JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Emoluments Cases
Brief #7—Social Justice
By Zack Huffman
The U.S. Supreme Court halted a pair of ongoing emoluments lawsuits against former president Donald Trump on Monday, Jan. 25, noting that the cases stopped being relevant when Trump left office. One of the lawsuits was filed days after Trump’s inauguration in 2017 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The suit claimed Trump’s vast business empire, from which he refused to divest, created numerous ways for foreign interests to buy influence over the president.
Biden’s Economic Executive Orders
Brief #107—Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
In addition to his $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, now being debated in Congress, President Biden has signed a number of Executive Orders affecting the well-being of struggling Americans.
These included a request that the Department of Education further suspend student loan payments to alleviate the burden on debt carrying graduates. He also requested the suspension of evictions and foreclosures on 44 million rental units across the country.
President Biden’s Executive Orders Greatly Strengthen US Commitment to Fight Climate Change
Brief #107—Environment
By Jacob Morton
On Wednesday, January 27, President Joe Biden signed a flurry of executive actions to address the climate crisis by reviving environmental protections dismantled by the previous administration and promoting the creation of new ‘green’ jobs. The orders revive many Obama-era protections and regulations, including a rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the protection of sacred indigenous sites in Utah. Biden’s executive actions go even further still, mandating that climate change be considered in all major decisions of the Federal government, and re-establishing a culture of scientific integrity and evidence-based decision making across all Federal agencies. The President’s executive orders also call for the Federal government to play a larger role in ensuring economic success for communities and individuals affected by an energy industry shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
Who Gets to Decide What Speech is Allowed on Social Media?
Brief #35—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol inspired by then President Trump, Twitter and Facebook banned him permanently from their platforms for violations of their terms of service. In the days that followed and in the wake of other individuals being prohibited from using those services, many in the right wing camp moved to services such as Parler and Gab. These services were removed from both the Apple and Android application stores and Parler’s servers, hosted in the Amazon Web Services cloud infrastructure, were shut down.
President Biden’s Day One Executive Order Revokes Prior Trump Orders On 2020 Census
Brief #148—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On January 20, 2021 President Joe Biden issued “Executive Order On Ensuring A Lawful And Accurate Enumeration and Apportionment Pursuant to the Decennial Census.” This was the second executive order President Biden signed after being inaugurated earlier in the day. The executive order in Section 5 specifically revokes President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13880 of July 11, 2019 (Collecting Information About Citizenship Status in Connection With the Decennial Census) and Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2020 (Excluding Illegal Aliens From The Apportionment Base Following The 2020 Census).
President Biden Signs Four Executive Orders Aimed at Racial Equality
Brief #6—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
On January 20th, Joe Biden was finally sworn in as the 46th president of the United States. In his first week in office, there has been a flurry of executive orders being signed by the new president-elect; some of these are aimed at repairing what Trump may have broken, and others are aimed at making America a better and more inclusive place for all. Of the 24 executive orders signed by President Biden so far, four of them involve promoting racial equality. These four executive orders are comprised of: directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to “take steps necessary to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies,” directing the Department of Justice to end its use of private prisons, reaffirming the federal government’s “commitment to tribal sovereignty and consultation,” and combatting xenophobia against Asian American and Pacific Islanders. It is important to familiarize yourself with the executive orders being signed, as they are laying some of the groundwork for Joe Biden’s plans for his presidency.
AMERICANS ON AMERICA: WHAT MY COUNTRY MEANS TO ME
Brief #3—Americans on America
By Linda F Hersey
Yemer Augilar ( Son of Guatemalan Immigrants ) – Safety is the most important value for them; living in a California community where they are not threatened by gang violence and can help provide the basics for their siblings here, as well as their mother back in Guatemala. Jaime Aguilar left his wife, children and the only home he had known to make a new life in America, without the entrenched poverty and threats of violence that were all too common in Guatemala. After 15 back-breaking years working menial jobs, Aguilar saved enough money and processed the needed paperwork to bring his three children to his adopted home of California.
Outlook for Covid-19 Vaccines in School Communities
Brief #53—Education
By Emily Carty
Vaccines have been required or recommended in schools for decades now. The CDC urges families to vaccinate their children against chicken pox, measles, and a handful of other illnesses in order to protect their own children as well as the general public. While this is just a recommendation, all 50 states have some laws in place requiring students to be vaccinated against certain diseases and in certain situations. For example, the state might require students of public schools to have certain immunizations while students in private schools are exempt. Nevertheless, there are ways to circumvent these requirements with medical, or in some cases, religious or philosophical exemptions. Forty-five states have religious exemptions, and 15 have philosophical exemptions — California, New York, Maine, Mississippi, and West Virginia only have medical exemptions.
Yemen and Cuba- 2 Foreign Policy Challenges for the Biden Administration
Brief #104—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
With Pompeo and Trump’s State Department now a thing of the past, the Biden administration has turned to the long, arduous task that has faced every incoming administration throughout American history: the review and either reversal or preservation of foreign policies. However, the Trump presidency was anything but typical, and it has left behind a complicated legacy that will take serious time and effort to sift through. This legacy is only made more difficult by the feverous, diplomatic equivalent of a closing sale that occurred in the final month of the Trump presidency. Two items of particular interest are the declaration of the Yemeni Ansar Allah, or Houthis, movement as a foreign terrorist organization and the designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. “Terrorism” has become a loaded and dangerous label that comes with justifiably serious repercussions and should not be taken lightly. This brief will discuss whether these designations were called for, and whether they should be maintained.
