Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

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

 

The American-Chinese Relationship & the Incoming Biden Administration

Brief #103—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
Over its nearly four years in office, the Trump administration’s relationship with China has been nothing if not visibly inconsistent. Trump has, on the one hand, appeared to cultivate a dynamic personal relationship with Chinese leader Xi Jinping—he has publicly praised Xi on multiple occasions and, broadly speaking, clearly appears to revere the “strongman” image.

read more

The Georgia Runoff Election: Who Will Win?

Brief #14—Election News
By William Borque
Early voting for the Senate runoffs has finished in Georgia, and the races are closer than ever.  As candidates  and their colleagues in the senate clash over stimulus checks and Covid restrictions, democrats, republicans, and independents alike have begun to cast their ballots. 

read more

Martial Law Is Not in the Cards

Brief #13—Election News
By Zach Huffman
After weeks of refusing to accept the results of last November’s election, President Donald Trump has reportedly discussed the possibility of declaring martial law as the latest in a series of attempts to retain power despite losing the election to President-elect Joe Biden.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Fed Commits to Keeping Borrowing Rate Low to Stimulate Economy

Fed Commits to Keeping Borrowing Rate Low to Stimulate Economy

September 5, 2020

Policy

In mid-summer, with the resurgence of reported cases of Corona virus, the Federal Reserve announced its intention to maintain its benchmark lending rate at 0 to .25%, until at least 2022.  Some members think it will be extended even longer.  The decision was made unanimously by the Federal Open Market Committee which is the policymaking branch the Federal Reserve.  This rate represents the fee charged for loans between financial institutions and it has a significant impact on consumer interest rates.  Although it does not represent any specific rate on mortgages, the current low rate of less than 3%, for a thirty year fixed mortgage, is likely to be sustained with this policy.  That is the good news.  The bad news is that the standards to obtain the most favorable loan rate will likely be stricter, applying to those with a credit score of 700 or above.

The action was taken as a consequence of the sustained high level of unemployment, which was significantly greater than the highest level (10%) seen in the Great Recession of the last decade. There was a dip in the rate due to more jobs available in the summer, probably due to temporary government hires and the reopening of restaurants, retail stores, and other small businesses.  Amid concerns that these openings were made in haste rather than by informed health deliberations, economists fear for the mid-term fallout to the economy.  They predict a sustained economic slump due to the slow recovery of industries such as food services, bars, recreation, air travel and any other activity engaging large numbers of participants.

The sustained public health crisis makes it difficult to accurately predict a timetable for its resolution and a concomitant stabilizing effect on the economy.  The Fed predicts a 6.5% shrinking of the GDP for 2020 and a growth of 5% in 2021 and 3.5% in 2022.  To further aid the economy they have pledged to flood it with “cheap money” and trillions of dollars in loans to keep businesses and local governments intact.  They caution that these policies need to be met with similar government programs and urge support for the three billion dollar stimulus passed in the Democratic House in May, and stalled in the Senate.  That program would provide the equivalent of the multiple programs passed in March by the Trump administration.

Analysis

The Fed’s actions regarding the prime lending rate reflect the dramatic crisis facing the economy and highlight the need for policy action on multiple fronts.  The rush to reopen the economy may have been penny wise and dollar foolish.  This is not a time to herald the resilience of the stock market which has seen gains of 3% in the S and P 500 over the past year and 6% in the Nasdaq 100 so far this year.  The suffering of a large portion of American workers and small business owners must be addressed by humane and compassionate financial policies.  One way to promote this aid is to vote in November.

Learn More

Resistance Resources

Education in the time of Covid — Part 2 (Technology in Schools)

Education in the time of Covid — Part 2 (Technology in Schools)

Now that the nation is well into the school year, educators are grappling with the new reality of educational technology (EdTech) in and out of the classroom in order to provide quality, safe education for all students. There are several aspects of technology in schools to consider: access to devices and internet; efficacy of online-learning or technology-assisted teaching and administration; use of technology to monitor and prevent the spread of Covid in schools that have opened or are preparing to; and of course the planning and administration of a new teaching order amidst myriad of teaching models and uncertain budgets.

For many of the schools that have reopened, technology likely played a role in some part of classroom learning before Covid, and now teachers must implement new uses of and regulations on technology in the classroom to ensure safety. For students fortunate to have access to technology in the classroom, or are on a borrowing system for hybrid or virtual learning, concerns about spreading germs are being addressed and planned for by school administrators. In the past students may have shared devices, headphones or styluses due to lack of sufficient devices for everyone, but educators are now working on ways to tether such things to devices, clean them regularly, and provide one for each student to prevent the spread of germs. Although a one-to-one model for technology use in and out of the classroom would be ideal, and is happening very gradually, it is just not a reality for millions of students across America.

Whether due to lack of technology access, proper supplies or success during spring closures, classroom and remote-teachers are forced to rethink their class structure and reliance on technology as the only immediate option. While the federal government has allocated billions of dollars over the past six years to their E-rate program — a modernization initiative to provide all schools with broadband internet — experts say an additional  $6-11 billion is needed to close the access gap in schools. According to a recent study from Common Sense Media on the technology gap, an estimated 15-16 million (30%) students are still without either internet access or devices necessary to have success in remote learning. To address this, districts like Los Angeles Unified have partnered with their local PBS TV station to provide educational content via television.Major corporations like Verizon and Comcast have also provided data plans and hotspots to low-income families, and devices like Chromebooks are becoming more affordable for families that don’t have access to them from their schools. But until access for all students is solved, some districts will have no option but to implement some form of in-person learning, tutoring, or assessment to ensure their students are continuing to learn while they wait for schools to fully reopen.

