JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Equality Act Seeks To Expand LGBQT Discrimination Protections
Brief #152—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On February 18, 2021 Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives. The bill is popularly known as the Equality Act and had been introduced in various forms in previous sessions of Congress. The bill seeks to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, and other purposes.” The text of the bill uniquely specifies and amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to state that discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation are protected categories under that law. In addition to adding these new protected categories to that landmark law the bill also expands coverage for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Jury Selection and Services Act housing and education laws and a number of other federally funded programs. And finally, the bill states specifically that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 cannot be used to challenge a provision in the Act and cannot be used as a defense to a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Act. On February 25, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill by a 224 – 206 vote. The bill was then sent to the Senate for a vote in the coming weeks. LEARN MORE
Democratic Education and Practice
Brief #55—Education
By Emily Carty
Schools are an ideal place to plant the seeds of democracy and cultivate a culture of learning, participation, and will to be informed and take action for one’s rights and ideals. Commentary from a recent Brookings Institute article contrasts the emphasis placed on preparing kids for a modern economy with the lack of resources to prepare kids for a modern democracy. Citing the constant criticisms of schools being unable to prepare graduates for the job market or college, the author notes that a demand for prepared, active citizens is lacking. Conservatives and progressives have their respective fears about civic education in schools — will it be propaganda, whitewashed history, or activist training to make major changes to our country? While those concerns do have their place, no one can deny that basic education around the political process, civil rights, and modern media literacy is much needed in this country.
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 2: Expanding Access to Healthcare
Brief #97—Healthcare
By Erin McNemar
Throughout his presidential campaign, President Joe Biden made it clear that women’s rights were going to be a leading issue during his administration. Over the summer, Biden released a policy proposal titled “The Biden Agenda for Women.” The plan outlined different areas in which women are disproportionately impacted, and how he intends to level the playing field. One of the major areas the plan focuses on is expanding and protecting healthcare for women.
Facebook’s Supreme Court: A New Model For Online Governance?
Brief #39—Technology
By Scout Burchill
A new experiment in online moderation governance has been taking shape at Facebook over the past two years and its most consequential test is fast approaching. By the end of April Facebook’s Supreme Court, officially called the Oversight Board, will declare a ruling on the company’s permanent ban of Donald Trump from the platform. Facebook’s Oversight Board was first conceived of in 2018 as an independent quasi-legal governing body that would advise Facebook on its content moderation policies and litigate appeals of users over content moderation enforcements. In the years since, Facebook has invested considerably in developing the operational procedures, powers and composition of the Board. The Board abides by an official public charter and currently consists of 20 members from various areas of expertise as well as diverse backgrounds. By design, the Oversight Board only has the authority to review user appeals that involve ‘take-downs’ of content and can rule to either uphold or overrule them. The Board is indirectly funded by Facebook through a trust to the tune of around $130 million.
Killer Robots are a Reality, Where Does the Biden Administration Stand?
Brief #40—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
Fully autonomous weapons, the stuff of dystopian sci-fi novels, are now approaching reality. The US, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia, and the UK are developing weapons systems with significant autonomy in their critical functions of selecting and attacking targets. If left unchecked the world could enter a destabilizing robotic arms race. These weapons include autonomous submarines, precision bombs and autonomous machine guns similar to the one that Iranians authorities claimed to have killed scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in late November. Unlike drone weapons, which have a human albeit remote handler, Fully Autonomous Weapons Systems (FAWS) decide algorithmically who lives and who dies without further human intervention. FAWS systems cross a moral threshold that lack the inherently human characteristics such as compassion that are necessary to make complex ethical decisions. With a new administration the United States must take a leadership role in banning these weapons worldwide.
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 2
U.S. RESIST Blog
By Katherine Cart
I came to Amaknak Island by plane. The mountains the plane passes between were, in June, very green. The visual sense that the Aleutian Chain gives is of a treeless Hawaii – its geology is similar; the landscape is very young, and active volcanoes grow the islands sporadically. Extending like a hooked arm, the Aleutians delineate the southern edge of the Bering Sea. Amaknak rises from the North Pacific, 800 miles south of Anchorage. Around the smidge of land that is the Aleutian Chain, there is very little but sea. Amaknak’s Iliuliuk Bay, where 300 foot vessels dock, offload fish, and fuel, drops dramatically to twenty fathoms. The basalt and andesite flows and pyroclastic rocks that form the cliffs of Mounts Ballyhoo and Split Top, and through which obdurate roads have been blasted, rise nearly two thousand feet from the bay edge. Thin soil, reddish, capped by tall grasses and shrub like a fur, holds tremulous purchase on the volcanic substrate. There is a wildness and fragility to Amaknak. With nearly three thousand residents, Amaknak is the most populous of Aleutian islands, and where Dutch Harbor provides anchorage to the North Pacific fishing and shipping fleets. Billions of dollars pass through each year.
2 New Congressional Bills Seek to Address Racial Inequalities in US Agriculture
Brief #1—Agriculture
By Katherine Cart
Farmland is lucrative. Acreage denotes wealth and provides multi-generational investment returns. Racial inequity and farm policy, in this country, have long been indivisible; discrimination in agrarian land ownership and by the USDA has made a farce of an already flimsy bid for equality, for financial freedom and freedom to farm and ranch American land with the nonpartisan support of government. The Covid-19 pandemic has both exacerbated and highlighted the racism within the USDA’s treatment of farmers. Two bills, the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act and the Justice for Black Farmers Act seek to begin the remediation of racial disparity in US agriculture.
Maryland’s New Tax – A Significant Step Forward in Digital Policy-Making
Brief #38—Technologybr>By Scout Burchill
On Friday, February 12th the Maryland State Senate overrode Governor Hogan’s veto to become the first state in the nation to impose a tax on digital advertising revenue. Even though the new law is already being challenged in the courts, its passage reflects the dire need to plug gaping holes in state and local budgets due to pandemic losses as well as enact innovative new approaches to taxing and regulating big tech companies that have continued to rake in record profits over the past year. Maryland’s Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax would impose a 2.5% tax on advertising revenue made by selling digital advertising within the state for companies that make over $100 million a year globally from digital advertising revenues. This tax rate increases to 5% for companies making between $1 billion and $5 billion, 7.5% for companies making between $5 billion and $15 billion and finally 10% for those companies making more that $15 billion, essentially targeting Google and Facebook. The new tax is expected to generate $250 million after the first year, which will be set aside for Maryland’s education system.
MIS-C: What is it, and Why it Matters
Brief #96—Health & Gender
By Justin Lee
There are multiple reports of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (in children, MIS-C) being seen across the world shortly after the onset of COVID-19. Children and teen patients with MIS-C can suffer from inflammation that can limit blood flow throughout the body, exposing danger to major organs such as the heart, kidneys, and other organs. While cases, which have ranged from ages 2 to 15 years, have been considered rare the outcome can be dangerous if left untreated. MIC-C can be treated with drugs that can control the inflammation and prevent prolonged, permanent organ damage.
Student Loan Debt and the Higher Education Act of 1965
Summary
The student loan debt crisis has many people across the nation rethinking the university and job training systems. According to Forbes, 45 million borrowers nearly have a collective $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, falling just behind the collective debt of the mortgage industry.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) set the tone for the federal government’s role in higher education funding and oversight. Most importantly, Title IV of the legislation addressed the federal government’s role in ensuring equitable access to higher education through funding. The HEA has been modified eight times and today it lays the groundwork for higher education advocates’ changemaking. Amendments to the HEA have been the basis for higher education reform. In particular, the revisions to Title IV of the HEA have included some of the major policies outlining how the federal government and universities approach equity — policies here dictate how the government allocates money to students with financial need.
