionally terrible. To mitigate the current outlook, another lockdown in states is being considered. Just Thursday, Californian Governor Gavin Newsom announced a second round of regional stay-at-home orders for the state. This comes as intensive-care beds fill up across California, the lockdown will take effect in communities with intensive-care bed capacities below a 15% threshold. As cases rise from Thanksgiving holiday, it is expected that other states will follow suit.
This week, the Center for Disease Control issued new guidelines to curb the spread of the coronavirus. Most notably, specialists advise “universal” mask usage indoors, particularly for Americans, in addition to continued mask use in outdoor-public spaces. The CDC also recommended people avoid non-essential indoor spaces and postpone travel.
*Pfizer later released data stating that their vaccine was in fact 94.5% effective, an increase from the initial 90%.
COVID-19 Internationally
Canada has extended the closure of its shared border with the US until at least December 21st. The border has been closed since March 18th and the closure has been renewed every month since.
UK Health Minister Matt Hancock announced on Wednesday that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has been approved for use within the UK. Initial doses are already en route, with elderly people in care homes and care home staff placed at the top of the list for distribution. The UK government has already ordered 400 million doses of the vaccine, enough to vaccinate 20 million people, which is less than a third of the UK’s entire population of roughly 67 million.
Friday afternoon, Bahrain became the second country to approve the Pfizer vaccine for mass distribution. Officials granted emergency authorization for the vaccine, with little else known regarding roll-out or how many doses were purchased, but 800,000 doses are expected to be distributed next week.
Chinese officials have announced that China will have 600 million doses, produced by two Chinese manufacturers Sinopharm and Sinovac, by the end of 2020. These manufactures are also expected to create and distribute an additional 200 million doses for other nations.
Analysis:
Operation Warp Speed is seemingly meeting expectations, in creating a safe and effective vaccine in such a short period of time. However, as previously discussed, the haste of the operation, while necessary to save lives, has a very real potential of prompting hesitancy and uncertainty for widespread vaccinations.
With the Pfizer / BioNTech being approved for distribution in the United Kingdom, vaccinations are expected to start Tuesday. Some are asking why the UK was first to approve a vaccine and why the US is yet to approve any vaccine. According to UK officials, they simply have “the best medical regulators”, while American officials say the contrary, that the UK is not being as careful as the FDA is being. However, on Friday afternoon, US Vice President Pence announced he was very optimistic that a vaccine may be approved within two weeks’ time. It can be expected that there will be at least one vaccine approved for widespread distribution in multiple countries before the years end, creating some hope in a year of despair.
Here’s how some of the vaccines compare:
| Producers | Type | Doses Needed | Efficacy | Storage | Cost Per Dose |
| Oxford / AstraZeneca | Viral Vector | Two | 62-90% | Regular fridge temp |
$4 |
| Moderna | RNA | Two | 95% | -20C, up to 6 months | $33 |
| Pfizer / BioNTech | RNA | Two | 95% | -70C | $20 |
| Gamaleya (Sputnik V) | Viral Vector | Two | 92% | Regular fridge temp | $10 |
*note not yet peer reviewed, numbers are preliminary phase three results.
Engagement Resources:
For concerns about COVID-19, please seek assistance with the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or local health officials.
Subscribe HERE to stay up to date with COVID-19
Number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as of December 4, 2020 – Consult the CDC or Johns Hopkins for an update in numbers.
| Nation | Confirmed Cases | Deaths |
| Globally | 65,669,150 | 1,514,387 |
| United States | 14,282,494 | 277,958 |
| India | 9,571,559 | 139,188 |
| Brazil | 6,487,012 | 175,270 |
| Russia | 2,382,012 | 41,730 |
| France | 2,321,492 | 54,858 |
| United Kingdom | 1,694,790 | 60,714 |
| Italy | 1,688,939 | 58,852 |
| Spain | 1,684,647 | 46,252 |
| Argentina | 1,447,732 | 39,305 |
| Colombia | 1,343,322 | 37,305 |
NAACP In Michigan Lawsuit Turns The Tables And Claims President Trump Is The One Engaging In Voter Fraud
Policy Summary: On November 20, 2020 the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of three African – American voters in Michigan contending that President Trump and his campaign team in Michigan are trying to suppress the votes of Black voters in the state. The lawsuit alleges that the President and campaign officials are pressuring state and local officials to not tally votes from Wayne County in the state. Wayne County encompasses the city of Detroit, which has a significant number of African – American residents. Joe Biden won the state over President Trump with just over 150,000 votes. In Wayne County, Biden’s margin over the President was over 333,000 votes.
Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides:
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
The case, brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges President Trump and his campaign officials in Michigan are in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: In the aftermath of the November 3rd election and when it became increasingly likely that President Trump would not win re – election to a second term the President brought a number of lawsuits in key swing states hoping to show that vote tallies were not accurate. The President believed that the only reason that he trailed in a number of states was because of voter fraud brought on by the use of mail ballots and the inability of poll observers to watch the tabulation process. The President even concluded that there must have been voter fraud because of the razor thin margin of votes between him and Mr. Biden in some states. However, the President and his team did not have any evidence of this fraud and the courts dismissed many of the cases.
The lawsuit brought by the NAACP in Michigan stands out because it is a case that has not been brought by the President but brought directly against him. And it turns the table on the President and his voter fraud arguments because while the President has been the one who has constantly screamed voter fraud and irregularities in the voting process this lawsuit shows that the President himself is the one who is denigrating the democratic voting process. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is clear that acts of intimidation, threats and coercive attempts against persons for voting are not permitted. Nor are acts of intimidation and threats permitted against election officials for performing the duties of their office. Yet here we have President Trump and his campaign team engaged in acts of intimidation and coercion. Trump has personally called a number of Michigan legislators to “discuss” with them the certification of the election for Joe Biden and has even discussed with aides who else in other states he can call to discuss delays in certification of the election. It is clear that President Trump is trying to exert pressure on these local officials in an effort to manipulate the results of the election in his favor. But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan cast their ballots and chose Joe Biden over Mr. Trump. By trying to not have their votes counted so he can claim victory in Michigan President Trump is engaging in the kind of voter suppression that only leads to a distortion in the true will of an electorate and is exactly the kind of voter fraud that President Trump has been complaining about (falsely it appears) all along. In this case in Michigan the NAACP lawsuit perfectly shows that acts of voter fraud and suppression are being encouraged by none other than President Trump himself. The lawsuit has just been filed but it will help to illustrate that the President’s claim of voting irregularities are meritless. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – blog post on Trump’s tactics to delay certification of election in swing states.
- Verified Voting – group advocating for the responsible use of technology in elections.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
How Will Amy Comey Barret rule on “Contentious Environmental Issues”?
Written by: Shannon Q. Elliott
Thursday, November 19, 2020
Policy
On Monday November 9th, 2020 Amy Comey Barrett heard her first case as a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. (SCOTUS) The conservative justice, a former Notre Dame Law School graduate, filled the seat which belonged to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. One of the first cases Barret will hear is The U.S. Forest Service v. The Sierra Club, a case in which the Sierra Club initially brought action against the Forest Service in 2014. USFS refused to release documents showing their proposed changes to cooling water intake systems. Barrett, a strict constitutionalist is expected to narrow in on how the statute was written, specifically dissecting the language to determine her ruling. Her conservative views could aggressively tip the scales changing environmental laws throughout the states.
The central argument surrounding the case is whether or not the Freedom of Information Act, specifically exemption 5 (FOIA) should protect internal government documents from public interference. To qualify for exemption 5 the court will have to satisfy two conditions, 1.) Is the source a government agency, and 2.) it must fall within the limits of privilege against discovery. It is important to bear in mind that the FOIA governs the release of information to the public generated by the federal government, however, overuse of exemption 5 undermines the FOIA. Overuse shields the public from information that is only privy to government agencies, working documents, unofficial emails, opinions, and pre-decisional documents that are still being negotiated are examples of privileged information. Sierra Club contests that the documents supporting the change to cooling structures do not qualify for the exemption. They are persistent the public has a right to understand how and why the regulation was changed. Their concerns are the injuries sustained to aquatic life, the release of chemicals, large animals being caught in intake screens; and how these changes will adversely affect the environment, and public health.
