Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

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

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Jobs01 e1489352304814
Trump Urges Schools to Reopen Amidst Pandemic

Trump Urges Schools to Reopen Amidst Pandemic

Summary

Despite warnings from top health officials, and a steady increase of COVID-19 cases and deaths, Trump is determined to send students back to school on a normal timeline. There have more than 135,000 COVID related deaths reported at this point, with a constant increase in numbers. The reopening Trump is pushing for would send students and teachers back to classrooms as early as next month. There has been talk of a resurgence of the virus in the fall and winter months since the pandemic began. The numbers have risen so steadily due to quick state re-openings that it may no longer qualify as a resurgence, but now simply as an increase.

A sixty-nine page file created by the Community Interventions and Critical Populations Task Force, marked “For Internal Use Only” was obtained by the New York Times and circulated this week. It was meant to be used by the White House corona virus task force while visiting areas highly impacted by the virus. While most of the file was made up of documents already made public and posted to the CDC’s website, there were some new details that seemingly got the president’s attention. Specifically, it stated that a full reopen of schools put the country on the “highest risk” option.

Analysis

Seemingly in reaction to the documents, Trump began firing off Tweets in favor of school reopenings: “Now that we have witnessed it on a large scale basis, and firsthand, virtual learning has proven to be TERRIBLE compared to In School, or On Campus, Learning. Not even close! Schools must be open in the Fall.” He then took his tweets a step further, with a bizarre claim that those opposing school openings are doing so for political reasons, and that there may be financial consequences: “The Dems think it would be bad for them politically if U.S. schools open before the November Election, but is important for the children & families. May cut off funding if not open!” He insisted that he would put pressure on governors and local governments to reopen.

While federal funding does not account for a large part of school budgets, most of what it does account for is  aid low income families and students with special needs – populstions deemed to be at high-risk for the corona virus. Most education funding is provided by the states and local government, who will ultimately make decisions concerning reopening. Luckily, Trump does not have the authority to cut funding to schools.However his threat displays a lack of concern for American citizens.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has been a champion of local and parental school control , has completely adapted her message to echo Trump’s. In April she stated “If our ability to educate is limited to what takes place in any given physical building, we are never going to meet the unique needs of every student.” And just days ago, “I think the go-to needs to be kids in school, in person, in the classroom, because we know for most kids, that’s the best environment for them.” DeVos is putting her spotlight onto low-income schools and those in communities of color. She insists they do not have the funds to operate properly remotely but contradicts her concerns by continuing to support the threat of removing federal funding from them if they don’t them if they don’t reopen.

The issue has become so publicly political that families and teachers at the heart of the debate are feeling frustrated and left behind. Appropriate and responsible planning has been pirated by making political choices while lives hang in the balance. As President of the National Parents Union Keri Rodriguez put it, “We have so politicized the situation we don’t know who we can trust, and it’s become very clear that we can’t trust her (DeVos)..”

Resistance Resources:

  • National Parents Union is a collection of 200 advocacy organizations across 50 states representing parents from communities of color. www.nationalparentsunion.org
  • American Federation of Teachers is a teachers labor union fighting for more federal funding in order to accommodate safety considerations within classrooms. www.aft.org
Environmental Justice Stops Fossil Fuel Pipelines in Their Tracks

Environmental Justice Stops Fossil Fuel Pipelines in Their Tracks

Policy

Two major victories for environmental justice have been served this past week. The Atlantic Coast Natural Gas Pipeline project was officially cancelled as of Sunday, July 5 due to mounting costs and permitting uncertainty. The following day, Monday July 6, the Dakota Access Oil Pipeline, three years into its operation, was ordered to shut down by August 5, due to a federal judge’s ruling that the environmental assessment was inadequate and the risk too high to continue operating the pipeline. Both victories are results of grassroots movements opposing the large fossil fuel pipeline projects and fighting for the protection of sensitive natural resources and the rights of the communities adjacent to them.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline was a proposed 42-inch-wide underground pipeline intended to carry natural gas 600 miles from the West Virginia mountains to the North Carolina coast. Owners and developers of the pipeline, Dominion Energy Company and Duke Energy Company, had hoped to increase the amount of natural gas they could provide to their customers in Virginia and North Carolina, at a cheaper price. The pipeline would have had to traverse a unique landscape, requiring the removal of trees and “blasting and leveling some ridgetops,” clearing a path which would have “crossed mountains, hundreds of water bodies and other sensitive terrain and burrowed underneath the Appalachian Trail.” Multiple compressor stations would also have been built in various communities along the pipeline’s route (typically, compressor stations are built every 40 – 100 miles along a pipeline).

Compressor stations compress the gas to a specified pressure that maintains the flow of the gas to its destination. Each compressor station has diesel, natural gas, or electric powered engines that compress the gas. New stations can have up to six or more engines running, each with its own smokestack. Air sampling around these stations has shown elevated levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, and other volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. Because these stations utilize engines, they inherently pollute whenever they run, and during scheduled or accidental “blowdown” events, “particularly intense” pollution occurs “when pressure builds to the point where gas is vented directly into the air in order to prevent explosions.”

The project was first proposed in 2014 and has faced opposition from environmental groups and local communities who fear its detrimental human health and environmental impacts and effects on endangered species in the area, as well as on the marginalized communities along the pipeline’s route. Those who opposed the development project included “small farmers whose lands were subject to eminent domain, Native Americans, about 30,000, who live within a mile of the pipeline’s proposed route in North Carolina, and residents in Northampton County, North Carolina, where another compressor station for the project was being constructed in a census block where 79 percent of the population is Black.” Activist groups fought in court to halt or slow the release of land development permits for various sites along the proposed pipeline’s path.