The HEA also lays the groundwork for the government’s role in promoting loans and tax credits over outright grants. Modifications to the bill have slashed the prominence of grants by incorporating a growing number of amendments which favor loans. These include: providing families who take out student loans with tax credits; allowing federally subsidized loans to be administered by private companies; lifting the cap on how much money a student can take out in loans.
The legislature was born out of WWII and Cold War era college grant programs which supported soldiers and low-income students with grants based on their financial need (this was the birth of the federal Pell Grant). The grants did not have to be repayed, and the government was not necessarily seeing a tangible return on their money, so the legislature morphed into a mix of grants, guaranteed loans, and tax credits — a move to give the government a pass on providing more money to students and to appease the middle-income families in the face of higher costs of college. In the late 70s the government provided favorable rates of returns and a pathway for private lenders to disburse money to middle- and low-income students. The rising cost of college and shrinking availability of grants for education spiraled out of control throughout the 80s and 90s until student loan debt began to be seen as a crisis. The move away from subsidized education towards private lending, in conjunction with colleges raising tuition because loans existed to cover it, worked to commodify higher education and put millions of students in debt whilst lining the pockets of private lenders.
Plenty of statistics exist analyzing the demographics and concentrations of this debt and who it affects. Currently, the average cost of student debt exceeds $30,000 — a record high. Additionally, more than half of that debt is concentrated among borrowers under 34, and the largest debt is held by students attending for-profit colleges. Those students are also more likely to default on loans. The factors driving rising student debt include increases in tuition, more students going to college, and the skyrocketing cost and attendance rate of graduate schools. Increases in the demand for graduate and professional degrees in today’s job market, in addition to student loans becoming the norm, have allowed graduate schools to increase costs with little risk of a decrease in enrollment. While borrowing and repayment looks different for everyone, it no doubt influences decision making, lifestyle, and opportunity to invest in other types of capital, such as a home, investment property, stocks, or even futher schooling.
Analysis
The impact of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and its various amendments are still felt today. The rise in student loan debt has caught the attention of lawmakers across the nation, notably Democratic Senators and 2020 Presidential Candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. It has also garnered attention from the media in the form of celebrity promises to pay off “Class of 20__’s” student loans and student activists’ calls for loan forgiveness.
This form of debt is troubling for society at-large and not just for the individuals who default. The looming debt is a major factor influencing the decisions of this group of young and middle-aged graduates, potentially changing the traditional American paradigm of success: getting a job, buying a home, and becoming independent of one’s parents. According to Federal Reserve researchers, an estimated 20% of the decline in homeownership can be attributed to student loan debt. Some proponents for free college tuition programs argue that free college and reduction of student debt will lead to higher earnings and therefore a better impact on the economy at large.
Although we can’t know for certain how this might change the future of society or our college system, especially with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic still unknown, perhaps a look into the 2008 Great Recession can give us some hints. With job prospects low, many individuals sought higher education degrees to get jobs in the changing economy amid widespread financial insecurity. Although the economy bounced back up until recently at least, the group of 2008 Recession era borrowers still holds a significant amount of debt, with borrowers over 30 more likely to default and those over 40 holding nearly double the amount of debt of folks who borrowed just 5-10 years earlier. Due to Covid-19, job prospects once again aren’t stable and without income the risk of loan default is omnipresent. Moreover, the cost-benefit ratio of college is being questioned. Lessons from 2008 should be a warning that the debt will not disappear even if the economy makes a comeback.
Deciding to take out a student loan is a major, but necessary, undertaking for many — not being able to make payments is a risk that comes with severe consequences, particularly for people of color who already face economic barriers in many forms. One recent federal study, for example, found that six years after enrolling in college in 2011-2012, 13% of white borrowers were in default, yet default rates were 20% for Latinx borrowers and an alarming 32% for Black borrowers. Additionally, students who received federal grants and students with dependents, whether or not they graduated, are much more likely to take out and to default on loans. The result is that many students with lower incomes are either in long-term debt or in default status. This can lead to lower credit rates and inability to take out loans for other financial investments, ultimately keeping borrowerss of color and poor borrowers on the lower end of the borrowing and capital wealth spectrum.
The existence of this debt is troubling for future generations. How will cohorts of well-educated, debt-riddled adults expect to invest in other financial assets or assist their children in paying for college if they still haven’t paid off their own loans or have already defaulted? There is potential here for the higher education economy to be reorganized through policy addressing access to and necessity of higher education in the modern workforce. There is also room for the goals and aspirations of the generation of adults in debt, and their kin, to shift away from higher education. Finally, there’s potential for the government and university systems to take action to ensure that the value of a college education can be realized by anyone without the threat of decades-long loan repayment.
The slew of recent legislation proposed in the wake of Covid-19, and even prior to the pandemic, is promising, but very little action has been taken legally so far; the President’s federal loan forbearance is a band aid, but it ends on December 31 of this year. Newly proposed regulations around loan forgiveness, loan consolidation, and income-based plans have yet to be voted on by legislators despite a wave of support for amending the Higher Education Act and increasing the federal government’s role in subsidizing education. It seems lawmakers recognize the severity of the current economic crisis and are aiming to protect borrowers, but there is only so much that can be done against private lenders — if the government allows private lenders to set the terms for student loans, the government cannot go in and change their policies on a whim, as the companies have been operating legally, if not ethically. Plus, for those already in default, some of the damage has already been done: the government cannot “fix” everyone’s credit score or reimburse years of loan payments in a thorough and meanigful way.
Additionally, these proposals are only short-term solutions for those already in debt. Large scale systemic change is needed to adequately address the rising cost of the university system and diminishing federal and state subsidies. Otherwise student debt will continue to rise and impact the lives of millions who were attempting to better their lives through education. The complexities of who would benefit from proposed debt forgiveness and reorganization of student grant and loans must be considered carefully. For example, those with the greatest student loan debt often have the highest income upon graduating, repaying the loans is somewhat reasonable. On the other hand, those who take out loans and don’t graduate often default or have too low an income to make significant headway on their debt. The impact on forgiving loans for these two “types” would be drastically different. Work is being done to address this in a thoughtful, equitable way, but legislators need to make informed policies and take action soon in order to ensure everyone who wants to is able to access and benefit financially from quality higher education.
Resistance Resources:
Student Debt Crisis – They are fighting for reform in student debt and borrowing policies and assisting borrowers with their financial issues and questions. Get involved with them to learn more, assist borrowers, share your story, or contact legislators.
Council for Opportunity in Education – COE provides resources for low-income, first-generation, and students with disabilities to access college, COE advocates for equity in education through its member organizations and outreach. Get connected with advocacy tools and send emails to congress through their site to advocate for equity and funding in higher education.
The Education Trust – This nonprofit organization fights for equity in education through research and policy advocacy. Check out their Higher Education section to take action and get connected with resources to write to your representatives about legislation related to Higher Ed.