Though the central argument will be dissected and interpreted to the best of the court’s ability, environmentalists are waiting with baited breath, to see how a Barrett ruling for The U.S. Forrest Service will affect environmental protections that are awaiting judicial review at the SCOTUS.
Analysis
Barrett is a Trump-appointed judge. This suggests a theory that Barrett has allegiance to the administration and may rule in favor of many of the environmental rollbacks of the past four years. It’s not a definite, however her lack of environmental cases, and being quoted as “not holding firm views over contentious matters of public debate,” are worrisome to those who have done the calculations, and predictions that support conclusive evidence that the environment is on the brink of failure.
Totality of the circumstances, is a judicial test that refers to a method where analysis is based on all the available information rather then the bright lights rule. The rule allows courts to focus on all aspects of the case, rather than any one factor. Whereas environmental litigation is a new to the bench, and the statutes are broadly written, reaching for this tool may provide clarity when entering an opinion. Narrowing in on language and definitions, of statutes that are not clear, could be considered irresponsible on part of the justices because of the extremities of public debate over climate change, intrusion of habitats, disregard for waste water, and so on. All of these matters tie into public health; lung cancer, respiratory issues, asthma, and malaria are identified by the World Health Organization as causation byway of environmental exposure.
An appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is for the nominee’s lifetime. Let’s hope that the justices currently sitting on the bench are able to realize how destructive Trumps rollbacks are and focus on balancing competing interests.
Learn More:
- Amy Coney Barrett Takes Up First Supreme Court Case. (2020, Novmber ). https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/11/02/amy-coney-barrett-takes-up-first-supreme-court-case/?sh=27a3f9544037
- By Calling Climate Change ‘Controversial,’ Barrett Created Controversy. (2020, October ). NYTimes.com : https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/climate/amy-coney-barrett-climate-change.html
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, 19-547 (Supreme Court of The United States 2020 October ).
Resistance Resource:
(https://www.sierraclub.org/, 2020)
Ending the American War in Afghanistan
Ending the American War in Afghanistan
By Will Solomon
December 1, 2020
Policy Summary:
On November 17, the Pentagon announced that the Trump Administration would plan to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 2500 by mid-January. The plan has been advertised by the administration as a move consistent with Trump’s promise of ending “forever wars” in the Middle East, as well as a redeployment of resources to more pressing security threats. Critics of Trump’s announcement have argued that such a move would further destabilize the region, undercut ongoing peace talks, and allow the Taliban to continue gaining power in the country.
Rhetorical isolationism has been a Trump hallmark since his campaign for president began in 2015—and it is broadly popular. A poll conducted this past summer showed that approximately 3 in 4 Americans support bringing troops home from overseas. Indeed, it seems clear that Trump’s isolationist rhetoric was integral to his winning the Republican primary; his willingness to lambast Jeb Bush and other Republican candidates for their support for the Iraq War and other wars clearly set him apart on stage, and arguably also helped him against Clinton, who was often viewed as more hawkish then Trump.
But rhetoric aside, Trump’s policies in office have been in many respects contiguous with those of his immediate predecessor—eschewing major troop deployments in favor of air power, drone strikes, and special forces raids. While there have been some troop drawdowns, the defense budget has continued to balloon, and Trump’s presidency has not signaled a drastic shift in American policies overseas.
Analysis:
Trump’s cynicism and erratic choices are impossible to ignore in virtually all his policy decisions. With Biden’s victory and likely inauguration, it seems quite plausible that Trump’s move to drawdown troop levels in Afghanistan—and other Middle Eastern conflict zones—at the presumed end of his presidency is a means to demonstrate that he’s fulfilling a campaign pledge. It also enhances his credibility as he continues to emphasize American isolationism , and quite plausibly, support other Republican candidates for office, and maybe run again himself. The concern that such an abrupt move could be disorderly is legitimate, and the concerns of many over what will happen to a fragile Afghan state—will it be overrun by the Taliban or other fundamentalists? what will happen to gains made in areas like women’s rights?—with a lighter US presence is also legitimate.
