JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

Biden’s Administration Proposes Sweeping New Immigration Law and Ends Separation of Children from Their Parents

Brief #114—Immigration
By Linda F. Hersey
The zero-tolerance program that defined the Trump Administration’s policy on immigration – separating hundreds of immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border – is officially over.

Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson sent a letter to all U.S. attorneys that rescinds the order, effectively erasing the policy that allowed for federally prosecuting undocumented parents and separating them from their children.

Although immigrants can still be deported if they do not have documents or protections to stay in the U.S., they typically are not charged in federal court and separated from their children. The Wilkinson letter – first reported by NBC News — encourages prosecutors to “use discretion” in prosecuting minor border offenses.

Facebook Profits From Political Polarization and Violence

Brief #34—Technology
By Scout Burchill
Facebook has been targeting online “patriot” and militia groups with ads for military gear such as body armor and weapon accessories. Despite a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg from members of Congress, calls from State Attorney Generals, and internal warnings by Facebook employees, research by the Tech Transparency Project reveals that these ads were still targeting users as late as January 17th.

Twitter Dumped Trump, For Good

Brief #33—Technology
By Scout Burchill
On January 6th, in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, Twitter announced that President Donald Trump’s account would be suspended. Twitter followed this up on Friday, January 8th by permanently banning President Trump from its platform “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” Other tech platforms almost immediately followed suit, including Reddit, Twitch, Shopify, Snapchat, Discord, Stripe and Facebook, which declared a ban “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks.” Facebook has since sent this decision to their newly created oversight board for further review.

The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 1: Improving Economic Security for Women

Brief #93—Health and Gender
By Erin McNemar
In March of 2020, President Joe Biden committed to selecting a female running mate. Five months later, he fulfilled that promise by tapping Vice President Kamala Harris for the position. This historic decision meant that women’s rights would be a priority issue for the next four years.

Biden’s First Few Days in Office Address Immigration: Border Wall Funding Ceases and DACA is Reinstated

Brief #109—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Within President Biden’s first few days in office, he has signed two Executive Orders to begin mitigating and reversing the Trump Administration’s efforts to drastically alter immigration policies. First, Biden ended the national emergency declaration that effectively diverted $10 billion from the Defense Department towards Trump’s border wall. The proclamation also asserts that federal agencies must curate a plan of action within 60 days to redirect border wall funds.

Biden and Abortion: What Should America Expect?

Brief #92—Health and Gender
By Justin Lee
Former President Trump took strong actions against abortion and reproductive health policies during his presidency. Trump reinstated and strengthened the Mexico City Policy, which implemented funding restrictions to foreign organizations that provided abortion services or counseling. First introduced in the Reagan administration, Trump’s stance lead to the closure of many reproductive health clinics that provided care not just for abortions, but also for HIV care. Trump also attempted to limit the scope of the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act, which previously required most insurance plans to cover birth control without copayments. The Supreme Court upheld the exemptions for employers with religious and/or moral objections to refuse providing birth control benefits for employees in July 2020.

Privacy Under Attack: The Challenge of Data Commoditization in The Biden Era

Brief #32—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
The US Defense Intelligence Agency and other government entities routinely collect cell phone location data on US residents without a warrant, according to a memo reported by The New York Times on Friday January 22, 2021. The agencies buy the information on the open market from data brokers, who often get it from third-party apps running on users’ phones.

State and Local Jurisdictions Need Federal Aid to Be Viable

Brief #106—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
State and local government budgets provide the bread and butter of fiscal life and, because of the pandemic costs, require a federal infusion of aid to accomplish maintenance of essential services. State and local governments provide major funding for infrastructure, services, and education. They outspend the federal government on goods and services and account for 15% of the GDP. They contribute more than 90% of the moneys for education and 80% of transportation spending. State Medicaid costs have been on the rise, especially in Republican states that did not take advantage of federal extensions of benefits to states. State and local entities employ more people than domestic manufacturing and and have lost 1.3 million jobs since March, representing the smallest workforce since 2001. These are budgetary elements which impact the availability of goods and services which contribute to quality of life, such as police, fire, and waste services.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

The Past & Present of the American Relationship with Iran

Policy Summary:
While not as omnipresent as it often has been, the issue of conflict with Iran should loom large in the context of the 2020 election. Indeed, it’s important to consider just how much more serious this issue has grown in the last four years. A central premise of Trump’s 2016 campaign was exiting the 2015 JCPOA— perhaps the single biggest foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration. Beginning on May 8, 2018, Trump made good on this threat, officially withdrawing from the agreement. Tensions with Iran have grown steadily since. The start of 2020 saw the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani at Baghdad International Airport, a major escalation of the conflict. Most recently, on September 19, 2020, the United States unilaterally attempted to reimpose all pre-JCPOA UN sanctions on Iran. (This includes a conventional arms embargo on Iran, among other prohibitions). While the efficacy of these sanctions are somewhat limited by the sheer exhaustion of sanctions already placed on Iran, coupled with the international community’s opposition to the sanctions, the United States still wields considerable power to hassle other countries and companies that do attempt to do business with Iran.