Learn More Sources:
- Forbes – Student Loan Debt Statistics
- CNBC – How Student Debt Became a Crisis
- New America – Student Debt History
- Pew Research Center – 5 facts about Student Loans
- US News – Avg. Student Borrowing Increases
- US GOV – Brief on Federal Funding of Post-Secondary Education
- The New Yorker – How Student Debt is transforming the middle-class family
- US Bureau of Labor Statistics – Student Loan Debt
- Congressional Research Service – Higher Education Act Primer
- Brookings Institute – Who Holds Student Debt
- Center for American Progress – Addressing Student Loan Debt
- US Senator Schatz – Debt-Free College Act
- Federal Reserve – Student Debt Impacting Economy
- Inside Higher Ed – Student Debt Cancellation Mainstream
- NASFAA – Higher Ed Loan Legislative Tracker
Timber industry clear-cuts a path to more old-growth forest in Alaska
By Todd Broadman
November 9,2020
POLICY
The Tongass forest, referred to as “America’s Amazon,” was designated a National Forest by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902. The Tongass is one of the largest, relatively intact temperate rainforests in the world. U.S. Forest Service, charged with managing its vast 16.7 million acres, developed a travel plan and new policy for the area in 1990 with passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. Since then, the Clinton Administration issued Roadless Rule, prohibiting new road construction on previously undeveloped national forest lands across the country; that included 9.2 million acres of the Tongass. That put an end to larger scale logging.
Recently though, the Trump administration removed Roadless Rule protections from the Tongass National Forest. In combination with the Forest Service’s reclassification of certain old-growth parcels – 168,000 acres – as “suitable timberlands,” a major swath of the forest is open again to clear-cut logging. The underlying rationale follows a predictable pattern: the need for economic growth. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, issued a recent notification concerning the Tongass: “changes can be made without major adverse impacts to the recreation, tourism, and fishing industries, while providing benefits to the timber and mining industries, increasing opportunities for community infrastructure, and eliminating unnecessary regulations.” The Forest Service is charged with approving all above-ground operations and construction in national forests.
The timber industry is among the most prominent lobbyists behind the removal of protections. “The forest products industry has been imperiled for some time,” claims Tessa Axelson of the Alaska Forest Association, and went on to assert that, “There’s a handful of small operators that are working on the Tongass, harvesting timber. In order to continue to survive, those businesses are dependent on a predictable supply of timber.” The industry has the ear of U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, who desires a full exemption from the Roadless Rule to open the Tongass up to recreation and renewable energy, “while ensuring good stewardship of our lands and waters.”
Along with Murkowski, Alaska Governor, Mike Dunleavy, strongly backs the Trump administration’s “job and opportunity creating” move. The governor has a large constituency – the state has experienced declining oil revenues and employment since development of the Prudhoe Bay oil field began in the summer of 1969. According to Dunleavy, “Trump has given responsible resource development a fair shake.”
Dunleavy has carried out massive cuts to the Alaska state budget, and though opposed by many, has been supported in the move by his core conservative constituency in favor of slimming down big government. Although Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay is the largest such oil complex in the country, overall oil industry employment numbers in Alaska are small and have shrunk markedly since the end of the oil pipeline boom in 1978. Since 2000, the industry has employed under 5000 workers, versus retail, for example, that employs ten times that amount. Recently, oil industry layoffs have been constant due to reduced travel due to COVID-19 and the global drop in oil prices.
The Tongass National Forest is an ecosystem of glacier-carved fjords, thick green forests of old-growth hemlock, spruce and cedar; spongey carpets of muskeg, and expansive fields of rock and glaciers. The wild salmon and associated fish industry depend upon an intact landscape. In spite of this, the timber industry cites the high economic value of old growth timber. Clear-cutting would have long-term impacts and opponents claim that government subsidies to the timber industry cost taxpayers far more money than is generated.
ANALYSIS
Environmentalists call the Tongass “our silent partner” due to its absorption of carbon; they point to its healthy and wild salmon runs. The area contains 14,873 miles of anadromous rivers and streams. The fishing industry says that removing protections would threaten the more than $2 billion per year commercial fishing and tourism industry in the area. According to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Alaska’s seafood industry accounts for nearly $6 billion in direct output as well as $8 billion in “multiplier effects generated as industry income circulates throughout the U.S. economy.”
President Donald Trump, when he stood amid the burned down homes of Paradise, California, nearly two years ago, indirectly blamed lack of forest resource development on the deadliest wildfire in the state’s history. “You’ve got to take care of the floors, you know? The floors of the forest, very important.” He followed that by ordering the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior to make federal lands less susceptible to catastrophic wildfires through the removal of dead trees, underbrush and other potentially flammable materials. He gave the Secretary of the Interior the final decision on granting oil and gas leases on National Forest lands and that of course includes Tongass National Forest.
Native tribes have not, as expected, been a significant part of the Administration’s decision. Joel Jackson, president of the Organized Village of Kake on Kuprean said that “They just completely ignored our input and input of the other five tribes, so I felt very disrespected.” In total, a half-dozen tribes withdrew their cooperation with the Forest Service. The Native community strongly opposes the opening up of their lands to logging. They still rely upon the Tongass for their way of life. Richard Chalyee Eesh Peterson, president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, said “Our health and well-being, identity and worldview are intricately woven into the fabric that is our homeland.”
In response to claims of potential environmental damage, the USDA claims that carbon released from logging will be insignificant. Dominick DellaSala, a scientist with the Earth Island Institute, counters that “There’s no science that supports their analysis.” His own analysis concludes that the carbon dioxide emissions from logging the 160,000 acres of old-growth forest would create the equivalent of adding about 10 million cars to the road.
There is a bill before Congress – the Roadless Area Conservation Act (HR 2491) – that, if passed, would make the Roadless Rule permanent. At stake are the remaining 58.5 million acres of undeveloped forests throughout the country. Two states though – Alaska and Utah – have recently filed petitions seeking exemptions to the rule and open up a combined 13 million acres. The Administration supports these and other exemptions.
Author’s note: As I write this brief, election results are nearing completion and it is likely that former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will win; if so, reinstating protections to the Tongass and other public lands is expected.
Resistance Resources:
- https://www.outdooralliance.org/ is the only organization in the U.S. that unites the voices of outdoor enthusiasts to conserve public lands and ensure those lands are managed in a way that embraces the human-powered experience.
- https://www.earthisland.org/ supports environmental action projects and helps foster the next generation of environmental leaders in order to achieve solutions to the crises threatening the survival of life on Earth.
- https://alaska-native-news.com/
- https://alaskaconservation.org/ is the only public foundation solely dedicated to conservation in Alaska.
Democrats Missed Opportunities with Latino Voters
Brief # 2 Democrats Missed Opportunities with Latino voters
By Linda F. Hersey
November 6, 2020
Neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump addressed adequately the most significant issues facing Latinos in the United States is the blunt assessment of Kristina Sosa, a bilingual caseworker in California, about Election 2020. Sosa ticked off a list of concerns:
- Undocumented workers lack a safe forum to express their views, and are ineligible for public assistance.
- ICE raids are a constant and real fear for adults and their children.
- Not enough attention is paid to the impact of Covid-19 on Latin Americans, who have been harder hit by the disease than many other ethnic groups.
Sosa, a Pacific Islander with a Hispanic background, says that her disappointment is shared by many clients she deals with in her job helping adults connect with employment. Sosa said she feels that despite their large numbers, people of Latino descent often are not heard or ignored in political and policy debates. “It’s a crisis, in my mind, affecting all of us,” she said. “People need to feel safe and have a forum to speak and express their views.”
As the Biden campaign responds to criticism that it did not work hard enough to win Latino support, Hispanic voters and advocacy groups say that public officials need to do more to cultivate the Latino vote, and address the needs of a significant, diverse and growing population in all 50 states.
There are 60 million people of Hispanic descent living in the U.S., nearly one-fifth of the population. They include Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Dominicans, Guatemalans, Colombians, Hondurans, Ecuadorians and Peruvians. And with the presidential race outcome much closer than predicted, some high-ranking Democrats complain that Biden could have done more groundwork to gain support from Latino constituents.