With or without sufficient technology or preparation, many schools and parents have determined the safest route is virtual learning for some or all students. Some experimental studies demonstrate that remote learning is not as effective as in-person, especially for those already struggling with coursework. Nevertheless it is a better option than no school at all for the districts that have yet to open in-person or don’t provide a parent-choice model. As technology, access, and teacher and student ability to use it improves, we may see that online learning can be effective for most students, albeit not the same as in-person. Studies documenting technology use by teachers from the beginning of the shutdown in spring show their ability level has improved greatly due to increased use during remote learning, forcing them to practice technology skills. As teachers learn to navigate new platforms utilized in the new era of education, it’s important to note that one size does not fit all when it comes to technology use for instruction, the context in which a school operates as well as an individual’s teaching style or grade level might be factors to be considered in EdTech’s efficacy.

Fortunately, many higher education institutions and some K-12 schools have already implemented entirely online courses or tech-assisted teaching, so school administrators and educators can build off of their experiences and resources. That being said, with so many products available and being created in response to the pandemic, decision makers might not know where to begin — and planning time is precious. Organizations like EdTech Hub, Learn Platform, and The Learning Accelerator have built search tools and analyzed what EdTech tools schools are already using and how they work. Sites like these aim to assist educators in finding virtual learning resources, platforms, and blended teaching strategies that will suit different school communities’ needs through research and consulting initiatives. In Learn Platform’s analysis of EdTech usage during the pandemic, we see schools are primarily relying on operational tools, mostly for administration and communication, and secondarily relying on tools for remote-learning curriculum during Covid. With teachers out of the office as well, communication and administration via the internet are more important than ever in navigating changing times and comparing remote-teaching notes.

Interestingly, likely due to familiarity and therefore ease of use, Google’s various communication platforms occupy eight of the top ten most used by schools, with Zoom and Clever taking up the remaining two, despite there being hundreds of platforms to choose from. Virtual learning programs for specific subjects and tools to communicate with or monitor students are widely available, but the ones that might work best and for a given school will often come with a price tag and a sharp learning curve, leading administrators to weigh the value of the product over time spent planning its use and cost over the years to come.

Then there is the consideration of internet usage in general, how can we keep students safe online? Services such as GoGuardian allow teachers to monitor their student’s device access remotely — helping to ensure attention and focus without distractions or dangers that come from the web, but this too comes with a price tag. Nevertheless, the investment and research in effective products is certainly the route education is taking in the era of remote-learning as evinced through increased use of EdTech and publication of relevant research over the past few months. The key will be balancing and refining the use of EdTech and concrete materials until students and school staff can get back in the building.

With so many developments in education technology and administrative communication, access to internet and funds, and uses of tech to monitor the spread of Covid, there is an ocean of information for educators to sort through. Although it is not yet sufficient, the access and funding to support EdTech and the inevitable remote-learning for many is improving. Teachers are working harder than ever to support their students. This will take time to perfect. While the education community is doing their best to support the unique needs of each student and school, the key to success will be funds, staff, and time dedicated to planning and researching the efficacy of remote and hybrid learning for all students until we can get back in the classroom safely.

Resistance Resources:

  • Common Sense Kids Action — Advocates for children’s well-being in the digital age. They have specific action areas related to digital safety and equity for children and connect you with even more resources to take action in each area.
  • Consortium for School Networking — A professional association for school system technology leaders, CoSN has an action page that connects you to federal and state legislature related to school technology issues. They provide templates and tools to address letters to your local congress members to advocate for technology access and safety for all students.
  • Everyone On — Works to get internet access and devices to the learners and communities most in need. Get involved with them by donating or connecting those in need to their resources for low-cost or subsidized devices or internet.

Sources:

Medicaid Holdout States and the Covid-19 Crisis

Medicaid Holdout States and the Covid-19 Crisis

SUMMARY:

Medicaid is the primary government-funded health insurance for low-income Americans available in every state. An expansion of Medicaid  under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allows more working Americans on low incomes to be eligible for coverage. Holdout states that have not increased Medicaid eligibility may be less prepared to diagnose, manage and treat patients during the Covid-19 crisis, according to recent studies by the government and nonprofit health advocacy organizations.

Before California, 34 other states and the District of Columbia expanded Medicaid under Obamacare, Oakland resident Jamal Ali, like many other low-wage workers in the U.S., put off medical care unless he had an emergency.

Ali, 34, was not offered health insurance in his sales job and could not afford coverage on his own. A lung infection that caused his asthma to flare up prompted Ali to seek urgent care after he had trouble breathing and was at risk of pneumonia.

Ali got the expert medical care he needed plus antibiotics. But it came at a high cost without insurance: $250 in out of pocket costs. Now with Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act – formerly known as Obamacare – Ali says he does not worry about how he will afford treatment if he gets really sick again. “It’s all covered,” said Ali, who proudly showed his Medi-Cal benefits card, which he keeps handy in his wallet.

Ali is among more than 12 million Americans who have received coverage under Medicaid expansion since 2014, and those numbers continue to grow, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Affordable Care Act , or ACA, was signed into law by former President Obama in 2010, after much debate and controversy in Congress. But it quickly gained popularity with uninsured and under-insured Americans as well as the business community. The new law signaled the biggest Medicaid eligibility expansion since its inception more than 50 years ago. The ACA required states to expand Medicaid to include more working, low-income Americans, but a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling has left the decision to the states.  Not all have followed but pressure by voters is changing that.

Nebraska recently expanded Medicaid, after voters approved a ballot initiative. Maine, Utah and Idaho also approved expansion by vote.