That said, the US has now been at War in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years, with little to show for it, and no clear path forward besides maintaining an unsustainable course—a reality well-articulated in this piece from Andrew Bacevich and Adam Weinstein. Much of the country is now controlled by a resurgent Taliban, and newer jihadist groups like the Islamic State have sprung up in different places. The government is weak, heavily reliant on the United States to maintain legitimacy, and inextricably corrupt.
Assuming this drawdown actually occurs and Trump does leave office in January, Biden would be wise not to attempt to restore the status quo in Afghanistan, but to recognize that the strategy governing these wars has failed, and wholly re-approach the Afghan situation. This would mean bringing in new voices, and entirely reevaluating the American strategic position in the Greater Middle East. Given Biden’s decades of hawkishness and present reliance on a coterie of Obama-era advisors, one wonders whether this is the tack he will pursue.
Resistance Resources
https://responsiblestatecraft.org — “Responsible Statecraft is a publication of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. It provides analysis, opinion, and news to promote a positive vision of U.S. foreign policy based on humility, diplomatic engagement, and military restraint. RS also critiques the ideas — and the ideologies and interests behind them — that have mired the United States in counterproductive and endless wars and made the world less secure.”
https://www.codepink.org — “CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.”
https://www.veteransforpeace.org — “Veterans For Peace is a global organization of Military Veterans and allies whose collective efforts are to build a culture of peace by using our experiences and lifting our voices. We inform the public of the true causes of war and the enormous costs of wars, with an obligation to heal the wounds of wars. Our network is comprised of over 140 chapters worldwide whose work includes: educating the public, advocating for a dismantling of the war economy, providing services that assist veterans and victims of war, and most significantly, working to end all wars.”
Despite Trump Dismissal Christopher Krebs is Still Getting It Right
By Charles A. Rubin
Despite Trump Dismissal Christopher Krebs is Still Getting It Right
December 2,2020
Policy Summary
On November 17, 2020 – two weeks after election day and ten days after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the Presidential race, Christopher Krebs, the head of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, was fired in a tweet by President Trump. His termination came after Krebs vigorously defended the integrity of the election in the face of withering and unsubstantiated charges of election fraud and vote tampering from the Trump administration. Krebs has continued to defend his agency and provide evidence that the President’s claims of irregularities are false and themselves a threat to our election process.
Analysis
CISA, was founded in 2017 with the mission of defending the nation against cybersecurity threats from both foreign and domestic actors. By partnering with the Intelligence community, other Federal agencies, business, state and local governments they have provided a clearinghouse for information and tools to recognize threats, defend against intrusion and manipulation and repel attacks. They work with critical infrastructure agencies to help them prepare for the increasing scale and frequency of cyberattacks.
The agency’s original and only director until his termination earlier this month has been Christorpher Krebs. Krebs came to the agency with an impressive resume. He led Microsoft’s U.S. policy work on cybersecurity and technology issues. Krebs had previously worked in the Bush administration and written extensively on internet and network security. He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate for Directorship of CISA.
In regards to elections, though, Kreb’s took a decidedly nontechnical approach. He determined early on that the best way to defend elections was to ensure that a paper trail of votes existed. In 2016 only 65% of voting systems produced a paper record of a ballot. In 2020 that number had increased to 95%. Having this manual record ensured that in battleground states, like Georgia and Wisconsin, hand tallies could be conducted affirming the results of the machine counts further providing confidence that this most unusual election was conducted fairly and accurately. He established close collaboration with Secretaries of State, local and county election officials to discuss best practices and coordinate findings. They were instrumental in helping to roll out secure mail-in voting programs contrary to the President’s disparagement of them.