Sonia Velazquez works with Sosa at the San Francisco unemployment agency. She complained that all Latinos are not treated equally by the U.S. government. Latinos “are treated differently in terms of getting asylum and accessing government assistance that is based on their country of origin. That does not seem fair,” she said.
Unlike many other Hispanic groups, for example, Cuban Americans have a different status than other Latinos. “They don’t face the same hurdles and documentation issues,” Velazquez noted. Cuban
Biden drew fewer votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 among Hispanic Americans in both Florida and Texas. Biden did carry the popular vote in Miami Dade County, which has a Hispanic majority, but by just 7 percentage points. The Associated Press reported that Trump carried Florida by 51.2 percent to Biden’s 47.8 percent. Stronger Latino support could have made the difference.
Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), told National Public Radio that Biden’s team needed to do more outreach in Latino strongholds, to get out the vote. “The Democrats cannot take Latinos for granted. I think Biden missed a grand opportunity to have been able to carry both Florida and Texas,” Garcia told National Public Radio. “If he had just invested in the Latino community more, if he had delivered the correct message.”
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, was swift to criticize the under-performance. “We’ve been sounding the alarm about Dem vulnerabilities w/ Latinos for a long, long time,” she wrote on Twitter, according to Business Insider. “There is a strategy and a path, but the necessary effort simply hasn’t been put in.”
ANALYSIS
Advocacy groups for Latinos agree that the party missed an opportunity and needs to do more — much more to cultivate support. But the path is not a straight line. The needs and interests of Latino voters is complex, as they are a diverse group from multiple countries who include new arrivals as well as people who have lived in the U.S. for generations. They identify as Republicans and Democrats. They live in communities across the U.S., with a growing presence in all 50 states. California, Texas and Nevada have seen the most rapid increases in the Hispanic population in the last two decades, reports the Pew Research Center.
A study by Pew published in September 2020 had concluded that Hispanic support could be “a deciding factor” in the 2020 Presidential Election. And while Hispanics historically are more likely to identify as Democrats, that increasingly does not tell the whole story.
Engagement Resources
- League of United Latin American Citizens: LULAC advances the economic, educational and political interests of the U.S. Hispanic population.
- https://lulac.org/
- Mi Familia Vota is a national civic engagement organization that promotes social and economic justice for the Latino community.
- https://www.mifamiliavota.org/
- Voto Latino is a grassroots political organization that focuses on education and empowering Latino voters.
- https://votolatino.org/
2020 Presidential Election Motivates Both Sides to Protest
2020 Presidential Election Motivates Both Sides to Protest
By Erika Shannon
November 6, 2020
This past week, tensions have been rising here in the U.S. while everyone impatiently awaits the result of the 2020 presidential election. A winner has still not been announced, but we already see civil unrest in American cities. There was always a fear that no matter who won the presidency, we would see demonstrations and protests, even violence; however, the waiting has been the hardest part for some, and we are already seeing protesters on both sides take to the streets so their voices can be heard. On the one hand, supporters of President Trump are protesting to demand that the process of counting votes is stopped because some of the votes are “fraudulent,” with claims that this election has somehow been hi-jacked by Democrats. On the other hand, Biden supporters are protesting to insist that all legitimate votes should be counted. The Black Lives Matter movement has combined with the Count Every Vote movement, with the two groups rallying together in several cities across the U.S. They are protesting because they want peoples voices to be heard, while Trump supporters are seemingly seeking to suppress valid votes.
While both sides are (mostly) peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, these two sides could not be more different in what they represent for our democracy. Trump supporters have often been vocal about their disdain for Black Lives Matter protests around the country. They have taunted and antagonized peaceful protesters, with some of the altercations ending in violence and tragedy. However, now that they are the ones in danger of losing something – a republican presidency – they wish to take to the streets and attempt to derail the Democratic voting process. We have seen pro-Trump protests break out in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona, among other states. President Trump himself is likely responsible for inspiring these protests, for as early as Wednesday morning he was proclaiming premature victory and demanding that people stop voting, and that votes should stop being counted. The remark was partially unfounded, for voting itself had been finished since Tuesday night, and counting the remaining votes was the last step before revealing a winner. The President then tweeted Thursday morning to “STOP THE COUNT,” a day after it had been announced that he was filing suit in Michigan and Pennsylvania to stop the counting of votes. These moves are a threat to the integrity of our democracy. It is evident that Donald Trump is not ready to give up yet, and now that losing is a real possibility, he is grasping at straws to do anything in his power to stop our democratic processes at work. Pro-Trump supporters chanting to “stop the count” represent a true threat to fair democracy, one where all votes that were received on time are counted. It seems that a group of people who were so keen on shouting “all lives matter” have forgotten that all votes matter, too.
Supporters of Joe Biden have also taken to the streets in response to the messages from Trump and his supporters. They are leading their own protests to voice that states should continue to count their legitimate votes. These protesters, many of whom are associated with the Black Lives Matter or Count Every Vote movement, have convened in places like Washington, New York, Minnesota, and Washington D.C. They are insisting that votes should continue to be counted so that we can finally know who has won this roller coaster of an election. Some protesters feel that President Trump is trying to stall the election results so that he can do anything in his power to retain the presidency. A move like this would come as no shock, for the President implied in late September that he would only turn over power if he felt the election was fair. His comments also included a theory about a “ballot scam,” where ballots of people who voted for Trump were supposedly being lost. To date, there has been no evidence of pro-Trump ballots disappearing, yet unfounded comments like these lead some Biden supporters to believe that Trump may not want to step down if he loses the election. Filing suits to stop counting votes is evidence that the President is in fear of what the votes may reveal: a win for Biden. He has been able to get his supporters riled up and there are still concerns that things may not stay peaceful if it is eventually revealed that Trump has lost the election. It is only fair to tally every vote that was cast, postmarked, or dropped off on time. The Count Every Vote movement is representative of the need to consider each vote so that a winner can be fairly determined. Some people’s only voice in the political process is their vote, and to rob them of that is a blatant disregard for our Democracy in action.
Resistance Resources
- The Count Every Vote Movement is part of the Movement Voter project; to learn more visit their Defend the Election Fund website.
- To report an incident of voter suppression or election interference around the country, fill out this form on the NAACP website.
America Needs to Rethink Its Use of Military Force
America Needs to Rethink Its Use of Military Force
By Will Solomon
November 4, 2020
Policy Summary
It can be difficult to find coherence in Trump’s agenda, foreign policy included. In contrast to almost every prominent Republican since at least World War II, Trump has espoused (at least rhetorically) a doctrine of isolationism since his run for and during his time as president, railing against NATO and American involvement in the Middle East—and specifically bucking Republican orthodoxy in vocally criticizing the Iraq War. (Arguably, this latter position was a major reason Trump won the Republican primary in 2015-16).
One of the more bizarre aspects of the Trump presidency has been the increased militarism and aggressiveness by Democrats in response to both this rhetoric and Trump’s actualized foreign policy. But does this quasi-role reversal reveal a genuine strategic shift by the Trump administration, and a significant move away from a previously-existing bipartisan consensus on American overseas commitments? It is helpful to examine two regions in which Trump has sought to reduce American troop commitments.
First, the War in Afghanistan, which remains the longest-running war in US history. As noted above, a major feature of Trump’s 2016 campaign was a rhetorical commitment to reducing American involvement in the Greater Middle East. However, over the first two years of the Trump Administration, the number of soldiers in Afghanistan actually increased, possibly to a maximum of over 15,000 soldiers. This number has reportedly decreased over the past two years and was listed around 8,600 earlier this year—roughly the level they were at when Obama left office—after the February 2020 peace deal with the Taliban. Earlier this fall, Trump announced without warning that all US troops would be out of Afghanistan by Christmas—and yet it appears there is no substance behind the claim, and a gradual if indefinite process of withdrawal will continue.