Any discussion of American-Iranian diplomacy must take into account the long and contentious history of relations between the two countries. In 1953, a CIA-backed coup overthrew the popularly elected Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, primarily over American and British objections to his nationalization of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later, British Petroleum). Mosaddeq was replaced by Shah Reza Pahlavi, whose often-brutal reign was financially and militarily supported by the United States until he was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Though less well-remembered (at least in the United States), American efforts to destabilize Iran were amplified after the Islamic Revolution and concurrent hostage crisis. September 2020 marks the 40th anniversary of the start of the Iran-Iraq War, which began after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. The war, ultimately the longest conventional war of the 20th century, was brutal for both sides, but particularly Iran. Although the United States played the two countries off each other during the war (Henry Kissinger famously said: “it’s a pity both sides can’t lose”), US sympathies were definitively with Saddam, and the US assisted him with targeting, weapons sales, and other logistical support. Perhaps most egregiously, in 1988, the United States missile cruiser Vincennes, stationed in the Persian Gulf, shot down Iranian Air Flight 655, killing all 290 passengers aboard. And finally, lest it be forgotten—it was widely believed that an American overthrow of Iran would be the sequel to the American invasion of Iraq. Iran was listed, along with Iraq and North Korea, in Bush’s famous “Axis of Evil” speech, and it is likely only the quagmire in Iraq that prevented the Bush Administration from taking this second step.

Today Iran is a regional power, and heavily isolated by America and its regional allies (particularly Israel and the Arab Gulf States). Predictably, because of American withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran has stopped complying with the terms of the agreement and has begun to expand its enriched uranium stockpile.

Analysis:

Trump appears to have little understanding of or interest in how his actions will destabilize the Greater Middle East. Despite implicit and explicit promises to end American involvement in the region, with regards to Iran he has dramatically escalated the potential for mass conflict. While Trump’s opinions may often be unformed and fickle, he continues to be advised by a number of long-time Iran hawks, like Mike Pompeo.

It hardly bears restating, but it should be emphasized that even a regional war would be devastating to all parties involved, particularly to Iranian citizens and other civilians in the region. The odds of a large-scale ground war and invasion—as with Iraq—seem low, but the prospect of a devastating air war, with serious Iranian resistance, remains quite possible. It is worth bearing in mind that at least several hundred thousand Iraqis died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003, and the body count may well exceed one million.

It should also be noted that despite its weaknesses from years of sanctions and isolation, Iran remains a strong country with a multi-millennia history. Iran is not in the position Iraq was in in 2003 (and arguably, Iran’s position has been strengthened by the US destruction of Iraq). Iran would be quite capable of mounting a major defense, directly and through proxies, like Hezbollah.

Finally—aside from making it extremely difficult, logistically, for a hypothetical Biden administration to re-enter the Iran deal, the Trump administration has created the possibly more severe problem of utterly shredding American credibility vis-à-vis international treaties. Why should Iran (or North Korea, or Venezuela, etc.) sign any treaty with an American administration if the next one can rip it up? Trump and those surrounding him evidently care little about this in the pursuit of their own agenda.

As tensions remain extremely high, and particularly as the election approaches, it is also worth noting that for decades Iran has been portrayed as an aggressor in US media and by the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. However even a cursory reading of regional history shows that Iran has far more often been the victim of geopolitical machinations by America and Western powers. All in all, Iran has reacted as a rational state actor, while the absurdity of the Trump administration’s approach has increasingly demonstrated that the United States is acting as a rogue state; and the long trail that has led to this moment was paved by a bipartisan consensus in Washington. It is imperative that those looking for change through the US domestic political process remember this.

Resistance Resources:

https://ploughshares.org — “For over 39 years Ploughshares Fund has supported the most effective people and organizations in the world to reduce and eventually eliminate the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.”
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://aboutfaceveterans.org — “We are Post-9/11 service members and veterans organizing to end a foreign policy of permanent war and the use of military weapons, tactics, and values in communities across the country.”

Convalescent Plasma is FDA Approved, and Vaccine Trials are Underway as the US Death Toll Passes 200,000

COVID-19’s Status in the US

As the US struggles to manage the outbreak of coronavirus, the US Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19. Reportedly, over 70,000 patients have been treated with the blood and plasma of those who previously recovered from the infection since the pandemic started and have responded positively to the new treatment.

While this authorization has been touted as a “historic breakthrough”, scientists say additional data is necessary, citing the misleading statements by Trump overstating the limited evidence behind the new therapy. Documented positive outcomes of individuals being treated with convalescent plasma is encouraging when developing therapies to treat COVID-19, but widespread emergency use is still uncertain

Operation Warp Speed (OWS), first introduced over the summer, is the Administration’s operational goal of creating a vaccine for the coronavirus at a considerably faster rate than traditional vaccines. Trump and his team are pushing for a vaccine to be effective and ready for mass distribution before the November 3^rd election day. Such an accelerated timeline requires pharmaceuticals and manufactures to work faster and more funding to support their efforts, the Administration has already committed billions of dollars to the vaccine pursuit.