Despite the President’s efforts to cast doubt on the election, his action early in his administration in creating CISA and installing a well respected practitioner at its helm ensured that the taint of foreign influence in the election was far less likely.
As election day drew closer, Krebs realized that misinformation campaigns were the larger threat. In a brilliant move CISA created RumorControl.gov to bring to light false narratives and debunk election misinformation that was being spread by foreign actors such as Iran and even from the President’s Twitter feed. This ultimately led to his dismissal.
The nation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Christopher Krebs and to the many unsung election workers who worked tirelessly for many months to ensure that the election ran smoothly. There will always be actors or organizations that work to undermine the process but there are, thankfully, many other that put aside partisanship to ensure that the votes are counted and results are defended.
Resistance Resources
- AccessNow provides resources on keeping the internet safe and open and monitoring elections around the world.orld.
- The Center for Digital Democracy’s mission is to ensure that digital technologies serve and strengthen democratic values, institutions and processes. CDD strives to safeguard privacy and civil and human rights, as well as to advance equity, fairness, and community.
- The Voter Protection Program advances legal strategies and recommendations to protect the vote and make sure every vote is counted
- CISA’s RumorControl.gov continues to debunk misinformation about the 2020 Presidential Campaign.
Leading Contenders for Attorney General And A New Direction for DOJ
Policy Summary: One of the most significant decisions that President – elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr. will make in the coming weeks before his inauguration will be whom he will appoint as Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement official in the country and heads the Department of Justice (DOJ). Leadership and management of the department is vital because of the impact the divisions have on all aspects of American life. Well – known divisions at DOJ are the civil rights and the criminal division as well as the environmental and natural resources and antitrust divisions. DOJ also manages several law enforcement agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and, of course, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Due to the enormous responsibilities at leading so many varied divisions and bureaus, President – elect Biden’s choice to lead DOJ will have an effect on the direction the department will take on controversial issues and which laws will be prioritized for enforcement. Thus far, three names have emerged as leading candidates, each with perceived strengths and weaknesses based on the current situation in the U.S. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Former deputy attorney general Sally Yates, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland have all received serious consideration for the position.
Ms. Yates is believed to be the leading candidate for the job due to her long career and experience at DOJ, which started in the late 1980’s as a federal prosecutor. She also made headlines when she instructed DOJ not to enforce President Trump’s executive order restricting travel to seven Muslim countries. Former Governor Deval Patrick presents the most experience to lead DOJ as he was formerly head of the civil rights division under the Clinton Administration and has more civil rights experience from working for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. And in a bit of a surprise, Judge Merrick Garland’s name has emerged as a serious contender. Judge Garland is known for having his nomination to the Supreme Court blocked by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) but he has impeccable credentials and is well – respected by his peers for his time as the former Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
What these three choices signify is what the Biden Administration would like to prioritize in a post – Trump DOJ. The selection of Ms. Yates would be seen as the most direct rebuke of President Trump’s disregard for the Constitution and his policies as illustrated by Ms. Yates instruction to not enforce one of President Trump’s most controversial policies, the Muslim travel ban, because it was deemed unconstitutional. If Mr. Biden chooses her it would show that the DOJ would get back to following established processes and procedures instead of the bulldozing ways to get what they wanted as was the norm under President Trump’s DOJ. The selection of former Governor Patrick would be seen as prioritizing race and civil rights issues again in the department. This has become vitally important in the wake of racial protests in 2020, criminal justice reform and the Black Lives Matter movement. Under President Trump, the focus on civil rights and their impact on minority communities seem to have been neglected or outright mocked and if Mr. Biden selects former Governor Patrick then he can assure the nation that civil rights will not become an inconvenient afterthought. And finally, Judge Garland as a potential choice to become Attorney General is seen as a way to bring back professionalism and order back to a DOJ that had become chaotic under a Trump Administration. Judge Garland also has experience dealing with domestic terrorist groups as he led the prosecution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. With President Trump giving encouragement to domestic terrorist and white supremacist groups, the selection of Judge Garland would be another message to send that DOJ under a President Biden will not tolerate the encouragement of domestic terror groups.