ANALYSIS

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the ACA Medicaid expansion has many benefits. It has helped to close the gap in both quality and access to health care for people of color like Ali, who is African American.Most important during the pandemic, California and other Medicaid expansion states are better poised to respond to the Covid-19 crisis with testing, diagnosis and treatment. Many of the Americans covered by Medicaid under ACA are front-line workers, known as “essential” employees, including hospital workers, grocery stores clerks and cashiers, and home-health aides.

Experts estimate that expanding Medicaid to the holdout states would cover an additional four million Americans, which include 650,000 frontline workers.

Because of his asthma condition, for example, Ali would be at a greater risk of complications if he were to contract Covid-19. But this time around, if he gets seriously ill, Ali said he would not hesitate to seek treatment like he did previously, when he did not have a regular physician and delayed care until it was an emergency.

With many companies shutting down since the pandemic, millions of additional workers have lost employment in 2020, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation’s research found that if the remaining states expanded Medicaid eligibility under ACA, their economies would rebound faster as businesses begin to re-open, because of earlier diagnoses, better health outcomes and less financial hardship on individuals and families.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that “the lifesaving effects” of Medicaid expansion include people getting regular checkups, improved access to prescription drugs, and more early stage screenings for cancer.

NET SAVINGS FOR STATES

In 2020, the federal government pays 90 percent of the costs, which decreases the financial burden of charity care for uninsured hospital patients, which is passed along through higher health-care costs as well as steeper premiums for all consumers with coverage. Patients not only benefit from better outcomes but health-care providers are assured that they can depend on payment.

In addition, Congress adopted the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which increases Medicaid costs the federal government will cover during the pandemic, easing the burden on holdout states. It also requires certain employers to provide paid sick leave, through December 2020.

California and other states are reporting a net savings in health-care costs after increasing Medicaid eligibility to include more low-income workers. So-called Medi-Cal brought in up to $3.5 billion in federal dollars in 2014, which grew to $4.5 billion in 2019, according to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. In California, a study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research concluded that: “Medi-Cal expansion [makes] funding more stable for providers” who care for the uninsured, which improves access to care for low-income communities.

Resistance Resources: The following are nonprofit organizations and government agencies that provide information on Medicaid access and eligibility under ACA and on health coverage during the Covid 19 pandemic.

A Tale of Two Conventions

A Tale of Two Conventions

August 31, 2020

The 2020 Democratic National Convention was anything but conventional.  A virtual roll call of democratic leaders from around the nation took the place of a packed and boisterous convention hall, and democrats around the nation got a chance to see and hear from the newly anointed ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Night one of the convention began with several remembrances of folks who had passed away due the Covid-19 pandemic, a fitting beginning to the event that seemed so unorthodox to most.  On the first night, the most memorable and powerful speech was delivered by Former First Lady Michell Obama, who tore into President Trump on almost every aspect of his handling of Covid.  Obama said powerfully said, “if we want to keep the possibility of progress alive in our time, if we want to be able to look our children in the eye after this election, we have got to reassert our place in American history. And we have got to do everything we can to elect my friend, Joe Biden, as the next president of the United States.”  This message echoed and summed up the whole night which was clear as day, unify the party.  Other notable speakers on night one included former Republican presidential candidate and Ohio Governor John Kasich, who represented moderate conservatives who were rejecting Trump for Biden wholeheartedly.

On night two of the convention, the Republican presence continued, with Cindy McCain, wife of late Senator John McCain, making a short speech endorsing Biden.  Democrats also saw Colin Powell, known for his time as George Bush’s Secretary of State, endorse Biden.  This continued the theme of moderates choosing Biden, something that he had stressed from the beginning of his campaign.  Biden’s wife, schoolteacher Jill Biden, capped the night with a speech from a classroom in the Biden’s hometown of Wilmington, Delaware.  Mrs. Biden stressed the ability of Joe to lead and unite, saying, ”He will do for your family what he did for ours — bring us together and make us whole, carry us forward in our time of need, keep the promise of America.”

On night 3, the most recognizable modern democrat, President Obama, finally spoke.  We heard a frank and unwavering rebuke of President Trump, something that many democrats have felt was long overdue from the former President.  “Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t” the President said, “and the consequences of that failure are severe.”  Besides the former President’s speech, we also saw speeches from Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, both sending a clear message of uniting the party.  Harris, the newly-minted VP candidate, made sure to hit on the racial struggles in America that the Democrats commit to addressingn.

On the 4th and final night of the Convention, we were finally able to hear Joe Biden’s acceptance speech, in which he vowed to “draw on the best of us, not the worst. I will be an ally of the light, not the darkness,”  He discussed losing his son to cancer and his wife and daughter to a car crash, both of which are clearly important to him on a deeply personal level.  We also got to hear from a 13-year old boy who Biden personally assisted in getting rid of his stutter.  In addition, Golden State Warriors star Stephen Curry and his family spoke about the importance of social justice in our current times.  The final message from the convention was clear, we need empathetic and passionate leadership now, more than ever, and Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are the ones who can provide this for our country.

The RNC, which finished on Thursday, August 27, was more of a circus than a convention, trotting out act after act that only seemed to say one thing, “You won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America.” It was truly a Trump show, with the President opting to speak all 4 nights, the last one from the South Lawn of the White House, in breaking with federal law that prohibits government property from being used for political purposes.  Gun-toting icons Mark and Patricia McCloskey also spoke, praising the President on his support of guns and the police.  The stark contrast between the two conventions was easy to see—Republicans brought up their fear of Joe Biden’s America, while Democrats realized how poorly we’re doing in Trump’s America.  Democrats looked forward, while Republicans seemed focused on the rearview mirror.  All in all, Republicans preached fear, Democrats preached hope.

