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

 

Democracy At Risk

Brief #1—Democracy At Risk
By Ron Israel
Democracy, derived from the Greek word demos, or people, is defined as government in which the supreme power is vested in a country’s citizens.

read more

Trump’s EPA Seeks to Hide Science with New “Transparency” Rule

Brief #105—Environment
By Jacob Morton
On January 5, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a new rule requiring that any scientific evidence that is to be considered by the agency when crafting new environmental regulation, such as limiting the use of certain chemicals or determining levels of allowable pollution, must make all relevant data publicly available (including study participants’ personal medical records) to be considered credible.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
How Fox News and MSNBC have tied the BLM Protests to the 2020 Presidential Election

How Fox News and MSNBC have tied the BLM Protests to the 2020 Presidential Election

The death of George Floyd not only sparked more than three months of protests against police brutality and racism, but also made these issues a focal point of the 2020 presidential election. With just two months away before Americans decide who will take over the Oval Office, Black Lives Matter has become the most significant protest movement in the United States. While demonstrations have been largely peaceful, cities like Portland have become hotbeds of unrest. However, according to a new report released by the US Crisis Project, about 93% of racial justice protests in the United States have been peaceful and nondestructive since Floyd’s death. But as major cable news covers these developments, Fox and MSNBC offer two completely different narratives for voters: one that distinguishes peaceful protestors from ill-intentioned rioters and looters, and one that does not.

The former appears to be the mindset over at MSNBC. On the last day of August, Joe Scarborough and Reverend Al Sharpton discussed Joe Biden’s handling of the protests. Scarborough insisted Biden and civil rights groups like the NAACP have consistently condemned the unwanted violence. Sharpton agreed, making the case that Biden has spoken out against the unrest over the last several months.

“He [Biden] clearly has been one of the leading voices against the violence and against the looting,” said Sharpton, “while he supported our legitimate right to peaceful protest…people that are violent on either side are undermining what we are trying to achieve in terms of having policing that is fair and equal…”

On Fox News, Sean Hannity made the opposite claim. In his Gish gallop, rapid style of punditry, Hannity both condescendingly and authoritatively insisted Biden was not only weak, feeble, and hiding in his basement, but that he never denounced the riots at all, and that it was too late for Biden to issue any condemnation. In the same segment, Hannity also scoffed at the notion that peaceful protestors existed, and continued to assert that Biden, Democrats, and the liberal media were complacent in the increasing violence, despite evidence that Biden has been condemning rioters and looters since the death of Floyd.

In general, voices at Fox News have been trying to link the violent protestors to Biden and the Democratic Party at large. For example, Greg Gutfeld recently did a segment titled “Democrats ignored the violent riots until it impacted the polls.” Comparatively, MSNBC has been covering aspects of the protests that link Donald Trump to the violence, such as his defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, or how armed white supremacist groups have been invading these demonstrations. Earlier this month, Joy Reid asserted that if Trump wanted to end the rising mayhem, that he should tell his supporters via Twitter to go home, alluding that he is partly responsible for the violence that has been carried out by his supporters.

The Trumpian insult about Biden hiding in his basement had been making its rounds on Fox, but recently, the network had to shift gears in light of Biden making a visit to Kenosha, WI, to meet with the family of Jacob Blake. Last week in a Fox News Alert, Erin Perrine, the Trump 2020 director of press communications, said that Biden’s visit was for “purely political reasons.” Even though this is a desperate take, it is not a surprising one; at Fox News, if Biden does not leave his basement, he is hiding, but if he does leave to visit with a shooting victim, it is a political stunt.

While MSNBC is not without their past of examples of Democratic biases, they seem to be covering the central message of Black Lives Matter in a manner that distinguishes peaceful protestors from bad actors attempting to hijack their movement. Their analysis of these developments, overall, seems to parallel Biden’s views and rhetoric on the dynamic of the protests, an outlook that greatly contrasts against any Trump supporter who religiously watches Hannity and other Fox News pundits. Going forward, it will be interesting to see how MSNBC covers Biden’s views on Black Lives Matters’ call to defund the police, as he does not exactly share the same approach to police reform.

Articles:

Videos:

What’s the Accord Between Israel and the United Arab Emirates All About?