Six years later the fight paid off. Investors in the project said, “the project’s estimated cost had risen to $8 billion from the original estimate of $4.5 to $5 billion … owing primarily to legal expenses.” The near doubling in cost and the uncertain delays associated with “other recent court decisions,” presented “new and serious challenges” to the project.

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a $3.8 billion pipeline, carrying almost 600,000 barrels of Bakken crude oil a day 1,172 miles out of the Bakken shale formation of North Dakota, across South Dakota and Iowa, to a shipping station in Illinois. The pipeline passes beneath the Missouri River which lies just north of and supplies drinking water to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation that sits along the border of North Dakota and South Dakota. Permits for development of the proposed pipeline were originally denied by the Obama administration in December 2016. A full environmental review by the Army Corps of Engineers was ordered to analyze the potential for alternative routes for the pipeline and its impacts on the rights of the people of the Sioux Reservation as set forth in their treaty. However, in February 2017, soon after being sworn in, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to expedite the construction of the new pipeline. With that, the Army Corps of Engineers dropped the environmental assessment for the project, granted the necessary permits, and the pipeline was built.

The Sioux Tribe and activist groups continued to challenge the permits that provided the legality for the pipeline, and in June 2017 succeeded in convincing U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that a deeper assessment of the project’s impacts was necessary. Judge Boasberg allowed operation of the pipeline to continue, but ordered further review, stating that the Army Corps of Engineers “did not adequately consider how an oil spill under the Missouri River might affect the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s fishing and hunting rights, or whether it might disproportionately affect the tribal community.” This kind of consideration is the concept of environmental justice; written policy that “aims to ensure development projects aren’t built in areas where minority populations might not have the resources to defend their rights.  

The Army Corps of Engineers conducted another environmental review which was completed in 2018, and again, stated that the new study “substantiated its earlier determination that the pipeline poses no significant environmental threats” and declared that their previous analysis was sufficient and no changes need be made. Environmental activist group Earthjustice and the Sioux Tribe again challenged the permits in court, arguing that the tribe was effectively shut out of the latest environmental review process and the evidence of potential environmental impact presented by their scientists and representatives was ignored. In March of this year, Judge Boasberg struck down the federal permits that had allowed for the building of the pipeline, stating that the Army Corps’ issuing of those permits was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, specifically in regards to “unresolved concerns about the potential impacts of oil spills and the likelihood that one could take place.” The Army Corps of Engineers was criticized by the Federal Court for “failing to address the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s expert criticism of its analysis, citing issues like potential worst case discharge, the difficulty of detecting slow leaks, and responding to spills in winter.” The Court also noted that the Dakota Access Pipeline’s parent company’s “abysmal safety record … does not inspire confidence,” and that that fact should have been taken into greater consideration from the start. With the ruling, the Court also asked supporters of the pipeline and its opposers to each “submit briefs on whether the pipeline should continue operating during the new environmental review.”

On Monday July 6, 2020, Judge Boasberg sided with the pipeline’s opposers, and ordered the Dakota Access Pipeline be shut down and emptied within 30 days so as to minimize potential risk while the Army Corps re-performs its environmental assessment per the required guidelines. In the 24-page memorandum put forth by the District Court of Columbia, referencing the question of draining the pipeline or not during the Army Corps’ new environmental impact assessment, the Court stated, “Although mindful of the disruption such a shutdown will cause, the Court now concludes that the answer is yes. Clear precedent favoring vacatur (the setting aside of previous decisions) during such a remand coupled with the seriousness of the Corps’ deficiencies outweighs the negative effects of halting the oil flow for the thirteen months that the Corps believes the creation of an EIS will take.” Essentially, the Court decided the severity of the potential dangers that the Army Corps’ assessment failed to address would be more costly than the estimated impact of draining the pipeline for thirteen months to up to “several years.” Thus, it is not worth it to continue operating the pipeline until those potential dangers have been adequately addressed.

Energy Transfer, the owner and operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, however, has yet to halt the flow of oil, arguing, “We don’t believe he [Judge Boasberg] has the authority to do this.” The company claims, “it would take three months to empty the pipe of oil and complete steps to preserve it for future use.” On Thursday July 9, Judge Boasberg denied the request from Energy Transfer to halt the closing of the pipeline during the environmental review, and the case is now going to a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Analysis

Despite the outpouring of opposition to the two pipeline projects, and the ensuing protest movements that developed, many supporters of the pipelines still argue for their benefits. Supporters of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline argue that the new pipeline would have promoted a cleaner alternative to coal and oil energy sources, as well as reduced fuel costs for consumers while creating thousands of construction jobs and generating new tax revenue for the region. According to the U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette, “The well-funded, obstructionist environmental lobby has successfully killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would have lowered energy costs for consumers.” He continued, “The Trump Administration wants to bring the benefits of reliable and affordable energy of all kinds to all Americans. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the activists who killed this project.”