While the choice for Attorney General has yet to be revealed the leading contenders are helping to signal the direction that DOJ will take under President – elect Biden. His focus is on emphasizing civil rights, combatting domestic terror groups and, most importantly, bringing back a high standard of competence and ethical behavior that was sorely lacking under the direction of President Trump and outgoing Attorney General William Barr. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – organizational chart of the department’s divisions and bureaus.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General – group that seeks to promote integrity, efficiency and accountability at DOJ with reports and updates on ongoing investigations.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Trump’s Refusal to Accept Defeat: Another Reason Why He Is Not Fit For Office
By Linda F. Hersey
November 30, 2020
Although Donald Trump is the first sitting president to refuse to concede after losing a U.S. democratic election – shocking the nation and leaders across the world — his wild claims of conspiracy and election fraud come as no surprise to a handful of academics, attorneys and political strategists who weighed the danger of such an outcome prior to Election 2020.
They predicted that if Trump lost, he might treat defeat like the cancellation of his TV show or a real estate deal that failed to close – with bombast, anger and legal threats.
Under a headline titled “The Election That Could Break America,” journalist Barton Gellman wrote in Atlantic Magazine in September that if Trump lost the electoral vote, he might just try to “subvert the process” and “throw the election into chaos.”
Gellman, an author and staff writer for the Atlantic, wrote that without an obvious landslide victory by Biden, Trump might seek to create enough confusion and ambiguity to hold onto power after a loss. Barton based his essay on interviews with experts on the presidency and concluded that Trump, by his personality, cannot accept defeat.
“The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president’s term in office ‘shall end’ at noon on January 20, but two men could show up to be sworn in. One of them would arrive with all the tools and power of the presidency already in hand,” Gellman described.
Scholars note that the Constitution does not articulate the terms of a “peaceful transition” of leadership yet presumes it will take place.
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton proposed during the Constitutional Convention that presidents serve for life. The proposal lost – on a vote.
In 2020, Trump gave clues to his post-election behavior during the campaign as well as during his first run for office, telling interviewers that he was not prepared to acknowledge defeat and was not sure if he ever would.
While such tenaciousness in the rough-and-tumble Manhattan real estate world has worked for Trump over the years, the necessity for the leader of the United States to honor the election process calls for integrity and the graciousness to acknowledge loss, to ensure the continuity of a free government.
‘Calling an Election Unfair Does Not Make It So’
The Trump campaign instead has filed numerous lawsuits in six battleground states trying to disqualify mail-in ballots and block certification of the results. U.S. courts have rejected those efforts. Appeals were filed in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
“Several of the suits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies have been dismissed or withdrawn, and the ones that are still before the courts don’t appear to challenge enough votes to affect the race,” Bloomberg News reported.
A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania on Nov. 27, 2020, rejected the latest effort by Trump’s legal team to overturn election results: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.
Trump has vowed to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but some question whether he will pursue it. He does not want to face more failure.
A Nov. 28, 2020, article in The Washington Post raises questions about Trump’s mental fitness and ability to accept the reality of his loss. Instead, the reporters write that Trump surrounds himself with soothsayers more than willing to “indulge” his fantasies of victory over Biden:
“Sequestered in the White House and brooding out of public view after his election defeat, rageful and at times delirious in a torrent of private conversations, Trump was, in the telling of one close adviser, like ‘Mad King George, muttering, I won. I won. I won.’ ”
Casting Himself as the Victim of a Rigged Election
Trump may see the best strategy as casting himself as the perpetual victim, especially if he should seek to run again – in 2024. It is not surprising that the candidate who vowed to “drain the swamp” four years ago alleges a rigged system in 2020, when voted out of office after one term.
Such rhetoric keeps his followers agitated and energized, and in Trump’s mind, preserves his status as an outsider who does not cozy up to the D.C. elite — the same tack he took in 2016.
Another Trump run is possible.
Either Trump, or his eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, have been floated as potential GOP candidates, as Ivanka proved deft at fund-raising and speaking to Donald Trump supporters.
Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, are considering relocating to Bedminster, New Jersey, a sure sign that the entire Trump clan is moving on. Some speculate the Kushners will avoid returning to New York City and the liberal-leaning social scene, where Ivanka once flourished but now would be ostracized.
The president is spending more time on his favorite golf course in Virginia, away from the media and from public attention, avoiding answering questions and keeping people in suspense about his next move. The “what ifs?” and speculation on whether he will concede are a cliffhanger that give Donald Trump the attention he craves.
In the clearest statement yet of his intentions on stepping down, Trump said on Nov. 26, at a press conference, that he would leave office at the end of his term, though he did not admit he lost.
The press conference marked the first time that Trump took questions from the White House press pool since the election.
“Certainly, I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House.
Resistance Resources:
Atlantic Magazine covers news, politics and lifestyle, with long-form articles and in-depth reporting.
League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan group that encourages informed and active participation in the government.
Vote Smart, formerly called Project Vote Smart, is a national non-profit, non-partisan research organization that helps inform the public on candidates running for office.
www.justfacts.votesmart.org
Explaining the Minimum Wage
Explaining the Minimum Wage
Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
November 27, 2020
Policy
The term minimum wage actually refers to several different things. There is the federal minimum wage which is the lowest wage that employers can pay their workers unless they are in an exempt category of tipped workers. Many states have augmented the federal wage with a state or local minimum wage. Consequently, in referring to the minimum wage, it is imperative to elaborate what standard is the reference point.
The minimum wage was established in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act to stabilize the economy and provide for protections for workers. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, unchanged since 2009. This period represents the longest constant amount of the minimum wage in history. The real value of that wage is down 17% since 2009 and 31% since 1968, when minimum wage was at its peak value. Currently the mid-range for wage earners varies between $23-35 , depending on the industry and the level of education. So the Federal minimum wage number is considerably below the mid-range.
Employers can pay a minimum wage of $2.13 to wait staff and any other person who receives cash tips as long as the combined income equals the federal minimum wage, though this is usually not monitored very thoroughly, or at all. Although some people make a nice income from tips, others suffer in that their employers are not honoring the law guaranteeing the federal minimum.
In the same time period, 2009-2019, worker productivity has doubled certainly establishing the availability of funds for a more realistic minimum wage. Twenty one states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wages to address inflation, along with about two dozen cities and counties. Wages for low wage workers in those states rose much faster than for those in the 29 states that have not increased the minimum beyond the federal standard. Georgia and Wyoming have state minimum wages which are $5.15. In states with a more substantial minimum wage the gender gap has narrowed and women’s wage gains outpaced men’s. In states with the federal minimum wage, women’s wages gained only 50% of the increase sustained by men. About 30% of low wage workers earn near the federal minimum wage (between $7.25 and $10.10). Raising the federal minimum wage is expected to raise the wages of 33.5 to 40 million workers (depending on the source).
Analysis
A living wage, one which would guarantee that a person earns enough to maintain a stable standard of living providing basic needs, would be a lot more than the current standard. Though many state and localities have increased the minimum wage to, or approaching, $15.00 an hour others have remained stagnant or phased in smaller increases. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a Raise the Minimum Wage Act, in 2019, which would establish a $15 minimum by 2025. The wage would also have an annual automatic adjustment based on the middle wage worker so that the gap between low and middle wage earners would be consistent. President-elect Joe Biden supports raising the wage to $15 per hour; eliminating the tipping minimum wage; and basing the minimum wage on the median wage. If the Senate maintains its Republican majority, the chances of the Senate passing this wage act are slim. The Pew Research Center survey indicates that two thirds of the American population favors a $15 minimum wage. Some economists believe that even raising the rate to this level is insufficient to guarantee a minimum standard of living. Many minimum wage workers would remain in poverty, despite the rise in wages.
References
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/the-us-is-closer-to-a-15-federal-minimum-wage-after-biden-win-.html
Resources
https://onefairwage.site/ An organization promoting one fair wage for all workers, including the tipped one.