What’s the Accord Between Israel and the United Arab Emirates All About?

 

Summary:

On August 31, flight LY971 landed in the United Arab Emirates after a three-hour journey from Israel. The touchdown acted as a seal of approval on the Abraham Accord, the agreement to normalize relations between the two countries. The deal was brokered by the Trump administration behind closed doors and announced suddenly on August 13.

The accord was hinted at in the Emirati ambassador to the United States Yousef Al Otaiba’s op-ed in Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, in which the diplomat decried Israel’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank and offered the suggestion of diplomatic normalization as an alternative. Al Otaiba’s hopes for greater economic ties and security cooperation came to fruition: Israel suspended the planned annexation, while the Emirati government in Abu Dhabi signed the Abraham Accord into law. The Trump administration joined national newspapers in both signatory nations in pronouncing the agreement a historic step towards peace in the Middle East. The UAE is now only the third Arab government to normalize relations with Israel, after Egypt and Jordon.

Yet despite the fanfare, the Palestinian Authority and civil society throughout the Middle East have roundly criticized the deal for breaking the consensus in the Arab world that no country unilaterally sign a peace treaty with Israel.

And the deal was indeed unilateral — the Emirati government did not clue in any other Arab nation to its plans, abstaining even from inviting the Palestinian Authority or any other body representing the Palestinian people to the negotiations. Thus, an agreement that ostensible hinged on Israel halting its annexation of Palestinian-occupied land completely blindsided Palestinian leadership. Pro-peace movements view the move in bad faith and believe that the outcome of the Abraham Accord is at best ineffective and at worst harmful to the Arab world’s stated goals of a two-state solution and a lasting peace in the Middle East. Nour Odeg, a Palestinian writer and analyst, is quoted in the New York Times as writing that Abu Dhabi, “tried to use us as a fig leaf…Nobody buys it…Palestine did not factor into this.”

Analysis:

While this accord was sold to onlookers as a way of defending the Palestinian people from Israeli annexation efforts, the facts on the ground show that peace in the West Bank was, at best, an afterthought. This was an act of convenience for the signatories parties as well as for the Trump Administration, which used the accord to support two regimes friendly with the president, while ignoring the root of a conflict that was supposed to be center stage in the negotiations.

The deal was marketed as an accomplishment as great as the Israeli treaties with Egypt and Jordon, one that would bring peace to the Middle East, and yet it failed to accomplish any of its stated goals. This accord, while certainly a major shift in regional politics, is in no way relatable to the aforementioned peace deals, which marked the end of armed conflicts. In addition, the deal does little to address the root of the conflict it set out to resolve, with Israel showing little desire to negotiate with any Palestinian organization. Mairav Zonszein is quoted in the Jerusalem Post as pointing out that the Abraham Accord is Isreal’s attempt to sign a peace agreement with a country it was not at war with, “while continuing to occupy millions of Palestinians.”

The Emirati demand to halt Israel’s annexation plans was granted, though the plans had already long been stalled by recently-indicted Prime Minister Netanyahu’s waning political heft while he awaits the fourth election in a single year, following three contested results. In addition, poignant Brookings Institute analysis suggests that Netanyahu is surely keeping an eye on the upcoming US presidential election, with full knowledge that going forward with the planned annexation would potentially sour relations with a new, anti-annexation Biden-Harris administration. The UAE’s demands acted as an excuse for Israel to put a pause on an already drawn-out and internationally unpopular policy while appeasing hardliners within the country. With a window into regional markets, security cooperation and diplomacy with the Arab world on the table in return for simply maintaining the status quo, Israel got a whole lot more than they gave.

The UAE proclaimed their support of Palestine while using them as a justification to sign the Abraham Accord, unilaterally moving the goalpost for rapprochement with Israel from “when Palestine is liberated” to “when Israel pauses its current annexation plans.” The fact that Abu Dhabi has been inching towards normalization with Israel for years coupled with the lingering question about why they never consulted with the Palestinian Authority about their plans makes it clear that true peace between Israel and the Palestinians wasn’t exactly on the forefront of their mind.

As for the Trump administration, the salesmanship around the issue clearly points to the president’s plans to use the accord as a tagline in his reelection campaign. Branding a coming-together of two conservative, Trump-friendly administrations that leaves Palestinian civil liberties and self-determination out of the conversation as “peace in the Middle East” is the same kind of misdirection we have seen from this presidency on countless domestic and foreign policies throughout the last four years. While Arab-Israeli rapprochement could do wonders for developing soft diplomacy in the region, critics are right to worry that by leaving Palestinians outside the negotiations in such a supposedly historic treaty, and one that affects them so directly, sets a bad precedent for future negotiations.

As the broker of this accord, it was the Trump-administration’s solemn duty to use this opportunity to progress true peace in the Middle East. Instead, the president kicked the can down the road. The outcome of this agreement highlights the fact that president’s foreign policy is based on supporting governments over people, and that his administration is in no rush to address the underlying causes of regional instability as long as his allies come out on top. With so many Americans working tirelessly to address similar trends in the president’s domestic policies, it can be easy to overlook the damage done to the international landscape. Yet it is more vital now than ever to build solidarity between social movements and across borders to defend the decency of those lives ignored by authoritarian and reactionary governments.

Resistance Resources:

The Corruption of Sonny Perdue

The Corruption of Sonny Perdue

Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, stands out among his fellow Executive Branch appointees in that he bring relevant experience to the post. He had previously served two terms as governor of Georgia and owns agriculture related businesses. In his time as the top politician of the Peach state, he racked up numerous ethics violations, which perhaps caught the eye of Donald Trump. As Ag Sec, Perdue has engaged in self-dealing and otherwise promoted  an agenda running counter to the interests of the average American.

Government ethics reform was ostensibly a major component of Perdue’s time in the Georgia governor’s mansion. He signed into law legislation that prevented himself and any other state employees from accepting gifts over $25. However in two terms over eight years he received over $25K in gifts. In his time in office 13 complaints were filed against Perdue with the Georgia State Ethics Commission. Twice the commission ruled against the governor, resulting in fines. Perdue was additionally accused of passing tax reform through the Republican-led state legislature to avoid $100K in capital gains tax from a real estate sale, then turning around and using the money to buy a parcel of land in Florida from an individual he’s appointed to the state’s economic advisory board.

At his Senate confirmation hearing, Perdue stressed his commitment to ‘’customer service.’’ Those customers appear to be disproportionately large, multinational corporations. Trump’s trade war with China has impacted America’s farmers as much as any of his policies. In attaching tariffs to commodities like soybeans and pork belly, Trump shut out millions of farmers from the world’s largest consumer marketplace. The administration’s solution was an impetuous $16 billion in relief, for which Congressional approval was not received. Its recipients were overwhelmingly giant farm conglomerates. JBS, a Brazilian company and largest meat producer in the world, received $82 million in pork contracts funded directly by the bailout money. Roughly 10% of eligible farmers received nearly 70% of all available relief. The top 1% of farmers received an average of $183K in bailouts, while the bottom 80% received an average of $5K. The program was additionally controversial as it shielded Trump from significant political fallout from his haphazard tariff tit-for-tat. US taxpayers subsidized the wealthiest farmers on the planet while simultaneously attempting to kick millions off food stamps. That course of action speaks volumes about the ‘’customers’’ Perdue is intent on serving.

As head of the USDA, Perdue is responsible for federal laws which concern farming, forestry, rural economic development and food. Scientific consensus dictates that man-made climate change poses short and long-term threats to each of these areas. Perdue is among the many skeptics in the Trump administration electing to bury their hands in the sand as precious time to address the issue slips away. While acknowledging climate change as fact, he has publicly expressed doubts about its severity and prioritized removing ‘’onerous regulations’’ on farmers, rather than address the impeding damage of an increasingly hotter planet. For decades, the USDA has publicly promoted its findings of government-funded studies to better educate farmers and consumers alike. Never an outfit to respect precedent, the Trump administration has refused to publish dozens of studies designed to investigate the far-reaching effects of climate change. The administration is attempting to suppress evidence contrary to their staunch denial of climate science. Among the studies swept under the rug include findings that rice may lose nutrients in a carbon-rich atmosphere (which would be devastating to the over half a billion people who subside primarily on the grain) and that farmers may have poorer quality grass on which to raise cattle. All told, at least 45 USDA studies related to the effects of climate change have received no publicity. Perdue holds a degree in veterinary medicine and has stated good science should guide policy. His actions have not reflected that stance, as he has habitually towed the Trump line on climate science.

No department in Trump’s Executive Branch would be complete without a political appointee undermining its efficacy and filling the ranks with undue hires. 42 resumes of political appointees were reviewed by Politico. 22 had worked on the Trump campaign with no relevant experience in their field. A former pesticide lobbyist was placed in charge of a deregulation team. Under Perdue, chemical companies have enjoyed a troubling ease of access to officials, even by the standards of the Trump administration. Perdue has also overseen a mass exodus of career government scientists by moving the USDA’s research office from Washington to Kansas City. Affected employees were given 33 days to decide whether to accept relocation or lose their job. Most quit, taking with them incalculable experience on important research at a crucial time.

The Trump administration has been plagued by scandal and ethics concerns from its outset. Sonny Perdue has not made many splashy headlines in that regard. Nonetheless he has taken deliberate action to undercut his department’s function and public trust in it. He has not been so brazen in his malfeasance as to attract attention and enmity. His lower profile has likely allowed him to operate unimpeded and do far-reaching damage.

Trump administration loosens limits on coal pollution

Trump administration loosens limits on coal pollution

Policy Summary

On Monday, August 31, the US EPA under the Trump administration announced that it has made revisions to a 2015 Obama era policy that places pollution restrictions on power plants that burn coal. The policy, known as the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) for coal-fired power plants, limits how much heavy metal toxins and other waterborne pollutants coal powered electric generation plants can release into local waters or wastewater facilities.

Explained very simply, a coal powered electric generation plant burns coal to heat water into steam, which in turn generates electricity. Two waste streams produced by this process are affected by the EPA’s revisions. The first pollution stream results from the toxic gases produced by the burning of coal, which are passed through treated water to remove the toxins and particulate matter before being released from the flue into the air. The water with the dissolved toxins and ash in it is known as Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. The second waste stream affected by the EPA’s new revisions is known as Bottom Ash (BA) transport water, which is water used to carry away the toxic coal ash leftover in the bottom of the boiler tanks from the steaming process.

The pollution limits and guidelines for these two waste streams, as written by the Obama administration’s regulation in 2015, established the following:

  • Set the first ever limits on the amount of pollutants (arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen) power plants can dump into local water bodies via FGD wastewater. The policy set specific limits on how much of each toxin the FGD wastewater could contain before being released into the local water system. Power plants that needed to meet these compliance standards were required to adopt new best available technologies (BAT) to remove pollutants from the wastewater.
  • Required that all coal-fired power plants recycle 100% of their BA transport water (which contains coal ash and other suspended solids and toxic elements), instead of purging into local water bodies.
  • Required that compliance with the new guidelines and limitations be met by 2023.

*The Obama administration estimated $451-$566 million annually in monetary benefits to public health, environmental health, and economic health as a result of this regulation.

Today’s EPA under the Trump administration has revised these guidelines and limitations as follows:

  • The best available technologies required by the Obama administration’s 2015 guidelines for use in the removal of toxic pollutants from wastewater are no longer a requirement for coal-fired power plants. The EPA claims it has found “more affordable technologies that are capable of removing similar amounts of discharges.”
  • Coal-fired power plants are no longer required to recycle 100% of their BA transport water. Instead, the EPA has established a “pollutant discharge allowance,” where the amount of toxic water that a power plant can release into the local water system “will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the permitting authority, based on best professional judgement,” up to 10% of the plant’s daily BA wastewater.
  • Power plants that “cease coal combustion by 2028” may be exempt from the guidelines all together.
  • The case-by-case deadlines for complying with the regulations have been pushed back so that power plants that have failed to meet their already passed deadlines will not receive any penalty. The Obama guidelines required the necessary power plants to meet compliance by their next permit renewal, the earliest one being by November 1, 2018 and the last deadline being by January 2023. November 1, 2020 is now the earliest deadline for compliance — “in order to allow EPA time for reconsideration of the regulatory provisions.”

*The Trump administration estimates a $140 million annual cost reduction for power plants as a result of these revisions. 

The new guidelines set forth by the EPA essentially push back the deadline for coal-fired power plants to comply with reducing pollution; increases the amounts of pollutants allowed to be released by the power plants; allows the use of cheaper technologies that are less effective at removing pollutants from wastewater before it is released; and exempts some power plants all together from meeting compliance, as long as they plan to shut down or switch to natural gas by 2028.

Analysis

 EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and the coal industry both had praise for the regulation’s revisions. Wheeler claims, “Newer, more affordable pollution control technologies and flexibility on the regulation’s phase-in will reduce pollution and save jobs at the same time.” President of the National Mining Association, Rich Nolan, said of the new regulation, “The coal industry wants to be able to compete while also safeguarding important environmental protections – this rule shows that balance is possible.” The EPA also claims the revisions will reduce “toxic pollution by nearly 1 million pounds per year greater than what the Obama-era controls would have.”

Environmental groups, however, say the revisions allow the industry to “use cheaper, less effective treatment methods on polluted wastewater that puts waterways at risk.” The treatment technologies allowed by the EPA’s revisions use a shorter biological treatment process which leaves the resulting wastewater with a higher concentration of selenium than the technologies required under the previous guidelines. The EPA’s revisions, “sets a daily maximum limit on selenium at 76 micrograms per liter, more than three times the Obama-era limit of 23 micrograms per liter.”

Frank Holleman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center wrote in an email to POWER Magazine, “With today’s rollback of clean water protections, the Trump EPA allows dirty coal-burning plants to dump more toxic substances into our rivers, lakes, and drinking reservoirs and exposes our communities to more cancer-causing pollution. The EPA itself has estimated that at least 30 percent of all toxic water pollution from all industries comes from these plants, and the technology to prevent and treat this pollution is widely available. The EPA is making it easier for the most polluting and worst run coal-fired plants to dump poisons into the waterways our communities depend upon.”

Thom Cmar, deputy managing attorney of the Earthjustice Coal Program, agrees. He says of the EPA’s revisions, “The Trump administration is once again jeopardizing people’s health to give coal power industry lobbyists what they want. This dangerous decision will have a big impact because dirty coal-fired power plants are by far the number one source of toxic chemicals in our water.” He argues, “The Trump administration’s rollback will be responsible for hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants contaminating sources of drinking water, lakes, rivers and streams every year. We will challenge this rule change in court.”

Resistance Resources

EarthJustice

  • Behind nearly every major environmental win, you will find EarthJustice. EarthJustice’s legal work has saved irreplaceable wildlands, cleaned up the air we breathe, and fueled the rise of 100% clean energy. It has protected countless species on the brink of extinction, and secured long-overdue, historic limits on our nation’s worst polluting industries. https://earthjustice.org/

Southern Environmental Law Center

Environmental Defense Fund

  • One of the world’s largest environmental organizations and a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Preserving the natural systems on which all life depends. https://www.edf.org/

Natural Resources Defense Council

  • Works to safeguard the earth – its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. Combining the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. https://www.nrdc.org/

Sources Cited

Fed Commits to Keeping Borrowing Rate Low to Stimulate Economy

Fed Commits to Keeping Borrowing Rate Low to Stimulate Economy

September 5, 2020

Policy

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

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

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

Analysis

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

Learn More

Resistance Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resistance Resources:

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

Sources:

Medicaid Holdout States and the Covid-19 Crisis

Medicaid Holdout States and the Covid-19 Crisis

SUMMARY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

NET SAVINGS FOR STATES

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

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

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

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

A Tale of Two Conventions

A Tale of Two Conventions

August 31, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Analysis

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

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

Resistance Resources

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

Automaker Giants rally against SAFE Fuel Economy Rollbacks

Policy

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

Learn More

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

Resistance Resources

  • (2020). Climate Group : https://www.theclimategroup.org/partner/state-california
  • (2020). California Air Resources Board : https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/
  • (2020). Coalation for Clean Air : https://www.ccair.org/
  • (2020). Environmental Defense Fund : https://www.edf.org/climate/california-leads-fight-curb-climate-change
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