From Colin Kaepernick to the NBA: The Evolution of Kneeling as Protest

From Colin Kaepernick to the NBA: The Evolution of Kneeling as Protest

Summary

At the start of the 2016 NFL Preseason, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick sat on the bench during the National Anthem, as the rest of the players as well as stadium attendees stood, hand on heart. After receiving criticism for this tactic, Kaepernick and fellow 49er Eric Reid began kneeling. When asked for an explanation, Kaepernick explained to NFL Media, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” The NFL followed with a statement clarifying that players are not required to stand, and that this is a matter of individual rights.

While Kaepernick’s response to the outrage his kneeling caused seems reasonable in 2020, it was not taken as such at the time. 2016 was the last season Kaepernick was signed to an NFL team. The reasoning behind that has been disputed, but curiously Donald Trump stated in 2017 that he was responsible for the former QB’s lack of employment. In 2018, Nike announced Kaepernick would be part of their anniversary campaign which resulted in a national boycott of the brand. Cut to present day: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell commented in June 2020, “We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest.”

Analysis

Goodell is not alone in his apparent flip flop in acceptance and even support for kneeling as protest. This year, NBA, MLB, and NWSL teams kneeled during the National Anthem without much in the way of fallout. Players, most notably in the NBA, have utilized interview time to call for justice for victims of police brutality, namely Breonna Taylor. While Trump has  no more understanding now than in 2016, most of the country seems to have accepted the notion. When fans saw that NHL players were not kneeling for the anthem, #kneel4hockey began trending on Twitter, accompanied by fan photos of themselves kneeling and encouraging the league to do as much or more.

This shift in acceptance no doubt stems from the Black Lives Matter activity of this year. Protests of police violence continue around the country, and as they are met with more police violence, shifts in perspective are no doubt happening. This is not to say that all of America agree with the protests; a recent CBS survey stated that 58% of Americans think kneeling is an acceptable means of protest. The same poll in 2018 showed only 36% thought it acceptable. It has been four years since Kaepernick first took a knee. With the NFL season quickly approaching, time will tell whether this trend will persist.

Resistance Resources

  • Know Your Rights Camp is a youth program created by Colin Kaepernick in the wake of his activist status: www.knowyourrightscamp.com
  • Black Lives Matter organizes protests and resources for the causes discussed in this article, including civil rights and justice from police brutality: www.blacklivesmatter.com
Automaker Giants rally against SAFE Fuel Economy Rollbacks

Automaker Giants rally against SAFE Fuel Economy Rollbacks

Policy

This past week automakers, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW and Volvo in conjunction with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), finalized a pact to strengthen emissions and improve fuel economy in California and 13 other states. The pact aims to improve fuel economy from 28 mpg to 51 mpg by the year 2026. The decision comes as automakers recognize the need for stringent environmental protections, whereas the current administration is inflexible, shifting away from environmental protections.

In 2018, there were 15 million vehicles registered in the golden state and 887,000 new vehicles sold. At this point, California still retained the authority via The Clean Air Act, to create their own emissions standards. When The Clean Air Act passed, California was already adopting its own set of innovative rules to combat air pollution. Congress acknowledged this, and made an exemption that allowed California to carve out their own rules, as long as the laws protected public health, and were stricter than federal law. In order to implement such laws, California would need to seek a waiver issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The latest waiver was obtained in 2013, under the Obama Administration.

In 2019, President Trump revoked California’s authority to set their own standards, derailing years of progress centered around environmental clean-up. His reasoning for the revocation, was a uniformed set of national fuel economy standards. When the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Rule (SAFE) passed in March of this year, it rolled back the Obama era policy requiring automakers to improve fuel efficiency in new vehicle models by 5% every year and slash it to a mere 1.5%. The current administration was adamant that their new standard would create more jobs, allow automakers more flexibility, and make vehicles affordable for the masses. They failed to acknowledge that their new rule would allow 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide to be omitted into the air by 2026.

Analysis

The current administration continues to rollback environmental policies, broadcasting climate change a hoax. CARB has worked tirelessly alongside automakers, and have a common goal; protect Californian’s and their environment from raging wildfires, scorching temperatures, and unpredictable weather patterns attributed to climate change.

Their initiatives include cutting back on greenhouse gases, tailpipe pollutants, protecting public health, and lowering diseases attributed to climate change. Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington are expected to follow suit; recognizing eco- friendly responsibilities, while shaming the Trump Administration, for their ignorance when it comes to environmental issues.

Trump has already tried to dismantle this agreement, by launching an antitrust investigation in September of 2019. The Department of Justice investigated whether or not the pact violated antitrust laws when reaching a deal with California. Ultimately the investigation was inconclusive, leaving the President embarrassed once again by his outlandish assumptions.

Learn More

  • Cole, A. (2020, August 18). California regulators, automakers finalize pact for tougher emissions regulations. The Car Connection : https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1129288_california-regulators-automakers-finalize-pact-for-tougher-emissions-regulations
  • Davenport, H. T. (2019, September 06). Justice Dept. Investigates California Emissions Pact That Embarrassed Trump. The New York Times : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html
  • Shephardson, D. (2020, August 17). Defying Trump, California locks in vehicle emission deals with major automakers. Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/defying-trump-california-locks-in-vehicle-emission-deals-with-major-automakers-idUSKCN25D2CH

Resistance Resources

  • (2020). Climate Group : https://www.theclimategroup.org/partner/state-california
  • (2020). California Air Resources Board : https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
  • (2020). Coalation for Clean Air : https://www.ccair.org/
  • (2020). Environmental Defense Fund : https://www.edf.org/climate/california-leads-fight-curb-climate-change
Latest Police Shooting Leaves Kenosha, Wisconsin Reeling in Its Wake

Latest Police Shooting Leaves Kenosha, Wisconsin Reeling in Its Wake

This past Sunday, August 23, police officers in Kenosha, Wisconsin shot 29-year-old Jacob Blake seven times in the back. Reportedly, Blake was attempting to break up a fight between two women, when police responded to the call. When police arrived words were exchanged, and Jacob Blake attempted to retreat to his vehicle, where his three small children were waiting in the backseat. There was an effort to use a Taser against Blake to stop him from returning to his vehicle, but it was not successful. One of the officers, now identified as Rusten Sheskey, grabbed Blake by the shirt and discharged his weapon seven times into Blake’s back as Blake opened his driver’s side door. According to lawyers for his family, Jacob Blake is now paralyzed from the waist down and it would take a miracle for him to be able to walk again. The unlawful shooting of Blake is just the latest police-involved shooting where unnecessary force is used by police on African American suspects.

This incident has prompted protests every night in Kenosha since its occurrence. There is currently a 7 p.m. curfew in place until Sunday night. Tensions have been on the rise since the shooting, and Tuesday night some of those tensions came to a head in Kenosha. 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin armed with an AR-15 rifle to allegedly help defend businesses from looters. While in Kenosha, he shot three people, killing two of them. Although some speculate this was self-defense, most people are wondering why a minor was there in the first place. It is unlawful for someone under the age of 18 to carry a gun across state lines; in Illinois, where Rittenhouse resides, it is unlawful for someone under the age of 18 to own a gun. Rittenhouse was not immediately arrested, and was able to spend the night at home. This adds fuel to the idea that the police target black criminals with violence and shots to the back, while peacefully arresting their white counterparts. To contribute to the uproar, certain mainstream media outlets have labeled Jacob Blake as a man with a criminal past, while Kyle Rittenhouse has been labeled as a young man aspiring to be a police officer.

In response to the protests and rioting, President Donald Trump has sent in federal assets to help Kenosha “restore law and order.” After Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers had already sent in the Wisconsin National Guard, Trump tweeted “Governor should call in the National Guard in Wisconsin. It is ready, willing, and more than able. End problem FAST!” This tweet is similar to others, where Trump is quick to paint Democratic leaders as incompetent, even though they have acted on the problem. It has since been announced that the Department of Justice is sending in federal law enforcement to Kenosha, including the FBI and U.S. Marshals. Thursday, Governor Evers requested the help of other National Guard troops under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. National Guard troops from Alabama, Arizona, and Michigan will be heading to Kenosha to support the Wisconsin National Guard.

There is already evidence that many votes in Wisconsin will be voting for President Trump this November, with residents feeling that he better understands what they need. Some residents feel that Democrats are only focusing on systemic racism, and not on other issues. The Republicans have painted a picture that if Democrats are elected, the looting and rioting will continue. This idea has potentially swayed some voters back to President Trump.

The consequences of the actions of the Kenosha Police Department have put the national spotlight on the Black Lives Matter movement. With the protesting and rioting that has been abundant in Kenosha the past week, some opponents have voiced their criticism of Black Lives Matter, insinuating that they exist to inspire hatred against the police. These claims are unfounded and unsubstantiated. The movement is responding to Jacob Blake and many others being shot unlawfully by the police, and wants transparency from investigators. Black Lives Matter protestors attempted to remain peaceful, but tensions with police led to both sides escalating the situation. On Sunday night, the police antagonized the already agitated protestors with tear gas and rubber bullets. Protestors are frustrated over a lack of accountability in police-involved shootings, and become angry when they are responded to with either silence or violence from the police. By the time leaders from the local NAACP arrived, the national spotlight was already on Kenosha and the violence was spiraling out of control. There is speculation that until there is transparency, and until the officer that shot Blake is arrested or officially fired, the protests and rioting will continue for this Wisconsin city, with Black Lives Matter at the forefront.

Resistance Resources

  • To find out more about the organization, donate, or get involved, visit the Black Lives Matter website.
  • The NAACP is a civil rights organization that responds to violence against African Americans and advocates for civil rights and equality for everybody.
  • To donate or find out more about their mission in Kenosha, visit the Wisconsin ACLU website.
History And The Law Are Against President Trump’s Proposal For Law Enforcement Officers At Polling Booths

History And The Law Are Against President Trump’s Proposal For Law Enforcement Officers At Polling Booths

Policy Summary: On August 20, 2020 President Donald J. Trump said in an interview that he would send law enforcement officials to polling stations around the country. The intent was to protect against voter fraud in the upcoming November 2020 election. In his interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News the President said, “We’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement, and we’re going to have, hopefully, U.S. attorneys, and we’re going to have everybody and attorney generals.”

The idea floated by President Trump has its roots at a February 2020 conference in Orange County, CA sponsored by the Council for National Policy, a right – wing religious group. Other groups in attendance at the meeting, such as the group True the Vote, have advocated for more voting restrictions and for aggressively challenging a voter’s credentials at the polls.

Despite the President’s announcement, no plan or details have been revealed thus far to implement the President’s proposal. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: The President’s announcement was met with widespread disapproval. Dale Ho of the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Voting Rights Project dismissed President Trump’s suggestion by saying the President neither had the power to order a local sheriff to do something nor had the power to send federal forces into polling places. Wendy Weiser, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice cleverly pointed out that a number of states and local jurisdictions have laws against law enforcement officers being in polling places. A number of state Secretaries of State pushed back on Trump with Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold calling the proposal “voter intimidation” reminiscent of “tactics used against Black voters in the Jim Crow South.” The common themes that could be found in the pushback against the President are of a President trying to exert non – existent powers and an attempt to intimidate potential voters and suppress the vote.