Though lower natural gas prices and increased tax revenue may have been realized by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Lindsey Gilpin, founder and editor in chief of Southerly, a media organization covering ecology, justice, and culture in the South, said the increased jobs claim may not have proven so fruitful. She claims that in an interview with Dominion Energy Company, she was told that the new pipeline “would create a couple dozen permanent jobs.” That is only 24 permanent jobs. And of the thousands of construction jobs to be created, Gilpin says, “A lot of the construction jobs are very specialized. So many people in places I traveled through were saying these aren’t local jobs. They’re bringing in people from companies outside the region who know how to build pipelines, welders or people of a higher level of education or training. So locals weren’t actually getting those jobs that they were promised.” Environmental groups and many of the public are also aware that despite any economic benefits these fossil fuel infrastructure projects might provide, “it still holds back investment in other renewable energies.”

Proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline also touted the creation of jobs, increased tax revenue, and cited the pipeline’s ability to “meet growing demand for oil shipments from North Dakota without the need for additional pipelines or rail shipments.” The decreased demand by the oil industry on the local rail systems as means of transport for the oil, would also, in theory, reduce shipping costs for farmers. However, it seems more people in these regions fear fossil fuel development projects more than they value them. “They’ve seen how the coal industry has decimated [other] communities, how it’s made a ton of wealth off Appalachian communities and then left them high and dry, with high unemployment rates. They left people sick and dying from pollution and black lung disease.” The public’s distrust in the fossil fuel industry, whether it be coal, gas, or oil, has begun to boil over. Gilpin reminds us that these lands that major pipeline projects cut through, have been in the families of these communities for generations. This is their home. “It might just seem like somebody’s backyard to a pipeline company. But to the people, it’s everything.”

The recent decisions to halt these two major pipeline projects is a testament to the power of environmental and cultural activist groups and grassroots movements. With the public’s increased awareness of climate change and the negative impacts that the fossil fuel industry and its infrastructure have on the planet and marginalized communities, “environmentalists and Native American activists, who routinely oppose fossil fuel pipelines because of potential spills and their contribution to climate change” are beginning to feel more “emboldened.” Montana farmer and Keystone Pipeline opponent Dena Hoff, remembers when in 2015 a pipeline next to her farm, running under the Yellowstone River broke, spilling 31,000 gallons of crude oil and spoiling the water supply for 6,000 people downstream. Hoff points out that “the years of protests against Keystone and other lines have made the public listen,” and that “There’s more to this argument than jobs and tax dollars.”

The closure of these two major pipelines illustrates a shifting landscape in regard to large fossil fuel energy projects in the United States. In a joint statement released by the Dominion and Duke energy companies, announcing the cancelation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project, they wrote, “This announcement reflects the increasing legal uncertainty that overhangs large-scale energy and industrial infrastructure development in the United States.” Furthermore, Dominion Energy Company coupled its decision to abandon the pipeline project, with the announcement that it will be selling most of its gas pipeline business to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Even Rich Redash, head of global gas planning at S&P Global Platts said of the fossil fuel industry, “It’s going to be more challenging to expand, particularly if you’re in an area where the opposition is organized, better funded and supported by state and local elected officials.” Likewise, Jason Bordoff, founding director at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy says, “Courtroom fights and protests against pipelines have only gotten more intense. As that opposition gets more sophisticated, it will mean more delays and higher costs for projects that rely on federal permits.” According to Kelly Sheehan Martin, Director of the Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign at the Sierra Club, “The writing’s been on the wall for a little while now … It’s a new era for how hard it is to build new massive fossil fuel infrastructure projects that would lock us in for decades.”

The cancelation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the ruling to close the Dakota Access Pipeline, together, mark a progressive movement of environmental justice concepts into mainstream policy. Ryan Emanuel, North Carolina State University professor and citizen of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, said of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline cancelation, “This is a really encouraging outcome for the marginalized communities along the pipeline route.” Emanuel remarks, “this apparent victory comes at an auspicious time in the United States for racial justice and conversations about the disproportionate affect policies can have on communities of color.” Even still, Emanuel believes that legislation “similar to the Clean Water Act of 1972, which set national water quality standards, is necessary to prevent the effects of environmental racism.” He continues, “Environmental justice, for better or worse, is kind of a buzzword in popular culture and we can construe it in different ways. Until we tighten up what we mean in ensuring environmental justice and preventing the impact of structural racism on marginalized communities in terms of what infrastructure we build and where, justice won’t be for all.”

Resources

Earthjustice

  • Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people’s health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. (The environmental group representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe). https://earthjustice.org/

Friends of Buckingham Virginia

  • The mission of the Friends of Buckingham is to preserve the natural resources and cultural heritage of Buckingham County. We are a group of Buckingham County citizens united to work with our county leaders to attract economic investment opportunities that benefit all our residents, and that contribute to a sustainable healthy environment. We are dedicated to celebrating our county’s diverse cultural heritage, our rural lifestyle, and to protecting our natural resources and last, remaining, wild places. Towards that end, we are committed to protecting our health and environment from any outside interests that seek to exploit our natural resources, such as the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline. http://www.friendsofbuckinghamva.org/friends/

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/

Learn More

Can Women Afford to Work?

Can Women Afford to Work?

Rosalind Gottfried

Economics

July 13, 2020

Policy

There are more women working today than not though the peak year of labor force for women was 2000 (59.9%) down to 57.9% in January 2020.  At the turn of the century, with the upward trend in women’s labor force participation, many commentators thought women would soon surpass the rate of working men.  This did not occur and the 21st century has seen a slowdown in labor force engagement especially among women 25-54 years old, the prime span for work.  Other wealthy, and not so wealthy nations, experiencing an upward trend at the turn of the century continued to do so.  The US was alone in reversing this trend which was seen in as diverse nations as Japan, Latvia, and Poland.  Speculation regarding the uniqueness of the decrease in women’s participation in the labor force seems to directly lead to  the lack of  family friendly policies such as the absence of any guaranteed parental leave; the scarcity of paid sick leave; and perhaps most especially the failure to provide and national policy or access to quality, affordable daycare.