Updates on Senate Races in Kentucky, Montana, Michigan
As we return to the senate we see several races that have seen a significant rise in funding in recent weeks. The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has left democrats reeling and rallying around many close senate races, especially in Kentucky, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is in an incredibly tight race with challenger Amy McGrath. McGrath won a close primary against Charles Booker, a more progressive candidate who is Kentucky’s youngest black lawmaker. McGrath faces an uphill battle in a typically red state, but with the donations piling in and the backlash that McConnell is facing could form a perfect storm for McGrath. Recent polls show McConnell’s lead shrinking to 7 points and several insider reports indicate that McGrath is a leading receiver of donations since the death of RBG. It won’t be easy for McGrath, but it’s bound to be a closer race than polls indicate, and it will likely come down to mail-in ballots.
In Montana, which is a race we examined earlier this year, the race between incumbent Steve Daines (R), and former governor Steve Bullock (D), is coming down to the wire. Daines has seen his lead shrink to just 1 point in recent polls from the New York Times/Siena College, via fivethirtyeight.com. Bullock has seen his campaign receive a large portion of funding from ActBlue, a left-leaning PAC, coming his way after his race was indicated as one that could flip the senate. Daines has also faced some fire from his constituents after he tweeted that he believed that President Trump should go ahead with his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In all likelihood a Daines vote to confirm Barrett will be one of his last acts as a Senator, as we believe that Bullock will continue his upward trend to win this race.
Back in Michigan, things are only looking up for incumbent Gary Peters, who has extended what was once a close polling lead to 7 points, according to Public Policy Polling. Peters was seen as the favorite to retain his seat, and the recent upheaval regarding a new Supreme Court justice has pushed Peters into a comfortable lead in his race. Peters’ opponent, veteran John James, has run for Senate once before, losing to Debbie Stabenow in 2018. James is an ardent supporter of President Trump, which is one of the reasons that he will likely lose the race. We expect Peters to cruise to an easy victory, which will all but secure a blue Senate come next January.
As election day approaches, we at USResist News want to remind everyone to do their civic duty and to vote. Vote early, by mail, or at the polls on election day, whatever way is easiest and safest for you and your loved ones. We promise to have continuing coverage of the races that will be coming down to the wire that will shape the future of our nation.
How the Supreme Court Impacts the Economy
Policy
The Supreme Court has an enormous influence on economic policy though this association is not commonly made. For example, the rights and well-being of the working and middle classes can hinge on the opportunity to unionize. This right suffered a blow in a 2018 Supreme Court case, Janus v AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees). The so-called “right to work,” was upheld by the court in a 5 to 4 decision restricting unions from the collecting “fair share dues. Prior to the decision, a union could take a “fair share” of the dues from the employee, without their consent, to cover the cost of collective bargaining. This ruling applies to persons who are in a collective bargaining unit but have not joined the union, since they benefit from the union contract. They can be applied only to collective bargaining.
In a 5 to 4 decision in June 2018, the court negated the fair share mandate saying that collecting fees from non-consenting employees violated the First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Prior to that decision twenty two states had fair share provisions and 28 were “right to work” states barring collection of fair share monies. The decision voided the fair share mandates. The dissenting opinion, written by Elena Kagan, cited protections in the 1977 ruling, Abood v the Detroit Board of Education, which stipulated that fair share dues could only be utilized for collective bargaining which benefited all employees. She asserted that the ruling allowed the judiciary to intervene in economic and regulatory policy while weakening the unions.
With the current court poised to get another Trump appointment, the 6-3 conservative majority it would represent can do a lot of damage and, with the relative youth of the newer judges it could be sustained for decades. According to the Bloomberg report, the current nominee Amy Coney Barrett, represents positons to the right of Chief Justice Roberts. The fear is that the Court will overturn the Chevron Deference which maintains that federal agencies can interpret laws they administer as long as they are “reasonable.”
In the past, Anton Scalia supported the Chevron Deference, at least in the earlier part of his tenure, arguing that Congress intended to delegate authority and that the courts should uphold that perspective. Now that interpretation of Congressional intent is considered problematic and the judges are favoring seeing the laws as they are written. Flexibility in agency administration allowed the EPA to interpret the Clean Air Act to permit regulation of carbon emissions. The new court would halt the authority of agencies to interpret policy.
Analysis
These two examples indicate the great impact the court can have on workers, businesses, and the economy. Unionization is at an all-time low with 33.6% of government employees belonging to a union while only 6.2% of private workers are unionized. Nonunion workers average about $1500 less in salary and have to bargain for benefits. In 2010, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed Act 10 into law that significantly gutted the effectiveness of public employee unions, including the most state and most municipal workers as well as the teachers. Teacher’s salaries fell an estimated 2.6% and their benefits dropped by 18.6%. Walker successfully faced a recall vote in 2011 over the crisis in public unionization.
Learn More
- https://www.epi.org/publication/supreme-court-decision-in-janus-threatens-the-quality-of-public-sector-jobs-and-public-services-key-data-on-the-roles-these-workers-fill-and-the-pay-gaps-they-face/
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-24/trump-s-supreme-court-nominee-could-be-good-for-economic-growth
- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/janus-afscme-public-sector-unions/563879/
- https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/17/news/economy/wisconsin-act-10-teachers/index.html
Resistance Resources
- https://aflcio.org/about-us/our-unions-and-allies the largest umbrella organization of union and union affiliates.
Trump EPA Refuses to Ban Pesticide Shown to Reduce IQ and Infant Brain Development
Policy
The Environmental Protection Agency under Donald Trump has released a new assessment of the pesticide Chlorpyrifos, claiming the current science is inconclusive as to the amount of exposure necessary to be harmful. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide typically used on crops, animals, and buildings, to kill various pests, including insects and worms. The chemical has been used extensively in grape, almond, soybean, and particularly strawberry production. It acts on the nervous systems of insects by inhibiting the acetylcholinesterase enzyme.
In 2015 the Obama administration announced it would ban chlorpyrifos citing studies by the EPA warning of the chemical’s potential to make farm workers sick and impede brain development in children. However, in 2017, before the ban could be enforced, the EPA Administrator at the time, Scott Pruitt, reversed the decision, igniting a legal uproar. The EPA was ordered by a federal appeals court to make a final ruling by July 2019 on whether to ban Chlorpyrifos. Upon that deadline, Andrew Wheeler, now EPA Administrator, announced the agency would reject the petition to ban the pesticide, questioning the significance of the data around the chemical’s neurological impact on young children. Despite the agency’s continued rejection of a ban, the EPA is required by law to review a pesticide’s uses at least every 15 years, and with another legal case pending in the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals, the agency will be due to deliver a new final ruling on the use of Chlorpyrifos in about two years. Meanwhile, the EPA says it will make an interim decision this October.
Preceding the interim decision and final ruling, while pending legal cases loom from a dozen environmental and labor groups demanding an immediate ban, the EPA released this September, a new assessment of the dangers associated with the use of Chlorpyrifos. The report concludes that “Despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved…. With respect to effects on the developing brain, very little is known about the duration of chlorpyrifos exposure needed to precipitate adverse effects in the developing brain.”
Analysis
Some farm groups have defended the use of Chlorpyrifos, claiming the chemical has been a safe, effective, and versatile tool for protecting their crops since 1965. The EPA’s new assessment of the pesticide points to Oregon strawberry growers who have been particularly reliant on Chlorpyrifos for controlling symphylans, a pest that feeds on the plant’s roots. However, it should be noted that many certified organic strawberry growers throughout the country use a combination of alternative management practices to control symphylans and other pests, such as solarizing field soils with tarps, flooding fields, compacting growing beds, and incorporating cover crops. They prevent pest outbreaks naturally by maintaining optimal soil and plant nutrition throughout the growing season and establishing a balanced farm ecosystem.
The EPA’s assessment does acknowledge that Chlorpyrifos can have a negative effect on neurodevelopment, and even identifies “concerns about dietary exposure to chlorpyrifos and to pesticide handlers,” mirroring the same concerns expressed by the EPA back in 2015. However, the agency claims the risk of exposure to residential communities is “negligible,” and argues that there is insufficient data to definitively say what level of exposure is dangerous.
Many in the scientific community dispute this claim, pointing to several epidemiological studies, including one from Columbia University, showing “a correlation between prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos and developmental disorders in toddlers,” such as lower birth weights, lower IQ’s, and higher risk of autism. The EPA’s recent assessment, however, has rejected those findings, citing a lack of access to the raw data of those studies. Spokesman for the EPA, James Hewitt, said in a statement that the agency “remains unable to verify the reported findings” of the Columbia study (despite having been supported by other peer-reviewed studies), deeming its findings inconclusive. This move by the EPA suggests that the agency may be unofficially adopting its proposed “secret science” regulation, aiming to reject or give less weight to scientific studies that do not (or cannot) publicly release their underlying data.
As previously reported by Lisa Friedman at the New York Times, “This controversial policy would eliminate many studies that track the effects of exposure to substances on people’s health over long periods of time, because the data often includes confidential medical records of the subjects.” Trump’s EPA has used this same argument to justify weakening restrictions and rejecting bans on other toxic chemicals and pollutants, such as perchlorate (a water contaminant tied to fetal brain damage) and asbestos, despite repeated objections from agency scientists. The EPA has not finalized or officially adopted the “[secret science] regulation that would officially restrict using such studies in decision-making, but the chlorpyrifos assessment suggests it has moved forward in applying it.”
EPA officials claim they have been prevented from independently assessing the findings of the Columbia University study, by not being provided the study’s raw data. Lawyers supporting a ban on Chlorpyrifos say researchers from the Columbia University study “were willing to show their data to agency officials in a secure location but have not released the information publicly because of privacy concerns.”
EarthJustice attorney, Patti Goldman, criticized the EPA’s new assessment of the pesticide, saying, “Ignoring the demonstrated harm to children doesn’t make chlorpyrifos safe. It shows a commitment to keep a toxic pesticide in the market and in our food at all cost.” Earthjustice has also accused the administration of “fudging the data” in the new assessment, to reach its preferred conclusion. Erik D. Olson, senior director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the EPA’s report, “This shows that EPA has completely abandoned any commitment to protecting children from this extremely toxic chemical when their own scientists recommended twice to ban it. The science is being overridden by politics.”
California, New York, Hawaii, and other states have enacted their own bans and restrictions on the use of Chlorpyrifos. Corteva, the world’s largest manufacturer of the pesticide, says it has already ended production of the chemical. Entomologist Allen Felsot of Washington State University claims the use of chlorpyrifos is in decline, and notes, “The market tends to take care of a lot of this.” The EPA’s Draft Ecological Risk Assessment and Revised Human Health Risk Assessment of Chlorpyrifos will be open to scientific review and public comment once the Proposed Interim Decision is released this month. Both documents will remain open for review and comment for 60 days.
Resistance Resources
EarthJustice
- Behind nearly every major environmental win, you will find EarthJustice. EarthJustice’s legal work has saved irreplaceable wildlands, cleaned up the air we breathe, and fueled the rise of 100% clean energy. It has protected countless species on the brink of extinction, and secured long-overdue, historic limits on our nation’s worst polluting industries. https://earthjustice.org/
Natural Resources Defense Council
- Works to safeguard the earth, its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. Combining the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. https://www.nrdc.org/
Union of Concerned Scientists
- The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. UCS uses rigorous, independent science to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, UCS combines technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. https://www.ucsusa.org/
Sources Cited
- Friedman, L. (2020, September 23). EPA rejects its own findings that a widely used pesticide harms children’s brains. Retrieved October 02, 2020, from https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/ct-nw-nyt-epa-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-20200923-mehfao7iivatbmtswxhtb4ncgy-story.html
- Jenkins, D. (2020, September 24). EPA releases new assessment of chlorpyrifos. Retrieved October 02, 2020, from https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/research/epa-releases-new-assessment-of-chlorpyrifos/article_c2869bd2-fdef-11ea-8216-c72882240bbb.html
- Reed, G. (2020, September 25). EPA Chlorpyrifos Assessment: A Harbinger of Restricted Science Rule Havoc. Retrieved October 02, 2020, from https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/epa-chlorpyrifos-assessment-a-harbinger-of-restricted-science-rule-havoc
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020, September 22). EPA Takes Next Step in Review Process for Insecticide Chlorpyrifos, Making Draft Risk Assessments Available. Retrieved October 02, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-insecticide-chlorpyrifos-making-draft-risk-assessments
The Dismal Future of Public Pensions
Policy Summary
Many workers opt for public sector jobs lured by generous pensions and other benefits such as healthcare and leave time. Private sector work may offer higher salaries and some benefits but they are much less likely to offer guaranteed defined benefit retirement plans. These refer to a guaranteed payment, often for life, based on formulas computed with age and years of service. Contributions are made from the employees’ salaries as well as by the agency. These pensions are guaranteed untouchable by states laws which protect their future. If revenues fall, the employers must absorb the risk and contribute more to compensate for the shortfalls. In the public sector 77% of employees enjoy defined benefit pensions in contrast to only 13% of private sector workers. The situation is different in counties and municipalities which become vulnerable to some reductions if they enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy. In defined contribution systems, the employee and employer pay into the system but there is no guaranteed payout and the employee assumes the risk. More companies are shifting to these programs and government may follow this path, too.
Economists have been sounding the alarm, for years, regarding the shortfall or gap between pension obligation and available assets. This is true in all pension plans, to a greater or lesser extent, from small local entities to the California state employee system, Calpers, which services 1.6 million employees. Economists have been warning pension administrators of demographic shifts leading to the decreased contributions from contracted workforces paired with growing numbers of retirees. The pandemic has accelerated this change leading to greater deficits from unemployment and revenues lost when businesses shut down. State and local pensions have seen a loss of one trillion dollars since mid-February. California, for example, has seen a loss of 69 billion dollars in their 404 billion dollar portfolio, compounding a shortfall already predicted by the state budget offices. Overall, estimates suggest an immediate state revenue gap of 650 billion dollars. Although state pensions are predicted to be stable, due to law and political pressures, some localities such as Detroit, were forced into reducing payouts as a consequence of Chapter 9 bankruptcy restructuring. Experts have been cautioning pension planners to shift form high yield to conservative investments but these warnings have gone unheeded. In 2019, state and local pensions averaged a 71% funding level but this is predicted to decrease to 62.7% in a healthy recovery and 55.5% in a sluggish one. Many entities have relied on “gimmicks” such as short term loans, tapping reserves, and/or deferring some costs to cover their obligations. Ultimately, these will exacerbate the problem by delaying a longer term solution.
Policy
Suggestions regarding changing investment patterns to solidify the available assets and minimize risk are rational but unlikely to meet the need of the changing ratios of active workers to retirees. It is possible that future public sector employees will not be offered defined benefit pensions. In recent years, increases in pensions and healthcare costs have been favored by unions as these benefits are not subject to income taxes though they are severely impacting government budgets. Some states are closing their pensions to new workers while others are increasing the employee contribution. In Kentucky, a state with a steep shortfall, teachers are now contributing 13% to their retirement, twice as much as their social security payroll tax. Other states, such as Illinois, have added a 3% tax compounded annually, an amount which exceeds inflation. Other remedies have been doubling the gas tax; tripling the real-estate transfer tax; increasing car registration; increasing car metering costs; legalizing and taxing marijuana; and instituting a property fee which is levied on all entities including schools and churches. These actions have cost the state some of its population.
Increased employee contributions to public systems are feared to discourage people from entering the public sector as teachers, firefighters, law enforcement, or agency workers. Post-pandemic restructuring of government agencies is predicted to reduce the number of public employees, further cutting into available revenue. The federal government should be providing aid to ailing states and local governments but it not moving in that direction. Mitch McConnell (R), the Senate majority leader has stated that Congress should move to allow state bankruptcy rather than depend upon federal aid. The short sighted management of pension funds was already putting these at risk prior to the pandemic. Now the issue is accelerating and attention should be turned to redesigning government polices with regard to pensions, social security, and employment.
Learn More
- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/business/coronavirus-public-pension.html
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/04/coronavirus-pensions-retirement-covid-19-state-local-budget-markets/5198176002/
- https://theconversation.com/covid-19-will-turn-the-state-pension-problem-into-a-fiscal-crisis-139262
Resistance Resources
- https://www.aarp.org/entertainment/books/bookstore/money-work-retirement/info-2016/retirement-survival-guide.html A guide to retirement planning, especially important for those who do not have a defined benefit.
The Past & Present of the American Relationship with Iran
Policy Summary:
While not as omnipresent as it often has been, the issue of conflict with Iran should loom large in the context of the 2020 election. Indeed, it’s important to consider just how much more serious this issue has grown in the last four years. A central premise of Trump’s 2016 campaign was exiting the 2015 JCPOA— perhaps the single biggest foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration. Beginning on May 8, 2018, Trump made good on this threat, officially withdrawing from the agreement. Tensions with Iran have grown steadily since. The start of 2020 saw the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani at Baghdad International Airport, a major escalation of the conflict. Most recently, on September 19, 2020, the United States unilaterally attempted to reimpose all pre-JCPOA UN sanctions on Iran. (This includes a conventional arms embargo on Iran, among other prohibitions). While the efficacy of these sanctions are somewhat limited by the sheer exhaustion of sanctions already placed on Iran, coupled with the international community’s opposition to the sanctions, the United States still wields considerable power to hassle other countries and companies that do attempt to do business with Iran.
Any discussion of American-Iranian diplomacy must take into account the long and contentious history of relations between the two countries. In 1953, a CIA-backed coup overthrew the popularly elected Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, primarily over American and British objections to his nationalization of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later, British Petroleum). Mosaddeq was replaced by Shah Reza Pahlavi, whose often-brutal reign was financially and militarily supported by the United States until he was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Though less well-remembered (at least in the United States), American efforts to destabilize Iran were amplified after the Islamic Revolution and concurrent hostage crisis. September 2020 marks the 40th anniversary of the start of the Iran-Iraq War, which began after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. The war, ultimately the longest conventional war of the 20th century, was brutal for both sides, but particularly Iran. Although the United States played the two countries off each other during the war (Henry Kissinger famously said: “it’s a pity both sides can’t lose”), US sympathies were definitively with Saddam, and the US assisted him with targeting, weapons sales, and other logistical support. Perhaps most egregiously, in 1988, the United States missile cruiser Vincennes, stationed in the Persian Gulf, shot down Iranian Air Flight 655, killing all 290 passengers aboard. And finally, lest it be forgotten—it was widely believed that an American overthrow of Iran would be the sequel to the American invasion of Iraq. Iran was listed, along with Iraq and North Korea, in Bush’s famous “Axis of Evil” speech, and it is likely only the quagmire in Iraq that prevented the Bush Administration from taking this second step.
Today Iran is a regional power, and heavily isolated by America and its regional allies (particularly Israel and the Arab Gulf States). Predictably, because of American withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran has stopped complying with the terms of the agreement and has begun to expand its enriched uranium stockpile.
Analysis:
Trump appears to have little understanding of or interest in how his actions will destabilize the Greater Middle East. Despite implicit and explicit promises to end American involvement in the region, with regards to Iran he has dramatically escalated the potential for mass conflict. While Trump’s opinions may often be unformed and fickle, he continues to be advised by a number of long-time Iran hawks, like Mike Pompeo.
It hardly bears restating, but it should be emphasized that even a regional war would be devastating to all parties involved, particularly to Iranian citizens and other civilians in the region. The odds of a large-scale ground war and invasion—as with Iraq—seem low, but the prospect of a devastating air war, with serious Iranian resistance, remains quite possible. It is worth bearing in mind that at least several hundred thousand Iraqis died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003, and the body count may well exceed one million.
It should also be noted that despite its weaknesses from years of sanctions and isolation, Iran remains a strong country with a multi-millennia history. Iran is not in the position Iraq was in in 2003 (and arguably, Iran’s position has been strengthened by the US destruction of Iraq). Iran would be quite capable of mounting a major defense, directly and through proxies, like Hezbollah.
Finally—aside from making it extremely difficult, logistically, for a hypothetical Biden administration to re-enter the Iran deal, the Trump administration has created the possibly more severe problem of utterly shredding American credibility vis-à-vis international treaties. Why should Iran (or North Korea, or Venezuela, etc.) sign any treaty with an American administration if the next one can rip it up? Trump and those surrounding him evidently care little about this in the pursuit of their own agenda.
As tensions remain extremely high, and particularly as the election approaches, it is also worth noting that for decades Iran has been portrayed as an aggressor in US media and by the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. However even a cursory reading of regional history shows that Iran has far more often been the victim of geopolitical machinations by America and Western powers. All in all, Iran has reacted as a rational state actor, while the absurdity of the Trump administration’s approach has increasingly demonstrated that the United States is acting as a rogue state; and the long trail that has led to this moment was paved by a bipartisan consensus in Washington. It is imperative that those looking for change through the US domestic political process remember this.
Resistance Resources:
- https://ploughshares.org — “For over 39 years Ploughshares Fund has supported the most effective people and organizations in the world to reduce and eventually eliminate the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.”
- https://www.codepink.org — “CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.”
- https://aboutfaceveterans.org — “We are Post-9/11 service members and veterans organizing to end a foreign policy of permanent war and the use of military weapons, tactics, and values in communities across the country.”
Convalescent Plasma is FDA Approved, and Vaccine Trials are Underway as the US Death Toll Passes 200,000
COVID-19’s Status in the US
As the US struggles to manage the outbreak of coronavirus, the US Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19. Reportedly, over 70,000 patients have been treated with the blood and plasma of those who previously recovered from the infection since the pandemic started and have responded positively to the new treatment.
While this authorization has been touted as a “historic breakthrough”, scientists say additional data is necessary, citing the misleading statements by Trump overstating the limited evidence behind the new therapy. Documented positive outcomes of individuals being treated with convalescent plasma is encouraging when developing therapies to treat COVID-19, but widespread emergency use is still uncertain
Operation Warp Speed (OWS), first introduced over the summer, is the Administration’s operational goal of creating a vaccine for the coronavirus at a considerably faster rate than traditional vaccines. Trump and his team are pushing for a vaccine to be effective and ready for mass distribution before the November 3rd election day. Such an accelerated timeline requires pharmaceuticals and manufactures to work faster and more funding to support their efforts, the Administration has already committed billions of dollars to the vaccine pursuit.
| Manufacturers | Country | Type of Vaccine | Current Phase | Notes |
| Moderna and National Institutes of Health (NIH) | USA | Messenger RNA (mRNA) | Phase III | US Govt initially funded nearly $1 billion, was given an additional $1.5 billion in exchange for 100 million safe and effective doses. |
| University of Oxford & AstraZeneca | UK & Sweden | Viral Vector | Phase III | First vaccine to reach Phase III. The US awarded the two $1.2 billion in May and in Aug, the European Union ironed out a deal for 400 million vaccine doses. On Sept 6 trials were halted after a participant experienced severe neurological symptoms, trials in the UK and Brazil resumed on Sept 12, others are still paused. |
| Johnson & Johnson, & Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center | USA | Viral Vector | Phase I/II – moving to phase III in late Sept. | In March, the two received $456 million from the US government and a contract of $1 billion for 100 million doses if the vaccine is approved, back in August. |
| Pfizer, BioNTech, & Fosun Pharma | USA, Germany, & China | Messenger RNA (mRNA) | Phase II/III – there are currently two versions of the vaccine. | Trump Administration awarded a $1.9 billion contract for 100 million doses by December, Japan made a deal for 120 million doses and the European Union arranged 200 million doses. Company executives said they should know by October if the vaccine works. |
| Sinopharm & Beijing Institute of Biological Products | China | Inactivated Coronavirus | Phase III | Given emergency approval in the United Arab Emirates on Sept 15. The vaccine is authorized to only be used on healthcare workers. |
| Gamaleya Research Institute | Russia | Viral Vector | Phase III | The vaccine, renamed Sputnik V, is approved for early use. At first, little was known or shared about this vaccine. The globe was surprised by Putin’s announcement that a vaccine had been approved when few knew one was being developed, back in August. |
Recently CNN reports that nine vaccine makers say they have signed a joint pledge to uphold “high ethical standards,” suggesting they won’t seek premature government approval for any Covid-19 vaccines they develop. The companies that signed the pledge include AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Moderna, Pfizer, Novavax, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson and Merck.
Analysis:
The emergency authorization announcement came on the eve of the Republican National Convention, where Trump is attempting to resurrect his struggling polling numbers and popularity. It can be assumed that if Trump is viewed as finding a solution to the current pandemic, his favorability will increase, and the chances of reelection are higher. However, pushing a treatment before it has been fully tested can have disastrous effects, can dissuade supporters, and negatively impact future trust in treatments and vaccines. Scientists should explore this treatment as a viable option in treatment, but until a thorough study is conducted, it should not be touted by the President as a golden ticket out of the pandemic.
As with the emergency authorization of convalescent plasma, many see the rush for a vaccine as risky. While many of the manufacturers are reputable, the idea of cutting down a vaccine development process by half promotes uncertainty. This is particularly dangerous when it comes time for mass vaccinations.
AstraZeneca has come into the forefront of this race for a vaccine, but their trial hit a small bump in the road. After a participant began experiencing severe spinal cord inflammation, the trial was tentatively halted. Following protocol, researchers were tasked with determining if the symptoms were a result of the vaccine or if this was an unrelated occurrence. This suspension comes after another participant was dismissed from the trial after too experiencing neurological symptoms. However, it was concluded that the participant had anundiagnosed case of multiple sclerosis, and the vaccine was not to blame. The trial continued September 17th in the United Kingdom and Brazil, other nations where testing is underway are still on pause. Currently, there are plenty of vaccines racing to bring this pandemic to an end, until one is deemed safe and effective, and gain approval, the race shall continue.
Engagement Resources:
- For concerns about COVID-19, please seek assistance with the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or local health officials.
- Subscribe HERE to stay up to date with COVID-19
Number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as of September 23, 2020 – Consult the CDC or Johns Hopkins for an update in numbers.
| Nation | Confirmed Cases | Deaths |
| Globally | 31,673,086 | 972,372 |
| United States | 6,902,930 | 201,120 |
| India | 5,646,010 | 90,020 |
| Brazil | 4,591,364 | 138,105 |
| Russia | 1,117,487 | 19,720 |
| Colombia | 777,537 | 24,570 |
| Peru | 776,546 | 31,568 |
| Mexico | 705,263 | 74,348 |
| Spain | 682,267 | 30,904 |
| South Africa | 663,282 | 16,118 |
| Argentina | 651,174 | 13,952 |
Nearly Half a Million Immigrants Face Deportation – The End of Temporary Protected Status
Policy Summary
In Los Angeles a Federal Appeals Court ruled the Trump Administration acted lawfully in terminating the Temporary Protected Status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants. These protections have allowed immigrants to live and work in the US after fleeing conflict and/or natural disasters in their home countries. The recent 2-1 ruling strips the legal immigration status from at least 400,000 individuals of Salvadorian origin, thus rendering them deportable if they do not leave voluntarily. Other countries that fall under TPS include Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Nicaragua, Nepal, Honduras, Haiti, and Yemen.
Analysis
Beneficiaries of the program have about 200,000 US born children, so families could again be separated. More than 100,000 of the protected individuals work in essential fields: healthcare (at least 11,000), food-related (at least 76,000). The deportation of these migrants could negatively impact several aspects of the US economy and health system. However, if President Trump is not re-elected, the new administration may choose to uphold and continue the program.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
Debunking Republican Arguments To Speed Up Vote On Supreme Court Nominee In A Presidential Election Year
Policy Summary: On September 18, 2020 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away at the age of eighty-seven. She had served on the Court as the second woman appointed to the Court since August 1993 after being appointed by then President William J. Clinton. The death of Justice Ginsburg has set off a political battle for control of the nomination and confirmation of the justice who will replace Ginsburg on the Court.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “…and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate…judges of the supreme Court…” With a 53 – 47 Republican majority advantage in the Senate and only a majority required to confirm a nominee, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm a successor. However, the political battle to confirm a successor after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016 is influencing whether the chamber will even vote on a nominee. After Justice Scalia’s unexpected death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to hold a hearing on President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, on partisan grounds. No vote was ever taken on President Obama’s nominee and the Supreme Court spent 2016 with only eight members on the court. After the election of Republican Donald Trump as President, he nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and the Senate voted to confirm him. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: With the 2020 U.S. Presidential election a little more than a month away, most Republicans in the Senate are eager to rush a vote on Justice Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court. However, the rationales to speed up the process and schedule a hearing and vote in the Senate has caused many voters to cry “hypocrites.” Many of those cries are directed at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who famously blocked Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination from even having a hearing.
The main rationales being used by Republicans today to vote on an upcoming nominee before Election Day are [1] that since the 1880’s no Senate has confirmed an “opposite party” President’s nominee during an election year and so refusal to confirm an “opposite party” nominee in 2016 and vote on a “same party” nominee in 2020 is ok and [2] that a justice on the Supreme Court is needed in case the 2020 election is close and a decision from the Supreme Court is required. Neither of these rationalizations has any merit.
While many Republicans have adopted the talking point that since the 1880’s no Senate has confirmed an “opposite party” Presidential Supreme Court nominee during an election year vacancy, closer inspection of the historical record shows that this is false. During the 1988 election year, the Democratic controlled Senate confirmed Republican President Ronald Reagan’s nominee to the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Not only was he approved but he was approved unanimously 97 – 0. And in the 1956 election year, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was successful in having Justice Brennan appointed to the Supreme Court as a recess appointment, which was later approved by the Democratic Senate in 1957. So, the argument by today’s Republicans about an “opposite party” Presidential nominee not getting confirmed by the Senate is just plain wrong and a distortion of historical fact.
Finally, the argument that the Supreme Court needs a justice to bring the membership of the court back up to nine in order to avoid tie votes is one that has been floated by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). He has been emphatic that there is a possibility that a close result in the 2020 Presidential election might end up before the Supreme Court and so it is important that the Court be able to resolve cases definitively instead of having cases end in a 4 – 4 tie. However, that argument is undercut because of how Mitch McConell blocked the Garland nomination in 2016. With Justice Scalia’s death in February 2016 and McConell stubbornly refusing to even hold a hearing on the Garland nomination the Senate in 2016 allowed the Supreme Court to remain at eight members for nearly all of 2016. In total, the Supreme Court remained at eight members for fourteen months. It even included the October, November and December months of the 2016 election season. If Sen. Cruz and his Republican colleagues are worried about having Supreme Court cases end in 4 – 4 ties then why did they leave the Court with only eight members during all of 2016 and through the 2016 election season? This argument being put forth by Republicans now in 2020 has no merit and based on their obstructionist actions in 2016 is easily dismissible as Republicans playing a partisan game for control of the Supreme Court.
Sen. McConell and the Republicans in the Senate said in 2016 that they would not hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee during an election year because they wanted the American people to have a voice in who a potential Supreme Court nominee should be by their vote for President. But based on their rush to hold a vote on a potential Supreme Court nominee about a month before the election the Republicans have shown that their words are meaningless and that their self – serving arguments are nothing more than falsehoods and contradictions in service of their partisan interests. Senate Republicans should follow their own words and not hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee until the results of the November 2020 Presidential election are in. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Demand Justice – group organized to nominate progressives to the judiciary.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – tribute page to the work and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Women’s Rights Project.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
The Corruption of Eugene Scalia
US Department of Labor governs worker safety, wage requirements and an assortment of other pressing concerns of American workers. Trump’s original pick, Alex Acosta resigned after details of his obscenely lenient plea deal with billionaire sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein came to light. His replacement, Eugene Scalia, has spent his tenure undermining the safety and security of the working class.
It should come as no surprise as Scalia, a lawyer by trade, has spent the bulk of his career in private practice defending corporate clients against their employees. As a private citizen his clients included Wal-Mart and Boeing. He railed against ergonomics in the workplace, fought against protections for workers at risk of repetitive injury and a law that would require large corporations (more than 10,000 employees) to spend 6% of payroll on healthcare. Scalia has essentially continued in this line of work from within the federal government, on the taxpayer’s dime, to the detriment of the nation’s labor force.
The Department of Labor’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been almost nonexistent, and a tragic example of Scalia’s negligence. OSHA, a DoL subdivision is responsible for drafting and enforcing rules designed to create and maintain safe workplaces. Scalia has publicly stated the agency should play no role in managing the pandemic, even as his boss in the White House rushed to re-open the economy, sending workers back into hazardous environments. Amazon warehouses and the meatpacking industry at large have been especially problematic in this realm.
The case of Smithfield Food is representative of Scalia’s maladministration. The company, which is responsible for 5% of all pork production in the US, has been troublingly lax in shielding workers from infection. Conditions inside their plants dictate line workers stand shoulder to shoulder over 11 hour shifts. Little or no protective equipment has been provided by the company and employees maintain there is not time in their day to regularly wash their hands. The Sioux Falls, South Dakota facility, employs 3,700 people. In April the plant closed after 300 workers tested positive for the coronavirus. Smithfield faces multiple lawsuits alleging similar negligence at plants in other states. Not until September, did OSHA issue its first and only fine related to Covid-19 safety violations. Smithfield, the largest producer of pork products on the planet, was fined a whopping $13,400 for brazen disregard for worker safety during the deadliest public health outbreak in a century.
A comfortable retirement was once a cornerstone of the American Dream. With pensions becoming more scant, Social Security nearing insolvency and 401K’s proving insufficient, retirement is more aspirational than it had been. Eugene Scalia has made the proposition increasingly more doubtful in a string of recent decisions. 1974’s Employee Retirement Income and Security Act gives the Department of Labor broad control over the retirement plans of ‘’Main Street Investors.’’ It previously served as a safeguard of corporate plundering of worker’s retirement funds. Scalia has stripped a key protection which greatly expanding the kind of funds plan managers may access. Money managers overseeing retirement plans may now access high-risk, high-fee private equity funds. Said funds have not been shown to outperform low-risk mutual funds indexes. Most Americans are dependent on savings for long-term financial planning, which necessarily dictates an ultraconservative strategy. The change to ERISA is diametrically opposed to that bit of common sense. Scalia’s decision opens up roughly $8.9 trillion in capital from the 401K market. In short the move incurs great risk on the part of retirees while offering no discernible benefit. Wall St. however has a great deal more capital with which to play.
Retirement plans may not be used to advance environmental, social or policy changes at the expense of financial considerations. This was Scalia’s rationale in restricting retirement investing in Environmental Social Governance. The policy applies regardless of the wishes of a given retiree. ESG’s have gained increasing popularity in the financial sector, representing roughly a quarter of all US investment dollars. Apart from any altruistic motivations, ESG’s have proven to slightly outperform traditional investment strategies in robust times and lose less in the event of economic downturn. The data seems to fly in the face of Scalia’s ostensible fiduciary concerns. His hypocrisy is manifest.
Latest Polling Results, Mail-In Ballots, Presidential Debate
Less than two months away from election day, Joe Biden and President Trump enter the final stretch of their presidential campaigns.
After record setting fundraising efforts this summer and slowed spending on advertising in the spring, Biden’s campaign has a $141 million edge over President Trump’s. Only spending half of what was brought in last month, the influx of donations to Biden’s campaign reflects a historic push by the Democrats to take back the white house.
The most recent NBC poll shows Joseph R. Biden maintaining a steady 51% to 43% lead nationally, despite his edge slightly shrinking. But in crucial swing states, such as Florida, Biden continues to command the incumbent in the polls. One exception is Texas, where President Trump is at a 48% to 46% advantage. Trump won both of these states in the 2016 race and it’s important to note that his support has been difficult to gauge by the polls.
Texas has a growing Hispanic, Black, and Asian American communities along with white suburbs that are growing more moderate. Florida is considered a tossup with its diverse, yet conservatie leaning residents. Georgia, which hasn’t voted blue since the 1990s, has been growing more politically diverse with the growth of Atlanta and surrounding suburbs.
Analysts at Politico have declared Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as the eight crucial swing states that will sway the 2020 election. They have been determined by a variety of factors including polling, demographics, and the resource allocation of both campaigns.
Since these states tend to fluctuate between red and blue each election cycle, the focus on them is heavy. But within each state, certain types of voters are at the focal point. The key to winning the white house is Latino voters, the largest minority group in the electorate. President Trump’s focus is on the working class and rural white along with suburbanites, whose support for him is shrinking.
With the passing of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a trailblazer for female rights, the appointment of the vacant seat stands to influence the election. The SCOTUS battle comes at a time where another nomination by the current President could shift the court more right ideologically, and ultimately be the sixth GOP nomination.
The Postmaster General, Louis Dejoy, claims that the United States Postal Service is equipped to handle an expected increase of mail during this election season. For the first time in history, the majority of people will have the opportunity to cast their ballots by mail. This adjustment, without adequate time to implement changes, has proven to be a cause for concern.
A federal judge issued a historic decision to block Dejoy from modified USPS policies or protocols in the time up to the election. Recent lawsuits from the Republican National Committee and President Trump, which aim to bypass the USPS and instead utilize ballot drop boxes, could result in voter disenfranchisement and uncounted votes.
While both mail and in person voting will end on November 3, post election fights in the courts seem likely given the President’s claims that the election will be rigged. Mail in voting will inevitably prolong the counting of ballots and delay the final outcome of the election.
On September 29, the President and Joe Biden will contend over their fitness to lead the nation in the first of three scheduled debates. Debates are essential to influence voters who are undecided, while for may it is simply a confirmation of their choice.