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
In Disappointing Decision Supreme Court Rules State Funds Can Be Used At Religious Schools

In Disappointing Decision Supreme Court Rules State Funds Can Be Used At Religious Schools

By Rod Maggay

Policy Summary: On June 30, 2020 the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. In that case, Montana established a scholarship program where residents could gain a maximum $150 tax credit for donations they make to organizations that give scholarships that can be used for tuition at private schools. However, Montana had a state constitutional provision that barred government aid and funds to be used at private schools “controlled…by any church, sect or denomination.” The tuition could still have been used at schools or academies that had no religious affiliation. As a result of this state constitutional provision Montana’s Department of Revenue implemented a rule blocking use of the scholarship money at religious schools. Three mothers who had applied for the scholarship were subsequently blocked from using the monies at Stillwater Christian School in Montana. The families brought suit in state court where the plaintiffs prevailed. The case was appealed to the Montana State Supreme Court, which reversed on the grounds that the monies from the state scholarship program violated the Montana state constitution because state taxpayer monies were used to aid religious schools. The court further invalidated the entire scholarship program. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which decided 5 – 4 that Montana’s constitutional no – aid provision discriminated against religious schools and families in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause.

The Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: The decision by the Supreme Court was disappointing although not unexpected. With the five vote conservative majority on the court now it was accepted that a number of decisions would be decided in line with conservative interests. However, this case raised a number of eyebrows at how this conservative majority went to great lengths to reach the decision they wanted.

The Free Exercise Clause has come to stand for the notion that persons are protected from “indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion.” What that means is that the government may not place a burden on how a person worships or in what religious beliefs they choose to follow. With that in mind, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes the majority opinion to task and states that the inability of the Montana families in the case to use the scholarship money at religious schools does not burden them because they are not being pressured to alter or modify their religious beliefs by the state. Even without the scholarship money they are still free to believe in whatever religious beliefs they choose to follow and can still send their daughters to a religious school of their choosing. The majority opinion thus got it wrong when it said, “availability of benefits [depends on] recipient’s willingness to surrender [its] religiously impelled status.” Montana never forced the parents and families to change their religious beliefs in order to get the scholarship money yet the majority opinion tried to present the case this way.

Additionally, Justice Sotomayor added a much more blistering dissent that raises more questions as to why the majority opinion went down the road it did. Her dissent points out that many of the issues of the case were properly decided by the Montana Supreme Court and that the court had even declined to hear the federal issues connected to the case. Based on past legal precedent this should have been enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to decline to hear and decide the case. What likely happened is that conservative justices on the court wanted to hear the case in order to give a boost to religious rights. And, when analyzing the merits of the case Justice Sotomayor also said the majority opinion got it wrong and puts up a vigorous defense and one of the best explanations for the Free Exercise Clause. She correctly states, “the right to exercise one’s religion [does] not include a right to have the State pay for that religious practice.” Finally, she states that a state that decides to not fund religious activity is not “disfavoring” religion but making a strong choice in remaining secular as the First Amendment Religious Clauses demand. While the conservative justices were likely looking for a way to have religious schools and thoughts flourish in society, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent aptly shows that using state taxpayer money is not the way to go and is clearly against long held constitutional principles.

Simply put, this case represents an unwise choice, from a legal standpoint, to try and put Christian based values front and center in American life at the expense of American taxpayers. That is contrary to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the concept of “separation of church and state.” American citizens must continue monitoring the direction of the Supreme Court and hope an opportunity arises where a more secular justice can be appointed in order to give a more traditional meaning to the First Amendment Religious Clauses. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

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

The Crisis in Worker Wages

The Crisis in Worker Wages

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

Trump Administration to Send Home International Students

Trump Administration to Send Home International Students

Policy Summary

The Trump Administration and ICE have announced the State Department will not issue visas to international students who are enrolled in colleges/universities that switch to online learning come fall semester. Customs and Border Protection will enforce these changes and prevent such students from entering the US. International students who currently reside in the US will have to return home or transfer to an institution that has some in-person learning. Failure to comply could result in removal proceedings. Many schools are grappling with the tough decision to re-open their campuses amidst increasing COVID-19 infections. They now are looking at potentially losing international student enrollment. Elite institutions like Harvard and Princeton have made plans to adhere to remote learning for the upcoming school year, but still bring back up to 40% of undergrads to campus. However, this will no longer include international students.

In 2019, more than one million international students studied at American institutions and about 57% of international students were comprise of Chinese, Indian, and South Korean students.

Analysis

The Association of International Educators estimates international students studying in the US contribute $41 billion to the US economy. They bring diversity to campuses, drive innovation, global competitiveness, and prepare domestic students for increasingly globalized work environments. State schools rely pretty heavily on tuition and fee revenue, so the potential loss of international student enrollment could be detrimental. The US higher education system cannot afford to lose these students financially, academically, and ethically. These changes will hurt students, schools and the US economy and the negative outcome will far outweigh the false positives the Trump Administration touts to its xenophobic support base.

Engagement Resources

  • The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
  • Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
  • World Health Organization: the WHO provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and global responses
  • Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
The Corruption of William Barr Part 1

The Corruption of William Barr Part 1

July 6,2020

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.

Tennessee Representative Steve Cohen introduced a resolution on the House floor this week, calling for the impeachment of Attorney General William Barr. While the motion is unlikely to gain much traction amid the coronavirus pandemic, he’s hardly the first to broach the subject. Late last month, Barr’s alma mater, George Washington Law School, issued a scathing letter calling Barr a threat to constitutional order; it was signed by over 80% of the faculty. In February, when Barr intervened to lessen the sentence of Donald Trump confidante Roger Stone, the nonpartisan group ‘’Protect Democracy’’ circulated a petition demanding his resignation. It gained the signatures of over 2,000 former Department of Justice officials. Since succeeding Jeff Session in his role, the attorney general has faithfully prioritized the wants of the president over the equitable application of the law.

For example . William Barr pre-empted the Mueller Report’s release with a letter of his own summarizing the report. While it contained no outright falsehoods, it misrepresented the Special Counsel’s findings in a naked PR move. For instance his letter states that no members of the president’s team coordinated or cooperated with the Russian efforts. This ignores, among other transgressions, the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner (both members of the campaign) met with Russian nationals with the expectation they would receive damaging information on Trump’s opponent, Hilary Clinton. Mueller outlined 10 instances where the president obstructed justice during the course of his investigation. Because of an Office of Legal Counsel precedent stating a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mueller declined to make a charging decision beyond his authority. Barr’s letter stated outright the Special Counsel had concluded the president committed no crimes. Mueller’s said publicly, and in the report that if he could have cleared the president of any wrongdoing, he would have. Distorting public perception of Russian election interference was but the opening salvo in Barr’s corruption spree.

Barr had a hand in the sentencing of Trump confidant Roger Stone.When the news broke about Stone’s sentencing, Trump took to Twitter to vent, tweeting of the sentence ‘’terribly and horribly unfair’’ and ‘’Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice.’’ The tweet had the desired effect on its intended audience of one. Less the 24 hours after the sentencing guideline was announced, Senior DOJ officials, under Barr’s direction, called for a lighter sentence of 40 months, adding that the decision had nothing to do with Trump’s tweet. Perhaps no Executive Branch declaration of the past four years better exemplifies its credibility gap. During the trial Stone was disruptive, obstinate, and posted to social media a picture of the presiding judge in the crosshairs of a sniper rifle. It’s hardly as if any of his conduct would have endeared him to the court and warranted a reduction in penalty. Only his connection to Trump, and Barr’s pliability allowed him to have his sentence more than halved.

Barr intervened similarly in the case against Trump’s original National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn. Flynn was heard on an intercept discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak. He warned Kislyak, whose country had just attacked our elections, against imposing any sanctions that would inhibit good relations between Washington and Moscow. He then lied about the contact to Mueller’s investigators. He pled guilty twice. The Special Counsel suggested little or no jail time based on Flynn’s willingness to take responsibility and cooperate. Still, the DOJ, in an astounding act of favoritism, dropped the case before the former general could be sentenced.

Barr’s abdication of his responsibility is not limited to case fixing and domestic political errands. On the infamous call between Trump and president-elect Volodymr Zelensky, Barr’s name comes up twice. Both times, Trump encourages his Ukrainian counterpart to reach out to the attorney general (and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani)  to investigate baseless allegations of corruptions by the Bidens in the Eastern European country. Trump linked the sham investigations (which he expected to benefit him politically) to millions in security aid, and was impeached for the attempt.

Barr aoso helped Trump out in Turkey.Former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s recently released book The Room Where it Happened details a meeting between Trump and Turkish president Recep Erdogan, where the latter sought to spare Halkbank from impending indictments. The country’s de-facto national bank had been investigated by the Southern District of New York for helping the Iranian government circumvent hundreds of millions of dollars in US sanctions. The case impacted Erdogan personally, as his family has extensive ties to the financial institutions and his government is its majority shareholder. Trump promised he would look into the matter. There exists no evidence that then-acting AG Matthew Whitaker intervened in any way. When Barr was appointed, per Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, he began a campaign to help Halkbank negotiate a settlement to avoid criminal charges. A senior executive of the bank would be convicted in federal court anyway. Recently fired US attorney, Geoffrey Berman spearheaded the case. That the president would repeatedly deploy Barr in such a capacity, demonstrates he sees him his fixer, to the detriment of the American people. To date, Barr has raised no serious objection.

None of this reprehensible, and possibly criminal conduct should obscure Barr’s dangerous rhetoric. Public health experts generally agree that predatory practices and dire economic circumstances are responsible for the country’s opioid epidemic. Barr evidently sees it very differently, as he made clear when he addressed the subject at Notre Dame University in 2019. In his utterly fact-free speech, he laid the blame for the crisis at the feet of ‘’secularists’’ and ‘’so-called progressives.’’ To summarize, his speech decried the militant assault on Christian values leading to planned social decay.. Aside from his speech’s tenuous relationship to reality, it seems the nation’s top law enforcement official should be aware of the First Amendment’s clause prohibiting the establishment of a national religion. The Founding Father’s of this country were well aware of the danger of mixing government and religion. William Barr likely is also.

Barr similarly distorted the reality of police brutality when addressing the Fraternal Order of Police last year. His speech seemed a response to grievances within communities, particularly those of color, concerning how they’re policed. For context, 48 police officers died in the line of duty as the result of felonious assault in 2019. Just over 1,000 US citizens died at the hands of cops in the same year. By all accounts, violent crime in this country is at or near an all-time low. Yet when Barr addressed the FOP, he made the patently untrue assertion that it has never been more dangerous to be a police officer. He bemoaned the lack of respect shown to officers and demanded it from American citizens. His hypothesis seemed to center around a gradual decline in reverence for cops stemming from the civil unrest of the 1960’s. Barr, warned that if the disrespect continues, communities may find themselves without the protection they need. The vague threat compels mention that the job of a cop is to enforce the law, and the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly police officers have no legal responsibility to protect you. Barr emphasized that ‘’resistance is never acceptable, even if an officer’s orders appear unjust’’. ‘’Comply first, and then, if you think you’ve been wronged, complain later’’ he added without any trace of irony. Given his role in the violent dispersal of protestors outside the White House last month, it’s hard to believe he didn’t mean every word. When the independent in name only attorney general rigs cases for his boss, and demands the blind submission of citizens to cops, it is very clear the type of society he favors.

Whataboutism is a commonly utilized tactic in defense of Trump and his allies. In response to criticisms of the Barr/Trump relationship, his supporters might point to former AG Eric Holder, who once called himself Obama’s wingman. They’d not be wrong to suggest that an overly chummy relationship between the two could pose threats to the Justice Department’s independence. But, they could not point to one instance where Holder either intervened in the  criminal case of an Obama ally, tried to squash an investigation to the benefit of a foreign despot, or established a pattern of attacks on the First Amendment.

Resistance Resource

https://www.change.org/p/district-of-columbia-american-bar-association-disbar-attorney-general-william-p-barr-4abc4f8b-6ff6-46d3-97d4-d540507f65e5

Facebook’s Removes Trump Campaign Ads Due to Use of Nazi Imagery

Facebook’s Removes Trump Campaign Ads Due to Use of Nazi Imagery

July 6, 2020

Summary

A sponsored ad for Trump’s re-election campaign was removed from Facebook June 18 due to its violation of the social media company’s policies against organized hate. The ad, which was posted to both Trump and Pence’s own Facebook pages, as well as the Team Trump campaign page, included a large red inverted triangle, a symbol used to identify political opposers of the Nazi party, underneath it’s call for Americans to band together to combat “Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups.”

While Director of Communications for the Trump campaign Tim Murtaugh was quick to point out that the image is not listed in the Anti-Defamation League’s database of symbols of hate, it was recognized almost immediately as having a possible Nazi association. The Anti-Defamation league ceded that the symbol is not listed as a symbol of hate, but pointed out that theirs is “not a database of historical Nazi symbols, but of symbols commonly used by modern extremists in the US.”

Analysis

The Nazi party used inverted triangles of various colors to identify types of prisoners within concentration camps. The red triangle was used to denote political prisoners in particular, meaning those who opposed the Nazi party including liberals and socialists, those who assisted would-be prisoners, as well as union and Freemason workers, among other groups. Murtaugh mentioned the possible use of the symbol by Antifa, though there is no proof of that.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been under fire since the 2016 election for the many ways he allowed Facebook to be manipulated toward political ends, including the harvesting of users’ data and sale of ad space to Russian organizations pushing for a Trump victory. Just three weeks ago Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s stance against censorship when he declined to remove Trump’s controversial post reading “When the looting starts, the shooting starts” in response to protests around the country – another potentially divisive piece of rhetoric. Zuckerberg has said “Our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.”

Prior to the removal of the red triangle and accompanying message, many spoke out against Facebook’s inaction in the face of potentially divisive political posts, including many of the company’s employees. Democrats on the House Committee on Homeland Security demanded an explanation from Zuckerberg stating that “There is a difference between being a platform that facilitates public discourse and one that peddles incendiary, race-baiting innuendo guised as political speech for profit. Last week, your employees walked out to stand up against racism and in support of truth. You should decide which side you are on.” The Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge, both technology advocacy groups, have since stated that they will no longer accept funding from Facebook. It is unclear whether this action signals a turning point for Facebook, but as the presidential election eeks closer, many will be watching.

The Trump Administration’s Cynical Decision to Restart Federal Executions

The Trump Administration’s Cynical Decision to Restart Federal Executions

Summary

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected arguments against using a single drug to perform legal executions, which cleared the path for federal executions to resume after a 17-year hiatus.

This decision comes after Attorney General Barr announced last year that the Justice Department would resume federal executions, in line with Trump’s staunch support of the death penalty, having even suggested it may be appropriate for non-violent crimes. Since 2010, there has effectively been a moratorium on executions due to European and US manufacturers refusing to sell the government the drugs used in the procedure. By changing the protocol to include only the use of pentobarbital, the Trump administration sought to restart the procedures.

Following Barr’s 2019 announcement, a case was brought by four federal death-row prisoners over whether the new DOJ execution protocol complies with the requirements of the Federal Death Penalty Act, which requires that federal executions be carried out “in the manner prescribed by the state” in which the prisoner was convicted.

In April, the case was heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, composed of Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by President Donald Trump, and David S. Tatel, appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The panel voted 2-1 in favor of the DOJ, with Judge Tatel dissenting.

While the death penalty is currently legal in 28 states, the vast majority of executions since 1976 have taken place in the South, with Texas in the lead, followed by Virginia, Oklahoma, Florida, Missouri, Georgia and Alabama.

The executions are now set to resume within the month, despite the pandemic disrupting court procedures and the ability of lawyers to meet with their clients.

Analysis

A special political advantage comes with vowing strong punishment for a heinous crime. Consider the widespread support for former President George W Bush after the 9/11 attacks. In that moment, Bush gave voice to our collective anger and calmed our collective angst by promising revenge and justice.

The results were the Patriot Act, the legalization of torture, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Therein lies the challenge for death penalty opponents. Evidence may be on their side, but the horror of certain crimes causes an inevitable emotional response–and an opportunity for political exploitation– that must be tempered in order to set judicious policy.

One needs not delve into the debate over the inherent morality of capital punishment, which largely comes down to personal moral and religious judgments. One need only to investigate whether the death penalty, in practice, provides the sought-after justice it promises. The evidence shows the answer is conclusive: it does not.

The most cited failings of capital punishment in practice include the proven racial disparities (unequal sentences for the same crime committed by individuals of different race), rampant prosecutorial misconduct, woefully inadequate defense counsel, sentencing of mentally disabled individuals, and disproven junk science.

As the ACLU states: “Death sentences are predicted not by the heinousness of the crime but by the poor quality of the defense lawyers, the race of the accused or the victim, and the county and state in which the crime occurred.” Between 1973 and 2019, 173 innocent death-row prisoners were exonerated and released.

With the growing recognition of the failings in our justice system generally, more people have recognized the injustice of capital punishment, with a majority of Americans now supporting life imprisonment over the death penalty.

Even many conservatives have voiced opposition. Roger Viguerie, who has been called “one of the creators of the modern conservative movement” by The Nation magazine, made this case powerfully:

Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice. But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people.

The Trump administration’s decision to restart federal executions is therefore a cynical political move that plays on emotion and ignorance about the system. Accordingly, the Trump administration made a point of highlighting that those set to be federally executed this year are all convicted of murdering a child. Highlighting this fact serves to provoke that instinctive, emotional support, framing Trump as the man who kills child murderers.

This move represents an undeniably cynical, regressive policy that emboldens the remaining states that apply the death penalty.

Resistance Resources:

  • The Capital Punishment Project works toward the repeal of the death penalty in the United States through strategic litigation, advocacy, public education, and training programs for capital defense teams.
  • The Death Penalty Information Center is a national non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information on issues concerning capital punishment.
Latine Life, An Often Overlooked but Important Minority

Latine Life, An Often Overlooked but Important Minority

Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
June 30, 2020

Summary
The Latine population will comprise the largest group of nonwhite, non Hispanic voters in the 2020 election at 13% of eligible voters, up from 9% in 2008.  Thirty two million Latine voted in the 2018 election.  At 18% of the population, they are the fastest growing demographic in the US.  Sixty percent have Mexican origins. Two thirds of the group is native born.  About half of the group lives in CA, NM, and Texas with significant populations also found in NY, Arizona, and Florida.

Many myths regarding Latine persist, in the media, and sometimes the group is ignored in articles about discrimination which consistently focus on African-Americans.   Recent protests against police brutality and systemic violence against African Americans have been heavily supported by Latine who also suffer disproportionate attention from law enforcement.   Seventy eight percent of Latinos report feeling discrimination from police.  They are more likely to be stopped by police than white drivers with less basis for the stop while white motorists are more likely to be found with illegal articles and less likely to be stopped.  National data is virtually non-existent but recent articles highlight deaths in Arizona and the Bay area inflicted against young Latinos.  In the Bay area, two young men Erik Salgado (23) and Sean Monterrosa (22) were killed in June by CHP and Vallejo police respectively, and each for suspected minor property crimes.  Neither was armed.  In CA LatinX are 39% of the population and 46% of deadly shootings.  The April death of Carlos Ingram López in Tuscon has belatedly led to the resignation of the officers involved and an investigation into the incident. Articles regarding LatinX protests make the point that they support The Black Lives Matter movement while suggesting that Brown lives are also in peril.

In recent years the US high school graduation rate has met a new high but it is not equivalent across groups.  In 2017, the overall rate was 85%, with 81% Hispanic and 89% White graduating.  Disparities in college graduation are larger with just 15% of Latinos having bachelor’s degrees compared to 41% white (in 2014).   College enrollment data reveals less disparity with 35% Latino enrolled compared to 42% white.  Nearly one half of LatinX college students are enrolled in two year pubic colleges which has contributed to a significantly lower rate of student debt in head of households who are under 40 years old (22% and 42% respectively).  Attendance in college has doubled in the past two decades.

In the era of the Covid 19 epidemic, LatinX households are highly impacted with 49% reporting they, or someone in their household, has either lost a job or suffered a pay cut compared to 33% of the general population.  Eight million Hispanics work in the restaurant, hotel, and other service sector jobs hard hit by closures and layoffs.  They are almost twice as likely to test positive for the virus than their portion of the population would predict. Latine income averages 74 cents to the white dollar; the figure for Latinas compared to white males is most dramatic at 54 cents.  Latine are 1.7 times more likely than Whites to live in poverty and their households have an average of 1/8th the wealth of white households.  Head of households with college degrees average twice the income of those without a degree and four times the wealth.

Analysis
Latine often are compared to African Americans, in the media, rather than being considered as a discriminated group in their own right.  It is recently that racism has been viewed as more than a Black and white issue. A lot of anti-immigration sentiment is aimed at the LatinX population even though they are not the largest group currently immigrating to the US (that is Asians).  The portion of Hispanics who are foreign born is smaller than those who are native born.  Yet the stereotypes and condemnation of the group proceeds despite the fact that in many measures the group fares better than other groups; less suicide, substance abuse, crimes than other groups and greater longevity than whites in spite of many measures of discrimination suffered by group members.  Recent anti-immigration sentiment has led to less immigration and some Latine choosing to leave the country.  Bills such as SB4 in Texas create an intimidating environment with increased questioning regarding citizenship of suspected Latinx individuals even with no legitimate cause for the stops or for minor traffic offenses.  The Trump administration has gone all out on states and municipalities pledging sanctuary status and refusing to comply with government efforts to promote deportation.  So far the courts have mostly supported the sanctuary efforts.  Acknowledgement of the essential roles the Latine population play today, and throughout history, in the fight for civil rights is yet another area which is sorely lacking in the education curricula and in the culture at large.

Learn More

Reistance Resources

Trump Administration to Freeze Immigrant Work Visas Through Remainder of 2020

Trump Administration to Freeze Immigrant Work Visas Through Remainder of 2020

Policy Summary

Earlier this week, the Trump Administration announced they would place a pause on Green Cards and most categories of work visas through the remainder of 2020. Through an Executive Order, President Trump will temporarily freeze H-1B visas – which includes several visas for non-immigrant workers in specialty occupations and their dependents – for highly skilled workers. Even foreign medical workers will not be granted a work visa unless they are specifically working on COVID-19 research and/or care. These restrictions would exempt food-service workers and immigrants already living and working in the US.

The Trump Administration boasts the action of this Executive Order would allow Americans to obtain the 525,000 jobs taken by foreign workers over the course of the year. They have argued this tactic is necessary, especially amidst a historic period of American unemployment as a result of COVID-19 lockdown. The technology, landscaping, and forestry sector will be particularly affected by this Executive Order.

The Trump Administration has not yet made any remarks about how asylum seekers will financially support themselves while awaiting a court decision. With the changes surrounding work visas, it is probable that migrants and asylum seekers would not necessarily be deterred but rather forced to make money illegally or to support themselves while awaiting a decision or provide “free” labor and receive a slighted compensation. Many Republicans have considered this a victory for the “immigration hawks” in the White House.

Analysis

The H-1B visas have been an effective mechanism for supporting the US economy. Many brilliant scientists, technology specialists, medical researchers, and others come to the US on H-1B visas and contribute expertise in their field while working in the US. Though President The US economy is facing a severe recession and high unemployment rates. Drastically cutting the flow of immigrant expertise  may not be the best answer to this crisis. Doing so operates on the assumption that all immigrants are taking “American jobs” rather than acknowledging the reality behind America’s historic economic success and the role immigrants and foreign workers play – whether it is in low-skilled or extremely specialized jobs. Such an Executive Order only furthers the xenophobic Trump agenda and hinders  the socioeconomic and political contributions immigrants can and have made to the US.

Resistance  Resources

  • The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
  • Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
  • World Health Organization: the WHO provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and global responses
  • Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
Capitalism Butts Up Against US Core Values in the Global Economy

Capitalism Butts Up Against US Core Values in the Global Economy

Policy Summary:

             Earlier this month, the surging video communications company Zoom joined the growing ranks of enterprises that have made concessions to or followed Chinese directives on content, censorship, and other aspects of company policy. On the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, several activist groups that had organized meetings over Zoom had their accounts suspended and later reinstated following public backlash in the West, with Zoom attempting to strike some semblance of compromise by promising to develop applications for the control of accounts based upon geographical location. As many companies have already discovered, the tantalizing consumer base in China comes packaged with strings, and these strings are often at odds with Western conceptions of free speech in the capitalist market.

The past and current year have been full of such clashes between the demands of the CCP party line and the expectations of Western consumers for their beloved corporate powers to champion the all-American values of democracy and free speech. The General Manager of the Houston Rockets made a now notorious tweet expressing support for the pro-democracy Hong Kong protests, which was met by a statement of condemnation from China and an apologist statement by the NBA that would later be walked-back following public outcry. In a similar episode, Activision Blizzard banned an e-sports player from official events for a year in response to said player voicing support for Hong Kong autonomy during a live-streamed interview, along with firing the two casters conducting the interview. Once again, Blizzard walked back the severity of the punishment following Western public backlash, reducing the bans on both the casters and the player to six months.

Looking at the NBA, Blizzard, and Zoom as case studies in this emerging phenomenon, one notices immediate parallels. All of these companies have significant and growing consumer bases in China. 10% of total NBA profits are currently generated in China, with this being projected to only increase to 30% in the years to come. In 2019, Blizzard made almost $100 million in revenue in China. Zoom has regularly listed China as one of its top markets and around 30% of its workforce is based in the country. All three of these companies, and all companies within the international market for that matter, have a lot to lose if they resist the demands of the CCP.

Analysis:

If I may be blunt and let a bit of my more radical, liberal-arts background peek through, what Western audiences are confronting with such consternation is the purpose, and by extension the inevitable limits, of the capitalist market that they so strongly cling to. The purpose of an enterprise within capitalism is the generation of profit. It is not to respect free speech, freedom of assembly, or what have you. If these concepts and their support increases one’s revenue, praise be! A corporation, a company, a capitalist entity within the market is meant to make money. Everything else is secondary. Therefore, if (in a wholly hypothetical situation of course) an authoritative regime demands certain concessions in order to allow a company access to a demanding consumer population, it is by all the best logic of capitalism that a company does so.

However, this linear thinking of capitalism does not account for the issue of world systems. The U.S. is and continues to be the greatest consumer market in the world. China, despite its formidable capacity, will not surpass it for at least a few decades by most accounts. Companies within the world market must therefore contend with the competing giants of the dominant American-led, Western market demands and the growing CCP-controlled market demands. In the West, enterprises are expected to uphold and respect the tenets of democracy, free speech, etc. In China, the CCP expects enterprises to censor certain topics, encourage public stability, and maintain a relatively positive image of the party. These two systems do not play nice with each other for obvious reasons. I feel almost sorry for Zoom and the others. How is one to make money off both?

American and Western audiences expect their businesses to preach and support democratic values. Capitalism and the American identity have become so intertwined by our nation’s very founding by the Virginia Company, the fight against communism, and much more that we forget that capitalism does not care about our identity. Sure, the people within a company might, but capitalism cares about growth and profit. Politics, ethics, and what have you only becomes of interest when it impinges upon them. And at the moment, it does not appear that CCP demands have in any way stifled their economy. State-led capitalism has in fact seemed to have ushered in an extremely long-winded period of unrivaled growth and expansion within China.

I see three options for companies in the current world market. One, they can continue on their current course of stumbling between the CCP and the West, giving out and redacting apologies and condemnations depending on which system pushes harder. Two, they can choose to operate solely within the Western or Chinese market system. This eliminates any possible tension because due to the following of only one ruleset but brings with it the cost of losing out on a formidable consumer base. Or three, they can go the road of Zoom. This would most probably look like the provision of tools for CCP censorship use and control, the isolation of U.S. consumer information from Chinese sources, and the donning of a public image of walking an incredibly fine line.

I also see two options for Western, and particularly America, consumers. One, we can accept that companies will pursue profit and that this is simply the natural outcome of our market system. This would involve the surrendering of the notion that businesses based or founded in the U.S. should pursue our values in all areas of operation. Or two, we can demand that companies operating or founded in the U.S. enforce and support the propagation of American ideals. This would most probably involve boycotting companies that fail to do so, public action, policy from the government, and substantial growing pains as the companies in question choose sides. However, I would argue that both options must include some degree of disassociation of capitalism from the American identity. We must realize that although capitalism may have been integral in the formation of the U.S., it is not ours to claim sole ownership of. It has only been stained with our values within our system. Its core has not changed to fit free speech or other notions within it. One may only look to corporate lawsuits against negative journalism and whistleblowers as proof. The sooner we recognize this crucial fact, the sooner we will come to understand the plight of companies caught between Washington and Beijing.

The Potential Benefits of a Guaranteed Minimum Income

The Potential Benefits of a Guaranteed Minimum Income

Policy

The idea of a minimum guaranteed income (MGI) dates back to Thomas  Paine and the 18th century and has been promoted by such diverse people as Martin Luther King, Jr, President Nixon, economist Milton Friedman, and recent presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Nancy Pelosi has suggested that such a program should exist, at least till the end of the current pandemic, and two thirds of the House Democratic Caucus agrees.  The idea of the payment, also called a Basic Income Grant, is that all Americans should achieve a certain level of financial stability and it proposes monthly payments to individuals and families could accomplish this.  The manner in which the program would be run has been the subject of serious debate.  Some proponents want a payment to all Americans with a tax structure in which the payment would be paid back to the government if a certain income level was attained.  Others suggest that it should be income qualified;  some suggesting it should only be paid to those under the poverty line while others suggest it can be a subsidy to people or families earning considerably more (100,000 for individuals and higher for families).

Supporters of the MGI suggest that it would have multiple benefits:  It eliminates extreme poverty; reduces government bureaucracy; subsidizes wages so that people can do work they want, regardless of the wages; it can help young couples start a family; pay for persons caretaking relatives; increase mental health by reducing stress; improve the economy by stabilizing it, especially in times of contraction; increase high school graduation; and compensate for jobs lost to automation (the single largest threat to jobs).  Opponents object saying that it is a disincentive to work; is a “handout” to the poor; will cause inflation; will not eliminate poverty; and could provide payments to all draining funds from the poor.  So far, in places where such programs have been tried, no negative effects have been reported.

Analysis

Finland instituted monthly payments to 2000 randomly selected persons, 25-58 years of age, in 2017-18; no one was allowed to opt out.  Payments were not means tested and there were no conditions imposed. In comparison to a large control group, the group receiving the payments worked more days than the control group and reported better financial security, mental health, and cognitive function.  Employment increased for families with children and for non-Finnish speakers.

In 2013 Switzerland had an unconditional basic income in its election and it was not supported, people feared negative outcomes.  In the 1970s a village in Canada instituted a GMI and positive impacts were reported.  Families received the equivalent of $16,000. Some of the grant was lost with wages but not dollar for dollar. Village families increased their long term savings; teenage boys stayed in school (instead of working to augment family income); women took longer maternity leaves; overall well-being improved with less hospitalizations, especially for mental health; small businesses were improved upon; children saw dentists; and more flexibility in work and caring for family was reported.

Some cities such as Stockton and Santa Monica CA have experimented with GMI and some Silicon valley philanthropists are promoting the idea, particularly as  a response to the increases in unemployment due to automation.

Stockton is a city with a diverse population and an average household income of about $46,000.  Participants in the GMI were drawn randomly from volunteers whose household income was under the city’s average.  No one spent money on frivolous purchases.  Money was used for emergences like car repairs and healthcare; 40% went to food, 25% to sales and merchandise, 12% to utilities.  The study was accomplished eight months into the 18 months of the project.  No research has yet been published on the whole experiment.

The recent crisis in the economy instigated by the corona virus not only has brought discussion of the GMI to the forefront, it has caused the illumination of the many areas of inequality in the US from housing, to healthcare, to income, to access to emergency resources.   There is some reason to be optimistic that a Democratic president will attend to these disparities.

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