The average cost of US daycare ranges from $195 a week for in home daycare to $580 a week for nanny care.  These are national averages; the average expense in areas with a high cost of living can be greater.  Seventy one percent of families report spending 10% of their annual income on childcare.  It is no wonder that only 32% of women polled in 2012 stated that full time work is ideal.  There are not enough hours in the day to do it all and not enough dollars to pay for it all.  Much of the responsibility for childcare, and perhaps the desire to stay home, still lies with women even as some of the norms are changing.  On the average, men still make more than women so often it is more financially feasible for  women to take time off from the labor force.  Perhaps this will change with the growing attention to equitable wages for women and men, both within fields and across them.

In the absence of government subsidized daycare, as seen in all other Western countries, some companies have stepped up to offer daycare either on-site or with a partnered entity.  Traditionally companies have shied away from daycare seeing childcare as a personal responsibility and fearing the expense of creating a center and covering liability.  Research into companies offering childcare shows long term benefits in several areas.  With childcare available at work, absenteeism goes down; maternity leave is shortened; worker turnover decreases; morale increases; and productivity increases leading ultimately to financial gains in the companies.  One exception might be in the cost of daycare if not enough employees require its use.  There is also less anxiety among parents who get to visit with their children during the work day; spend travel time with the children; and are close by in case of emergency.  One weakness for parents is the issue of how to care for younger school age kids who require supervision outside of school hours.  Other benefits can be seen in the increases in women who can work in management, due to less time off and more support at work, and tax credits for the companies.  The glaring question is why is the US so reluctant to travel the path of most other nations and support working parents with subsidized, quality daycare?

Analysis

Abundant research points to the value of supporting children from disadvantaged backgrounds in the first five years.  The research shows that such support enhances high school graduation rates, college attendance, and adult income.  Yet there is no national policy supporting education in the early childhood and preschool years despite evidence that every dollar spent can save as much as $7.30 down the line.  Benefits do not accrue just to individuals.  It is estimated that if the US had family friendly policies characteristic of other industrialized countries, women’s participation in the labor force would increase by 7% and the economy would see gains of 5%.

As if the childcare situation is not bad enough, as many working parents know, the era of the coronavirus has exacerbated many of the weaknesses in the system.  Many daycares have been shuttered and a significant number may not reopen.  It has been suggested that this is more likely to occur with Black owned businesses and those catering to the low income groups.  Parents who will need to return to work will have no place to put their children.  For some parents who have been paying to maintain their children’s space, the reopening of the facilities may not actually occur or the environment may not be aligned with safety measures recommended for hygiene and social distancing making the choice to work more precarious.

There is a ray of hope in that Congress is considering several bills to address issues in daycare.  Some states are stepping up. Illinois is offering state supported childcare to all essential workers in the areas of human services, healthcare, government and infrastructure regardless of income.  Maybe more will follow suit.

Learn More

 

Resistance Resources

Hearings to Abolish Minneapolis Police Start This Week

Hearings to Abolish Minneapolis Police Start This Week

Policing in America (A New series by Laura Plummer that examines current efforts to reform police departments in cities and states across the country.)

# 2 Hearings to Abolish Minneapolis Police Start This Week

July 15, 2020

Summary:

Minneapolis is the epicenter of the nation’s ongoing debate on police reform. The Minneapolis Police Department, notorious for its involvement in the death of George Floyd, has been the target of local and national outrage. Police abolitionist groups were handed a major victory on June 26, when the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to change the city’s charter to dismantle the police department.

The council’s proposed charter amendment would replace the current department run by the mayor with a Community Safety & Violence Prevention Department under the supervision of council. Its creation would be informed by a robust, year-long community input process. The new department could choose to create a law enforcement branch staffed by trained “peace officers”.

On July 15 and 21, the city’s charter commission will hold two public hearings on the amendment. The commission can approve, reject or edit the amendment, but the council can act independently of its recommendation. If the council decides to put the matter on the November ballot, residents would be given the final say. Changes to the charter would go into effect in May of 2021.

Analysis:

The Minneapolis City Council is taking its cues from local advocacy groups like MPD150, Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block. These and other groups believe that abolition of the police is preferable to efforts to defund or reform. Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar also joined in the call to abolish.

In 2012, Camden, New Jersey, famously dismantled its police department and rebuilt it from the ground up. While often touted as a success story, it was done in response to police corruption and rampant crime. If Minneapolis were to abolish its police department to address systemic racism, it would be the first city in the country to do so.

Opposing the council’s proposal are Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, various members of the charter commission and some civil rights activists, who believe that the absence of a traditional police force would make citizens vulnerable. For this reason, the matter may not make it onto the ballot in November, and even if it does, the voters may not support it. Whatever the outcome, local groups say they will continue fighting for meaningful change.

Resistance Resources:

MPD150 is a group of activists and researchers fighting for a “police-free” future.
Black Visions Collective is committed to “dismantling systems of oppression”.
Reclaim the Block aims to reroute police funding to social services.

The Corruption of William Barr Part  2 

The Corruption of William Barr Part  2 

The Corruption of William Barr Part  2 

July 13, 2020

The Corruption Blog is a series of blog posts by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.

William Barr has repeatedly been accused of politicizing the Justice Department to the benefit of President Trump. Last month’s problematic firing of US Attorney (of the Southern District of New York) Geoffrey Berman was yet another episode in a troubling series of behaviors. Late on a Friday evening in June, the Justice Department announced it had accepted Berman’s resignation. Berman responded through Twitter that he had not resigned, nor had any intention to. Within 24 hours Barr informed him he had been fired by the president. When questioned about the removal, Trump said ‘’That’s Barr’s department – I had nothing to do with it.’’ The back and forth between the parties displays an utter lack of tact of the part on the Attorney General. When considering the number of investigations Berman oversaw into Trump’s orbit, the decision portends something far more pernicious.

Remaking the federal judiciary to his liking has been a focal point of the Trump presidency. He has taken a similar partisan approach to the appointment of federal prosecutors. In 2018 then-Attorney General Jeff Session sent a letter to the remaining ‘’Obama attorneys’’ in federal offices, demanding their resignation. Berman’s predecessor at the SDNY, Preet Bahara, refused and was promptly terminated. At the time of his dismissal Bahara was investigating Trump’s first Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price for abuse of taxpayer funds. His office was also investigating Russian money laundering through Deutsche Bank (Trump’s biggest lender), and hush money payments made by Fox News to women harassed by the network’s late founder, Roger Ailes. Trump wanted a friendlier face in the office, and selected Berman, who had donated $2700 to his election campaign. Surely to the president’s disappointment, Berman picked up where Bahara had left off.

Though he recused himself, it was Berman’s office that issued the search warrants for the offices and hotel room of longtime Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen. The evidence uncovered in the search would lead to Cohen’s guilty plea to campaign finance violations, bank and tax fraud charges. Seeking to reduce his sentence, Cohen decided to cooperate. In ten hours of Congressional testimony, Trump’s former fixer outlined a decade of sordid conduct while in the employ of the Trump organization and presented a highly unflattering portrayal of the president. Trump suffered little politically, but Cohen’s public testimony was a nasty black eye, one that opened his family business to further scrutiny.

The SDNY is sometimes referred to colloquially as the ‘’sovereign district of NewYork’’, due to its independence relative to other offices. While Geoffrey Berman ran the department, neither Trump, nor Barr proved capable of reigning in that independent streak to their liking. In more than three years as president, Trump has tried incessantly to discredit or derail every single investigation into him or his associates. He has also claimed the authority to begin or end any investigation he wants. Given how many times the SDNY’s work implicated Trump allies, it’s curious how Berman remained in his post as long as he did. And why he’s being removed now.

The Eastern District of New York is responsible for all domestic criminal investigations pertaining to misconduct in the Ukraine scandal. All information related to any such probes goes directly there. This includes the ongoing probe into Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Richard Donoghue, who had headed the office has stepped down, at the request of Barr, to take the principal director attorney general job in the Justice Department’s Washington office. Seth DuCharme, a Barr ally who had previously occupied Donoghue’s new post, has been tabbed as a potential successor. Under normal circumstances, the switch may appear peculiar, if not altogether innocuous. Considering Barr’s track record of political favoritism and the EDNY’s specific case load, the move warrants intense scrutiny.

The independence of the Justice Department from executive overreach is crucial to both the even-handed administration of law and public trust in the institution. Since his appointment to attorney general, Barr has conflated the interest of the nation with those of the president and run the DOJ like an extension of the White House. His interference in the cases of Trump allies Michael Flynn and Roger Stone were appalling, but the damage was confined to individual cases. But by making prosecutorial appointments with an eye towards shielding Trump, the damage to the application of justice and public confidence is incalculable.

 

Targeted Districts

Targeted Districts

2020 Congressional Campaign Updates is a new feature of U.S. RESIST NEWS. Written by  reporter William Bourque, the updates will help our readers follow key races in the House and Senate that are key to the ability of democrats to gain control of both houses of Congress.

July 13, 2020

Targeted Districts

Texas 22nd

Florida’s 16th

Our continuing coverage of battleground house elections brings us to Texas’s 22nd district, rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report.  This district covers a significant portion of the southern suburbs of Houston and is currently held by Republican Pete Olson.  Olson announced in mid-2019 that he wouldn’t be seeking reelection.  This prompted the largest primary race in the state on the republican side, with 15 candidates throwing their names into the hat.  The race has now come down to a runoff between Troy Nehls, the former Fort Bend County Sheriff, and Kathaleen Wall, who has worked in the private sector for the majority of her professional life.  Nehls received 40.5% of the vote in the primary, leading experts to believe that he will win the runoff to take on Sri Preston Kulkarni, the democrat. Kulkarni’s most recent job in politics was as a policy and defense advisor to New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.  He has been the challenger for this seat before, in 2017 where he lost to incumbent Pete Olson by a margin of about 20,000 votes.  Kulkarni certainly has the experience in policy making and has had a significant amount of time to run a strong campaign, and the Cook Political Report ranks this race as a toss-up.  Kulkarni does have a head start in not having to take part in a primary runoff, so this could bode well for his chances in the general.  It is also worth mentioning that a libertarian candidate, Joseph LeBlanc, is running in the general election and may take a small portion of votes from Nehls.  This race looks to be a tossup through the finish and may have implications in maintaining democratic control of the house.