While comparing President Trump’s proposal to old Jim Crow tactics is a useful analogy an incident from New Jersey in 1981 best illustrates why armed law enforcement officers at polling booths is easily one of the worst ideas. That year the Republican National Committee (RNC) decided to create the National Ballot Security Task Force. The RNC hired two hundred (200) off – duty police officers and private security officers to maintain a presence at polling booths while carrying visible firearms and walkie – talkies. They also wore armbands with the name “Task Force.” The members of the group were deployed to polling booths in predominately Black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey during a heated election for Governor that year. On Election Day, members of this group tried to intimidate voters by asking for voter registration cards from Blacks. They also chased many Latinos away from the polls. Eventually, the RNC was sued which resulted in a consent decree where the RNC agreed to not engage in poll watching without prior court approval. That consent decree was in effect for nearly four decades before it expired in 2018. What that incident in New Jersey showed was that poll monitors employed by the RNC were nothing more than a way to intimidate voters of color from voting. Now, with President Trump suggesting that armed law enforcement officers be stationed at polling booths, it is clear that the Republicans might again be on the verge of trying to intimidate voters, specifically voters of color, with agents visibly displaying weapons. While that consent decree was helpful in reigning in Republican voter suppression tactics it can no longer be relied on since it has expired. What is needed now is a concerted effort to employ all local, state and federal laws that prohibit law enforcement officers from polling booths. There also is a need for  a campaign to inform and warn the citizenry that President Trump’s proposal is not a proposal for election integrity but nothing more than a discredited old tactic used by racists from the Jim Crow era. The United States of America does not need an armed law enforcement presence to conduct a national election. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.

Trump Orders Most Biodiverse Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be Leased for Drilling

Trump Orders Most Biodiverse Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be Leased for Drilling

Policy

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a 19.3 million acre stretch of wilderness in northern Alaska, the largest in the United States, and has been protected from development for nearly six decades. It is home to 45 different species of mammals and 200 species of birds from 6 continents, making it one of, if not the most biodiverse areas in all the arctic. Environmentalists have considered it “one of the finest examples of wilderness left on earth.” Specifically, the coastal plain along the refuge’s northern edge, known as the 1002 Coastal Plain portion, is particularly diverse, containing the largest number of polar bear dens in Alaska, and provides habitat for muskoxen, Arctic wolves, foxes, hares, migrating waterfowl and herds of Porcupine caribou. This coastal plain portion is also believed to sit atop possibly the largest onshore oil reserves in North America that have yet to be tapped.

Most of the ANWR has been designated as “wilderness” since it first became a federally protected area in 1960, and so is off limits to development. However, when the ANWR was expanded in 1980, the 1002 Coastal Plain portion was recognized as “a promising area for energy development” (which was later supported by a seismic study in 1987), and essentially became bookmarked as an area with potential for oil extraction, but requiring Congressional authorization before any drilling. Based on the seismic data from the 1987 study and new well samples, a 1998 study of the area by USGS indicated the possibility of up to 11.8 billion barrels of oil. Interest in the area by the energy industry, however, has been up and down over the years for various reasons, such as fluctuating oil prices, political and legal challenges, and the discovery of other nearby oil deposits. It has remained largely untouched for nearly 60 years, within which Republicans in Congress have attempted nearly fifty times to allow drilling in the ANWR.

In 2017, the Republican-controlled Congress finally succeeded when it passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which included a mandated time frame for the Department of the Interior (DOI) to begin leasing land for development on the coastal plain. Donald Trump signed the Act into law in December 2017, directing his administration to open the 1002 Coastal Plain area for development and to begin leasing the land. Political controversy and environmental assessment requirements have prevented the lease of any plots so far, but in September 2019, the DOI submitted a final environmental impact statement (EIS), recommending that the coastal plain be open for leasing and that although the DOI admits that “activities associated with oil and gas development — including new roads and truck traffic, as well as air, noise and water pollution — could potentially harm wildlife,” the statement claims that measures can be taken to minimize the disturbance to wildlife by heavy machinery, such as not operating in certain areas for a month out of the year, so as not to disturb calving caribou.

With a supporting environmental impact statement approved by the Trump-nominated Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt, the Trump administration, on August 17, 2020, released a Record of Decision, outlining a plan for where and under what terms and conditions leasing for the oil and gas development program will occur on the refuge’s coastal plain. Trump’s Record of Decision makes “the approximately 1,563,500 acres, or the entire Coastal Plain program area, available for oil and gas leasing, and consequently for potential future exploration, development and transportation.” The decision orders the Interior Secretary and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to make at least two area-wide lease sales of no less than 400,000 acres each, by December 22, 2024, with the first sale by December 22, 2021 (Even if Donald Trump does not win reelection in November, it could be quite difficult for his successor to reverse any lease rights that have already been auctioned off to energy companies). Trump’s Decision also states that the BLM is required to authorize “any rights-of-way or easements across the Coastal Plain for the exploration, development, production, or transportation necessary to carry out [the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Program].” This means that the BLM has the ability to approve the building of any new road, pipeline, or other infrastructure for anyone, even if they don’t have a lease in the area, for any reason that might aid the gas and oil industry in the region.

Analysis

Republican Senator from Alaska, Dan Sullivan, supports the new Record of Decision, saying, “Thousands of Alaskans are employed in our oil industry, and their livelihoods depend on the good-paying jobs created by our state’s reserves. Today, we are one step closer to securing a bright future for these Alaskans and their families.” Local energy firms and some Alaska Native groups also support the Decision, believing it could provide jobs for a state that has seen a decline in oil production since the 1980’s.

Republican Senator, Lisa Murkowski and Republican Governor of Alaska, Michael J. Dunleavy both agree. Murkowski says, “New opportunity in the 1002 Area is needed both now, as Alaskans navigate incredibly challenging times, and well into the future as we seek a lasting economic foundation for our state.” Governor Dunleavy proclaims, “The Record of Decision is a definitive step in the right direction to developing this area’s energy potential – between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil reserves.” Republican Congressman Don Young also praises the Decision, proclaiming, “In Alaska, we have proven that protecting the environment, honoring our history, and developing our natural resources can go hand-in-hand.”