Manufacturers	Country	Type of Vaccine	Current Phase	Notes
Moderna and National Institutes of Health (NIH)	USA	Messenger RNA (mRNA)	Phase III	US Govt initially funded nearly $1 billion, was given an additional $1.5 billion in exchange for 100 million safe and effective doses.
University of Oxford & AstraZeneca	UK & Sweden	Viral Vector	Phase III	First vaccine to reach Phase III. The US awarded the two $1.2 billion in May and in Aug, the European Union ironed out a deal for 400 million vaccine doses. On Sept 6 trials were halted after a participant experienced severe neurological symptoms, trials in the UK and Brazil resumed on Sept 12, others are still paused.
Johnson & Johnson, & Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center	USA	Viral Vector	Phase I/II – moving to phase III in late Sept.	In March, the two received $456 million from the US government and a contract of $1 billion for 100 million doses if the vaccine is approved, back in August.
Pfizer, BioNTech, & Fosun Pharma	USA, Germany, & China	Messenger RNA (mRNA)	Phase II/III – there are currently two versions of the vaccine.	Trump Administration awarded a $1.9 billion contract for 100 million doses by December, Japan made a deal for 120 million doses and the European Union arranged 200 million doses. Company executives said they should know by October if the vaccine works.
Sinopharm & Beijing Institute of Biological Products	China	Inactivated Coronavirus	Phase III	Given emergency approval in the United Arab Emirates on Sept 15. The vaccine is authorized to only be used on healthcare workers.
Gamaleya Research Institute	Russia	Viral Vector	Phase III	The vaccine, renamed Sputnik V, is approved for early use. At first, little was known or shared about this vaccine. The globe was surprised by Putin’s announcement that a vaccine had been approved when few knew one was being developed, back in August.

Recently CNN reports that nine vaccine makers say they have signed a joint pledge to uphold “high ethical standards,” suggesting they won’t seek premature government approval for any Covid-19 vaccines they develop. The companies that signed the pledge include AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Moderna, Pfizer, Novavax, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson and Merck.

Analysis:

The emergency authorization announcement came on the eve of the Republican National Convention, where Trump is attempting to resurrect his struggling polling numbers and popularity. It can be assumed that if Trump is viewed as finding a solution to the current pandemic, his favorability will increase, and the chances of reelection are higher. However, pushing a treatment before it has been fully tested can have disastrous effects, can dissuade supporters, and negatively impact future trust in treatments and vaccines. Scientists should explore this treatment as a viable option in treatment, but until a thorough study is conducted, it should not be touted by the President as a golden ticket out of the pandemic.

As with the emergency authorization of convalescent plasma, many see the rush for a vaccine as risky. While many of the manufacturers are reputable, the idea of cutting down a vaccine development process by half promotes uncertainty. This is particularly dangerous when it comes time for mass vaccinations.

AstraZeneca has come into the forefront of this race for a vaccine, but their trial hit a small bump in the road. After a participant began experiencing severe spinal cord inflammation, the trial was tentatively halted. Following protocol, researchers were tasked with determining if the symptoms were a result of the vaccine or if this was an unrelated occurrence. This suspension comes after another participant was dismissed from the trial after too experiencing neurological symptoms. However, it was concluded that the participant had anundiagnosed case of multiple sclerosis, and the vaccine was not to blame. The trial continued September 17^th in the United Kingdom and Brazil, other nations where testing is underway are still on pause. Currently, there are plenty of vaccines racing to bring this pandemic to an end, until one is deemed safe and effective, and gain approval, the race shall continue.

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 September 23, 2020 – Consult the CDC or Johns Hopkins for an update in numbers.

Nation	Confirmed Cases	Deaths
Globally	31,673,086	972,372
United States	6,902,930	201,120
India	5,646,010	90,020
Brazil	4,591,364	138,105
Russia	1,117,487	19,720
Colombia	777,537	24,570
Peru	776,546	31,568
Mexico	705,263	74,348
Spain	682,267	30,904
South Africa	663,282	16,118
Argentina	651,174	13,952

Nearly Half a Million Immigrants Face Deportation – The End of Temporary Protected Status

Policy Summary

In Los Angeles a Federal Appeals Court ruled the Trump Administration acted lawfully in terminating the Temporary Protected Status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants. These protections have allowed immigrants to live and work in the US after fleeing conflict and/or natural disasters in their home countries. The recent 2-1 ruling strips the legal immigration status from at least 400,000 individuals of Salvadorian origin, thus rendering them deportable if they do not leave voluntarily. Other countries that fall under TPS include Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Nicaragua, Nepal, Honduras, Haiti, and Yemen.

Analysis
Beneficiaries of the program have about 200,000 US born children, so families could again be separated. More than 100,000 of the protected individuals work in essential fields: healthcare (at least 11,000), food-related (at least 76,000). The deportation of these migrants could negatively impact several aspects of the US economy and health system. However, if President Trump is not re-elected, the new administration may choose to uphold and continue the program.

Engagement Resources

The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses

Debunking Republican Arguments To Speed Up Vote On Supreme Court Nominee In A Presidential Election Year

Policy Summary: On September 18, 2020 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away at the age of eighty-seven. She had served on the Court as the second woman appointed to the Court since August 1993 after being appointed by then President William J. Clinton. The death of Justice Ginsburg has set off a political battle for control of the nomination and confirmation of the justice who will replace Ginsburg on the Court.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “…and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate…judges of the supreme Court…” With a 53 – 47 Republican majority advantage in the Senate and only a majority required to confirm a nominee, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm a successor. However, the political battle to confirm a successor after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016 is influencing whether the chamber will even vote on a nominee. After Justice Scalia’s unexpected death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to hold a hearing on President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, on partisan grounds. No vote was ever taken on President Obama’s nominee and the Supreme Court spent 2016 with only eight members on the court. After the election of Republican Donald Trump as President, he nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and the Senate voted to confirm him. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: With the 2020 U.S. Presidential election a little more than a month away, most Republicans in the Senate are eager to rush a vote on Justice Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court. However, the rationales to speed up the process and schedule a hearing and vote in the Senate has caused many voters to cry “hypocrites.” Many of those cries are directed at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who famously blocked Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination from even having a hearing.

The main rationales being used by Republicans today to vote on an upcoming nominee before Election Day are [1] that since the 1880’s no Senate has confirmed an “opposite party” President’s nominee during an election year and so refusal to confirm an “opposite party” nominee in 2016 and vote on a “same party” nominee in 2020 is ok and [2] that a justice on the Supreme Court is needed in case the 2020 election is close and a decision from the Supreme Court is required. Neither of these rationalizations has any merit.

While many Republicans have adopted the talking point that since the 1880’s no Senate has confirmed an “opposite party” Presidential Supreme Court nominee during an election year vacancy, closer inspection of the historical record shows that this is false. During the 1988 election year, the Democratic controlled Senate confirmed Republican President Ronald Reagan’s nominee to the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Not only was he approved but he was approved unanimously 97 – 0. And in the 1956 election year, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was successful in having Justice Brennan appointed to the Supreme Court as a recess appointment, which was later approved by the Democratic Senate in 1957. So, the argument by today’s Republicans about an “opposite party” Presidential nominee not getting confirmed by the Senate is just plain wrong and a distortion of historical fact.

Finally, the argument that the Supreme Court needs a justice to bring the membership of the court back up to nine in order to avoid tie votes is one that has been floated by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). He has been emphatic that there is a possibility that a close result in the 2020 Presidential election might end up before the Supreme Court and so it is important that the Court be able to resolve cases definitively instead of having cases end in a 4 – 4 tie. However, that argument is undercut because of how Mitch McConell blocked the Garland nomination in 2016. With Justice Scalia’s death in February 2016 and McConell stubbornly refusing to even hold a hearing on the Garland nomination the Senate in 2016 allowed the Supreme Court to remain at eight members for nearly all of 2016. In total, the Supreme Court remained at eight members for fourteen months. It even included the October, November and December months of the 2016 election season. If Sen. Cruz and his Republican colleagues are worried about having Supreme Court cases end in 4 – 4 ties then why did they leave the Court with only eight members during all of 2016 and through the 2016 election season? This argument being put forth by Republicans now in 2020 has no merit and based on their obstructionist actions in 2016 is easily dismissible as Republicans playing a partisan game for control of the Supreme Court.

Sen. McConell and the Republicans in the Senate said in 2016 that they would not hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee during an election year because they wanted the American people to have a voice in who a potential Supreme Court nominee should be by their vote for President. But based on their rush to hold a vote on a potential Supreme Court nominee about a month before the election the Republicans have shown that their words are meaningless and that their self – serving arguments are nothing more than falsehoods and contradictions in service of their partisan interests. Senate Republicans should follow their own words and not hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee until the results of the November 2020 Presidential election are in. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

Demand Justice – group organized to nominate progressives to the judiciary.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – tribute page to the work and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Women’s Rights Project.

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.

The Corruption of Eugene Scalia

US Department of Labor governs worker safety, wage requirements and an assortment of other pressing concerns of American workers. Trump’s original pick, Alex Acosta resigned after details of his obscenely lenient plea deal with billionaire sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein came to light. His replacement, Eugene Scalia, has spent his tenure undermining the safety and security of the working class.

It should come as no surprise as Scalia, a lawyer by trade, has spent the bulk of his career in private practice defending corporate clients against their employees. As a private citizen his clients included Wal-Mart and Boeing. He railed against ergonomics in the workplace, fought against protections for workers at risk of repetitive injury and a law that would require large corporations (more than 10,000 employees) to spend 6% of payroll on healthcare. Scalia has essentially continued in this line of work from within the federal government, on the taxpayer’s dime, to the detriment of the nation’s labor force.