In Florida, the 16th district has been under republican control since 2007, with Representative Vern Buchanan finishing up his 13th year in office.  Buchanan is one of the 5 wealthiest members of Congress, boasting over 100 million dollars in assets.  Buchanan faces democrat Margaret Good, an attorney who served in the Florida House of Representatives representing District 72.  This district covers South Sarasota and Siesta Key, one of the more populated areas of District 16.  Good has been endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden and has been linked to support from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  Buchanan has become a staunch supporter of the President and Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott.  In Buchanan’s most recent race for the seat he beat David Shapiro by about 30,000 votes, but many see Good as the best chance since Buchanan was initially elected to unseat him.  As support of the President in Florida begins to fall because of response to the Covid-19 pandemic there is bound to be Buchanan supporters who simply decide enough is enough.  This may be the key to Good winning the election, as Buchanan has more money raised, due mostly to the fact that he is ultra-rich himself.  The race has the potential to garner national attention and, with the right dominos falling, could lead to a massive win for the Democrats.

Supreme Court Likely Invoked Purcell Principle to Deny Expanded Access to Voting in Texas and Alabama

Supreme Court Likely Invoked Purcell Principle to Deny Expanded Access to Voting in Texas and Alabama

Policy Summary: Over the last few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders regarding voting rights, which could have an effect on the November 2020 election. On June 26, 2020 the Supreme Court issued their order in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott. The case started when the Texas Democratic party initiated a lawsuit to force Texas Governor Abbott and the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to permit all eligible Texas voters to vote by mail regardless of their age or physical condition. Because of COVID-19 Governor Abbott had postponed the July 2020 runoff elections and doubled the time period for early voting by personal appearance. However, Texas Democrats did not feel that this went far enough to protect citizens from voting during the worldwide pandemic. They brought suit to suspend current rules on mail – in voting and make the option available to every Texas citizen who wanted to vote by mail. The case went through the Texas judiciary system where the Texas Supreme Court ultimately stayed the preliminary injunction granted to the Texas Democratic Party pending the outcome of the case in federal district court where a connected proceeding was in progress. The federal district court again sided with the plaintiffs. The case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which ruled against the plaintiffs resulting in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order upholding the order issued against the plaintiff’s claims although the order did include a minimal one-line comment from Justice Sotomayor.

On July 2, 2020 the Supreme Court issued an order in Merril v. People First of Alabama. The case originated when a number of civil rights groups brought a lawsuit to help lift usual voting restrictions for voters who wanted to vote but had concerns about voting in person during the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon ruled that curbside voting would be permitted (where voters can drive up, receive a ballot, fill it out in their car and give it back to an election worker). And, he ruled that the rules in Alabama for absentee ballots requiring two witnesses to sign off would not be required. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which blocked Judge Kallon’s orders, ruling 5 – 4 along conservative lines. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: The orders issued by the Supreme Court are notable because of the legal issues they deal with and the near lack of explanation or legal analysis explaining the rationale for the decision. Both cases are voting rights cases during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and deal with whether or not voters in Texas and Alabama will be able to cast a ballot without having to put their health at risk. The options offered in Texas and Alabama were actually good options that were designed to let people vote safely while allowing the elections to be conducted efficiently. The Democratic Party in Texas sought to include every eligible voter who wanted to vote by mail. And Alabama was set to allow voters to vote in their cars without ever leaving their car and to do away with witness requirements for absentee ballots. But the Supreme Court did not let any of these temporary measures go into effect and simply issued an order without the usual long opinion to explain why.

But even if the Court did not lay out their reasoning the reason for the Court’s decision can likely be found in the Court’s voting rights opinion from Wisconsin that they issued this last May in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee and in a little known legal doctrine called the “Purcell Principle.” The basis of the Purcell Principle is simple – courts should not issue orders which change election rules in the close period of time before an election. In the Wisconsin case, the Court reasoned that changing the rules so close to election time might cause confusion for voters and might even be a reason for voters not to vote. There, the Court ruled that changing the rules to the absentee ballot rules would violate this principle but instead their ruling had the perverse effect of having a significant number of voters not have their absentee ballots counted. The situations in Texas and Alabama are nearly the same – voters are worried about being infected with COVID-19 and had an option to vote remotely and yet the Supreme Court nixed those efforts with unexplained orders. It seems highly likely the Court relied on the Purcell principle. Shouldn’t the Court have at least explained and put pen to paper the merits of the Purcell Principle and the rationale for relying on the Purcell Principle in a COVID-19 situation? The right to vote is one of the most cherished fundamental rights but with the issuance of these two orders the Court instead looks biased when the rule it relied on prevented thousands of people from voting and looks even worse when it failed to give a full explanation for blocking the efforts to help them vote. While the Supreme Court in the Wisconsin decision said that it wanted to prevent confusion among voters its efforts here have instead caused more unnecessary confusion. The states still have a chance to make the necessary changes to the absentee voting rules before November and hopefully Texas and Alabama can make things right and expand access to the ballot box for their state’s most vulnerable voters. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Resistance  Resources:

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

Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling in Abortion Rights

Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling in Abortion Rights

The Policy

The Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have closed all but a single abortion clinic in the state. The 5-4 decision of June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo annulled an anti-abortion law limiting admitting privileges. Under this law, doctors who performed abortions were no longer permitted to have admitting privileges for nearby hospitals. At minimum, two of the three abortion clinics in the state would be forced to close, requiring women to drive farther and wait longer for the single doctor that would be left to meet the demand of 10,000 abortions women in Louisiana seek each year.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the nearly identical 2016 case out of Texas set a precedent for the outcome of June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo. This case also centered on doctors performing abortions not being allowed admitting practices at surrounding hospitals. While the prior rule was made with a ruling of 5-3, in the months after the death of Justice Antonio Scalia, the same conditions were found in and ultimately applied to June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, resulting in the same outcome despite the current make up of the court. After this decision, Louisiana’s three remaining abortion clinics are permitted to stay open.

Analysis:

While some find this to be a shock, given the conservative-leaning majority of the court, others call this case “Supreme Court 101” saying that it was nearly a no-brainer, citing the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling where states cannot place an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion. Consequently, a law like this in Louisiana, that places a significant undue burden on a woman’s ability to have an abortion, would be easily struck down.

From fetal heartbeat bills, to the ectopic pregnancy bill, cases directly targeting a women’s right to abortion access have been making headlines in recent months. With the appointment of conservative justices by Trump, many anti-abortionists see this as an opportunity to take a case and challenge Roe v. Wade. While this law does not upend Roe v. Wade, it is part of a broader strategy of implementing restrictive state laws, that when put together, threaten overall access and the validity of the monumental 1973 case.

The deciding member of the Court was Chief Justice Roberts, who joined the liberal wing and upended the Louisiana law. Conservatives were quick to condemn both the ruling and Chief Justice Roberts, notably, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany were against the ruling.

Striking down this law increases access to abortions in the state of Louisiana, specifically for two marginalized demographics, those who have a lower income and women of color. About 8,000 abortions were performed in Louisiana in 2018, according to state statistics and more than two-thirds of abortion patients there are women of color. Limiting access will do exactly what the Court vowed to prevent, placing undue burden on women’s access to abortion care.

Engagement Resources:

The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) Examined

The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) Examined

July 8, 2020

 Summary:

Touted by supporters as the new NAFTA 2.0, one of the major tenets underlying the Trump Administration’s foreign policy platform was recently put into practice.  On July 1, the USMCA (United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement) officially replaced NAFTA as the economic blueprint to regional trade.  For the past 3 years, the Trump Administration has been revising and modifying specifications of the free trade policy that has governed the rules of North American cross-border commerce.

The administration has repeatedly attacked previously negotiated free trade agreements, characterizing them as one-sided trade deals that weakened America’s competitiveness in the global market.  NAFTA was no exception to presidential criticism. In the past, the president has threatened to punish American manufacturers who sought to utilize supply chains south of the border, by subjecting them to tariffs on domestic re-entry, even when U.S. businesses have been able to lower costs, raise profits, and increase market capitalization.

Briefly, some of the elements of USMCA incorporated as part of the revision were higher degrees of protection for the automotive industry through more stringent rules of origin.  Auto manufacturers must ensure that 75% of the components used in the production of passenger vehicles come from North America, up from 62.5% under the original NAFTA terms.  If producers fail to comply, automobiles in production will be subject to duties and tariffs each time automotive content is exchanged from country to country.  The lifecycle of the automotive manufacturing process requires extensive cross-border mechanical flow of parts and commercial testing, exposing producers in the region to inflated costs.  Besides meeting a quota on automotive contents, the USMCA requires that 70% of the steel and aluminum used in production must originate from either Mexico, Canada, or the U.S.  Moreover, labor initiatives ensure that nearly 45% of content must be produced by regional workers, earning a minimum of $16 per hour.  Although other general labor, environmental, and intellectual property provisions were administered through USMCA, the basis of the Trump trade policy has been built on a foundation dominated by the tenets of mercantilism, targeting a host of actors ranging from domestic industries to global trading partners.

Analysis:

President Trump has repeatedly used false narratives and misguided nationalism as the “smoke and mirrors” to justify his protectionist agenda. Nothing has been politicized more and understood less than the benefits of foreign trade.  The Trump administration has cultivated the notion that trade policy has been negotiated from a position of weakness, to which Americans have long shouldered the cost, citing the overall trade deficit as proof of his claims.

The problem with this assertion is that it’s rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the global economy operates.  While it is certainly true that the U.S. runs a persistent trade deficit with most of its trading partners, the balance of trade is an inconsequential metric in determining success in the global market.  The gains to trade are not governed by the ability to run a positive balance of trade, but rather by the capacity to increase overall standards of living.  In fact, the trade deficit is only a portion of the total effect of international commerce and is reciprocated and financed by a capital surplus.  Dollars spent abroad on imports always come to return as capital investment, maintaining the constant flow of jobs and economic growth.  However, because the Trump administration has politicized the trade deficit as a means of imposing protectionist policies, the president has used this as justification to shield some of the biggest companies on the planet from foreign competition, all at the expense of taxpayers.  Truth is, the trade deficit is no more a symptom of economic failure than the trade surplus is of economic success.

On the contrary, the way to make American businesses more competitive is not through protecting them from foreign competition, but rather encouraging them to use the most efficient factors of production, whether its supply chains in Mexico or factories abroad.  More than half of the products imported from countries like Mexico and Canada are raw materials used by manufacturers in the downstream value-added sectors of the economy.  Allowing producers to operate in an open market ensures they will be able to lower cost, boost economic growth, and create economies of scale.  When small businesses can be the benefactors of an open market, rather than one restrained by tariffs, quotas, and subsidization, they are able to maximize profit and re-invest back in the U.S. economy, thus creating long-term sustainable employment.