Trump has also repeatedly made a spectacle of criticizing NATO allies for not contributing enough to the mutual defense pact. This summer, the US announced its intent to remove 12,000 troops out of Germany. While Trump claimed this was because of German failure to sufficiently pay into the treaty, Pentagon officials stated this was consistent with long-term strategy—and it is noteworthy that about half those troops were to be redeployed to Belgium and Italy, which pay a lower percentage of GDP towards their defense budgets than does Germany. This is arguably also consistent with the “pivot to Asia” that began during the Obama Administration.
Policy Analysis
While Trump’s rhetoric has signaled a marked shift from prior postwar American presidents, thus far, his actions with regards to military deployments overseas have been fairly consistent with recent precedent. Like Obama in particular, Trump has relied heavily on airstrikes, drone warfare, and special forces raids in military engagements across the globe.
Which is not to say this is good: despite frequent proclamations to the contrary, the seventy-five years since the end of World War II have been marked by violence and destabilization around the globe, much of it directly instigated by the United States. The most significant war of the twenty-first century—the War in Iraq—was the result of a largely unilateral American decision to invade a sovereign nation. The war may have resulted in a million dead, including several thousand American troops, and Iraq remains a broken nation. The War in Afghanistan—frequently characterized as the more just war—has, again, become the longest-running war in US history, and is acknowledged by senior US government officials as unwinnable.
Trump’s rhetoric should not be downplayed, and having an erratic mouthpiece at the head of government is a major threat to international security. But the media ought to pause on its reflexive opposition to Trump and ask, broadly, whether American military engagements overseas are achieving their aims. Indeed, what exactly are these aims? This does include questions like: what is the purpose of NATO in the year 2020? Are these deployments of American soldiers helpful, or destabilizing? While answers may vary by case, recent history (not just including Trump’s tenure) would suggest that this broad strategy ought to be reconsidered, regardless of who is president.
Resistance Resources
https://www.codepink.org — “CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.”
https://www.veteransforpeace.org — “Veterans For Peace is a global organization of Military Veterans and allies whose collective efforts are to build a culture of peace by using our experiences and lifting our voices. We inform the public of the true causes of war and the enormous costs of wars, with an obligation to heal the wounds of wars.”
https://www.democracynow.org — “Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues.”
Election Legal Challenges Part 1 Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan
Election Legal Challenges Part 1
By William Borque
November 6, 2020
Pennsylvania:
In Pennsylvania, President Trump launched a lawsuit to stop counting the votes in key counties still counting votes. Pennsylvania law requires votes to not be counted until polls close on election day, so that is exactly what counters did, wait until the polls closed. Trump and his campaign claimed that votes were coming in after the polls had closed that weren’t postmarked Nov. 3rd, which would invalidate the votes. However, the problem was that there was no evidence of this fraud that Trump had claimed. The campaign then sued because they alleged that there weren’t enough supervisors watching the votes be counted in places like Allegheny and Philadelphia counties, where many of the later votes, from mail-in ballots, were for Biden. As returns continued to pile in, Trump maintained that the votes were illegal and illegitimate. The case was heard in federal court by U.S District Judge Paul Diamond, who said that both sides had to come to an agreement, suggesting that 60 members of each party be allowed to view the vote counting. Votes were counted with observers from both parties present and Pennsylvania turned blue.
Michigan:
In Michigan, in a similar vein as Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign sued to stop counting absentee votes in major cities, mostly Detroit. Attorney for the Trump Campaign, Thor Hearne, said the campaign wanted “meaningful access” to vote-counting in addition to surveillance cameras around ballot drop boxes from October 1st. Michigan was seen as a close swing state before the election and many expected the race to come down to mail-in votes, so this shouldn’t have surprised anyone. However, it’s clear that Trump knew that they would lose if they continued to count legitimate mail-in votes, so they decided to sue. Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens dismissed the case and allowed vote counting to continue and says that it was completed on Thursday morning. Judge Stephens said that there was no precedent for surveillance cameras for drop boes. Vote totals indicate that Biden won Michigan by about 150,000 votes.
Arizona:
In Arizona, votes continue to be counted, but several large news outlets, including Fox and The Associated Press, have called the state for Biden. The Trump Campaign has claimed that they entered a lawsuit with several Arizona GOP candidates that claims that sharpie pens used during election day tainted ballots. Trump campaign lawyer, Alexander Kolodin, says that other concerns were raised in the lawsuit including problems with vote-counting and observers of the counting. Much like in Pennsylvania and Michigan, protestors donning MAGA gear were seen trying to enter vote-counting facilities in Arizona’s Maricopa County, where many of the remaining votes are being counted. We expect that Judge Margaret Mahoney will make her ruling against the GOP because of the lack of the basis of the claims. A ruling is expected on Friday.
Social Security in the Time of Covid-19
Brief #97
Social Security in the Time of Covid-19
Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
November 3, 2020
Policy
There are several ways in which older Americans will be impacted as a consequence of the Covid epidemic. Anyone who was planning on retiring in 2022 will suffer the most severe repercussions in that they will collect less Social Security over their lifetimes than they would have pre-virus. This is due to the mechanisms which determine Social Security payouts. The social security formula is configured on wages, age and the growth of average wages. Since millions are suffering unemployment and/or reduced hours, overall income is down. For people born in 1960, eligible to retire at 62 in 2022, the loss could be 1428 dollars per year with inflation adjustments (per SSA chief actuary). These workers would benefit by waiting for the year of their maximum benefit or until age 70. The reason that the projection is for those retiring in 2022 is that there is a two-year lag in current employment and the time it is figured into the Social Security formulas. Those who will retire in 2023 are predicted to be unaffected IF the economy rebounds. Predictions are that four million people, workers and also their dependents and spouses, will be impacted.
Older Americans face a deteriorating employment situation. In the past, older workers were protected from layoffs due to tenure and other factors. Today, their higher pay scales and increased vulnerability to the virus has disadvantaged them. The youngest workers (16-24) are still the most vulnerable to unemployment though the 55+ group has jumped to the number two place on the vulnerability scale.
The pandemic will affect social security recipients in other ways. About one fifth of baby boomers have no other retirement beyond Social Security. This year’s COLA (cost of living adjustment) was 1.6%, and it was 1.4% for the past decade. Economists are fearful that the COLA might be zero for 2021 as a consequence of the unemployment and reduced hours of today’s workers. Between 2000 and 2009, the average COLA was 3%. Even with a more generous COLA, many of the elderly suffer due to the increases in living expenses, particularly in healthcare and housing. Medicare premiums, groceries, heating oil and home owner’s insurance are also rising. Out of pocket expenses for prescription medications have increased 252% since 2000 and other expenses have seen similar increases. The average benefit today falls $380 short of maintaining the same buying power as the average benefit in 2000; buying power has fallen about 30%.
Analysis
The major policy response to the plight of older laid off workers is to allow them to draw 1% of their social security now to help with living expenses. This would amount to a median draw of $4300. A half percent advance would yield about $2500 and would be of great relief to low income households for whom it would comprise a larger proportion of their income. It would not add to the national debt because it would be taken out of the Social Security budget. It is estimated that the loss would be restored if people worked six weeks more than currently planned. Economists point out that 401Ks permit “hardship withdrawals,” though they usually apply to the wealthier American households
Learn More References
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/covid-19-may-be-why-your-social-security-benefits-drop-2020-07-30
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/social-security-recipients-may-be-in-for-a-rude-awakening-later-this-year-2020-05-12?mod=article_inline
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/increase-in-unemployment-hits-older-workers-harder-than-prime-age-workers-2020-05-11?mod=article_inline
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-radical-idea-to-rescue-us-households-nowwithout-adding-to-the-national-debt-2020-05-07?mod=article_inline
Resistance Resources
https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-help-ussi.htm
This website provides information on how a person can get someone to assist them with obtaining social security benefits.