Environmentalists, however, are not so convinced. Many criticize the DOI’s latest environmental impact statement, claiming that the review was rushed, insufficient, and “largely based on older research,” as well as “failed to address several concerns,” such as not providing an estimate of how many polar bears could potentially be killed or harmed by exploration in the coastal plain. Opponents to drilling in the area also say the Interior Department downplayed the climate change risks in its review. The agency’s impact statement claims the greenhouse gas emissions that would ultimately result from the drilling of 11 billion barrels of oil would be minimal, “since most of that oil would simply displace oil being produced elsewhere in the country.” Attorneys general from 15 different states have submitted comments to the Interior Department, calling this displacement theory “completely unsupported.”

Banks including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase say they will not directly finance any oil and gas drilling operations in the Arctic, because of pressure from environmental groups and the Gwich’in Alaska Native group. The caribou are a primary subsistence food for the Gwich’in, and they are fearful of the development’s potential negative impact on the Porcupine caribou herds that come to the area to calve. The Gwich’in believe the leasing of the land they refer to as “Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit” or “The Sacred Place Where Life Begins,” is a violation of their human rights.

Exploring and drilling for oil in the Arctic is a costly operation, and it is unclear how interested the industry really is. For a large company with public name recognition, the project carries a lot of stigma and the possibility of “litigation, investor anger and a tarnished brand.” Robert Hayes, executive director of the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law and former deputy interior secretary under President Barack Obama says of the program, “You’ve got a lot of tripwires ahead.  Anyone buying a lease is potentially buying years of litigation along with that lease.”

Critics of Trump’s move are also unsure about how profitable the lease sale program could even be for the Federal Government. Little is known about how much oil sits under the coastal plain. The last seismic studies to identify possible oil and gas reservoirs were performed back in the ‘80’s when the technology was far inferior to today’s, and according to the New York Times, evidence shows that “The only well ever drilled within the refuge’s boundaries was a disappointment.” Even Governor Dunleavey referred to the estimated oil reserves as only “technically recoverable.”

Opponents to the oil and gas program believe that opening the refuge’s coastal plain to fossil fuel energy development “would be a step backward” in an era when the majority of Americans believe we should be burning less fossil fuels and doing more to fight climate change. Environmental groups argue that drilling could harm the already vulnerable and struggling wildlife in the area and that concerns from the Gwich’in Tribal Council and Vuntut Gwich’in Government have been largely ignored.

Most analysts seem to agree that drilling for oil and gas in the 1002 Coastal Plain area of the ANWR comes with a lot of uncertainty and risk, and that the highly contested area “will have far more meaning and value as a wildlife refuge in a warming world that is starting to seriously move away from hydrocarbon energy.” Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney with the environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity, makes a strong point when she says, “There’s no good time to open up America’s largest wildlife refuge to drilling and fracking, but it’s absolutely bonkers to endanger this beautiful place during a worldwide oil glut.”

Environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, the Alaska Wilderness League, and some Alaska Native groups are expected to file lawsuits to try to block any lease sales of the coastal plain land. Adam Kolton, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League wrote in a statement, “We will continue to fight this at every turn. Any oil company that would seek to drill in the Arctic Refuge will face enormous reputational, legal and financial risks.” The climate plan for Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden Jr. calls for permanent protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the banning of new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.

Resistance Resources

  • Center for Biological Diversity Working to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
  • Alaska Wilderness League The Alaska Wilderness League (AWL) is a nonprofit organization that works to protect Alaska’s most significant wild lands from oil and gas drilling and from other industrial threats. The Alaska Wilderness League galvanizes support to secure vital policies that protect and defend America’s last great wild public lands and waters. https://www.alaskawild.org/
  • Gwich’in Alaska Native group Established in 1992, the Gwich’in Tribal Council (GTC) is an indigenous organization that represents Gwich’in Participants in the Mackenzie-Delta of the Northwest Territories and across Canada. The Gwich’in have traditionally used and occupied lands in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon from time immemorial. https://gwichintribal.ca/

Learn More

Interior Press. (2020, August 17). Secretary Bernhardt Signs Decision to Implement the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program in Alaska. Retrieved August 23, 2020, from https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-bernhardt-signs-decision-implement-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program

Montgomery, S. L. (2020, August 21). Trump greenlights drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but will oil companies show up? Retrieved August 23, 2020, from https://theconversation.com/trump-greenlights-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-but-will-oil-companies-show-up-144715

Plumer, B., & Fountain, H. (2020, August 17). Trump Administration Finalizes Plan to Open Arctic Refuge to Drilling. Retrieved August 23, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/climate/alaska-oil-drilling-anwr.html?name=styln-climate

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. (2020, August 17). Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision. Retrieved August 23, 2020, from https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/102555/200241580/20024135/250030339/Coastal%20Plain%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf

USGS. (1998). Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum … Retrieved August 23, 2020, from https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

Vuntut Gwitchin Government and Gwich’in Tribal Council. (2020, August 18). VGG and GTC Joint Response to Record of Decision for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://gwichintribal.ca/about-gtc/news/vgg-and-gtc-joint-response-record-decision-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas

Is Canada A National Security Threat? It is Under the Trump Administration’s Trade Policy

Is Canada A National Security Threat? It is Under the Trump Administration’s Trade Policy

Policy Summary:

Just 1 month after the USMCA officially succeeded NAFTA as the framework for North American trade, one of the country’s most reliable allies finds itself, once again, in the crosshairs of U.S. protectionist trade policy.  Under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trump Administration cited national security concerns as the underlying condition necessitating the re-application of tariffs on Canadian aluminum.  Since the 2016 election, President Trump has continuously claimed that the health and security of the nation rest on the stability of industrialized manufacturing.  Moreover, he believes that the inherent strength of the military is dependent on the success of the industrial base, essential for the production of specialized strategic supplies and artillery equipment necessary to ensure protection.

Back in 2018, prior to trade negotiations, the U.S. imposed tariffs on a wide sector of industrial metals ranging from competitive adversaries like China to the traditional alliances of Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.  One of the components that became part of the framework of the new trade agreement was to mutually eliminate all forms of duties on steel and aluminum imported from within the production zones of North America, meaning that the U.S. Canada, and Mexico would all work collectively to allow the free-flow of industrialized products to and from supply chains within the region. Recently, however, President Trump insisted that since the country has experienced a surge of metal imports from Canada, the agreement reserved him the right to re-administer tariffs if aluminum continued to flood the U.S. market.  The administration believes that the excess importation of Canadian aluminum into the country forces downward pressure on prices, restricting manufacturers from maximizing potential output.  Proponents of the president’s trade policy advise the reason for supporting the 10% tariff is that it counteracts the massive degree of state subsidization granted to Canadian steel and aluminum producers, which, they claim, levels the playing field.

Analysis:

Although President Trump’s populist rhetoric has resonated with many blue-collar industrial capitalist and factory workers, his policies are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the mutual benefits compatible with free trade.  The reckless political approach of the Trump Administration continues to depart from the traditions that have been the staple of American foreign policy.  In the first place, to declare any industry in Canada a threat to national security is both shortsighted and obtuse.  While the U.S. has acquired steel and aluminum from Canadians for several decades now, it has never occurred at the expense of public safety.  In fact, the U.S. and Canadian metal industries are highly integrated.  Mid-stream metal producers from both countries utilize supply chains interchangeably when one develops any type of competitive advantage over the other.   By taxing “Canadian” aluminum, it is quite conceivable that the US is taxing itself as the product  is a collective meld from both foreign and domestic manufacturers alike.

In the second place, subjecting Canadian aluminum to a 10% tariff in no way facilitates American competitiveness.  Policies that encourage tariffs and quotas never seem to accomplish the most optimal economic outcome, because it is predicated on protecting the few at the cost of the many.  One can argue that levying aluminum tariffs protects the concentrated sector of those who are directly competing against foreigners, but it comes at the detriment and costs to the greater population.  Proposing to prop up the handful of aluminum manufacturers by forcing artificially higher costs on other intermediaries utilizing aluminum as inputs to production is rife with error.  97% of the U.S. aluminum industry is positioned in the median to downstream sector of the production process.  Consequently, the majority of firms in the aluminum industry would encounter more costs than benefits from tariffs that supposedly protect American producers.  The energy market, appliance manufacturers, the beverage industry, and auto-makers are just some of the major commercial interests adversely affected by the billions of dollars of excess costs they will be forced to absorb from the tariffs.  It is impossible to protect one sector of the American economy without further damaging another, which only achieves a lateral effect at best.

While President Trump continues to propagate the notion that foreigners are taking advantage of Americans in the international market, he is either evidently unaware of the mechanism that fuels the global economy, or he is blatantly attempting to sabotage American enterprise. If Canadian taxpayers want to subsidize their commercial aluminum industries to the betterment of American standards of living, why should we discourage them? Doing so allows Americans to lower costs and acquire more disposable income, effectively translating into greater capital investment.  Companies becoming inundated with excess costs become a drag on the U.S. economy by being forced to allocate more resources without any additional increase in output.  Is anyone surprised why manufacturers seek supply chains abroad when the commander in chief has basically declared war on certain businesses for political objectives.  The way to enhance American competitiveness is not by shielding them from competition, but by allowing them to choose from as open a market as possible, to achieve the advantage of maximizing output.

Under the Trump Administration, relationships built through the virtues of globalization continue to erode.  Free trade is described as mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges between a buyer and a seller, done in the absence of coercion, force, or pressure, where peace and prosperity have been the benefits built by the coalescence of cooperation and support among nations.  Declaring Canada a national security threat not only deviates from the perseverance of peace, but actually exists as a greater threat to the nation’s security.  The U.S. is supposed to be the beacon of freedom, liberty, and prosperity.  Yet the leader of the free world continues restricting freedom, disregarding allies, and propping up special interests.

At a time when the international community should be collectively seeking unification to solve universal problems such as Covid, climate change, and human rights issues, the U.S. continues to promote isolation rather than integration.  The global landscape has changed.  The planet is more interconnected through technology, communication, supply chains, and travel, than ever before.  No longer do global actors compete on the basis of raw power and control, but rather through cooperation in promoting the general well-being and welfare of the global community.  Countries who are commercially or actively integrated rarely have conflict.  Yet through misguided logic and understanding, the president is threatening to reverse the years of progress made by Americans, allies, and adversaries alike who have all worked together in achieving a safer and more secure world.

Resistance Resources:

  • Cato Institute – [https://www.cato.org/research/trade-policy] – is a public policy research organization dedicated to the principles of freedom, free-markets, and peace.  Through publishing policy proposals, blogs, web features, op‐​eds and TV appearances, Cato has worked vigorously to present citizens with incisive and understandable analysis.
  • FEE – Foundation for Economic Education – [fee.org] – An educational foundation that inspires leaders with sound economic and political solutions in both domestic and international policy issues. 
  • New York Times – [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/business/economy/trump-canadian-aluminum-tariffs.html] – assisting people in understanding domestic and global issues through expert, independent, non-partisan journalism.
x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest