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
Mail Voting is Essential Despite Hurdles

Mail Voting is Essential Despite Hurdles

August 19 , 2020

More Americans than ever are eligible to receive a ballot to vote by mail this November, significantly changing the presidential election process in a short time span. Despite President Trump’s objections towards the integrity of mail-in ballots, most Americans are projected to vote by mail this election.

Whether or not the process will go smoothly or not is up for question, considering that the United States Postal Service is strapped for funding to facilitate the election. President Trump has not approved the $25 billion in emergency funding sought by the USPS, and the additional $3.5 billion to supplement election resources. The President indeed appears to want the Post Office to slow the pace of its operations in hopes of stifling the mail-in vote. His Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy, has been trying to remove machinery used to sort the mail and reduce the number of hours that mail carriers work. DeJoy’s slowdown actions have met with outrage and pushback from Congress and the American people, and he has recently agreed to suspend his efforts.

Many experts agree that voting by mail is the safest way to participate in the election amid the pandemic, but some are worried about inflating voter disenfranchisement among Black, Hispanic, and other voters of color.  Studies show that voters of color and younger voters are significantly more likely to have their ballots rejected than older white voters when voting by mail. In the recent primaries, states also saw higher than average absentee ballot rejection rates, which experts say can be attributed to systemic errors, not voter mishaps.

An NBC news tracking poll found that views on voting and confidence in how the election will be conducted vary starkly by partisan lines. While the majority of democrats report that they plan to vote by mail, only just a third of republicans plan to do so. Overall, fifty-five percent of respondents were not confident about the overall fairness of the election.

As Biden continues to lead in all polls nationally, most recently a ten point advantage in a Monmouth poll, the anticipation surrounding the democratic nominee’s vice presidential pick has ended. Kamala Harris, a former democratic candidate in this presidential race, marks history as the first Black and South Asian woman to be selected.

Harris has served as Attorney General of California for two terms, and in 2016 she became the state’s third female Senator. She has supported universal healthcare, citizenship for undocumented immigrants and gun control in the past. Most recently she has advocated for criminal justice reform and the removing marijuana from the Schedule of Controlled Substances. Already she has received criticism for her time as a prosecutor, where 1,500 people were sent to prison for marijuana-related offenses under her tenure as California Attorney General.

Since more than half of the votes will be cast before election day, the Trump campaign team is pushing to move up the first of three televised debates, which is scheduled for September 29. In October, Kamala Harris is scheduled to debate Vice President Mike Pence.

Education in the Time of Covid—Part 1

Education in the Time of Covid—Part 1

By Emily Carty 

August 19, 2020

Update on School Reopenings:

With the school year already underway in parts of the country, we are seeing a range of responses to school reopening and instructional plans. The CDC suggests community and school reopening with social distancing when there is a 14-day downward trajectory of new Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations, and when the percentage of positive Covid-19 tests is less than 20% and steadily decreasing. They also advise each school to have a detailed reopening and Covid-19 mitigation plan under supervision of the local public health department.

With the CDC essentially taking a back seat at enforcing these suggestions, states, local educational agencies and public health departments are in charge of creating school reopening guidelines or mandates based on the state or region’s Covid-19 cases and capacity to treat more patients. We are seeing that the majority of states allow the region (county, school district, etc.) to decide on a reopening plan based on state guidelines and local health regulations. This has resulted in many districts beginning the school year with either complete remote-learning or staggered, smaller classes at least part-time. A few states — Texas, Iowa, Missouri, and Florida — have taken it to the other extreme, with state-wide mandates for in-person instruction part- or full-time for all students.

Across the nation very different back-to-school plans are unfolding, despite each decision making body having to weigh the same aspects of reopening: funds, access to technology, benefits of school meals, parents who can’t stay at home for remote learning, or parents who don’t want their kids exposed to Covid. While some suburban, small, or low Covid-rate districts are reopening, it is notable that according to Education Week, “17 of the 20 largest school districts are choosing remote learning only as their back-to-school instructional model, affecting over 4 million students.” New York City, the nation’s largest school district and earliest Covid hotspot, will not allow school reopening until the percentage of “positive tests…is less than 3% using a 7-day rolling average.” The California Department of Public Health on the other hand, allows schools to reopen when their “local health jurisdiction has not been on the county monitoring list for 14 days,” which requires decreasing positive tests and hospitalizations. Responding to educators’ request for concrete metrics, Kansas has declared schools can reopen full-time with distancing when positive tests in a 14-day period are less than 5% and when a given school has less than 3% absenteeism. In Georgia, many schools opted to reopen for in-person instruction, as distanced as possible, which backfired  on the second day of school when students and staff of a suburban school district tested positive and schools were forced to close again.

IS the country doing the right thing?

School reopening comes with a challenging set of decisions, especially with funding still up in the air for many school districts, hindering development of remote-learning or alternatives to in-person and full-sized classes. Lawmakers and national leaders have yet to agree on an updated stimulus package for schools, providing minimal support to educational leaders who are uncertain how far their budget will stretch in a pandemic. Nevertheless, school leaders are making decisions on many levels, and we  are seeing this play out differently in districts and schools across the country, none of which have had enough time or resources to completely perfect this unprecedented new era of learning. A report by the Center on Reinventing Public Education found that across 477 school districts the majority, especially in rural areas, are setting low expectations for teachers to instruct remotely or monitor student engagement and progress — all of which are needed more than ever to ensure students don’t fall behind.

The first week of school provided a few indications of how successful reopening has been: “sick outs” by two Arizona School districts; several schools in Indiana and Georgia closing just hours or days after reopening; clusters of K-12 and university students with positive Covid tests across the nation; and waves of teacher resignations over reopening policies. Clearly this is not the outcome of a thoughtful or successful reopening, these snapshots are telling that something isn’t working right. Moreover, the  the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second largest teacher union, has recently voiced support of all teachers who want to strike in the wake of hasty reopening plans, anticipating a failure of reopening efforts.

Students are also experiencing the failures of reopening plans first-hand, either by being exposed to the virus or by lack of access to realistic remote-learning plans. The New York Times profiled several students during the first week of school — some were scared to go in-person, some were hit with the new distanced reality once they got to school, some reverted to distance learning, some tested positive for Covid. One mom, also a teacher, was skeptical about kids’ ability to contract Covid until her own daughter tested positive at school, prompting her to take her daughter out of school and re-consider the risks.

Several polls concerning parent feelings about school reopening plans show that the majority of parents surveyed have primarily negative feelings about reopening, and prefer to delay an in-person reopening, despite concerns regarding loss of income and remote-learning oversight. While there are mixed-feelings about the potential pathways of a successful school reopening, what is clear is flexibility and accommodation are key factors to the comfort level of families and school staff. In places that have gone remote, like North Carolina, Tucson, and Oakland, the process has been met with technical difficulties, lack of access to technology, and waning attention spans in Zoom classes without a parent present — something that many parents and schools are struggling to solve. Learning “pods” might be a step in the right direction for those who can afford it, but it puts families at risk of Covid and doesn’t help lower-income families. Forced school reopenings by states or districts hasn’t fared any better, reinforcing what many experts and professionals have argued all along: a hasty reopening is safe for no one and leads to increased Covid cases, more research and resources are needed to reopen schools safely and effectively.

There is certainly no right answer to school reopening plans that will accommodate every stakeholder. The schools that have chosen to reopen in-person while community Covid cases are still high are putting lives at risk and causing harm to communities. The local educational agencies and nonprofits using their resources to develop creative solutions to distanced or remote learning and delaying in-person learning for the majority of students are looking to be the safest path for most. Based on feedback and actions from teachers, administrators, students, and families, the right thing to do is to be careful, take the time to develop a reopening plan with local public health agencies, and ensure that schools and families have the necessary funds and supplies to support new safety measures or new day-time care centers for working parents. As the future is uncertain, flexibility, innovation, science, and alternative approaches to normal classroom learning are the key until we can get our students safely back in the classroom.

RESISTANCE RESOURCES:

Resources for Remote Learning — The Emerson Collective has compiled an excellent, in-depth list of vetted resources for remote learning for students, families, educators, and administrators. From interactive sites, to videos, to toolkits, share with someone in-need or get to know what resources are out there to support you and your community.

Donors Choose — A platform that allows teachers and schools to request money or supplies for specific school-related purposes. Find a local class or project that you want to support, or filter “distance learning” to support students and teachers in navigating new systems of learning.

American Federation of Teachers — Support teachers and students by advocating for policies that will address funding, food security, technology access and more. Their site connects you with a fill-in template that sends emails to your local congress members.

National Digital Inclusion Alliance — A unified voice that supports policy, research, and collaboration to solve the digital divide in schools and beyond. Get involved with them or a local agency listed on their site to help donate, volunteer, or reach out to local government to demand support for internet access and technology for all students.

First Book — Provide in-need students and schools with books through donations and fundraisers for specific funds meant to reach those who need books most.

SOURCES:

The E.P.A.’s playing politics with methane is bound to blow-up

The E.P.A.’s playing politics with methane is bound to blow-up

POLICY

Methane gas is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is a main driver of climate change. From 2012 – 2016, the Obama administration put in place the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) – these are regulations aimed at controlling carbon dioxide emissions from cars, coal-burning power plants, and methane emissions (leaks) from wells. The Trump administration – through the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) – has already taken action to rollback regulations on carbon dioxide and coal emissions and now wants to decrease controls for methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, also known as the “Methane Rule.” Andrew Wheeler, the head of the E.P.A., said on August 13th that the proper legal process has been followed to remove these methane regulations. His position is that the “E.P.A. has been working hard to fulfill President Trump’s promise to cut burdensome and ineffective regulations for our domestic energy industry.” The compliance and regulatory cost burdens fall more heavily upon small and medium sized oil and natural gas producers.

The Trump administration has weakened more than 100 environmental rules and regulations since 2016.

According to the E.P.A., the oil and gas industry is responsible for almost 30% of the country’s methane emissions. Regulatory cost burdens amount to millions each year at a time when smaller producers are increasingly insolvent and in bankruptcy court. Financial pressures are driving lobbyists like the Independent Petroleum Association of America to make firms with low-production wells exempt from compliance.

Wheeler claims that methane leaks from domestic oil and gas wells have remained steady over the past decade, even as oil and gas production greatly expanded. The fossil fuel lobbyists cite data from the required use of high-bleed pneumatic controllers as an “excessive regulation” that does not produce the desired outcome. Among the major policy influencers are the American Petroleum Institute and the Western Energy Alliance. They assert that “Our industry continues to drive down methane emissions from operations while meeting America’s energy needs every day.” 

ANALYSIS

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Global Carbon Project, methane emissions from oil and natural gas extraction accounts for 20 percent of global total; methane from animal digestive tracts and landfills makes up 40 percent; the balance, and largest single contributor are wetlands. Methane’s heat-trapping capacity lasts for 20 years and it accounts for 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Over 25% of the hotter temperatures we now experience can be attributed to methane, and its presence is on track to exceed the Paris climate accord containment goal: an increase under 2 degrees Celsius.

Industry lobbyists for the smaller oil and gas producers make the following argument: the U.S. has about one million oil and natural gas wells in operation; three-quarters of these are of the “low-producing” variety and do not account for much methane release; about half of the higher producing wells came online after 2012 and had to conform to the Obama era 2012 NSPS regulations; in 2016, the E.P.A. added more stringent regulations which the industry claims were done with the intention of making production economically unfeasible for thousands of smaller producers.

Larger producers including Exxon, BP and Shell, do not support the E.P.A.’s rollback; they cite their own corporate pledges to curb methane leaks and the industry’s contribution to climate change. These big players have invested millions of dollars to promote natural gas as a cleaner option than coal because natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide when burned. They fear that unrestricted leaks of methane could undermine that marketing message and hurt demand.

Robert Howarth, earth systems scientist at Cornell University, contends that “80 percent of [research] papers show that methane from oil and gas leaks is two to three times higher than the E.P.A.’s estimates.” He counters industry arguments that methane emissions are stabilizing. “They’re certainly not going down,” he says. In contrast to Howarth, E.P.A. spokesman, James Hewitt, defends their numbers. “E.P.A.’s final methane rule is based on the most accurate and comprehensive accounting of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions profile, which is performed by agency scientists based on data from a variety of sources.”

Under the new rule (rollback), the E.P.A. will still require leak monitoring, though not directly for methane gas. Oil and gas companies must continue to monitor and reduce smog-forming compounds at some well sites and during processing, but not pipelines.

A recent district court ruling struck down the Trump administration’s approach to the social cost of methane. And it is this social cost-benefit that will be the linchpin of the litigation that will follow this new ruling. David Hayes, a former Interior Department official who now leads New York University’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, predicts this new ruling will be overturned in the courts because assigning a dollar figure on damage caused by methane emissions vs. economic damage to the industry makes for a weak argument. Furthermore, Democratic nominee Joe Biden will likely decide to overturn the rule if elected.

Resistance Resources:

New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Opinion Seen As A Blow To Digital & Cellphone Privacy

New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Opinion Seen As A Blow To Digital & Cellphone Privacy

Policy Summary: On August 10, 2020 the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case New Jersey v. Andrews. The case is notable because of the decision by the court that criminal defendants can be compelled to turn over cell phone passcodes to law enforcement authorities to enable them access to the contents of a person’s cell phone.

Robert Andrews was a former New Jersey Essex County sheriff’s officer who was accused of collaborating with a drug dealer who was being investigated for narcotics trafficking. In the course of the investigation into the drug dealer’s activities the dealer revealed to investigators that a sheriff’s officer – Robert Andrews – was providing him with information on the status of the investigation. Additionally, Officer Andrews was also providing information as to how the drug dealer could do things to avoid further criminal exposure – by checking if his car had a tracking device, by warning him that his phone calls were likely being monitored and which officers were following him. As a result of this information from the dealer, law enforcement authorities executed a warrant on the cell phones of Officer Andrews and the dealer and found a total of one hundred fourteen (114) cell phone calls and text messages between the two men during the period of the narcotics investigation into the dealer. In order to corroborate information that the dealer provided to law enforcement, prosecutors requested Officer Andrew’s cell phone passcode in order to view information contained in his cell phone. Officer Andrews refused on the grounds that he had a right against self – incrimination. The trial court denied Officer Andrew’s refusal and ordered him to reveal his cell phone passcode. The case was then appealed to the New Jersey Appellate Division which ruled against Officer Andrews again. Another appeal ensued and the case went up to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The New Jersey high court ruled 4 – 3 that “Neither federal nor state protections against compelled disclosures shield Andrew’s passcodes.” LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: The decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court is one of the first state high court decisions to issue a ruling on the issue of whether a person can be compelled to open up the contents of their cell phones to law enforcement authorities. The issue has its roots near the U.S. border where a 2018 Customs and Border Protection policy was instituted to search electronic devices of persons attempting to cross into the U.S. However this case was different because the law enforcement officers in New Jersey were basing their search of a cell phone on the fact that they could compel a person to reveal his passcode. Because this was a criminal case against the officer, the Fifth Amendment right against self – incrimination came into play. That Amendment allows a person to not say anything or make any communication that will incriminate himself. The majority opinion in this case reasons that the act of not providing the passcode is not permissible because there has been no showing thus far that anything incriminating is on the cell phone. Only with knowledge that there is something criminally incriminating on the phone can the officer invoke the Fifth Amendment right. This is a difficult position because Andrews can only prevail in invoking the right if he first opens his cellphone to law enforcement authorities which may reveal incriminating information against him before he can invoke his Fifth Amendment right.

The minority opinion written by Justice Jaynee LaVecchia charts a different course and one that presents the best argument against forced compulsion. In her opinion, she highlights that this case illustrates how a person is being forced to disclose the mental contents of their mind. This is a severe violation of a person’s privacy and is in direct opposition to the principles and rationales of the Fifth Amendment – a protection against being forced to incriminate oneself. In it’s simplest form, there is a right to remain silent yet this court has now shifted in the direction that a person can be compelled to say something that exists only in their minds with the consequences that they could be incarcerated. Justice LaVecchia continues by showing that there is no U.S. Supreme Court case or other case authorities that require this kind of forced compulsion by law enforcement authorities against a person. This places the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion a step away from the accepted investigative techniques used by law enforcement. Justice Lavecchia’s opinion is the opinion most consistent with Fifth Amendment case law and rationales and should be the one future courts look at when examining and deciding this unique privacy issue scenario. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, 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.

Michigan Part 3

Michigan Part 3

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

By William Bourque

Michigan Part 3

August 19,2020

As we conclude our Targeted Districts” series in Michigan, we travel to the 10th district, currently held by Republican Paul Mitchell.  Mitchell served two terms but will not run for a third, saying that he felt frustrated by partisanship in Washington.  The Republican running to maintain control of the seat is Lisa McClain, a financial executive.  The district polls as R+13, or 13 percentage points in favor of Republican control, so we expect McClain to win her race.  Nevertheless, her democratic opponent is Kimberly Bizon, a marketing professional.  Bizon has never held a public elected office and was defeated in her previous election attempt in 2018, by almost 25 percentage points.  The seat will almost certainly remain in republican control, with McClain likely securing an easy victory.

As we move along to Michigan’s 11th district, we find Haley Stevens, a democratic incumbent.  Stevens has only served one term in the house, having been elected in 2018.   It is worth noting that Michigan’s 11th fell to Trump in the presidential election, making Stevens’ victory even more impressive.  She was elected to replace Republican David Trott, who served for two terms before announcing he wouldn’t seek reelection.  Stevens’ republican opponent is Eric Esshaki, a lawyer who also has experience as a healthcare professional.  Esshaki says he is running on traditional conservative values, citing his “pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-border security, and pro-constitution” beliefs.  The Cook Political Report rates the district as “leans democrat”, and we feel inclined to agree.  Stevens will secure another term and the 11th district will continue its trend to the left.

As we move onto the 12th district we see another democratic incumbent, Representative Debbie Dingell.  Dingell has held the office since 2015, when she took over for her husband, John Dingell.  In each of her previous 2 elections, Dingell has garnered over 60% of the votes, which suggests she will have an easy path to a third term.  Nevertheless, she faces Republican Jeff Jones, who has run against Dingell in each of her previous elections.  Jones hasn’t held any prior elected office and doesn’t seem to pose a threat to Dingell, who we expect to cruise to a third term.

District 13 is home to Michigan’s most high-profile congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib.  In only her first term, Tlaib has made waves in congress, along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.  Tlaib recently won a close primary against Brenda Jones, someone who was heavily funded by moderates and some republicans.  Tlaib is certain to beat Republican challenger David Dudenhoefer, who doesn’t even have a chance to win in such a progressive district.  We expect Tlaib to cruise to a win and have a significant role in the democratically controlled House.

To round out Michigan we look at the heavily democratic 14th district.  The incumbent is Democrat Brenda Lawrence, who has held the seat since 2014.  One of the most progressive districts in the state, the 14th district is both majority black and majority female, so it’s only right that a black woman represents them in congress.  Lawrence will face Republican Robert Vance Patrick, who, much like his counterpart in the 13th district, doesn’t even have a chance to win.  We expect Lawrence to retain control of her district in a heavy democratic area.

The Corruption of Louis DeJoy

The Corruption of Louis DeJoy

The United States Postal Service has long been a target of Donald Trump’s attack. Since his 2015 campaign begin he has called out the post office for losing money, which is a bit like a municipality complaining about a lack of revenue from trash collection. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, more Americans than ever are expected to cast mail-in ballots in the upcoming election. Up to 180 million people may be eligible to vote through the postal service. That does not bode well for the dwindling prospects of Trump winning reelection or maintaining a Republican majority in the Senate. In response, Trump has ramped up his attacks on the postal office and spouted repeatedly, without evidence, that mail-in voting will lead to widespread voter fraud and an illegitimate election. He has refused to sign off on the necessary funding to ensure that USPS is able to handle the increased workload until through November. In corrupt postman, Louis DeJoy, he has found the perfect lackey.

At this point it seems redundant to point out lack of qualification or conflicting interests by a Trump appointee. However, DeJoy’s are especially conspicuous. Unlike any Post Master General in two decades, DeJoy had never worked for the post office. More troubling, he owns between $30-75 million in stock of XPO, a logistics company which serves as a subcontractor of the post office. Prior to his appointment, DeJoy owned between 100-250K in Amazon (perhaps the post office’s most formidable competitor), of which he divested. However the same day he purchased between $50-100K of stock options in Amazon, that would allow him to purchase shares at roughly 2/3 of their current value. The options expire on October 16th. The Post Master General of the United States, is in essence gambling that his agency’s biggest competitor will increase in value in the next two months. Since Trump co-opted the Republican party in his image four years ago, DeJoy has donated $2.5 million to his campaigns and those of other GOP members. That, by all accounts is the extent of his involvement in government or politics.

DeJoy is deeply invested in a post office subcontractor which simultaneously represents a competitive threat to it. He’s in a position to further those interest by undermining the very office which he is assigned to manage. He was put there by a president whose campaign he donated to generously. DeJoy seeks to reap incalculable personal and financial benefit from mismanaging USPS, and subverting the 2020 election.

Under the guise of increased efficiency, DeJoy has made a series of moves which threaten to damage the post office’s function and undermine public confidence. In a Nixon-style ‘’Friday Night Massacre” on August 7th, the post master general removed or reassigned two dozen of the most senior executives at USPS. The reorganization concentrates power around DeJoy and two deputies reporting directly to him. It also sidelines decades of institutional knowledge at  time when it is at a premium.

New directives also threaten to disrupt on-time delivery for millions of Americans dependent on the mail. Per USPS’ own internal documents, 671 high speed mail sorting machines have been removed from branches all over the country. The best of these sorting machines can sort up tp 30,000 pieces of mail each day. Two technicians familiar with the machines estimated that the same work would take about 30 postal workers, with specialized training their entire shifts to complete.

Another initiative of DeJoy’s mandates that mail carriers begin their routes at a designated time, regardless of if their trucks are loaded. The inevitable result of this fundamental change will be delays, and backup in mail. Overtime benefits have also been cut for thousands of employees. The union which represents postal workers has stated publicly that they have neither met with DeJoy, or been consulted to the sweeping policy changes.

Timely delivery of mail  is especially crucial for seniors reluctant to leave home and Americans living in more rural areas. Veterans also heavily depend on Post Office services. The Veterans Affairs reports that 80% of the prescriptions filled for veterans are done so by mail. DeJoy’s disruption of  mail-in ballot efforts also affects  these important Post Office constituencies.

Donald Trump is actively trying to sabotage the national effort to vote by mail. He acknowledged as much in a recent Fox News interview about the failed coronavirus relief package. His partner in crime is his newly appointed Postmaster General.

Reform, Defund or Abolish? Different Solutions to Police Violence

Reform, Defund or Abolish? Different Solutions to Police Violence

August 13, 2020

Summary

Across the country Americans are demanding an end to police violence in their communities, with different activist groups calling for different solutions. Chief among these are reform, defund and abolish. These terms are used a lot in the media, often interchangeably, but they are actually separate and distinct points along a continuum.

Police reform refers to efforts to improve existing departments by addressing their values, policies and practices. Measures, which often translate into increased funding for departments, include requiring special training, revising old policies, making declarations and changing hiring procedures. Reformers believe police are mostly nonviolent aside from a few “bad apples.”

Defunding the police involves slashing department budgets, forcing them to downsize and minimize their operations. Defunding could be complete or partial, and some law enforcement capacity may be retained. The second part of the defunding strategy invests the money saved back into the local community in the form of infrastructure, education and social services. Proponents of defunding believe police violence is a symptom of a larger problem.

The abolitionist movement takes defunding one step further by seeking a completely new system of public safety constructed on class equality and supported by a team of “nonviolent emergency responders.” As with defunding, police budgets would go toward meeting community needs. Abolitionists believe police would be obsolete if people had more access to social services, jobs and education.

Analysis

Each of the three solutions has its supporters and detractors. Ultimately, it is up to towns and cities to decide which makes the most sense for them.

#8CantWait is a police reform campaign that lays out eight actions departments can adopt to prevent the killing of civilians. These include banning chokeholds, requiring more comprehensive reporting and requiring a duty to intervene. Many major cities have already adopted all eight policies, including Cincinnati, Denver, San Francisco, St. Louis and Tucson.

Black Lives Matter supports defunding the police, as do the American Civil Liberties Union and the Movement for Black Lives. The Seattle City Council recently voted to cut its police funding by $4 million. It is among 12 cities actively exploring defunding their police departments to some degree, including New York and Los Angeles.

Groups like Critical Resistance are pushing for abolition. The campaign #8toAbolition was created in response to the #8CantWait campaign and lays out eight steps to radically transform policing, including removing police from schools, freeing people from jails and providing housing. Minneapolis, which is at the heart of the nation’s debate on police violence, is currently hearing arguments for the abolition of its police department.

Resistance Resources

#8CantWait is a police reform campaign focusing on use of force
Black Lives Matter is a global movement defending Black lives
American Civil Liberties Union is a nonprofit defending human rights
Movement for Black Lives is a space for Black organizations to come together
#8toAbolition is a police abolition campaign
Critical Resistance is a police abolition group

This brief was compiled by Laura Plummer. To add your organization as a resource, contact me@lauraplummer.me.

Growing Up In the Pandemic Youth Face Great Challenges

Growing Up In the Pandemic Youth Face Great Challenges

Rosalind Gottfried

Economics

August 9, 2020

Policy

Today young people in school or entering the job market face enormous socio-economic challenges. Their  economic and social vulnerability  is pervasive especially for those young people who lack a college degree, and particularly if they are female or nonwhite.  When job creation is reduced, as it is with the pandemic youth unemployment is the most likely to soar.

In “good times’ youths are three times more likely to be unemployed than people over 25.  In the pre-pandemic era 53 million  people were employed in low wage jobs with median incomes of $10.22 per hour.   Youths comprised 24% of these workers.  They also represent the largest group or workers laid off during the pandemic.

Youths who don’t complete college are  are also more likely, at 23%, to work in jobs considered to be at “near-term” risk in construction, manufacturing, and real estate. These jobs are less likely to provide “benefits” such as health insurance, sick leave, or parental leave.

The picture is not as bleak for college graduates.  This cohort often faces the derailment of first jobs and internships but they tend to be more resilient than their peers who lack degrees.  Some analysts believe that Gen C’s resiliency from job loss is due to some of the group returning to finish college or graduate school.

Analysis

The demand for finishing college and for graduate school attendance generally rises in poor economic times but there is a growing fear that higher education may cost more than it ultimately benefits. Effective K-12 education will also be challenging during the pandemic, especially for youth from low-income communities. Their school districts often lack the capacity to provide quality virtual learning and  students from low income communities can lack access to computers and Broadband Internet.

The pandemic also is taking its toll on the mental health of Generation C. It is estimated that one half of adolescents and youths, 18-29, have symptoms of depression.  Suicide is now the second leading cause of death in people under 35. A mental health crisis, already appearing, seems likely to worsen.

Learn More

Resistance Resources

https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/  National suicide prevention hotline website.

A Summary and Review of Netflix’s Immigration Nation

A Summary and Review of Netflix’s Immigration Nation

By Kathryn Baron

Summary

In 2017, co-directors Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwartz began filming a six-part Netflix docuseries called Immigration Nation. The Trump Administration reportedly tried to block the use of some footage in the film as it takes on a very direct and overt portrait of the US immigration system. Time described it as “empathetic storytelling and bold investigative journalism.” Throughout the docuseries, there is an overwhelming presence of cognitive dissonance in which immigration officials perpetually carry a “just following orders” and “it’s not up to me” attitude. By presenting case studies of individuals, families, and asylum seekers, Clusiau and Schwartz envelope the heavy day to day of the US immigration system while ensuring the viewers are exposed to the cruelties and dissociation that also occurs daily. Some of the individuals in the docuseries are a father separated from his 3-year old son – and wants to know “where are the good Americans?” – migrants freezing to death in the desert on their journey, a grandmother and granddaughter who fled after MS-13 attempted to force the 12-year old granddaughter into marriage, and a Ugandan woman whose husband sent men to pour acid on her after they separated.

The docuseries opened with a case for a man to be deported and upon arrest, no warrant was presented to the family, but instead, his wife was told to just believe they had a warrant when asked but were not required to show her. While in the holding cell, officers were very condescending and took a cell-phone video in mockery of him. Throughout the docuseries, there were a plethora of micro-aggressions and jokes made among officers at immigrants’ expense. Signs on the walls read “never turn your back on a prisoner!!!!!!!!!!” In another case of “precision policing” – the specific way in which many ICE officers said they target and arrest individuals – there were many people inside of the man in question’s apartment who all were taken in as “collateral.” During the Trump Administration, privatized ICE detention centers flourished and nearly all personability was lost. One deportation officer recounted nonchalantly a story of him buying coffee and a donut from a young man who kept questioning if the officer remembered him. The officer had no idea who he was until the young man told him the officer had deported his mother just the week prior. The officer laughed this off during his storytelling and explained that he upholds an “onto the next” attitude in his work.

Lastly, Immigration Nation covered the deportation of veterans – made possible during the Clinton Administration – and “wage theft” – in which many employers refuse to pay undocumented immigrants for their work. Through these cases, Clusiau and Schwartz show how  persistent and systematic rejection wore down many immigrants and broke their spirits causing them to lose hope in the “American Dream.”

It was made abundantly clear that for some law enforcement, their job was viewed as a “manhunt” and this quality is what contributed to the thrill and satisfaction they sought when entering law enforcement. Particularly officers of the ICE Fugitive Operations branch – the deportation officers locating, arresting, and removing fugitive migrants – and Homeland Security Investigation – which pursues organized criminal activity like human, arms, and drug smuggling. When ICE was established in 2003, there were 8 units. Now, there are 129 and the Trump Administration has successfully weaponized the immigration system and more than doubled the number of arrests. When asked if it is humane, Thomas Homan – former Acting Director of ICE – replied with “I think it is the law” while averting eye contact and fidgeting for a response.  The docuseries focuses in large part on the Trump Administration but ensures the audience that Trump has exacerbated an existing issue. The acceleration the Trump Administration needed to carry out mass arrests and deportations were built upon the momentum set forth during the Bush Administration in the post-9/11 era that weaponized and instilled fear in the American public re foreigners. The system is discouraging by design as a conscious strategy of prevention-through-deterrence is employed in a dismissive and detached manner. Regardless of growing global opposition, the Trump Administration does not recoil and instead creates physical and legal barriers.

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.
  • The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
  • Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
The Coronavirus Child Care And Education Relief Act

The Coronavirus Child Care And Education Relief Act

By Emily Carty

August 13, 2020

The Coronavirus Child Care and Education Relief Act (CCCERA) is a $430 billion bill proposed on June 30 by Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in response to the COVID-19 impact on schools and their communities. The bill, a product of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), clarifies and adds to the CARES Act which was enacted in late March. Though the bill was introduced just over a month ago it remains a proposal and lawmakers have yet to finalize a package for schools, despite the nearing start date.

The bill sets aside $345 billion for education in general, with a little over half going to K-12 schools. Specifically, the bill aims to: direct money to education agencies with more students from low-income families; set aside money for migrant and homeless children and English language learners; increase “liquidity and cash flow” to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) so they can tap into their assets. CCCERA goes further to protect educators, students, and school communities from state budget cuts by requiring that states receiving federal funds maintain or increase state education spending for three years. The bill contains several other points, but generally aims to enact a robust and equitable funding plan meant to tackle the gap in education and technology access for our most vulnerable students and families.

In addition to a greater sum of aid and more thoughtful allocation, the bill condemns Education Secretary DeVos’ implementation efforts to limit aid eligibility for Dreamers and undocumented students and repeals the Secretary’s discretionary spending fund, a percentage of aid to be spent at her discretion under laws written into the CARES Act. In May DeVos distributed over $350 million from the fund to small, private, primarily religious universities whose typically smaller and wealthier student bodies would receive more money per student than universities with more low-income students. She also distributed $180 million in grants for states, with the “absolute priority 1” being the creation of “microgrants” which could pay for technology and services to support remote learning —  but could also be used for private school tuition. Both of these inequitable allocations are remedied in CCCERA which solidifies how money can be spent across the public and private sector and provides an updated formula that places more weight on the headcount of low-income students in a given school. 

Policy Analysis:

As the nation is gearing up for the school year lawmakers have yet to strike a deal on a stimulus package that will not only help the economy, which seems to be their main priority, but also address the inequities in education that have been exasperated by the current public health crisis. Not all families will be able to support remote learning at home or have access to or money for technology required for effective remote learning, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, Republicans and Democrats have been going back and forth for months on an all-inclusive proposal while our youth and school communities have been waiting for answers.

CCCERA policies, supported by advocacy groups, educational agencies, professional organizations, and families, provide much needed funding and spending clarifications which address the multiple levels of inequities in our education system. This bill shows that legislators are hearing what the people have been demanding and continue to demand — an educational system that is built to help everyone succeed. The bill also recognizes the people’s calls for transparency and accountability in government, as it seeks to remedy DeVos’ violation of “Congressional intent” when implementing the CARES Act. Instead of “equitable services” for private schools, she gave large grants to private institutions and required that a greater percentage of federal aid goes to private schools than what is normal under the law by counting all students instead of just low-income students — this was not what was intended by the law as equitable and is an abuse of power. Only by bringing accountability and transparency to the forefront and closing these loopholes can lawmakers prevent further misuse of funds and ensure that students’ rights to quality and accessible education are not trampled on.

S.4112 goes above and beyond the stimulus proposals currently being debated. However its passage is by no means assured. For S.4112 to become a law lawmakers from both parties must treat education, especially public education, as a nonpartisan priority. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for additional review, but even if it is forwarded to the Republican Majority Senate for a vote, chances of it moving on to the House are slim. Nor is it likely to be signed by the President — who before COVID was planning on cutting the education budget by about 8% for the next fiscal year. Since the stimulus package as an all-in-one deal is taking the stage, schools and students must patiently wait in hopes that democrats will negotiate for more and equitable funding for schools.

Resistance Resources:

NASSP — The National Association of Secondary School Principals has an action page with education justice issues and a convenient fill-in template that sends emails to your local elected representatives. It also has tools that help you register to vote, find relevant elected officials, and prepare you to vote on relevant educational policies.

NEA EdJustice — The National Education Association’s EdJustice site provides information and resources for addressing injustices in education, including relevant petitions, pledges, and events. Join their “League” to connect with other advocates and organize in your community.

Educators for Excellence — Educators for Excellence connects Educators and school communities with tools to advocate for progressive policies that will help under-resourced schools and students have better access to and quality of education. They have templates, contact info, and links to help you reach out to the appropriate governing bodies and demand justice.

Healthy Schools — Healthy Schools is a 501(c)3 that partners with the CDC and EPA to provide expert advice and action plans to school leaders and governments in order to create healthy and safe schools. They’ve created an extensive plan and action tool-kit to address the pandemic, check out their resources for organizing and assisting in its implementation in your local schools.

Sources:

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