Our Election Predictions
Brief # 11 Congressional Campaign Update
Our Election Predictions
By William Borque
November 2,2020
Congressional Campaign Updates is an exclusive feature of U.S. RESIST NEWS. Written by reporter William Bourque. The updates will help our readers follow key races in the House and Senate that are key to the ability of democrats to gain control of both houses of Congress.
As we wind closer and closer to election day races are tightening and hearts are racing. Key senate races such as Maine and North Carolina are closer than they have been all race and we are seeing surges in donations as the final days of the campaign trail wane. Here is the official election forecast of U.S. Resist News.
Alabama:
Doug Jones has faced an uphill battle since he beat Roy Moore in his initial recall election several years ago in a state that is historically red. He has voted with democrats most of the time, voting against confirming Amy Coney Barrett and in favor of impeachment on both charges levied against the President. He faces football coach Tommy Tuberville in his race and, despite being the incumbent, we expect Jones will lose this seat in a tight contest. As for the presidency, we expect Trump to take all nine electoral votes that Alabama has to offer.
Alaska:
In Alaska, a tight senate race is brewing between incumbent republican Dan Sullivan and democrat-backed challenger Al Gross. Gross, who is on the ballot as an independent, has been gaining momentum in the wake of Lisa Murkowski’s vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. Polls suggest that Sullivan has a good chance of maintaining his seat, but Alaska is historically hard to poll. Despite this, we think that Sullivan will hold onto his seat and President Trump will win all 3 of Alaska’s electoral votes.
Arizona:
In Arizona, a Senate race that many forecasted to be down to the wire seems to have already been decided, with Mark Kelly having a clear polling edge against incumbent Martha McSally, who took over John McCain’s seat when he passed away in 2018. As for the presidency, Arizona generally goes red, but with this much enthusiasm for Kelly, not to mention Cindy McCain’s endorsement of Biden, we expect that Arizona will go to Biden.
Colorado:
A tight senate race between former governor John Hickenlooper and Cory Gardner has been brewing for months now and it has just about reached a boiling point. Recent polls have Hickenlooper with a sizable polling lead, but all bets are off as it gets down to election day. Gardner has seen his favorability rating plummet with his recent support of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, so we expect Hickenlooper to take this seat and flip it blue. In the presidential race, Colorado is generally a safe blue and we expect nothing to change here, with Biden winning comfortably.
Florida:
Florida has long been known as a toss-up in every presidential election, and this year is no different. The voter turnout in the presidential race has been incredibly high this year and many are saying that this bodes well for democrats, who typically suffer from low turnout in Florida. That being said, we expect Florida to go blue, with a large amount of the Latinx vote pushing Biden forward to secure the victory. Florida also has a race that could push the House even more to the left, with democrat Margaret Good pushing against incumbent Vern Buchanan, who’s popularity in his district has taken a hit after his close ties with President Trump. We expect Good to win the 16th district and to help secure the House for the democrats.
Georgia:
Georgia has emerged as a battleground in recent election cycles and 2020 is the most promising for a democratic win since Clinton in 1992. Trump beat Hillary Clinton by about 5% in 2016, but recent polling data indicates a dead heat between Biden and Trump. We expect Biden to squeak out a victory because of the record-breaking turnout. In addition to the close presidential numbers, Georgia also has several close Senate races. In the special election incumbent Kelly Loeffler seems to be struggling to stay afloat against two opponents, fellow GOP member Doug Collins, and democrat Raphael Warnock, who has polled at +6, according to Monmouth University. In the other race, incumbent David Perdue has struggled to keep up with upstart democrat Jon Ossoff, who holds a narrow polling edge, again according to a Monmouth University poll. We expect Warnock and Ossoff to win in tight races that should tip the balance of the Senate.
Iowa:
Iowa, home to the caucus, has again become a hotspot of the presidential campaign. Former presidential hopeful Pete Buttigeg has been a staple of the midwest, seen campaigning in many states for Biden. On the Trump side, the President himself has been making appearances in the state, with some democrats worried with a new poll indicating a Trump lead. We think that the President will hold onto Iowa where he won by almost 10% in 2016. In the Senate, incumbent Joni Ernst, elected in 2015, is holding a small lead over democrat Theresa Greenfield. Many expected Ernst to have a stronger lead coming into election day, but we don’t expect that this should have an effect, and we expect that Ernst will hold onto her seat.
Maine:
In Maine, it’s a tale of two districts. In ME-01, the southern district in the state, all signs point towards a resounding Biden win. In ME-02, however, the race is coming down to the wire, with many expecting Trump to eke out a victory after several recent visits. We expect that Biden will take all four electoral votes, narrowly capturing district 2, which will likely be decided by mail-in ballots. As for the Senate, the most expensive race in state history is historically close, with challenger Sara Gideon the favorite to unseat four term incumbent Susan Collins, long-regarded as a moderate, fair senator. It seems that Mainers have grown tired of the party loyalty and we expect that they will opt for a change by electing Gideon.
Michigan:
Michigan, which President Trump won by a hair in 2016, seems to have fallen back to the democrats. As final polls come in it seems that Joe Biden has done enough campaigning to win back the state that was so crucial in the 2016 loss. A new Emerson College poll reports that Biden has a 7 point advantage, a lead that many expect to wane when election day comes around. Despite this, we expect Biden to win by a comfortable 4-6% margin and to collect all 16 electoral votes. In the Senate race, incumbent Gary Peters seems to have staved off republican challenger John James, who has based his campaign off of his military service and business knowledge. We expect Peters to retain this seat by a narrow margin.
Montana:
Montana’s presidential race isn’t exactly high-stakes, with only 3 electoral votes in play. We expect Trump to win in the state that he won by over 100,000 votes in 2016. The Senate, however, is where Montana becomes of interest. Republican incumbent Steve Daines has faced scrutiny for his vote to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett last week and is facing a strong opponent, former governor Steve Bullock, in his race. Bullock is poling at +1 coming into election day, indicating that the race will be decided by a small margin. We forecasted a win by Bullock in early May and we are sticking to that pick, as we expect that the blowback from the Supreme Court confirmation vote will ultimately cost Daines his seat.
North Carolina:
North Carolina is once again expected to play a crucial role in the election of the President and, as of election day, it is still a toss-up. Sources tell U.S. Resist News that the mail-in balloting system in North Carolina has been full of bugs, with many voters waiting weeks to receive ballots. Another factor to evaluate in North Carolina is the African-American vote, something that many democrats worried Biden wouldn’t be able to win. However, recent data seems to show that voters of color favor Biden, which means that we expect him to secure victory in the state, albeit by a close margin. North Carolina is also home to a high-profile Senate race, with incumbent Thom Tillis polling behind former state senator Cal Cunningham. Cunningham’s lead has waned as election day approaches, but a recent Marist College poll has him securely in the lead at +10, a consequence of Tillis’s support of Amy Coney Barrett. We think that Cunningham will cruise to a win in a crucial state.
Ohio:
Ohio is once again a potential swing state and polling data represents that nobody has a clear lead yet. Much like Pennsylvania, many are concerned about Biden’s plan to reduce energy subsidies to fossil fuel companies, which could spell a loss for him. It is also worth noting Trump won in 2016 by just under 8%, indicating a swing that may be too much for Biden to make up. No republican in recent history has won the presidency without winning Ohio, so if the blue wave does in fact hit, expect that to be curtains for Trump. Despite recent polls indicating a Biden lead by 1%, we expect that Trump will take Ohio, along with its 20 electoral votes.
Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania, similarly to North Carolina, is again expected to be a crucial swing state in this election cycle. President Trump won an incredibly tight race in 2016, winning only 50,000 more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton. Biden has held a significant advantage in many polls, but his comments about fracking and the future of fossil fuels may have many Pennsylvanians concerned. Biden has assured his supporters he doesn’t plan to ban fracking, but rather to reduce subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. Trump has played these concerns up in recent weeks, and this has been capped off by a recent endorsement of Trump by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the largest newspaper covering Pittsburgh. Biden’s lead has been waning but we still believe that Biden will likely win the state in an incredibly tight fashion.
South Carolina:
The race for the presidency in South Carolina will likely fall to President Trump, given the fact that he won by almost 15% in 2016. Trump’s base is in the more rural, western parts of the state, and we expect that this population will be enough to win Trump the nine electoral votes they have to offer. The Senate race, however, is laced with uncertainty, as underdog Jamie Harrison has shown incredible tenacity in recent debates and is now leading Lindsey Graham in several polls. However, it is important to note President Trump’s impact on the state, and we expect that Harrison’s polling lead will vanish once votes are counted and Graham will retain his seat, albeit as part of the minority.
Texas:
Texas is a state that has been increasingly blue, with this election being the first in recent memory that Democrats will have a chance to turn blue. President Trump won handily in 2016, by just under 10%. However, recent trends, such as the 2018 senate race that saw Beto O’Rourke narrowly defeated, indicate that Texas may be ready to turn blue for the first time since 1980. Record turnout in high-population areas such as Dallas and Houston represent Biden’s shot to win the 38 electoral votes that Texas has to offer, and we forecast that he will come up just short. In the Senate, incumbent John Cornyn is facing a tight race with democratic challenger M.J Hegar, an Air Force veteran. Cornyn has been polling with a 4-point lead, which feels safe this close to election day. However, if a blue wave hits Texas on election day, don’t be surprised to see Hegar do what Beto couldn’t, to flip a Texas Senate seat blue. We still think that Cornyn will retain his seat, but if a blue wave does hit Texas, we could see Biden and Hegar both win narrowly.
Wisconsin:
Wisconsin is once again the home to a presidential battleground, and Joe Biden seems to have a secure lead in the polls. Of course, we all know the phrase that “polls don’t win elections”, but it feels safe to say that Biden is likely to secure the 10 votes that Wisconsin is allocated. In a recent New York Times and Siena College poll, 79% of those polled had already voted, representing the unique times that we are living in. In addition to this, Biden polled at 52% among likely voters, besting Trump by an 11 point margin. Although we’ve seen chaos in Wisconsin in recent years, we forecast that Biden will defeat Trump and flip Wisconsin blue.
The Rest:
Arkansas: Trump
California: Biden
Connecticut: Biden
Delaware: Biden
Hawaii: Biden
Idaho: Trump
Illinois: Biden
Indiana: Trump
Iowa: Trump
Kansas: Trump
Kentucky: Trump
Lousiana: Trump
Maryland: Biden
Massachusetts: Biden
Minnesota: Biden
Mississippi: Trump
Missouri: Trump
Nebraska: Trump
Nebraska-02: Biden
Nevada: Biden
New Hampshire: Biden
New Mexico: Biden
New York: Biden
North Dakota: Trump
Oregon: Biden
Rhode Island: Biden
South Dakota: Trump
Tennessee: Trump
Utah: Trump
Vermont: Biden
Virginia: Biden
Washington: Biden
West Virginia: Trump
Wyoming: Trump
Final Electoral Forecast
Biden Win 351-187
Democrats control senate 53-47
Trump Adviser’s Ties to Anti-Immigration Policies and Hate Groups Scrutinized
Brief # 106 Immigration
Trump Adviser’s Ties to Anti-Immigration Policies and Hate Groups Scrutinized
By Linda F. Hersey
October 29, 2020
SUMMARY
The Administration’s abject failure to secure identifying information on hundreds of migrant parents separated from their children at the U.S. border in 2018 raises new questions about the role of Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior adviser and chief architect of the plan, as well as Miller’s documented connections to organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In a 2018 interview with The New York Times, Miller described as a “simple decision” the practice implemented by the Administration to separate parents from their children by deporting the adults and forcing the families to leave their youngsters behind, often in detention and facing an uncertain future.
That practice is under intense scrutiny again, as lawyers and advocates report that they cannot locate parents of 545 of those youngsters, whose lives are in limbo in the United States, including some who were infants when their parents were deported.
A primary reason for the challenges in finding the parents may be fear of reprisal by the U.S.
Published news reports in 2019 revealed that Miller sought to use the orphaned children to further target undocumented adults in the U.S. He advocated a plan to embed border agents in refugee agencies working to unite the youngsters with extended family members living in the U.S. after the parents were forced to leave and return to their home countries in Central America, according to the Washington Post.
The Department of Health and Human Services rejected efforts to embed the border agents at agencies whose mission and goal is to reunify the children with relatives already in the U.S., no matter their immigration status.
“Congress has made clear that it does not want those who come forward as potential sponsors of minors in U.S. custody to be frightened away by possible deportation,” the Washington Post reported in 2019 when the secret plan was revealed. “But, in the reasoning of senior Trump administration officials [including Miller], adults denied custody of children lose their status as ‘potential sponsors’ and are fair game for arrest,” the newspaper reported. Under the plan, ICE would have collected fingerprints, DNA and other information from people seeking to claim migrant children in government custody as relatives. If the claim was not supported, ICE could use the information as intelligence to potentially arrest and deport the individual.
The Southern Poverty Law Center in October 2020 is raising questions again about Miller’s role in the most controversial anti-immigration policies by the Trump Administration as well as his connections to identified hate groups, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Miller was a keynote speaker in 2015 at a CIS convention. Miller has expressed support for the ideology and writings of John Tanton, the founder of FAIR.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many racist statements.” The group wants to “limit the number of nonwhites who enter” the United States, the law center reports.
Miller – in 900 emails sent to Bretibart News and later published by the New York Times – espoused his support for leaders of CIS and FAIR, and for other identified white nationalists and Far Right groups. Numerous other media outlets also dug into the emails and published similar stories, including Newsweek and Sludge, a political news website.
“Leaked emails from White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller from 2015-2016 reveal an obsession with white nationalism, the Confederacy and the denigration of black and Hispanic communities,” Newsweek reported in December 2019.
Civil rights groups have stepped into the fray to advocate for immigrants experiencing threats of deportation and other legal barriers in the immigration system. Those groups include the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, based in San Francisco.
The group described immigration policies under the Trump Administration as “increasingly punitive.”
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights strives to “address the unmet legal needs of immigrants and, in doing so, to combat the civil rights issues plaguing the current immigration enforcement system,” according to its website.
ANALYSIS
Dozens of leading civil rights groups – a total of 59 — signed a letter demanding that Trump end Miller’s advisory role, according to The Daily Beast.
But that did not happen. Miller, a key Administration adviser, has had a pivotal role in shaping the harshest of anti-immigration policies under Trump, which span the deportation of parents without their children, a Supreme Court-challenged effort to end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and another court-challenged policy to stop visas for individuals from Muslim-majority countries.
“Donald Trump and Stephen Miller have a view on immigration that is very different from [what] Republicans have traditionally believed,” said Alex Conant, former spokesman for U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, in an article published by The Guardian newspaper in 2017. Rubio, a Republican, came under attack by Miller, which was revealed in emails, when the Cuban-American senator explored a presidential bid in 2015.
Now Miller is back in the news as lawyers and human rights groups continue efforts to locate the families of 545 children displaced under the “zero tolerance” policy initiated and championed by Miller.
Resistance Resources
The Southern Poverty Law Center: Southern Poverty Law Center’s mission is to fight racial injustice and to oppose white supremacy, while advancing the rights of all people.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: The coalition includes 200 national organizations that work to support civil and human rights.
https://civilrights.org/heres-10-things-you-can-do-to-stop-white-supremacy/
Crime and Justice Institute: “A Framework for Public Safety” Report details how to protect U.S. communities during and after the 2020 presidential election.
https://www.cjinstitute.org/publication/elections/
The United Nations offers suggestions for overcoming racism and defending human rights in your community.
https://www.un.org/en/letsfightracism/
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: What is it and Why does Nobody Like it?
Title: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: What is it and Why does Nobody Like it?
By Scout Burchill
October 28, 2020
Summary:
Over the past few months, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed into law in 1996, has become ensnared in controversy from both sides of the political spectrum. Despite being a small part of a much larger bill, Section 230 establishes two important precedents that are being challenged today.
Firstly, Section 230 establishes that “internet computer services” are platforms and not publishers. This shields social media companies and websites from legal liability for almost all content posted by users. There are some exceptions which include copyright violations, child pornography and sex work-related content. Secondly, Section 230 also bestows platforms with “Good Samaritan” legal protections in blocking “offensive content.” This provision provides the legal underpinning for social media companies to moderate content.
Section 230 has become a special object of ire for President Trump and his ongoing feud with social media companies’ content moderation attempts. He has frequently tweeted that he wants to repeal Section 230 (often in all caps and followed by three exclamation marks) in response to Twitter’s attempts to fact check, flag and delete his tweets. His vexations are shared by many on the right who feel as though social media companies are biased against right wing speech.
The Trump administration is not alone in hoping to challenge social media companies over Section 230. Former Vice President and current Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has echoed Trump’s calls to repeal Section 230, albeit for very different reasons. During the Democratic primary he told the New York Times’ editorial board that Section 230 “immediately should be revoked.” He added that sites like Facebook should be held liable for the content posted and shared on their platforms because they are “propagating falsehoods that they know to be false.”
As the election nears and social media companies have been ramping up their efforts to clamp down on misinformation and political content, the government has been stepping up its own efforts to challenge Section 230. On September 23rd, at the behest of President Trump, the Justice Department introduced draft legislation to reform Section 230. Not too long after, on October 13th Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a decision not to reconsider an appellate court’s ruling involving Section 230 that he is in fact open to hearing a case that would define Section 230 in a narrower sense. In inviting a more “appropriate case” to consider, he argued that the court should consider whether, “the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms.” Two days later, on October 15th Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Communications Commision, citing “serious concerns” raised by all branches of government, declared that, “the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230.” Although the legal justification for this act is questionable and it remains uncertain what exactly the FCC intends to do, it is clear that the tides are turning against big tech and social media platforms and Section 230 is at the forefront of this debate.
Analysis:
Section 230 is under attack from both sides of the political aisle, but for opposing reasons, and as a result, the battle over Section 230 has come to be reflective of many of the trends in the culture wars at large.
Many on the right express the viewpoint that social media platforms are biased against them and actively try to censor or suppress their speech. While some anecdotal evidence may support this, the data just does not bear this out. A simple cursory scan of the top ten daily Facebook news stories contradicts this point nearly everyday. Overwhelmingly the top ten list is composed of right wing media outlets and figures such as Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Don Bongino and Breitbart to name a few (you can check this list yourself at https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10). If social media companies are actively trying to suppress right wing political speech, they are doing a pretty terrible job at it. This overall perception on the right of a perceived bias is reflected in the Justice Department’s suggested legislative changes, which aim to make platforms significantly more liable for content removals.
On the left, many express a similar view to that of Joe Biden in demanding that social media companies moderate their content even more and be held more accountable for the information shared on them. This sentiment has been growing on the left since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, and is largely due to the idea that social media played a decisive role in Trump’s massive upset over Hillary Clinton.
This view is particularly pernicious for a number of reasons, both ideologically and technically. For one, given the size of these companies, it is simply not possible for them to effectively and consistently moderate content in the ways that are being asked of them. The scale of these companies is difficult to wrap one’s head around. When employees at Facebook look at their dashboards to monitor activity, they are seeing numbers denominated in the millions and even billions. The sheer magnitude of the numbers behind any social phenomenon are daunting. Moderating content by removing pornographic images or videos of extremist terrorism is one thing, but asking these companies to be the arbiters of truth and acceptability is an entirely different demand. Furthermore, it totally misses the point that this type of moderation is just not feasible on a consistent basis. We are already seeing this in the types of overreaches and mistakes that tech and social media companies have routinely been making. These overreaches inevitably affect the left just as much as the right. Just last week Facebook blocked a video by Jacobin, an established voice of the American left, that covered topics such as Bolivia, Bernie Sanders and the Jeffrey Toobin incident. Even Zoom decided to take action against the Palestinian activist and former terrorist Leila Khaled by blocking a webinar event sponsored by San Francisco State University where she was scheduled to speak on issues of gender, justice and resistance.
The current debate over Section 230 reflects the increasingly partisan divide on issues of free speech principles. Newly released research by the Pew Center shows that in 2017, people, regardless of their political affiliation, tended to hold similar views on the balance between free speech and feeling safe online. However, between 2017 and 2020, changes in views seem to track with partisan divides. In 2020, 60% of Democrats hold the view that it is more important for people to feel welcome and safe online than for people to be able to speak their minds freely. On this point only 45% of Republicans agree. Conversely, only 38% of Democrats compared to 54% of Republicans hold the view that being able to speak one’s mind freely online is more important than feeling welcome and safe.
For now, the battle over Section 230 resembles mere political jousting as both sides attempt to tip the scales of the power of social media platforms in their direction. Unfortunately, this obscures the larger problem of the unprecedented power that social media and tech platforms hold in shaping political discourse and imposing standards of acceptability. Rather than repealing or revoking Section 230, there may be a way forward in the example of the antitrust case that the Department of Justice is bringing against Google. Over the past decade, Google and Facebook have come to dominate the entire news business, having incredible power over revenues, advertising and information flows. The amount of power they wield can determine whether or not a media outlet is successful and what types of information a user is exposed to. Rather than forcing them to commit to the ideologically and technologically fraught job of responsibly wielding that power, a workable solution might be found in breaking them up and reigning in their power. This strategy would pull the focus away from the increasingly divided conversations of censorship and freedom of speech and would bring to the fore the proud and well-established American tradition of breaking up monopoly powers to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketplace of commerce and ideas.
Resistance Resources:
Internet Governance Project : https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/10/18/the-assault-on-platforms-and-section-230/
DOJ Proposed Section 230 Legislative Changes:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-proposed-section-230-legislation
https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
DOJ’s June Recommendations for Reforming Section 230: https://www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Justice Clarence Thomas’ Writings on Section 230:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf
FCC’s Chairman Ajit Pai’s Statement on Section 230
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-statement-section-230
Pew Research on Partisan Divide Concerning Offensive Content Online:
An Informative Thread Presenting Different Ideas for Revising Section 230:
https://twitter.com/ShiraOvide/status/1321447916867903496
Electronic Frontier Foundation – Leading Nonprofit Defending Civil Liberties in the Digital World:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/content-moderation-and-us-election-what-ask-what-demand