The Department of Labor’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been almost nonexistent, and a tragic example of Scalia’s negligence. OSHA, a DoL subdivision is responsible for drafting and enforcing rules designed to create and maintain safe workplaces. Scalia has publicly stated the agency should play no role in managing the pandemic, even as his boss in the White House rushed to re-open the economy, sending workers back into hazardous environments. Amazon warehouses and the meatpacking industry at large have been especially problematic in this realm.

The case of Smithfield Food is representative of Scalia’s maladministration. The company, which is responsible for 5% of all pork production in the US, has been troublingly lax in shielding workers from infection. Conditions inside their plants dictate line workers stand shoulder to shoulder over 11 hour shifts. Little or no protective equipment has been provided by the company and employees maintain there is not time in their day to regularly wash their hands. The Sioux Falls, South Dakota facility, employs 3,700 people. In April the plant closed after 300 workers tested positive for the coronavirus. Smithfield faces multiple lawsuits alleging similar negligence at plants in other states. Not until September, did OSHA issue its first and only fine related to Covid-19 safety violations. Smithfield, the largest producer of pork products on the planet, was fined a whopping $13,400 for brazen disregard for worker safety during the deadliest public health outbreak in a century.

A comfortable retirement was once a cornerstone of the American Dream. With pensions becoming more scant, Social Security nearing insolvency and 401K’s proving insufficient, retirement is more aspirational than it had been. Eugene Scalia has made the proposition increasingly more doubtful in a string of recent decisions. 1974’s Employee Retirement Income and Security Act gives the Department of Labor broad control over the retirement plans of ‘’Main Street Investors.’’ It previously served as a safeguard of corporate plundering of worker’s retirement funds. Scalia has stripped a key protection which greatly expanding the kind of funds plan managers may access. Money managers overseeing retirement plans may now access high-risk, high-fee private equity funds. Said funds have not been shown to outperform low-risk mutual funds indexes. Most Americans are dependent on savings for long-term financial planning, which necessarily dictates an ultraconservative strategy. The change to ERISA is diametrically opposed to that bit of common sense. Scalia’s decision opens up roughly $8.9 trillion in capital from the 401K market. In short the move incurs great risk on the part of retirees while offering no discernible benefit. Wall St. however has a great deal more capital with which to play.

Retirement plans may not be used to advance environmental, social or policy changes at the expense of financial considerations. This was Scalia’s rationale in restricting retirement investing in Environmental Social Governance. The policy applies regardless of the wishes of a given retiree. ESG’s have gained increasing popularity in the financial sector, representing roughly a quarter of all US investment dollars. Apart from any altruistic motivations, ESG’s have proven to slightly outperform traditional investment strategies in robust times and lose less in the event of economic downturn. The data seems to fly in the face of Scalia’s ostensible fiduciary concerns. His hypocrisy is manifest.

Latest Polling Results, Mail-In Ballots, Presidential Debate

Less than two months away from election day, Joe Biden and President Trump enter the final stretch of their presidential campaigns.

After record setting fundraising efforts this summer and slowed spending on advertising in the spring, Biden’s campaign has a $141 million edge over President Trump’s. Only spending half of what was brought in last month, the influx of donations to Biden’s campaign reflects a historic push by the Democrats to take back the white house.

The most recent NBC poll shows Joseph R. Biden maintaining a steady 51% to 43% lead nationally, despite his edge slightly shrinking. But in crucial swing states, such as Florida, Biden continues to command the incumbent in the polls. One exception is Texas, where President Trump is at a 48% to 46% advantage. Trump won both of these states in the 2016 race and it’s important to note that his support has been difficult to gauge by the polls.

Texas has a growing Hispanic, Black, and Asian American communities along with white suburbs that are growing more moderate. Florida is considered a tossup with its diverse, yet conservatie leaning residents. Georgia, which hasn’t voted blue since the 1990s, has been growing more politically diverse with the growth of Atlanta and surrounding suburbs.

Analysts at Politico have declared Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as the eight crucial swing states that will sway the 2020 election. They have been determined by a variety of factors including polling, demographics, and the resource allocation of both campaigns.

Since these states tend to fluctuate between red and blue each election cycle, the focus on them is heavy. But within each state, certain types of voters are at the focal point. The key to winning the white house is Latino voters, the largest minority group in the electorate. President Trump’s focus is on the working class and rural white along with suburbanites, whose support for him is shrinking.

With the passing of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a trailblazer for female rights, the appointment of the vacant seat stands to influence the election. The SCOTUS battle comes at a time where another nomination by the current President could shift the court more right ideologically, and ultimately be the sixth GOP nomination.

The Postmaster General, Louis Dejoy, claims that the United States Postal Service is equipped to handle an expected increase of mail during this election season. For the first time in history, the majority of people will have the opportunity to cast their ballots by mail. This adjustment, without adequate time to implement changes, has proven to be a cause for concern.

A federal judge issued a historic decision to block Dejoy from modified USPS policies or protocols in the time up to the election. Recent lawsuits from the Republican National Committee and President Trump, which aim to bypass the USPS and instead utilize ballot drop boxes, could result in voter disenfranchisement and uncounted votes.

While both mail and in person voting will end on November 3, post election fights in the courts seem likely given the President’s claims that the election will be rigged. Mail in voting will inevitably prolong the counting of ballots and delay the final outcome of the election.

On September 29, the President and Joe Biden will contend over their fitness to lead the nation in the first of three scheduled debates. Debates are essential to influence voters who are undecided, while for may it is simply a confirmation of their choice.

Russian Interference at the Highest Level in Presidential Elections

Summary

It was confirmed in October of 2016, then explained in 2019 by the Special Counsel Investigation led by Robert Mueller – Russia had interfered with the 2016 presidential election. The goal of this interference was to cause harm to the Clinton campaign and assist in Trump’s election, as well as to increase social and political unrest in the country.

Last week FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed that these efforts have not ceased concerning this year’s election, citing findings of “very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020” and more specifically that Russia “is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment.’”

And the Central Intelligence Agency issued a new report asserting that Vladimir Putin is likely directing election efforts to elect Trump. The assessment, which the agency has moderate confidence in, buttresses earlier findings that the Russian president supports President Trump’s re-election

Analysis

The tactics are not new this time around. Russian troll farms are constantly producing content reaching more than 120million Americans via multiple social media platforms. What is new is our awareness of these manipulations. Efforts have been made since 2016 to curb these misinformation campaigns, however it is unclear how much impact those efforts will have. A 2017 Yale study found that the use of labels on content stating that the information was “disputed,” a sort of middle-ground of censorship that had been agreed to, led to less than 4% of viewers to consider the information false. This may prompt the idea that Americans are allowing themselves to be manipulated or refusing to look away from what they potentially know is harmful. However, manipulation by misinformation has become such a part of American politics and social discourse that it has become almost impossible to identify.

The reason these efforts are able to camouflage themselves is that they are ultimately acting as a stirrer in a pot that has been simmering for years. While it has been confirmed that Russian troll pages are pro-Trump, many seemingly left-wing social media pages have been created by the Internet Research Agency (IRA or Glavset), a Russian political influence company. Their goal is unrest and division. Russian pages aligned with the BLM movement, for instance, have been present since 2016 and remain today in great supply. While seemingly counterintuitive to their goal, there are many possible results that work in their favor with this tactic – how many young, new to activism and political criticism could be convinced that the whole system is corrupt and simply not vote? How many will see posts that may be considered too far and abandon their fight for change? How many white supporters of BLM may see something worded just off enough to convince them they don’t belong, and be swayed to the other side? Of course, these outcomes are possible without interference in a country so divided, which has made it that much easier for them to identify which buttons to push.

Beyond subtle manipulations, it was found that in 2016 a number of state elections were targeted with malware designed to alter or sabotage the way voting machines operated. The FBI and Homeland Security offices are watching for this type of efforts in the upcoming election but have found no proof of such efforts as of yet. With mail-in voting playing a large part in the election, however, there may be no reason for malware. To the same end, Russian social media pages have been pushing Trump’s agenda of discrediting the mail-in voting system. Both sides have been infiltrated, and while the subtlety is jarring enough to make it seem a mastermind operation, Trump has been using the same types of dog-whistle manipulation throughout his campaign and presidency. In the age of social media, time will tell how – or if – we are able to quell this interference.

Resistance Resources

Committee on Intelligence Report concerning Russian election interference and vulnerabilities:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
Alliance for Securing Democracy Fact Sheet concerning Russian Interference Operations:
https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/fact-sheet-what-we-know-about-russias-interference-operations/

Trump Labels Three Cities as ‘Anarchist Jurisdictions’ in Executive Order

Policy Summary

On September 21^st, President Donald Trump followed through with an Executive Order from earlier this month and officially deemed New York, Seattle, and Portland “anarchist jurisdictions.” This could mean that these three cities will potentially see cuts in federal funding, especially regarding federal grants. In the original September 2^nd Executive Order, Trump specifically targeted the government officials of cities who are “permitting anarchy, violence, and destruction.” The three cities listed have seen heavy protests this year after several law-enforcement involved shootings.

In a statement on September 21^st, Attorney General William Barr implied that leaders in these cities do not allow law enforcement to do their jobs, which in turn leads to citizens not being protected by law enforcement when the time comes. Since these leaders will allegedly not cooperate with law enforcement, President Trump and the Justice Department intend on punishing them through cutting federal funding. Some of the criteria for cities to fall under the scope of the term “anarchist jurisdiction,” as laid out in the Justice Departments September 21^st memo, are: whether a jurisdiction disempowers or defunds police departments and whether a jurisdiction refuses to accept offers of law enforcement aid from the Federal Government. According to the memo, cities may be added to the list as they fall under these criteria. In the coming weeks, there is expected to be more information released about what specific cuts in federal funding may occur.

Policy Analysis

The move to declare New York City, Portland, and Seattle as anarchist jurisdictions is perceived by many as a political move. The November 3^rd election is looming, and President Trump is looking to make good on his promise to be a “law and order” candidate. Painting cities as “lawless zones” that he intends to help or put an end to, Trump grasps at straws as Election Day closes in. In recent national polls, Democratic candidate Joe Biden is favored at 51%, putting him eight points ahead of President Trump. Being that the election is so close, it is no coincidence that all three of the cities named in this recent announcement are Democrat-led. Any other cities that are added to the Justice Department’s list in the coming months would likely be Democrat-led, as well. The President has often criticized the leadership of these cities during the protests, and subsequent looting and rioting, earlier this year. The mayors of these three cities believe that if Trump follows through with his promise after labeling them anarchist jurisdictions, he would be breaking the law. In response to this threat, the mayors have also vocalized that they feel the President’s move is purely political and unconstitutional. There are already legal wheels turning, with New York Attorney General Letitia James stating that she is preparing a lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s plan to withhold federal grant money.

President Trump has once again successfully manipulated the Constitution with his latest move; he claims he does not want Federal funds used in a way that violates the Government’s promise to “protect life, liberty, and property,” yet, he cuts funding instead of redirecting it in a more productive way or attempting to get to the root of the problem.

Resistance Resources

You can read the full announcement from the Department of Justice here.
To read President Trump’s September 2^nd announcement, click here.

Progressive and Far Right Media’s Response to Trump’s Woodward Interview

In a recent Sixty Minutes interview with Scott Pelley, Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward said that on January 28, before COVD-19 was on anyone’s radar, Robert O’Brien, the National Security Advisor, told President Donald Trump that the virus would be the biggest national security threat during his presidency. Deputy National Security Advisor, Matt Pottinger, told Trump that contacts in China had informed him that the virus would be comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed 675,000 Americans.

On February 7, Trump told Woodward in a series of interviews that the virus was more deadly than the strenuous flu.

But with all the intelligence the President had received, in a press statement three weeks later, Trump told the public that the virus was, in fact, similar to the regular flu.

On March 19, Trump then said to Woodward, “I wanted to, I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down…because I don’t want to create a panic.”

On September 9, 2020, Biden in a Michigan campaign speech said that Trump knowingly and willing lied to the American people about the threat of COVID-19, and said that if he had just acted one week sooner, 36,000 people would have been saved, and that if he had acted two weeks sooner, 54,000 lives would have been spared.

In light of Trump stating how he wanted to downplay the severity of COVID-19, several independent news outlets have been reporting on the recent revelation. In addition to tying the significance of Trump’s words to his handling of the pandemic, as well as the 2020 Presidential election, these outlets have also condemned Woodward for delaying the release of the interview, but in entirely different ways.

The Young Turks, the progressive network that has been consistently criticizing Trump’s response to COVID-19, shamed the President for his Woodward interview. On September 9, 2020, Ana Kasparian condemned Trump for downplaying COVID-19, asserting that the President had argued how COVID-19 is like the common flu.

“…we all know that that’s not true,” said Kasparian. “And no one can now argue that Trump was just ignorant of the facts. He knew what the truth was, he had been briefed about it in January. And he chose not to take it seriously when addressing the public.”

Kasparian and reporter Nando Vila also condemned Woodward for not releasing the recordings, but in a different manner from OAN. Conversely, while OAN seemed to be challenging Woodward’s bad intentions as a leftist media figure, the Young Turks accused him of being opportunistic.

“…it is pretty shameful that Woodward held on to this audio until he wanted to start promoting his upcoming book,” said Kasparian.

Kasparian and Vila also asserted that releasing the recordings could have sparked the media and elected officials to take the virus more seriously.

“…had we had that tape in early February,” said Vila, “…things might have been different…it’s hard to say…maybe more people would have taken it seriously. Maybe some governors would have taken it more seriously.”

On September 12, 2020, OAN, the far-right, pro-Trump news channel, asserted that the negative coverage of Trump downplaying the virus was an example of the media conflating Trump’s intentions while also being confused about the actions he took in response to the pandemic.

“The problem with this story is one of timeline,” said OAN Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion. “Media wrongfully conflated the idea President Trump didn’t want to create panic with the factually false premise that the President then, did not take action.”

Rion went on to challenge the merit of Woodward’s reporting by citing a tweet from Donald Trump that stated, “If he [Woodward] thought they were so bad or dangerous, why didn’t he immediately report them in an effort to save lives?”

Rion then dismissed the Woodward interview, and the media’s negative coverage of Trump’s words, as a failed attempt by the “frantic leftist media” to smear President Trump in an attempt to distract voters from Joe Biden’s shortcomings.

One week later, OAN reporter Daniel Kitchen commented on Joe Biden’s CNN Town Hall by highlighting a debunked claim made by Biden that Trump never referenced COVID-19 in his state of the union address. Kitchen also pointed out how Twitter users had a tweet frenzy when Biden and CNN reporter Anderson Cooper appeared to violate social distancing guidelines during a cut to commercial break.

While progressive channels like the Young Turks continue to condemn Trump’s handling of COVID-19, utilizing the Woodward tapes as further evidence, right wing outlets like OAN are making the claim that Trump was heroic in his attempt to not stir panic amongst the public.

At this time, several media outlets are continuing to report and criticize the President for downplaying the virus in a manner that was not honest with the American people, highlighting the February 7 Woodward interview as evidence that Trump knew what the stakes were. With the presidential debate scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, one can expect Biden to not just hold Trump’s Woodward interview against him, but also challenge him on his response to the pandemic. And if he doesn’t, progressive networks like the Young Turks most certainly will, and Trumpian networks like OAN, will certainly not.

Articles:

Videos:

Biden’s Climate Plan and California’s Example

Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden has rolled out a $2 trillion climate change plan that has become a hallmark of his candidacy. Biden is pledging to green the nation’s transportation infrastructure in the next decade by funding “high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options through flexible federal investments.”

The Biden campaign is banking on its climate change plan — which would create millions of jobs — to capture a diverse group of voters on Election Day, from climate advocacy groups to trade unions that support the construction industry.

The plan marks the first time that climate change is a central plank for the Democratic Party, and has the support of popular party leaders, including U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and John F. Kerry, former Secretary of State.

“We can lead America to become the world’s clean energy superpower,” Biden said. The plan would redefine the nation’s transportation and energy industries. Its lofty goals include requiring:

All new U.S.-made buses to be emissions free in a decade;
The nation to have net-zero emissions by 2050;
The electricity industry to end carbon pollution by 2035.

Biden’s climate change plan has emerged as a centerpiece of the Democrat’s campaign and is an issue of “national security,” according to the candidate. The $2 trillion plan indeed is getting heightened attention leading up to the election but not for the reasons the Biden team had expected.

President Trump denies that climate change exists. “I don’t think science knows actually,” Trump said recently about climate change. Biden labeled him a “climate denialist.” There is perhaps no other campaign issue where the candidates are further apart.

The Biden plan would invest more than $1.7 trillion in the next decade in clean energy, climate research and innovation. It would create incentives in the private sector and with state and local governments for implementing green energy solutions that would total $5 trillion during the same time period.
The plan would set stringent limits on the use of fossil fuels, impacting the oil and gas industries. It would impose new fuel standards aimed at the auto industry that would transition the nation to 100 percent electric cars and light trucks. Consumers would get rebates or financial incentives to trade in their gas-powered vehicles for electric cars and light trucks.
Addressing concerns of environmentalists, the Biden plan permanently protects the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and ends new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters, instead focusing on solar, hydraulic and wind power. Trump is preparing to allow drilling in the refuge.

CALIFORNIA’S ROLE MODEL STATUS CONFLICTS WITH PAST POLICIES

California’s own experience as a national leader in efforts to reduce greenhouse gases demonstrates the opportunities and benefits in moving consumers toward a more energy conscious ethos. California’s emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 14 percent from 2004 to 2017, according to the most recent statistics available. In 2017, the state set a new goal to further reduce its emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

While the state commands one of the largest global economies, it boasts one of the lowest energy consumption levels in the U.S. because of its innovations and use of alternative energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

As the fastest growing energy source in the U.S., renewable energy is a burgeoning industry in the state, growing hundreds of new businesses. For example, California is among the nation’s biggest producers of hydro-electric power. California leads the solar market, and was the first state in the U.S. to get more than 5 percent of utility electricity from solar power. Coal represents only a small portion of its portfolio.

As the first state to set a goal to become carbon neutral, California is setting an example that other states are starting to follow through goal-setting and legislation.

However, California’s environmental policies to mitigate the impact of climate change are running up against its previous, seemingly successful efforts to expand development and further grow its economy. But California’s economy has been thriving in part because of a failure to address important environmental issues, such as curtailing expansion of the human habitat to forest and coastal areas; a lack of management of ground-level heat-sensitive vegetation; and a porous system for the transportation and distribution of water.

These and related economic policies and practices make California vulnerable to the extreme weather fluctuations of climate change. State policy will need to address these conditions in order to reap the benefits of its mitigation policies.

RESISTANCE RESOURCES

https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#

Read about the candidate’s climate change plan in detail on his campaign website.

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/07/14/statement-sunrise-movement-co-founder-varshini-prakash-vice-president-bidens-new

The Sunrise Movement, a leading environmental activist group largely composed of young people, responds to the Biden climate change plan.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles

The U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency provides information on the electric vehicles and renewable energy.

https://www.seia.org/initiatives/about-solar-energy

The Solar Energy Industries Association offers comprehensive information on the alternative energy source.

https://solartribune.com/plenty-at-stake-for-solar-industry-in-2020-presidential-election/

The Solar Tribune, an industry publication, outlines the issues at stake for the solar industry and consumers in this presidential election.