JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Biden’s Administration Proposes Sweeping New Immigration Law and Ends Separation of Children from Their Parents
Brief #114—Immigration
By Linda F. Hersey
The zero-tolerance program that defined the Trump Administration’s policy on immigration – separating hundreds of immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border – is officially over.
Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson sent a letter to all U.S. attorneys that rescinds the order, effectively erasing the policy that allowed for federally prosecuting undocumented parents and separating them from their children.
Although immigrants can still be deported if they do not have documents or protections to stay in the U.S., they typically are not charged in federal court and separated from their children. The Wilkinson letter – first reported by NBC News — encourages prosecutors to “use discretion” in prosecuting minor border offenses.
Facebook Profits From Political Polarization and Violence
Brief #34—Technology
By Scout Burchill
Facebook has been targeting online “patriot” and militia groups with ads for military gear such as body armor and weapon accessories. Despite a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg from members of Congress, calls from State Attorney Generals, and internal warnings by Facebook employees, research by the Tech Transparency Project reveals that these ads were still targeting users as late as January 17th.
Twitter Dumped Trump, For Good
Brief #33—Technology
By Scout Burchill
On January 6th, in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, Twitter announced that President Donald Trump’s account would be suspended. Twitter followed this up on Friday, January 8th by permanently banning President Trump from its platform “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” Other tech platforms almost immediately followed suit, including Reddit, Twitch, Shopify, Snapchat, Discord, Stripe and Facebook, which declared a ban “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks.” Facebook has since sent this decision to their newly created oversight board for further review.
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 1: Improving Economic Security for Women
Brief #93—Health and Gender
By Erin McNemar
In March of 2020, President Joe Biden committed to selecting a female running mate. Five months later, he fulfilled that promise by tapping Vice President Kamala Harris for the position. This historic decision meant that women’s rights would be a priority issue for the next four years.
Biden’s First Few Days in Office Address Immigration: Border Wall Funding Ceases and DACA is Reinstated
Brief #109—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Within President Biden’s first few days in office, he has signed two Executive Orders to begin mitigating and reversing the Trump Administration’s efforts to drastically alter immigration policies. First, Biden ended the national emergency declaration that effectively diverted $10 billion from the Defense Department towards Trump’s border wall. The proclamation also asserts that federal agencies must curate a plan of action within 60 days to redirect border wall funds.
Biden and Abortion: What Should America Expect?
Brief #92—Health and Gender
By Justin Lee
Former President Trump took strong actions against abortion and reproductive health policies during his presidency. Trump reinstated and strengthened the Mexico City Policy, which implemented funding restrictions to foreign organizations that provided abortion services or counseling. First introduced in the Reagan administration, Trump’s stance lead to the closure of many reproductive health clinics that provided care not just for abortions, but also for HIV care. Trump also attempted to limit the scope of the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act, which previously required most insurance plans to cover birth control without copayments. The Supreme Court upheld the exemptions for employers with religious and/or moral objections to refuse providing birth control benefits for employees in July 2020.
Privacy Under Attack: The Challenge of Data Commoditization in The Biden Era
Brief #32—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
The US Defense Intelligence Agency and other government entities routinely collect cell phone location data on US residents without a warrant, according to a memo reported by The New York Times on Friday January 22, 2021. The agencies buy the information on the open market from data brokers, who often get it from third-party apps running on users’ phones.
Do We Need a Domestic Terrorism Law?
Brief #5—Social Justice
By Zach Huffman
President Joe Biden said that among his first priorities in office will be to pass a domestic terrorism law. Renewed interest in anti-terrorism legislation comes after frenzied attendees from President Donald Trump’s January 6 rally in Washington DC, rioted at the Capitol while Congress was confirming the electoral votes from last November’s election. The insurrectionist crowd breached the capital, with so-called protesters breaking into legislators’ offices and ransacking the building.
State and Local Jurisdictions Need Federal Aid to Be Viable
Brief #106—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
State and local government budgets provide the bread and butter of fiscal life and, because of the pandemic costs, require a federal infusion of aid to accomplish maintenance of essential services. State and local governments provide major funding for infrastructure, services, and education. They outspend the federal government on goods and services and account for 15% of the GDP. They contribute more than 90% of the moneys for education and 80% of transportation spending. State Medicaid costs have been on the rise, especially in Republican states that did not take advantage of federal extensions of benefits to states. State and local entities employ more people than domestic manufacturing and and have lost 1.3 million jobs since March, representing the smallest workforce since 2001. These are budgetary elements which impact the availability of goods and services which contribute to quality of life, such as police, fire, and waste services.
Russian Interference at the Highest Level in Presidential Elections
Summary
It was confirmed in October of 2016, then explained in 2019 by the Special Counsel Investigation led by Robert Mueller – Russia had interfered with the 2016 presidential election. The goal of this interference was to cause harm to the Clinton campaign and assist in Trump’s election, as well as to increase social and political unrest in the country.
Last week FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed that these efforts have not ceased concerning this year’s election, citing findings of “very active efforts by the Russians to influence our election in 2020” and more specifically that Russia “is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment.’”
And the Central Intelligence Agency issued a new report asserting that Vladimir Putin is likely directing election efforts to elect Trump. The assessment, which the agency has moderate confidence in, buttresses earlier findings that the Russian president supports President Trump’s re-election
Analysis
The tactics are not new this time around. Russian troll farms are constantly producing content reaching more than 120million Americans via multiple social media platforms. What is new is our awareness of these manipulations. Efforts have been made since 2016 to curb these misinformation campaigns, however it is unclear how much impact those efforts will have. A 2017 Yale study found that the use of labels on content stating that the information was “disputed,” a sort of middle-ground of censorship that had been agreed to, led to less than 4% of viewers to consider the information false. This may prompt the idea that Americans are allowing themselves to be manipulated or refusing to look away from what they potentially know is harmful. However, manipulation by misinformation has become such a part of American politics and social discourse that it has become almost impossible to identify.
The reason these efforts are able to camouflage themselves is that they are ultimately acting as a stirrer in a pot that has been simmering for years. While it has been confirmed that Russian troll pages are pro-Trump, many seemingly left-wing social media pages have been created by the Internet Research Agency (IRA or Glavset), a Russian political influence company. Their goal is unrest and division. Russian pages aligned with the BLM movement, for instance, have been present since 2016 and remain today in great supply. While seemingly counterintuitive to their goal, there are many possible results that work in their favor with this tactic – how many young, new to activism and political criticism could be convinced that the whole system is corrupt and simply not vote? How many will see posts that may be considered too far and abandon their fight for change? How many white supporters of BLM may see something worded just off enough to convince them they don’t belong, and be swayed to the other side? Of course, these outcomes are possible without interference in a country so divided, which has made it that much easier for them to identify which buttons to push.
Beyond subtle manipulations, it was found that in 2016 a number of state elections were targeted with malware designed to alter or sabotage the way voting machines operated. The FBI and Homeland Security offices are watching for this type of efforts in the upcoming election but have found no proof of such efforts as of yet. With mail-in voting playing a large part in the election, however, there may be no reason for malware. To the same end, Russian social media pages have been pushing Trump’s agenda of discrediting the mail-in voting system. Both sides have been infiltrated, and while the subtlety is jarring enough to make it seem a mastermind operation, Trump has been using the same types of dog-whistle manipulation throughout his campaign and presidency. In the age of social media, time will tell how – or if – we are able to quell this interference.
Resistance Resources
- Committee on Intelligence Report concerning Russian election interference and vulnerabilities:
- https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
- Alliance for Securing Democracy Fact Sheet concerning Russian Interference Operations:
- https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/fact-sheet-what-we-know-about-russias-interference-operations/
Trump Labels Three Cities as ‘Anarchist Jurisdictions’ in Executive Order
Policy Summary
On September 21st, President Donald Trump followed through with an Executive Order from earlier this month and officially deemed New York, Seattle, and Portland “anarchist jurisdictions.” This could mean that these three cities will potentially see cuts in federal funding, especially regarding federal grants. In the original September 2nd Executive Order, Trump specifically targeted the government officials of cities who are “permitting anarchy, violence, and destruction.” The three cities listed have seen heavy protests this year after several law-enforcement involved shootings.
In a statement on September 21st, Attorney General William Barr implied that leaders in these cities do not allow law enforcement to do their jobs, which in turn leads to citizens not being protected by law enforcement when the time comes. Since these leaders will allegedly not cooperate with law enforcement, President Trump and the Justice Department intend on punishing them through cutting federal funding. Some of the criteria for cities to fall under the scope of the term “anarchist jurisdiction,” as laid out in the Justice Departments September 21st memo, are: whether a jurisdiction disempowers or defunds police departments and whether a jurisdiction refuses to accept offers of law enforcement aid from the Federal Government. According to the memo, cities may be added to the list as they fall under these criteria. In the coming weeks, there is expected to be more information released about what specific cuts in federal funding may occur.
Policy Analysis
The move to declare New York City, Portland, and Seattle as anarchist jurisdictions is perceived by many as a political move. The November 3rd election is looming, and President Trump is looking to make good on his promise to be a “law and order” candidate. Painting cities as “lawless zones” that he intends to help or put an end to, Trump grasps at straws as Election Day closes in. In recent national polls, Democratic candidate Joe Biden is favored at 51%, putting him eight points ahead of President Trump. Being that the election is so close, it is no coincidence that all three of the cities named in this recent announcement are Democrat-led. Any other cities that are added to the Justice Department’s list in the coming months would likely be Democrat-led, as well. The President has often criticized the leadership of these cities during the protests, and subsequent looting and rioting, earlier this year. The mayors of these three cities believe that if Trump follows through with his promise after labeling them anarchist jurisdictions, he would be breaking the law. In response to this threat, the mayors have also vocalized that they feel the President’s move is purely political and unconstitutional. There are already legal wheels turning, with New York Attorney General Letitia James stating that she is preparing a lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s plan to withhold federal grant money.
President Trump has once again successfully manipulated the Constitution with his latest move; he claims he does not want Federal funds used in a way that violates the Government’s promise to “protect life, liberty, and property,” yet, he cuts funding instead of redirecting it in a more productive way or attempting to get to the root of the problem.
Resistance Resources
- You can read the full announcement from the Department of Justice here.
- To read President Trump’s September 2nd announcement, click here.
Progressive and Far Right Media’s Response to Trump’s Woodward Interview
In a recent Sixty Minutes interview with Scott Pelley, Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward said that on January 28, before COVD-19 was on anyone’s radar, Robert O’Brien, the National Security Advisor, told President Donald Trump that the virus would be the biggest national security threat during his presidency. Deputy National Security Advisor, Matt Pottinger, told Trump that contacts in China had informed him that the virus would be comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed 675,000 Americans.
On February 7, Trump told Woodward in a series of interviews that the virus was more deadly than the strenuous flu.
But with all the intelligence the President had received, in a press statement three weeks later, Trump told the public that the virus was, in fact, similar to the regular flu.
On March 19, Trump then said to Woodward, “I wanted to, I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down…because I don’t want to create a panic.”
On September 9, 2020, Biden in a Michigan campaign speech said that Trump knowingly and willing lied to the American people about the threat of COVID-19, and said that if he had just acted one week sooner, 36,000 people would have been saved, and that if he had acted two weeks sooner, 54,000 lives would have been spared.
In light of Trump stating how he wanted to downplay the severity of COVID-19, several independent news outlets have been reporting on the recent revelation. In addition to tying the significance of Trump’s words to his handling of the pandemic, as well as the 2020 Presidential election, these outlets have also condemned Woodward for delaying the release of the interview, but in entirely different ways.
The Young Turks, the progressive network that has been consistently criticizing Trump’s response to COVID-19, shamed the President for his Woodward interview. On September 9, 2020, Ana Kasparian condemned Trump for downplaying COVID-19, asserting that the President had argued how COVID-19 is like the common flu.
“…we all know that that’s not true,” said Kasparian. “And no one can now argue that Trump was just ignorant of the facts. He knew what the truth was, he had been briefed about it in January. And he chose not to take it seriously when addressing the public.”
Kasparian and reporter Nando Vila also condemned Woodward for not releasing the recordings, but in a different manner from OAN. Conversely, while OAN seemed to be challenging Woodward’s bad intentions as a leftist media figure, the Young Turks accused him of being opportunistic.
“…it is pretty shameful that Woodward held on to this audio until he wanted to start promoting his upcoming book,” said Kasparian.
Kasparian and Vila also asserted that releasing the recordings could have sparked the media and elected officials to take the virus more seriously.
“…had we had that tape in early February,” said Vila, “…things might have been different…it’s hard to say…maybe more people would have taken it seriously. Maybe some governors would have taken it more seriously.”
On September 12, 2020, OAN, the far-right, pro-Trump news channel, asserted that the negative coverage of Trump downplaying the virus was an example of the media conflating Trump’s intentions while also being confused about the actions he took in response to the pandemic.
“The problem with this story is one of timeline,” said OAN Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion. “Media wrongfully conflated the idea President Trump didn’t want to create panic with the factually false premise that the President then, did not take action.”
Rion went on to challenge the merit of Woodward’s reporting by citing a tweet from Donald Trump that stated, “If he [Woodward] thought they were so bad or dangerous, why didn’t he immediately report them in an effort to save lives?”
Rion then dismissed the Woodward interview, and the media’s negative coverage of Trump’s words, as a failed attempt by the “frantic leftist media” to smear President Trump in an attempt to distract voters from Joe Biden’s shortcomings.
One week later, OAN reporter Daniel Kitchen commented on Joe Biden’s CNN Town Hall by highlighting a debunked claim made by Biden that Trump never referenced COVID-19 in his state of the union address. Kitchen also pointed out how Twitter users had a tweet frenzy when Biden and CNN reporter Anderson Cooper appeared to violate social distancing guidelines during a cut to commercial break.
While progressive channels like the Young Turks continue to condemn Trump’s handling of COVID-19, utilizing the Woodward tapes as further evidence, right wing outlets like OAN are making the claim that Trump was heroic in his attempt to not stir panic amongst the public.
At this time, several media outlets are continuing to report and criticize the President for downplaying the virus in a manner that was not honest with the American people, highlighting the February 7 Woodward interview as evidence that Trump knew what the stakes were. With the presidential debate scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, one can expect Biden to not just hold Trump’s Woodward interview against him, but also challenge him on his response to the pandemic. And if he doesn’t, progressive networks like the Young Turks most certainly will, and Trumpian networks like OAN, will certainly not.
Articles:
- FactChecking Biden’s Town Hall
- Fact check: Biden’s claims about Trump’s State of the Union address and Covid-19
Videos:
- Inside Donald Trump’s 18 recorded interviews with Bob Woodward for his book “Rage”
- Fact-check: Biden makes misleading claims on health care, coronavirus at town hall
- 11 times Donald Trump downplayed the coronavirus
- Biden Says Trump Woodward Tapes on Virus Show He ‘Failed to Do His Job’
- Proof Trump Knew About Coronavirus Threat IN EARLY FEBRUARY, Bob Woodward Tapes
- Democrats Drop Atlantic Hoax, Run With Watergate Journalist
- Joe Biden speaks with voters at CNN town hall, fails to social distance
Biden’s Climate Plan and California’s Example
Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden has rolled out a $2 trillion climate change plan that has become a hallmark of his candidacy. Biden is pledging to green the nation’s transportation infrastructure in the next decade by funding “high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options through flexible federal investments.”
The Biden campaign is banking on its climate change plan — which would create millions of jobs — to capture a diverse group of voters on Election Day, from climate advocacy groups to trade unions that support the construction industry.
The plan marks the first time that climate change is a central plank for the Democratic Party, and has the support of popular party leaders, including U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and John F. Kerry, former Secretary of State.
“We can lead America to become the world’s clean energy superpower,” Biden said. The plan would redefine the nation’s transportation and energy industries. Its lofty goals include requiring:
- All new U.S.-made buses to be emissions free in a decade;
- The nation to have net-zero emissions by 2050;
- The electricity industry to end carbon pollution by 2035.
Biden’s climate change plan has emerged as a centerpiece of the Democrat’s campaign and is an issue of “national security,” according to the candidate. The $2 trillion plan indeed is getting heightened attention leading up to the election but not for the reasons the Biden team had expected.
President Trump denies that climate change exists. “I don’t think science knows actually,” Trump said recently about climate change. Biden labeled him a “climate denialist.” There is perhaps no other campaign issue where the candidates are further apart.
- The Biden plan would invest more than $1.7 trillion in the next decade in clean energy, climate research and innovation. It would create incentives in the private sector and with state and local governments for implementing green energy solutions that would total $5 trillion during the same time period.
- The plan would set stringent limits on the use of fossil fuels, impacting the oil and gas industries. It would impose new fuel standards aimed at the auto industry that would transition the nation to 100 percent electric cars and light trucks. Consumers would get rebates or financial incentives to trade in their gas-powered vehicles for electric cars and light trucks.
- Addressing concerns of environmentalists, the Biden plan permanently protects the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and ends new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters, instead focusing on solar, hydraulic and wind power. Trump is preparing to allow drilling in the refuge.
CALIFORNIA’S ROLE MODEL STATUS CONFLICTS WITH PAST POLICIES
California’s own experience as a national leader in efforts to reduce greenhouse gases demonstrates the opportunities and benefits in moving consumers toward a more energy conscious ethos. California’s emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 14 percent from 2004 to 2017, according to the most recent statistics available. In 2017, the state set a new goal to further reduce its emissions by 40 percent by 2030.
While the state commands one of the largest global economies, it boasts one of the lowest energy consumption levels in the U.S. because of its innovations and use of alternative energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
As the fastest growing energy source in the U.S., renewable energy is a burgeoning industry in the state, growing hundreds of new businesses. For example, California is among the nation’s biggest producers of hydro-electric power. California leads the solar market, and was the first state in the U.S. to get more than 5 percent of utility electricity from solar power. Coal represents only a small portion of its portfolio.
As the first state to set a goal to become carbon neutral, California is setting an example that other states are starting to follow through goal-setting and legislation.
However, California’s environmental policies to mitigate the impact of climate change are running up against its previous, seemingly successful efforts to expand development and further grow its economy. But California’s economy has been thriving in part because of a failure to address important environmental issues, such as curtailing expansion of the human habitat to forest and coastal areas; a lack of management of ground-level heat-sensitive vegetation; and a porous system for the transportation and distribution of water.
These and related economic policies and practices make California vulnerable to the extreme weather fluctuations of climate change. State policy will need to address these conditions in order to reap the benefits of its mitigation policies.
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#
Read about the candidate’s climate change plan in detail on his campaign website.
The Sunrise Movement, a leading environmental activist group largely composed of young people, responds to the Biden climate change plan.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles
The U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency provides information on the electric vehicles and renewable energy.
https://www.seia.org/initiatives/about-solar-energy
The Solar Energy Industries Association offers comprehensive information on the alternative energy source.
https://solartribune.com/plenty-at-stake-for-solar-industry-in-2020-presidential-election/
The Solar Tribune, an industry publication, outlines the issues at stake for the solar industry and consumers in this presidential election.
Education in the time of Covid — Part 3 (Food and Nutrition)
America’s schools are first and foremost centers of education, but for millions of students and families they are much more. Schools are sources of nutritional foods, healthcare services, and many also act as a resource hub for various community support services. As the pandemic rages on educational centers are finding ways to maintain these functions despite a general strain on funding. Since the school year has commenced however, CARES Act, State, and local funding have been limited in their scope and ability to support the other functions of schools due to the budget measures that don’t account for decreased attendance or enrollment, and the challenges that come with the absence of in-person classes. This has left students and families unable to meet one of their most basic needs — nutritious and sufficient food.
The CARES Act offered funding for schools to provide lunch to all students throughout the summer, which had some success. Additionally, Bill H.R. 6201 (Families First Coronavirus Response Act), passed in March but previously set to expire September 30th, gave the USDA added flexibility for school lunch waiver programs — permitting meals to be picked up by parents, served outside the required group settings and times, allowing meals to be served at no cost to everyone, and waiving meal pattern requirements. Upon calls for an extension and a brief debate on who has authority to extend the waivers, the USDA has continued the flexible lunch waiver program until December 31st so that administrators have time to plan for the normal school-year food services whether they be back in the classroom or still remote. Once the new year begins however, the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs will revert to a less flexible model, which relies on students who pay for meals in full, requiring paperwork and eligibility to be verified, and having parents pick up meals from each student’s individual school, which can be a transportation burden for parents whose students are not attending school in-person. The logistics of planning school meal distribution outside of an entirely in-person school year take time, staff, and money, not to mention the time it takes to file paperwork, register eligible students and find new meals appropriate for grab-and-go systems.
In response to growing food insecurity for low-income families and the major burden schools face in addressing this alone, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) proposed the Pandemic Child Hunger Prevention Act (Bill H.R. 7887) in late July. The bill states that all students get free meals for the entirety of the 20-21 school year. Similar to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, this would extend the ability and funding for all public schools and non-profit educational centers to provide meals without determining eligibility or following the other Breakfast and Lunch program requirements. It would be critical in ensuring that the 30 million students who receive school food have easy access to meals whether or not they are going to classes in-person. With districts already strained due to fewer students paying for meals — in May, school food “program directors reported a median estimated loss of $200,000 per district…as much as $2.35 million in larger districts” — this bill would reduce administrative burdens and provide districts with more robust meal reimbursements so they can focus on instructional and reopening plans.
The extension of the USDA school food waiver program and the potential new legislature are good signs that our lawmakers are taking child hunger seriously. The current loss in meal reimbursement revenue and inability of districts to manage and pay for safety measures and Covid-compliant grab-and-go meals still leaves many behind. Districts across California are struggling to come up with funds for meals and staff to distribute or package them, despite there being a drop in demand. Many districts across the nation are now using state-allocated emergency funds, requesting money from FEMA, or calling on their city to distribute CARES Act discretionary funds to meal programs. While schools are scrambling to connect students with food, surveys indicate that families are still in need — about 17% of mothers with kids under 12 are cutting down on or skipping meals, and over 30% of families have cut spending for food due to lack of income.
Despite critics suggesting the universal free school meal programs are a drain on resources, they are a critical source of food for families out of work who just aren’t able to meet their needs through other aid programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has provided families with increased benefits to account for the extra meals children are missing out on while they are distance learning. Nevertheless, the demand for grab-and-go meals and the survey results demonstrating that a large portion of families are not able to financially provide meals for their kids indicates that the SNAP programs and unemployment are not enough to keep kids full.
Until students are back in school and unemployment rates decrease, there will continue to be food insecurity for school-aged children, particularly affecting families of color. A more streamlined school meal distribution system, funding addressing school food, district collaboration with food banks or local non-profits, and multi-layered approaches to addressing food insecurities on the family and student level are key to keeping students adequately fed and their nutritional needs met so they have the best chances of succeeding in school.
Resistance Resources:
School Nutrition Association (SNA) Action Network — The SNA is a group of school nutrition professionals who advocate for policies and research topics related to school nutrition. Check out their Action Network website for a list of advocacy tools, from petitions to sign, to fill-in templates to send letters to your Congress Member, to resources for state school nutrition policy and grassroots organization.
Feeding America — An advocacy organization working to end hunger in America, Feeding America has an Action page that connects you to various resources to help end hunger for children and adults. See their page for fill-in templates to write to your congress people, petitions to sign, or food banks in your area to get connected with.
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) — FRAC researches, analyzes and advocates for food security and healthy food for all. They have a breadth of research on the impact of school food and the National School Lunch Program. See their page to get connected with the agency that runs the program in your locality, connect with congress people, or get involved with their legislative action center.
Sources:
- Education Dive – Disagreement on USDA school meal waivers
- US GOV – USDA School Meal Reimbursement Rates
- Education Dive – Summer School Meals
- USDA – School Lunch Program Stats
- Hamilton Project – Covid School Food Stats
- The Hill – Universal School Meals Considerations
- US GOV – Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Ed Source – California Struggles with Meal Funding
- Urban Institute – Covid Hunger Survey
- US GOV – Extending Free Meal Funding
Swing-State Races
As we continue to look back at key races in swing states we return to Florida, where we initially looked at a potential upset race in district 16. Democrat Margaret Good was facing a large uphill battle against incumbent Vern Buchanan, who is well-known for being the fifth most wealthy member of the House. Good has been pursuing a grassroots campaign that hasn’t been able to stand up to the large financial backing of Buchanan. In addition to this, district 16 has been known as a Republican county, so it isn’t remarkably surprising to see Buchanan take a strong polling lead. We expect Buchanan to regain this seat but for Florida to go blue in the presidential race.
Back in Michigan, the senate race between Democrat Gary Peters and Republican John James is just about decided, with Peters taking a strong lead in the past several months. FiveThirtyEight says that Peters will most likely win, with their recent data suggesting that Peters would win 81% of the time. Michigan is likely to go blue this election cycle, which is just proven with Peters’ likely win. We also think Joe Biden will win Michigan, albeit by a slightly closer margin than the senate race. Polling data says that Biden has an 8 point lead in the state, but we expect this to shrink to about 5 on election day. Regardless, it seems as though Michigan is on track to continue their blue wave.
In Pennsylvania, the Presidency is the main focus, as no senate races are being contested this year. The Presidency is a toss-up in Pennsylvania, which was one of the key states of last election, and many experts expect mail-in voting to be a large factor. Several counties in the state are already experiencing backlogs of mail-in ballot requests. Governor Tom Wolf signed an executive order in June that extended no-excuse mail-in balloting through the presidential election, and clearly PA residents are a fan, with a large number of ballot requests coming in from around the state, especially in cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. We think that Biden will narrowly win PA, given his recent surge in the polls. Although Trump surprisingly took PA last election, we expect that Biden will hold onto his close lead and take the state.
Wisconsin is another state that, although not having a senate race, is a key state in the Presidential battle. Recent polling suggests that Biden should eke out a narrow victory, but Trump has been known to have large support in rural and suburban areas, which Wisconsin is full of. A poll from August, conducted by OnMessage Inc, had the candidates even. However, since then, many polls have been released that give Biden a narrow lead, including several with double digit leads for Biden. We think the race will be closer than that, but not by much, as we expect a 6-10 point win for Biden in the hotly contested battleground.
We will continue battleground coverage leading up to the election as we now face the most important senate and presidential race in years, given the recent vacancy on the Supreme Court. Here at USResistNews we will continue to follow all these races and more.
Trump’s Obsession with TikTok – A Prelude to a Wider Crackdown?
Policy Summary
In an Executive Order issued on August 6, 2020, President Trump effectively ordered the sale or shutdown of US operations for the wildly popular video sharing site Tik Tok. Invoking national security concerns the President cited as rationale for this action:
TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including Internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories. This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.
The executive order placed a deadline of September 20, 2020 for the sale. Microsoft, Oracle and Walmart were early players vying for the ownership of Tik Tok’s lucrative US operations. At the 11th hour, with regulators on both sides raising objections, a consortium of Walmart and Oracle, with the President’s approval, has emerged as the dominant player and the deadline for finalizing a deal has been extended. The changing scenario has left the millions of users who enjoy and rely on the service in limbo. The app, with over 200 million US users and over a billion participants worldwide,is one of the most popular smartphone apps of all time.
Analysis
For the uninitiated, Tik Tok is a smartphone based video sharing app that is most commonly known for sharing dance videos, music, instructional content and comedy among younger digital natives. Like all social media, however, it has been adopted for political organizing, educationall video and community building by all demographics. It was widely used for organizing in the recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations.
What makes Tik Tok different and places it on the Trump radar is that it is owned by the Chinese firm ByteDance Ltd. and Administration supporters claim the organization has close ties with the Chinese Communist Party. In this respect it is unique among the social media giants in that it is not a US based organization in the mold of Facebook, Twitter or Instagram – Trump’s favored platforms.
In reaction ByteDance has sued in the US to block the executive order arguing that putting it out of business without adequate notice and a fair chance to respond deprives it of its due-process rights in violation of the Constitution. Tik Tok has also denied its app represents a security threat and said that all US data is stored on US based servers and data is not shared with China. A potential deal with Oracle, which supplies database and cloud services could allay many security concerns.
Trump may have a particular animus towards this social media platform – it is widely credited as a prime factor in the poor turnout at Trump’s June campaign reboot rally in Tulsa.
To affect the banning of Tik Tok as well as the Chinese messaging app WeChat, the Trump Administration has convinced Apple and Google to remove the apps from their App stores. For Apple users this will effectively cut them off from access to new users and all upgrades to existing users. For owners of phones with the Android operating system,the application can still be installed and updated through other means. Administration pressure to ban a particular application sets a dangerous precedent and raises free speech concerns.
It should be noted that Larry Ellison, Oracle’s Chairman and cofounder is an ardent supporter of Trump and has raised money for the president. It’s Chief Executive Safra Catz served on Trump’s 2016 transition team.
“There is serious reason to believe that the executive orders concerning TikTok and WeChat are motivated at least in part by a desire to censor and not simply to preserve national security,” says entertainment and media litigator John-Paul Jassy in The Hollywood Reporter. Perhaps attacking Tik Tok is an opening salvo in a wider war on social media since the President can use his trade war with China as a smoke screen. Certainly the same concerns about data privacy and tracking can be levelled against the other major social media players.
Resistance Resources
- The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has filed a friend of the court brief in favor of Tik Tok
- Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law’s First Amendment Clinic is treating this case as a Freedom of Speech issue.
- The American Civil Liberties Union are opposed to the banning of Tik Tok and the Chinese messaging app WeChat
- The Brookings Institute has an extensive discussion of the administration of the ongoing trade tensions that this confrontation plays to.
The President moves to ban offshore drilling in parts of the Atlantic
Policy
Since 2016, President Donald Trump has made quite clear his intention to increase the amount of oil and gas drilling operations along the Atlantic and Arctic coastlines. He vowed upon his election to overturn the Obama era moratorium that has protected these waters and the tourism and fishing industries they support. In 2017, Trump ordered the Department of the Interior to lift restrictions the Obama administration had placed on drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, and to develop a plan to begin leasing out drilling rights in those waters to oil and gas companies. The following year, the Interior Department proposed a draft plan to begin selling offshore drilling leases in “90 percent of US coastal waterways.”
Several coastal states resisted the proposal, including Florida’s Governor at the time, republican Rick Scott. Later that year, in an unexpected change of heart, the Trump administration allowed Florida to opt out of the leasing plan, but none of the other states, which included New Jersey, Washington, and California (all considered Democratic strongholds). It is worth noting that this was a big win for Governor Scott who was running for a Senate seat that year against the Democratic incumbent, Bill Nelson; Scott narrowly defeated Nelson, landing another Republican in the Senate.
Earlier this month, on September 8, eight weeks before election day, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to ban the sale of any new offshore drilling leases off the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. This memorandum expands the protections of the already existing Obama era moratorium on new drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico and extends the protections for ten years — July 1, 2022, to June 20, 2032. Drilling off the Atlantic coast has been a significant political issue for several states in the region, who fear the negative impact on their tourism and fishing industries, as well as other environmental threats. The new moratorium does not protect the coastlines of Virginia and North Carolina, both of which contain significant oil deposits, and both of which have democratic governors. Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina all have republican governors. Florida and Georgia are both key swing states in this year’s general election. Republican Senator of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham is also up for reelection, and is said to have helped draft the new moratorium.
Analysis
The President has taken the opportunity to praise himself as an environmental steward, proclaiming the title “the great environmentalist.” He spoke at an event in Jupiter, Florida, telling the people, “This protects your beautiful gulf and your beautiful ocean, and it will for a long time to come.” Environmental groups, however, are skeptical. The League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, said in a statement, “If this was more than an election year ploy for Trump, we’d have seen a permanent ban on offshore drilling in his first four years.” Jaclyn Lopez, Director for the Florida chapter of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, wrote in a statement, “Voters shouldn’t be duped by this cheap, last-minute maneuver. It can’t even begin to make up for the aggressive efforts to expand dirty offshore drilling since Trump’s been in office.”
Since Trump took office in 2016, he has rolled back numerous regulations that have been protecting our environment for years. He has sought to weaken or eliminate laws that limit the amount of pollution automobiles, pipelines, and power plants release into the air and water. The Environmental Protection Agency, under Trump’s direction, has removed federal protections for millions of acres of streams and wetlands across the country. Trump has shortened the amount of time allowed for studying the potential environmental damage from new highway and pipeline construction projects and has opened lands and waters to drilling and commercial fishing, that have been considered too fragile and too critical to the survival of biodiversity on this planet to be disturbed. The President even withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, a global agreement to address the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change.
Given Donald Trump’s track record on environment and climate policy, it is hard to believe that this is not a political move to appeal to swing voters in Florida and Georgia, and to boost Senator Lindsey Graham’s chances of reelection in November. The fact that only Republican-led states see any protections from this moratorium, further heightens this suspicion. Jamie Williams, President of the Wilderness Society, spoke of Donald Trump and his environmental stewardship, saying, “Trump is the worst President for the environment in our history. No amount of spin from this administration can hide its legacy of abuse, neglect and corruption that threatens our health and the health of our environment.”
Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden has called out Trump for making an election-year flip-flop, writing, “Just months ago, Donald Trump was planning to allow oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida. Now, with 56 days until the election, he conveniently says that he changed his mind. Unbelievable. You don’t have to guess where I stand: I oppose new offshore drilling.”
Resistance Resources
The Wilderness Society
- an American non-profit land conservation organization that is dedicated to protecting natural areas and federal public lands in the United States. They advocate for the designation of federal wilderness areas and other protective designations, such as for national monuments. https://www.wilderness.org/#
League of Conservation Voters
- Founded in 1970 by environmentalist Marion Edey (LCV) is an American environmental advocacy group that “advocates for sound environmental laws and policies, holds elected officials accountable for their votes and actions, and elects pro-environment candidates.” The organization pursues its goals through voter education, voter mobilization, and direct contributions to political candidates. https://www.lcv.org/
Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund
- The Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund is an affiliated, but separate, organization from the Center for Biological Diversity, a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity. As a 501(c)(4) social welfare non-profit organization, the Action Fund engages in advocacy and political activities that the Center for Biological Diversity cannot participate in. https://centeractionfund.org/
Sources Cited
Miller, Z., & Superville, D., Associated Press. (2020, September 09). Trump expands ban on new offshore drilling sites in Atlantic. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-claims-environmental-progress-but-he-s-15550171.php
Teirstein, Z. (2020, September 13). “No one knows where this came from”-Trump bans offshore drilling. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2020/09/no-one-knows-where-this-came-from-trump-bans-offshore-drilling/
The Wilderness Society Blog. (2019, July 8). The facts on Trump’s terrible environmental record. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/facts-trumps-terrible-environmental-record
Judge Issues Ruling On Use of Ballot Drop Boxes In Ohio’s Eighty – Eight Counties
Policy Summary: On September 15, 2020 Judge Richard A. Frey of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio issued an opinion in the case Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose. That case was brought in response to the use of “ballot drop boxes” in each Ohio county.
Frank LaRose is the Ohio Secretary of State which puts him in charge of the conduct of elections in the State of Ohio. According to state law each Ohio county is required to provide one secure receptacle for the receipt of absentee ballots in each county. The ballot boxes are designed to only receive ballots and not other pieces of mail. The law also requires that the ballot boxes be monitored 24/7 and that ballots are to be retrieved jointly with at least one Republican and one Democratic board of elections member daily. With this framework of state law in place, Secretary of State LaRose issued Directive 2020-16 on August 12, 2020. The Directive was sent to every Ohio county board of elections and included a statement that read, “Boards of elections are prohibited from installing a drop box at any other location other than the board of elections.” The result of this directive was that each county in Ohio was limited to only having one ballot drop box per county. After the issuance of the directive the Ohio Democratic Party and a coalition of voting rights groups sued Secretary LaRose to challenge his directive that limited each county to only one ballot drop box. In his opinion Judge Frey struck down Directive 2020-16 and called the order limiting each county to one ballot drop box “arbitrary and unreasonable.” LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The situation in Ohio is yet another feature in the ongoing national discussion about the use of absentee ballots to vote in the November 2020 election. While the discussion on the use of absentee ballots had been focused on claims of fraud, the accepted legal excuse to vote absentee and the technical requirements for a valid absentee ballot (use of affidavits, residency requirements for college students) this case is one that is focusing on the use of ballot drop boxes.
One argument on having more ballot drop boxes installed is because Ohio’s eighty – eight counties are different and only having one ballot drop box per county does not take into consideration population differences and distances that might have to be traveled just to reach the one ballot drop box. A rural county could probably handle having only one ballot drop box but larger urban areas might need more than one to handle absentee ballots that might come close to numbering in the millions. This is a very real possibility in the midst of an ongoing pandemic where people have been sheltering at home. And having only one ballot drop box might require some voters to commute as long as two hours just to drop their ballot in the designated drop box. By not installing more ballot drop boxes, Secretary LaRose’s Directive has made it burdensome and onerous for some voters to vote with their absentee ballot.
Voting should not be so cumbersome or complex but unfortunately this situation came down to partisan politics. Ohio has been and will likely be a swing state this November and that partisan divide was exposed over the issue of ballot drop boxes. Secretary LaRose is a Republican and his actions have been seen as voter suppression tactics despite claiming otherwise in a number of public pronouncements. He has claimed to not have legal authority to add additional boxes. Yet when the Attorney General of Ohio did not take a side on the state law the Secretary decided to stay with one ballot box per county when he could have issued the order for more ballot drop boxes. When the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections tried to install six more ballot boxes on their own in their county Secretary LaRose decided to step in and ordered the county to cease installing more ballot boxes. These actions gave the impression of a partisan motivation to help Republicans and their candidates in the state rather than helping all voters cast their ballots regardless of their political preference. With the issuance of Judge Frey’s order in the case it seems likely that Ohio can now proceed and help voters have their absentee ballots counted come November 2020. Although the issue might not be over as a lawsuit in federal district court in Pennsylvania has been placed on hold and a case in federal district court in Ohio is also ongoing. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
NPR’s 2020 Election: Secure Your Vote Series – latest article on usage of ballot drop boxes from National Public Radio’s special 2020 Voting Rights series.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) – infopage on guidelines the Election Assistance Commission recommends on the use of ballot drop boxes.
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.
US Relations with Latin American and The 2019 Bolivian Coup d’État
Summary:
US intervention in Latin American politics extends back almost to the founding of this country, predating even the Monroe Doctrine. Overt interventions in the 19th and early 20th centuries included the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Banana Wars, and many others. These interventions evolved into slightly more covert but equally, if not more, violent interventions during the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. This has included countless US-backed coups, training and support for right-wing paramilitaries, an over half-century long effort to destabilize Cuba, and innumerable other cases. It is in this context that we must evaluate the American relationship with Bolivia, particularly in light of the coup d’état that occurred in that country last year.
Bolivia serves as an especially interesting case because, in the space of days, the country transitioned (non-democratically) from a left-leaning, socially-democratic, Indigenous-led government to a far-right, overtly Christian one. This rapid change was only mildly and briefly noted in most of the US press, despite the clear undemocratic nature of the shift and the violent repression in the country that accompanied it.
The immediate situation went as follows: in October 2019, Evo Morales ran for a fourth term as President of Bolivia. Morales was the first Indigenous leader of the majority-Indigenous nation and his years in power were characterized by broad economic advancement for the poorest citizens of the country (among many notable statistics, the proportion of Bolivians living in extreme poverty went from 36% to 17% during Morales’ time in office). Morales was one of a handful of left-leaning leaders elected in Latin America in the 2000s, including Luis Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Despite some criticism for standing for a fourth term, Morales remained broadly popular and was the favorite to win last year’s election.
Indeed, as votes were being tabulated, it became clear Morales would win and the only question was by how much (Bolivian law requires a 10% margin of victory, plus winning over 40% of the vote, to avoid a second-round run-off). Before the election had been called, however, the Organization of American States, who was monitoring the election, alleged with little evidence that there were counting irregularities and declared the vote fraudulent. The Trump administration and prominent Republicans like Marco Rubio (and numerous Democrats) came out against Morales. Despite his agreeing to new elections, on November 10, the military publicly demanded Morales’ resignation, and he fled the country. After his ouster, right-wing, white Christian Senator Jeanine Añez appointed herself interim president. Meanwhile, mass protests by the Morales’ base, following the coup, triggered a brutal state crackdown, in which at least several dozen of his supporters have been killed.
Despite a lack of procedural legitimacy, Añez remains president today, and new elections have thus far been postponed twice. Notably, a study earlier this year by MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab determined that last year’s election was indeed fair.
Analysis:
How does the US fit in amidst this? Clearly, its early denouncement of Morales and support for the OAS lent confidence to the right-wing political and military forces that ultimately initiated the coup d’état. The OAS has a long history of domination by Washington, and specifically, in intervening in elections seen as unfavorable to the United States (Haiti in 2000 and 2010 are two recent examples). The US press also played a supportive role by downplaying the military’s role in overthrowing Morales and over-emphasizing perceived antidemocratic tendencies by Morales himself. Perhaps above all, like other left-wing Latin American leaders, Morales had long been a thorn in Washington’s side, and there was clearly an eagerness among US leaders to see him go.
It is too early to know with any certainty whether Washington had inside knowledge of or involvement with the acute effort to remove Morales, but it has been widely suggested that Bolivia’s vast lithium reserves—essential to electric car batteries—lent significant impetus to Western support for a change in government. Indeed, Morales had cancelled a contract with a German lithium mining company, ACISA, only a week before the coup took place, after mass protests from local residents.
Despite Trump’s “America First” isolationist bluster, the United States continues to remain a violently destabilizing actor around the world. The administration’s actions in relation to countries as far-flung as Iran, Yemen, Venezuela—and here, Bolivia—have served to exacerbate regional tensions and, in many cases, intensify American involvement in the affairs of these nations. In this case, it is the people of Bolivia who will suffer most.
Learn More
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/bolivia-el-alto-violence-death-protest
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/bolivia-election-oas/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/world/americas/bolivia-election-fraud.html
Resistance Resources
https://www.codepink.org — “CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.”
https://amazonwatch.org/about — “Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon’s ecological systems.”
https://www.internationalpolicy.org — “The Center for International Policy (CIP) works to make a peaceful, just and sustainable world the central pursuit of U.S. foreign policy. We promote cooperation, transparency and accountability in the international relations of the United States. Through research and advocacy, our programs offer common sense solutions to address the most urgent threats to our planet: war, corruption, inequality and climate change.”