A successful trade relationship should seek to promote mutual interests, where the benefits of one nation don’t undermine that of another.  The global landscape has transitioned since the times of the Cold War.  No longer does the international community reward power and conflict but rather peace and cooperation.  Countries who have integrated economic interests have a greater propensity to cooperate in achieving prosperity.

With that said, approximately a year ago, the Trump Administration publicly declared political victory after the U.S. forced Mexico to capitulate to initiatives set forth by the president in an attempt to get the Mexican government to reduce the effects of illegal immigration.  This so-called agreement was bound by the threat of billions of dollars of tariffs the U.S. promised to impose on Latin American imports in the absence of Mexico’s cooperation. The problem with this arrangement is that if Mexico fails to meet its objectives, the president will ultimately unleash the punitive effects of this mutual destructive scheme that would not only harm regional economic growth but would also exacerbate the effects of illegal immigration.

Rather than seeking a policy that would induce such austere effects for both Latin America and the U.S., the president should seek to promote incentives necessary to make both nations better off.  Policies that foster multilateral success would discourage citizens from leaving home in search of economic prosperity.  Granting U.S. market access would enable trading partners to boost earnings.  When America’s trading partners prosper and earn more, they can, in turn, buy more from American producers, which would ensure the U.S. remains competitive in the global market. The success of American exporters will always be contingent on whether foreigners have the financial necessities to acquire U.S. products.  Therefore, when the president seeks to punish our trading partners, he ultimately punishes Americans as well.

Ultimately, as long as the Trump Administration continues to deviate from the traditions that have promoted international security and global prosperity, neither the U.S, Mexico, nor Canada will be the benefactors of the potential windfall that the productive forces of unrestricted free trade can potentially unleash for North America.

Resistance Resources:

  • Center for Strategic & International Studies – [https://www.csis.org/topics/economics/trade-and-international-business] – is a non-partisan U.S. think tank that provides analysis of the climate, global trends, and risks in the global commercial environment.  They consult on policy issues ranging from   international trade, governance, competitiveness, and international economic development.
  • Cato Institute – [https://www.cato.org/research/trade-policy] – is a public policy research organization dedicated to the principles of freedom, free-markets, and peace.  Through publishing policy proposals, blogs, web features, op‐​eds and TV appearances, Cato has worked vigorously to present citizens with incisive and understandable analysis.
  • Mercatus Center – [https://www.mercatus.org/tags/trade-and-immigration] – is a university-based research center bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems. Their mission is to generate knowledge and understanding of the institutions that affect the freedom to prosper and live peaceful lives.
The Crisis in Worker Wages

The Crisis in Worker Wages

July 8, 2020

Policy

Fair wages, universal healthcare, paid parental leave, paid sick leave, paid annual leave.  These should be the minimal components of employment.  It is not rocket science. These things are attainable and would help both the employer and the employee.

A much quoted study, several years ago, showed that 40% of people in the US could not readily cover a $400 emergency expense.  Americans are strapped for cash.  Is the economy bad?  Prior to the Covid-19 virus, the economy was thriving in the sense that corporations were turning high profits and paying little corporate tax while providing a very low minimum wage to their workers.  Most workers’ wages were falling and/or stagnant when controlling for inflation.  Increasingly, American workers were not participating in the elevated profits and productivity of the American economy.

In terms of wages, it has been shown that many low wage workers were depending on government subsidies for healthcare and/or food while their employers lined their pockets.  The current stimulus, adopted to support the laid off workers, contains weekly payments of $600 provided by the federal government through July.  This can be added to the state payments the worker is receiving, which vary by state but are less than the full wages.  A recent NY Times article showed that for some workers this resulted in an average hourly wage of $21, more money than the $12 many workers averaged.  Fully 68% of those receiving unemployment benefits were making more than they did when they were working.

Analysis

The article’s authors point out that states mandate that a recipient of unemployment benefits must take a job offered that is comparable to their former job even if they will get less income than they are getting while unemployed.  The authors suggest the recipients should be able to turn down such jobs in favor of finding one equal to their unemployment payments.  They suggest this could result in workers negotiating for higher wages rather than the recent data which shows that wages for returning workers are decreasing.  They further suggest that the federal government make up the gap between a job’s wages and a $21 an hour wage representing a fair wage guarantee.  This would be one tactic to take.  Other suggestions would see the employer paying a fairer wage, at its own expense, and research shows this could be done without a dramatic decline in profit.  Only a very few small businesses would have to cut employees, or reduce hours, if the minimum wage was increased.  An additional source of revenue for  workers could come from a subsidy achieved by raising corporate taxes which currently are at all-time low.  Finally, unionization significantly aids the well-being of employees and it stands at an all-time low.  The current rate is 6.2% in the private sphere and 33.6% in the public sector.  The corona virus has driven the country to the edge of indecency with its meager wages and poor or nonexistent benefits.  To create greater economic equity, as well as quality of life,  politicians must address the deterioration of the measures which provide for the public good.  A thriving working and middle class is widely held to be beneficial for consumers and corporations and yet the nation is moving further from this reality.  Home ownership is good for business and is also on the decline, particularly among discriminated groups.  Creating a working  middle class which is economically viable is imperative to secure a thriving economy benefitting the increasing part of the population which lives on the edge.  Many economists, social scientists, and progressive writers support this view.  In addition, such job “benefits” as universal healthcare, paid parental and sick leave, annual leave, daycare subsidies, and tax relief must be made workers’ rights.  It seems only “fair.”

Learn More

Resistance Resources

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest