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
No Transparency or Accountability in CARES Act Small Business Loans

No Transparency or Accountability in CARES Act Small Business Loans

June 22,2020

The CARES act, passed in late March, is a $2 trillion relief fund designed to shield Americans from the economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic. Individuals, businesses big and small, and local and state governments have access to funds to keep them afloat while much of the nation’s commerce is stalled. Millions of Americans received one-time stimulus checks of $1200 and Unemployment Insurance benefits have been greatly expanded to reflect pressing need.

The CARES Act picture is murky as to which businesses received what funds and from where. In a Senate Hearing on June 10th, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refused to divulge the recipients of the $600 billion allocated for small businesses. The CARES Act specifically stipulates that loans to business are subject to public disclosure. Transparency is a crucial tool in combating fraud and waste for this historic instance of public assistance. Given this administration’s track record of cronyism and graft, the attempt to stonewall is especially troubling.

As of this writing, the Small Business Administration has dispensed 4.6 million loans to the tune of $511 billion. Most all of it is unaccounted for, at least publicly. The SBA typically makes this information public , and the loan application for the Paycheck Protection Program specifically states that the borrowers information will be released. Nevertheless, Mnuchin has refused to name any loan recipients, making the ridiculously brazen claim that the information amounts to ‘proprietary information.’’

His ludicrous assertion warrants further scrutiny. Aside from the fact that  language in the CARES act demanded transparency, the PPP stipulates that under the Freedom of Information Act, any of the information in question must be released to the person making the request. Given the seeming inevitability that this information becomes public, it is notable that Mnuchin appears intent on preventing, or at least stalling the public release of the PPP’s beneficiaries. In an attempt at cooperation, he promised to supply the requested information to the Government Accountability Office, who would then release it. It’s possible that Mnuchin is on the level and genuinely concerned about the privacy of loan recipients, but his rationale makes no sense. House Democrats have demanded information specifically related to who received emergency funds, and how much they borrowed. If KFC were a recipient, the public is  entitled to that information. It would hardly constitute anything that could be considered proprietary. It isn’t as if Congress is subpoenaing the Colonel’s secret blend of herbs and spices. It’s also possible that the funds have been misappropriated and Mnuchin knows the story would likely have less impact  via a GAO report, rather than a public admission in Congress by the man responsible for the nation’s piggy bank. Given that many of the loans may be forgiven if employees are retained through June, the administration’s cagey stance is worrisome.

Publicly,  PPP was touted as a lifeline to small businesses trying to weather the burdensome impact of nationwide lockdowns. Misuse of the funds would have been a consideration at any time, which likely necessitated language of accountability before Congress could reach an agreement. Shake Shack, the restaurant chain with 168 locations across the globe and nearly half a billion in revenue, presents an interesting case study in the kind of malfeasance lawmakers are right to be wary of. The chain, which would fit no one’s definition of a small business received a $10 million loan. Similarly large restaurant groups such as Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse and Potbelly’s did the same. Amid public backlash, Shake Shack returned theirs, stating that though they were entitled to funds, they’d hold off until every restaurant that needed aid had the same opportunity as them. Be it pure public relations, or out of some sense of decency, Shake Shack gave money back so that more needy recipients in the industry might have access to it. In all, 71 publicly traded companies received aid in the 13 days before the funds dried up, according to the Securities and Exchanges Commission. If Shake Shack’s return of their loan exposed a bit of inequity in how funds intended for small businesses were distributed, it begs the question: what is the government trying to conceal? The American taxpayer, who will be on the hook for every penny of the money, is entitled to know.

Politicians have long pontificated that small businesses are ‘’the backbone of the American economy’’ while favoring legislation beneficial to corporate giants. The public presentation of the PPP vs. it’s reality appears to be a continuation of that trend. If 71 companies large enough to be publicly traded received funds, one must wonder how much was left for the small, shuttered businesses the program was intended to help. At best, Mnuchin’s stance can be seen as a continuation of this administration’s incessant obstruction of any oversight. At worst, it’s an attempt to cover-up corporate raiders looting the public coffers of funds earmarked for working-class Americans.

Will Democrats Maintain Control of the House? 4 More House Races to Watch for 2020

Will Democrats Maintain Control of the House? 4 More House Races to Watch for 2020

Highlighted Districts 

Virginia’s 7th

Illinois 13th

Texas 24th

Minnesota’s 7th

Our continuing coverage of races to watch in the House of Representatives brings us to Virginia’s 7th district, currently held by democrat Abigail Spanberger.  The 7th district of Virginia, covering the suburban areas outside of Richmond and Charlottesville, as well as more rural areas, had been in Republican control since 1971 until Spanberger’s win in 2018.  Spanberger beat then-incumbent Dave Brat in a tightly contested race, winning by about 7,000 votes, and about 2.5 percentage points.  Spanberger has been a loyal member of the democratic party, voting in favor of both impeachment claims brought against the president.  Spanberger’s opponent is to be chosen by a primary on July 18th, where it seems that the race is very open.  FiveThirtyEight currently rates the district as 6.5 points in the republicans favor, so Spanberger will be betting on another strong “blue wave” of democratic support as she pushes through this tough battle to maintain control of her seat in VA-07.

 

In Illinois 13th district, Republican incumbent Rodney Davis faces a challenge from Democrat Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, a rematch of a narrow Davis win in 2018.  Davis has held the seat since 2012, and has had several close races and is vulnerable again this election cycle.  Davis holds a slight edge in fundraising, but beyond that, most major political report has deemed the race a toss-up.  Davis is seen as a more moderate Republican and has been more critical of President Trump than many other Republicans.  However, he did vote against both articles of impeachment, showing that there is still a significant amount of party loyalty in his DNA.  Dirksen Londrigan graduated from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and has worked for Teach For America and multiple non-profits within central Illinois.  History shows that these two candidates are neck-in-neck, with plenty more race still to be run.

 

In Texas’s 24th congressional district, the race is wide open, as Republican incumbent Kenny Marchant has chosen not to run for re-election.  The Republican nomination has already been decided, with former Mayor of Irving, TX, Beth Van Duyne, running to maintain control of the seat.  Van Duyne completed two terms as mayor before moving on to work as a regional administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Trump.  The democratic nomination has yet to be decided, as a runoff is necessary to choose a candidate.  Kim Olson won a plurality of the vote, but Candace Valenzuela was about 6,000 votes behind, setting up a runoff for the nomination.  Olson seems the likelier victor of the two candidates, as she has a much more substantial financial backing.  However, Valenzuela secured an endorsement from Kamala Harris, showing that this race isn’t over by any means.  Regardless of the victor in the primary, the polls suggest that the district is a toss-up, so the Republicans face a difficult test to maintain control of their seat.

 

Minnesota’s 7th district is one of the largest geographic districts in the nation, currently held by Democrat Colin Peterson.  This is one of the most interesting districts to predict, partially because they’ve had such odd voting behaviors in the past two major election cycles.  The district fell overwhelmingly to Trump, by almost 31 points, but was also held by Colin Peterson, and has been since 1991.  Peterson is more moderate than many democratic colleagues, which may explain in part how he has held onto his seat so long.  Peterson was one of two democrats to vote against the articles of impeachment for President Trump.  Regardless, Peterson faces a challenge, most likely from Dave Hughes, who Peterson defeated narrowly in 2018.  A sneaky challenge may come from former Lieutenant Governor Michelle Fischbach, who is second only to Peterson in fundraising.  Either Republican candidate will mount a strong bid, but Peterson will lean on his 29 years of service to bolster his campaign.

The democratic candidates websites will be linked down below if any readers would like to learn more about their campaigns.  This tumultuous campaign season is just getting started, and we will have all the coverage here at U.S. Resist News.

 

Abigail Spanberger: https://abigailspanberger.com

Betsy Dirksen Londrigan: https://www.betsydirksenlondrigan.com

Kim Olson: https://kimforcongress.org

Candace Valenzuela: https://candacefor24.com

Colin Peterson: https://www.petersonforcongress.com

Will Trump’s Proposed Rollback of Obama Fuel Standards be Sustainable in Court?

Will Trump’s Proposed Rollback of Obama Fuel Standards be Sustainable in Court?

Shannon Q. Elliott Thursday, June 11, 2020

In 2012, President Obama made historic changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. The intention was to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse emissions caused by roadway traffic. By the year 2025, cars and light duty trucks would have an average of 54.5mpg which would nearly double the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Not only did this revision aim to save consumers upward of $1.7 trillion dollars at the gas pump, cutting emissions meant less exposure to toxins for communities. President Barack Obama’s commitment to protecting the environment, and his environmental legacy, have been challenged, and overturned by the Trump Administration, who recently revoked the changes to CAFE and implemented the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficiency Vehicle Rule (SAFE) which, in lament terms, rips the rug from underneath CAFE and regresses any environmental progress made by the United States.

The Trump Administration rule replaces the Obama -era mandate that automobile makers were required to improve their fuel economy performance by 5% annually. The new rule only requires that vehicles have to improve their performance by 1.5% a year. SAFE standards are implemented to save lives, create jobs, and maker safer, more affordable cars for American families. It’s estimated that an additional 78 billion gallons of fuel will be utilized under the new rule, making fossil fuel companies and their shareholders the primary beneficiaries of SAFE. Experts are also predicting the rule will omit 900 million more tons of carbon-dioxide into the air, a casualty incurred by less environmentally friendly vehicles on the road.

On May 27th, The Environmental Defense Fund, Moms Clean Air Force, and The Sierra Club, , in conjunction with California and 22 other states including the District of Columbia, filled suit against what is being deemed the “UN-SAFE” Rule. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, leads the multi-state lawsuit, stating that the Trump Administration is inflating and misrepresenting what the rule does.

The complaint filed with the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals argues that the decision to weaken auto industry fuel emissions, is a direct threat to public health, and is based on flawed research. The ambient levels of air toxins will lead to cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory disease. As a nation we will see a rise in asthma, premature death, immune system damage and countless illnesses associated with the obscene amount of pollution attributed to fuel inefficiency. They argue that the Trump Administration’s vow to shift away from environmental protections enacted to protect public health and produce greener vehicles is not only irresponsible, but their reasoning is based on inflated research and alleged falsified documents. 

Analysis 

SAFE undermines the Clean Air Act of 1970, which established air quality standards for the United States, and granted California the right to set their own pace for stricter air quality control. The totality of the circumstances suggests that SAFE is grossly negligent, putting American lives at risk. A recent win for environmentalists, relevant for the SAFE case,  came about in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. The complaint stemmed from concerned organizations who petitioned that the county was in violation of injecting treated sewage into groundwater and navigable waters. This threatened the health of their community and the Pacific Ocean. The win heightened awareness that complex environmental issues, are being reviewed and taken seriously by the courts.

The judiciary will need to weigh the interests of the government and public safety to determine which carries more weight. The verdict issued in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, could be a contributing factor in how the SCOTUS interprets the SAFE Rule, and its strengths and weaknesses. It’s without a doubt that the court will hear excellent arguments authored by some of the country’s finest attorneys, and may have to answer some of the following questions in order to reach a decision; 1.) Did the Trump Administration violate federal law, and falsify documents to support their research? 2.) Is the SAFE Rule in the best interest of the American people? 3.) Is it at the states discretion to set their own stricter law for tailpipe emissions?

The growth of the economy and protection of the environment are two different goals. The current administration has expressed their denial when it comes to climate change and environmental protections. The childlike outbursts, retaliation, and mocking of those who are rightfully concerned are a frequent occurrence… by our President. COVID-19 has strengthened the voice of communities who have been ravished by illness. The momentum behind sensitivity of respiratory disease, may prove to dismantle the Trump Administration’s efforts regarding the SAFE rule.

Learn More

Resistance Resources

https://www.edf.org/. (n.d.). Environmental Defense Fund : https://www.edf.org/

  • Addressing today’s most urgent environmental challenges EDF targets issues that effect people globally. Focusing on a clean economy, resilience and results EDF works to reduce exposure to pollutants and advocate for the health of humanity

https://www.momscleanairforce.org/. (n.d.). Moms Clean Air Force: https://www.momscleanairforce.org/

  • Mom’s Clean Airforce works on air pollution, toxic chemicals, climate change and national campigns that align with the greater good for the environment. Current campaigns include “Wheeler must go” and “ Clean Car Standards”

 

American Public Lands Under Threat

American Public Lands Under Threat

June 19,2020

More than 12 percent of the total land area of the United States and almost 20 percent of its marine area are protected by a combination of state and federal protections. However, only 5 percent of the U.S.’ total land mass is designated federally protected wilderness. The Wilderness Act, the strongest federal protection for public lands, preserves these protected areas for biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, and outdoor recreation; mining, farming, and other extraction proceedings are banned.

From the period 1959-2012, the largest changes in land use in the U.S. were the expansion of special uses, including protected areas and public lands, the reduction in forest use, expansion of grassland, and recent reduction in cropland.

Under the Trump Administration, protections for public lands that expanded under Obama have been drastically scaled back by an estimated 35 million acres, or almost 15 percent. While many of the rollbacks are being challenged in the courts before they can be fully implemented, they still represent a significant threat to the integrity of the extensive protections from mining and development efforts.

The United States is an incredibly diverse country, and as such has many important ecosystems that provide life support services to the local residents and the planet as a whole. The map below shows the 15 Level I ecoregions of North America, including the nine regions in the continental United States and the additional two in Alaska. These include Tundra, Taiga, Northern Forests, Northwestern Forested Mountains, Marine West Coast Forest, Eastern Temperate Forests, Great Plains, North American Deserts, Mediterranean California, Southern Semi-Arid Highlands, and Tropical Wet Forests.

Given the most recent attacks by the Trump Administration on the United States’ public lands, protected areas in Alaska like the Tongass National Forest, as well as national monuments like Bears’ Ears need protection from destruction by fossil fuel mining and extraction. Additionally, the Everglades, a unique ecosystem in south Florida that hosts some of the most biodiverse areas on the continent and provides essential services including water regulation and climate benefits is in need of protection from human development and the effects of climate change.

Resistance Resources 

Sierra Club: . An environmental organization that defends America’s most precious resources and wild places.  www.actsierraclub.org

The Nature Conservancy:  Founded in 1951, The Nature Conservancy has over one million members, and has protected more than 119,000,000 acres of land and thousands of miles of rivers worldwide. www.nature.org

Contact Tracing: Privacy Invasion or An Effective Tool To Tame The Beast

Contact Tracing: Privacy Invasion or An Effective Tool To Tame The Beast

Policy Summary

In the six months since we first became aware of the novel coronavirus, we have learned hard lessons about how the disease spreads and what we can do to contain it. Efforts worldwide have concentrated on population lockdowns, scientific research on treatments and vaccines and contact tracing of infected people. Contact tracing, a time-tested strategy employed successfully to control sexually transmitted disease and tuberculosis, has fallen to a messy patchwork of state health departments and tech start-ups to ramp into high gear in the US. The Trump Administration, reluctant to recognize the scope of the public health emergency, should lead in the development of standard systems, ensure data privacy and encourage the nation’s citizens to adopt it.

Analysis

Traditionally, local public health departments have conducted extensive interviews with victims of contagious diseases, their friends and families to track the spread and enable testing, quarantine and treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique challenge in a disease that spreads by aerosol droplets from people in close proximity for a relatively short period of time. Those exhibiting symptoms will often not have the ability to recall who they came in contact with making tracing those contacts nearly impossible. We do, however, already possess a technical ability to track those contacts with our mobile devices.

In Israel, the government ordered telecom carriers to share location data with security services for contact-tracing. This gave authorities access to detailed data that usually is reserved for military purposes. The Knesset (Parliament)  needed to pass emergency legislation to accomplish this but this action was credited with checking the spread of infection in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

Several countries including Australia, Iceland and New Zealand have developed contact tracing application software that citizens voluntarily install on their devices. These apps use bluetooth technology and the voluntary input of data if an individual is infected to alert other application users that they have been in close proximity to someone who has tested positive. New Zealand is one of the only countries on the planet that is now COVID-19 free.

Apple and Google, whose mobile phone operating systems account for nearly 98% of all smartphones, are jointly developing software that will use bluetooth technology and location information. Initially, the data has been made available to application developers to utilize but updates expected in the next few weeks will build  tracking functionality into the system with the ability of the user to opt in or out.

Using this as a sole methodology for contact tracing runs the risk of missing many underserved populations who do not own smartphones. It is by no means the silver bullet but another tool in the public health toolbox.

What is missing from this discussion are the privacy guarantees. We need a national coordination of these efforts to make sure that any adopted technologies actually helps public health workers in their work and doesn’t make it harder to do., We also must ensure that these systems protect privacy and that collected information is not used for marketing or other profit making purposes. Ultimately, we need a cheerleader-in-chief to encourage and empower us to use the technology for the greater good.

Resistance Resources

  1. The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University has several White Papers on COVID-19 public health strategies
  2. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has published guidelines for contact tracing apps
  3. The Centers for Disease Control has outlined principles for case investigation and maintaining privacy

Jumbo Privacy A privacy consulting firm has been sounding a warning about the app that North Dakota deployed

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine Stands In The Way of Real Police Reform

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine Stands In The Way of Real Police Reform

Policy Summary: In 1967 the United States Supreme Court decided the case Pierson v. Ray which decreed for the first time that police officers had “qualified immunity.” That doctrine states that police officers are immune from civil liability unless they deprive under color of law another person of his or her civil rights. In 1982 the Supreme Court issued an updated interpretation of the “qualified immunity” doctrine in Harlow v. Fitzgerald by stating that now the legal standard is that “government officials…are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.”

On June 4, 2020, Representatives Justin Amash (L-MI) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) introduced the Ending Qualified Immunity Act in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The bill seeks to simply do away with the legal doctrine put forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 8, 2020 Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced bill S.3912 which seeks to also eliminate qualified immunity and permit law enforcement officers to be held civilly liable for misconduct while in the performance of their duties.

Additionally in 2020, the Supreme Court had thirteen different petitions before the court that deal with qualified immunity. Many of the petitions had either been rescheduled or distributed for conference on the same day in the future, which indicates that a significant decision on qualified immunity may have been forthcoming. However, the Supreme Court on June 15, 2020 declined to hear the cases although Justice Clarence Thomas issued a brief dissent signaling that he was open to re-examining the doctrine.  LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: In the aftermath of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others and the protests that have erupted across the United States the last month the issue of police reform has been on the minds of countless Americans. Reviving federal oversight of local law enforcement with DOJ consent decrees have been discussed as well as defunding police departments. But only the issue of “qualified immunity” has gotten the attention of all three branches of the federal government.

The issue has become notable because calls for reform of the doctrine have come from people on both the right and the left of the political spectrum. While the Supreme Court surprisingly declined to hear cases during this term two justices have indicated their unease with the doctrine. Justice Clarence Thomas has become an advocate for reforming the doctrine because he sees it as having no roots in common law and is another example of judicial activism. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor sees the doctrine as an absolute shield for police officers to “shoot first and think later.”

The doctrine is controversial in the courts because when the legal standard is applied in civil cases, the bar is nearly impossible for plaintiffs to meet. From a legal standpoint, plaintiffs who have brought police brutality cases against individual officers must show that the officers conduct is against “clearly established statutory or Constitutional” rights. But since there a very few prior cases that match exactly the offensive conduct committed by the officers courts have been reluctant to side with the plaintiffs and their lawsuits almost always fail. The end result of this anomaly in the criminal justice system is that cops are never held accountable for their actions and case law holding police officers accountable which could be used in the future rarely gets decided.

Examples of police officers who have eluded accountability for their actions because of the legal doctrine are numerous. In Jessop v. City of Fresno, police officers stole $225,000 in cash and rare coins while executing a warrant but could not be sued because they were held to be civilly immune for their actions. In West v. Winfield, a woman gave law enforcement permission to search her home for a suspect only to see law enforcement destroy her home with tear gas grenades. She then found out the officers were immune to a civil suit for the destruction they caused. And in Corbitt v. Vickers, which has garnered national headlines and a petition from a number of high – profile professional athletes, police shot a ten – year old boy and his dog even though they posed no threat to the police officer. The police in that case claimed immunity in a civil case against them. These cases show that the qualified immunity doctrine has gone too far and that police officers are manipulating the doctrine to shield themselves from civil liability for illegal and egregious behavior.

The “qualified immunity” doctrine appears to be on the verge of significant reform if not outright elimination. With the doctrine at the forefront of discussion among lawmakers and members of the judiciary it is clear that changes are coming and it will be interesting to see what form those changes will look like. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

 

Resistance Resources:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blog post on the background of “qualified immunity.”

National Police Accountability Project (NPAP) – project’s letter to Congress to eliminate the “qualified immunity” doctrine.

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.

Is the CARES Act Effective?

Is the CARES Act Effective?

Policy

The effectiveness of the late March 2.3 trillion dollar Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES), Act remains hotly debated.  It is the most comprehensive act of government support since the depression, and its cost is similar to expenditures characterizing wartime.  Many critics feel it did not go far enough in helping individuals and it actually missed the mark for propping up the most vulnerable businesses. Although voted unanimously in the House, some Republicans criticized the bill for recalling controversial government programs of the New Deal era.  Politicians moved in favor of the bill with the realization that something needed to be done quickly to help the unemployed and affected businesses.

On the individual level measures were taken regarding compensation for lost wages that were more generous than in usual circumstances.  These allowed gig workers and self-employed persons, typically ineligible for unemployment insurance, to collect at least half of their states compensation and 16 weeks of an additional weekly benefit of $600 at federal expense. Other laid off, or furloughed, workers also are eligible for the additional federal employment monies.  For lower wage workers, this income would amount to full replacement value of wages.  Some gig and self-employed workers, however, were excluded from the payments and so have no income.

The CARES Act also provided for cash payments to households of up to $1200 for individuals and $500 dollar per child.  These payments were based on income reported to the IRS but also excluded some of the most needy who did not file income taxes in 2019.  An estimated 30 million seniors, disabled, and veterans did not file taxes and are ineligible for cash payments unless they file, and free tax preparation aid was temporarily discontinued so it will be difficult for many to do so.  Another estimated 92 million did not file with direct deposit and consequently will not receive payment for months.  Some workers received no aid, such as low paid workers in healthcare and delivery who retained essential employment, though a quarter of whom make less than the federal poverty level.  While these programs are a step in the right direction they are time limited, rather than based on the ability of a person to return to full employment.  Additionally, some criticized the failure to provide more help to higher paid unemployed workers.  These two programs account for 550 million dollars of the CARES budget.

Another 350 billion dollars was allotted to a small business loan/forgiveness program. This program has perhaps suffered the most criticism.  Small businesses account for 44% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 49% of the private sector.  The money ran out in days and favored larger companies leaving many businesses with unfunded applications. Many of the unsupported were businesses with women or minority owners or in rural areas.    In order to qualify for loan forgiveness, the company has to spend 75% of its loan on payroll per SBA orders but the CARES act did not have that provision.  This put owners in a quandary, if they used 75% for payroll they could qualify for loan forgiveness but they were likely to be delinquent on rent, utilities, or paying vendors.  The CARES act distribution lacked oversight, opting for spending in the “pubic interest,” and lacking in any guidelines for specific rules. A small business, defined as having less than 500 employees, often did not receive aid while large corporations such as Ruth’s Hospitality Group and Shake Shack did (Shake Shack eventually returned their loan money).  These companies had tens of millions of dollars in annual profits.  The Act was criticized for securing shareholders’ interests over the financial and physical well-being of labor.  These programs also ran out of money, in days, and there were no provisions for automatic extensions or continued aid.  A second round of small business loans was better at hitting small businesses and provided for smaller grants to more businesses.  In this round, 61% who applied received loans.

Analysis

Some of the programs in the CARES act certainly have made a positive initial impact both for businesses and individuals but each program is limited by money and/or time.  Consequently, the  economic despair, brought on by the pandemic,  will be long lasting. In early June new legislation expanded the initial CARES act for small businesses.  There are three new programs.  One is called the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Assistance (EIDL) which lends money to small businesses and nonprofits with low interest rates and no forgiveness.  Another offers an extended Payroll Protection Program which gives varying amounts depending on several factors and has a 1% interest rate. Under specific circumstances, these loans can be forgiven if the money is utilized within 24 weeks of the loan’s origination.  Finally, there is the Main Street Lending Program which has three different levels of support based on the size of the company that can be as large as 15,000 employees with as much as five billion dollars in revenue.  Eligible companies must be able to meet their obligations for 90 days without facing bankruptcy.  These programs will address some of the deficiencies in the original CARES program. However the Main Street Lending Program has no oversight, and concern has been expressed that funds will be used to reward political allies of the administration.

For direct assistance to the individual, beyond short term relief from student debt obligations and mortgage loan relief, there is not much.  (Healthcare provisions in the CARES act are not addressed in this article and also are short term).  If the country is to reaffirm its ideals regarding the quality of life, there will need to be some long term programs to change the safety net for individuals and households and a different approach to small businesses focused on the long term health of companies considering the new economic and social realities.

Learn More

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/09/coronavirus-ppp-may-have-left-minority-business-owners-behind.html

https://www.epi.org/blog/despite-some-good-provisions-the-cares-act-has-glaring-flaws-and-falls-short-of-fully-protecting-workers-during-the-coronavirus-crisis/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathrynjudge/2020/04/20/the-design-flaw-at-the-heart-of-the-cares-act/#752bef26bede

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/493458-where-the-cares-act-went-wrong

https://www.tapinto.net/sections/government/articles/exclusive-rep-tom-malinowski-disappointed-by-the-failure-of-the-cares-act-to-help-small-businesses-55

https://rsmus.com/economics/coronavirus-resource-center/cares-act-expands-access-to-loans-for-small-and-midsize-business.html

Resistance Resources

https://www.fhfa.gov/Homeownersbuyer/MortgageAssistance/Pages/Coronavirus-Assistance-Information.aspxC 

A government website with housing assistance information. 

Killing of Rayshard Brooks Incites Calls for Atlanta Police Reform

Killing of Rayshard Brooks Incites Calls for Atlanta Police Reform

Summary:
On June 12, amid worldwide protests against police killings of Black people, 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks was shot in the back by an officer of the Atlanta Police Department (APD). His death has amplified the calls for police reform at the department.

Established in 1873, the APD has around 1,700 officers patrolling the city’s seven zones with a fleet of 300 vehicles. It operates on an annual budget of just over $204 million. African-Americans account for 58 percent of the force, and Whites 37 percent.

Qualified APD applicants are required to undergo police academy training, including physical, defensive, firearms and academic instruction. Graduates are required to complete additional field training under the supervision of a field training officer. They are also routinely coached in crisis intervention, fair and impartial policing, and reality-based scenarios.

The department has a use-of-force policy that governs the use of tasers, pepper spray, firearms and control holds. The APD has also banned choke holds, strangleholds, neck restraints, carotid artery holds and other weaponless control techniques that have the potential to cause serious injury or death except in self-defense.

Despite having a use-of-force policy on the books, this is not the first time the APD has come under fire for use of excessive force against a Black person. The department was subject to a federal investigation in 2006 after officers shot and killed 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston when they entered on a no-knock warrant. During the George Floyd protests, APD officers pulled two Black students from their vehicle and tased them.

Experts believe that Rayshard Brooks did not have to lose his life and that police could have explored other alternatives.

Analysis:

#8CantWait is a nationwide campaign focused on saving civilian lives by demanding that police departments adopt the following eight policies: 1. ban chokeholds and strangleholds, 2. use of de-escalation techniques, 3. verbal warning before shooting, 4. exhaust all alternatives before shooting, 5. duty to intervene when fellow officers are using excessive force, 6. ban shooting at moving vehicles, 7. establish a use-of-force continuum and 8. comprehensive reporting.

The APD has already banned holds and established a use-of-force policy. In the wake of protests over Brooks’ death, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has also agreed to implement de-escalation, a duty to intervene and better reporting. #8CantWait urges Atlanta citizens to put pressure on their lawmakers to adopt policies around verbal warnings, exhausting alternatives and not shooting at vehicles.

Organizations such as the Georgia NAACP, Just Georgia, and the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) of Brunswick/Atlanta have also issued demands for changing how police interact with the public. These include eliminating laws that disproportionately criminalize Black people, ensuring the safety of protestors, conducting thorough investigations of police misconduct and requiring the APD to make amends for the systemic harm it has inflicted on Black families.

Resistance Resources:
#8CantWait: https://8cantwait.org/

M4BL Brunswick/Atlanta: https://m4bl.org/week-of-action/brunswick-atlanta-georgia/
Just Georgia: https://www.just-georgia.org/

Georgia NAACP: https://www.naacpga.org/

This brief was compiled by Laura Plummer. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact me@lauraplummer.me>

The Gig Economy Looks Bleak

The Gig Economy Looks Bleak

June 11, 2020

Policy

In recent years gig workers, acting as independent contractors, entered the gig economy as a means to supplement income, promote flexibility, and even be a secure alternative to regular employment.  Employers took advantage of the cheap available labor.  The workers pay the price in multiple ways and the early potential of the gig option has been dissipating even before the fallout from the Covid-19.

For many workers the pandemic has meant the end of employment, or at least a significant reduction in wages and/or hours.  Its benefits, if they exist, have been limited to a very select few.  Under usual circumstances,  gig workers typically lacked job security; guaranteed minimum hours or wages; health insurance; sick leave; or any other benefits associated with regular employment. With the contracted economy, the demand for many of their services has fallen and the competition for the remaining ones has grown steeper.

Since the shelter in place mandate, 68% of gig workers have had no income; 89% are looking for new sources of income; 50% have no job; 25% have decreased hours; and only 23% have any savings.  Fully 70% of gig workers surveyed felt that their company, and the government, did not satisfactorily support them.  Many platforms catering to freelancers, or gig workers, have seen an upsurge in applications for work along with a decreased demand.  Less travel means decreased demand for ride share services such as Lyft and Uber. Even those where the need has remained stable have experienced a drop in wages and hours.  Instacart, a SF based food delivery service, reportedly added 300,000 jobs while jobs in babysitting, housesitting, and cleaning have fallen by 36%.  Instacart asserts that its shoppers are earning 60% more due to gaining double the tips and maintaining the same average of batches.  But other platforms are not reporting similar gains.  Amazon Flex has shown a decrease in average hours from 28-32 hours a week to 18-20 hours.

Freelancers in professional occupations such as design, development, animation, and technology also have experienced a downturn.  Workers in these areas report decreased pay and contracts that are labor intensive so that the pay does not extend to the actual time needed to perform the tasks.  One worker described the situation as “a race to the bottom.”  Platforms such as Fiverr, Upwork, Clickworker, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk have sustained significant increases in demand along with depressed wages.  These trends predate the advent of the virus, with some reporting average hourly wages as low as $2-$6.50 an hour in 2017.  The severity of the exploitation seems likely to worsen.  Many companies are contemplating long term remote work, a situation likely to lead to more free lancing, which enhances corporate  profit and capitalizes on the availability of a global workforce.  The World Bank reported, for the first time since 1998, an increase in global poverty hinting at the backslide to come.

Policy

Gig workers, as independent contractors, typically have not been eligible for unemployment, employer health insurance, or sick time.  The CARES stimulus has created a new world in that self-employed and freelance workers became eligible for 39 weeks of state unemployment payments in addition to federally funded $600 a week supplements for 16 weeks.  Unfortunately  this program is unlikely to be sustained without further Congressional and Executive interventions.

Government regulation of labor practices in the freelance world needs to be addressed.  For example, “bots”are programs automated by algorithms which grab new jobs and affix them to new platforms that require subscriptions to access the jobs.  Instacart shippers pay a fee to get the Bot job apps making it harder for other seekers to apply.  Instacart denies this allegation and has stated that any person found to be utilizing these apps will be “deactivated,” a term eerily inhumane, as is the current market policies.  The need for protective legislation is indicated and has been passed in California.

In January, California enacted legislation, known as AB5 or the gig economy bill, mandating that gig workers are entitled to the benefits of employees.  They established this based on a 2004 case of a delivery driver who sued his company, Dynamex, when it forced the drivers to become independent contractors.  The current legislation is based on the findings in that case that a person qualifies as an independent contractor if s/he is exempt from company control or direction; works in non-mainstream aspects of the business; and is already performing similar work in situations independent of that company. These standards do not seem to accrue to gig workers affected by the litigation.

The California legislature has pledged 20 million dollars to enforce the mandate.  CA truckers were immediately granted an exception to the legislation and companies like Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Postmates, and Instacart have raised over 110 million dollars to support a ballot initiative exempting them from the new law.   They estimate the cost to them of bill’s implementation will 20-30% more than utilizing their casual workforce.  With the distraction of the pandemic, little has been established with regard to the future of AB5 though it certainly points to the need for new government labor regulations and to the reform of elements of the safety net.  What is being done temporarily for workers and businesses, through the CARES act, can be seen as a template for more permanent legal change.

 

Learn More

https://time.com/5836868/gig-economy-coronavirus/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/14/can-california-reign-techs-gig-platforms-primer-bold-state-law-that-will-try/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/cares-act-will-be-an-economic-lifeline-for-gig-workers-freelancers.html

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/gig-workers-hardest-hit-coronavirus-pandemic/

Resistance Resources

https://gigworkersrising.org/get-informed/covid19-resources/  Information for gig workers and consumers

Trump Opens Protected Marine Monument to Commercial Fishing

Trump Opens Protected Marine Monument to Commercial Fishing

Policy

On Friday, June 5th, Donald Trump signed an order to open nearly 5,000 square miles of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of New England, to commercial fishing. The Obama administration designated this stretch of ocean a National Monument in 2016, to protect the endangered species that live in this ecosystem “from harmful intrusion and permanent damage by commercial interests.” The original Proclamation 9496 of September 15, 2016 from the Obama administration, identified a number of canyons and seamounts in the area as “objects of historic and scientific interest,” and even writes, “these canyons and seamounts, and the ecosystem they compose, have long been of intense scientific interest,” with “scientists from government and academic oceanographic institutions” studying “the canyons and seamounts using research vessels, submarines, and remotely operated underwater vehicles for important deep-sea expeditions.” According to Bob Dreher, senior vice president of Conservation Programs at Defenders of Wildlife, these deep canyons and large seamounts are home to “Ancient and slow-growing deep sea corals, endangered large whales and sea turtles, and an incredible array of fish, seabirds, sharks, dolphins, and other wildlife.” The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument is the only marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean. The designation as a National Monument was challenged by interests of the fishing industry in 2017 but was quickly rejected in federal court.

According to the Proclamation Modification signed by Donald Trump this month, it is not necessary to prohibit commercial fishing within the Monument’s boundaries, because current commercial fishing regulations and other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, already protect the at-risk species in the area. The modification writes, “I find that a prohibition on commercial fishing is not, at this time, necessary for the proper care and management of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, or the objects of historic or scientific interest therein.” It continues, “WHEREAS, I find that removing the restrictions on commercial fishing set forth in Proclamation 9496 to allow for well-regulated commercial fishing use is in the public interest and that the objects in the monument can be, and are currently, protected pursuant to carefully tailored regulation and management under existing Federal law.”

Analysis

Many view this move as another attempt on the part of the Trump administration to continue limiting environmental regulation while the nation is distracted with the looming Covid-19 pandemic and nation-wide protests. Bob Dreher with Defenders of Wildlife says, “Opening up the nation’s only marine national monument in the Atlantic will help no one but a handful of fishers while risking irreparable damage to the marine wildlife that have no other fully protected areas off our eastern seaboard.” According to Brad Sewell, senior director of oceans for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), commercial fishing, even with its regulations, “poses a range of threats, such as harm to deep-sea corals from heavy fishing gear, and entanglement of marine mammals and fish in thick lines and nets.” He warns that “These fragile, extraordinary ocean areas are full of thousand-year-old corals, endangered whales, and other precious marine life. They belong to all Americans, and they are held in trust for future generations.”

According to a report by the Washington Post, the ban on commercial fishing has not even had a significant negative effect on the fishing industry. Most of the commercial fishing vessels that fish near the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument had “generated 5% or less of their annual landings from within the monument.” In fact, government data shows that revenues and catch for those same fisheries, has gone up or stayed the same since the National Monument’s designation. Randall Bowman of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under Trump, the lead staff member for reviewing the legitimacy of the marine region’s National Monument status, was actually found in 2017, to have recommended leaving those facts out of the report, because it “undercuts the case for the ban being harmful [to commercial fishing].”

Brad Sewell says. “The Antiquities Act gives the president power to protect special areas for future generations, not the opposite power to abolish those protections.” He claims that the President does not have the authority to modify the Proclamation, and that “A significant change to the monument or its protections, such as allowing commercial fishing, must be done by Congress, not by the president.” Sewell says the NRDC will fight the Trump administration in court, and that “We are prepared to sue the administration to protect these ocean treasures from harm and exploitation by commercial fishing and other extractive industries.”

Resistance Resources

Natural Resources Defense Council

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

 

Defenders of Wildlife

  • Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America. https://defenders.org/

 

National Wildlife Federation

  • America’s largest and most trusted conservation organization, works across the country to unite Americans from all walks of life in giving wildlife a voice. We’ve been on the front lines for wildlife since 1936, fighting for the conservation values that are woven into the fabric of our nation’s collective heritage. https://www.nwf.org/

 

Environmental Defense Fund

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

 

Learn More:

Eilperin, J. (2018, July 23). Trump administration officials dismissed benefits of national monuments. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-officials-dismissed-benefits-of-national-monuments/2018/07/23/5b8b1666-8b9a-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?wpisrc=al_news__alert-hse–alert-national&wpmk=1

Johnson, J. (2020, June 06). Quietly Putting Hundreds of Species at Risk,’ Trump Opens 5,000 Square Miles of Atlantic Ocean to Commercial Fishing. Common Dreams. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/06/quietly-putting-hundreds-species-risk-trump-opens-5000-square-miles-atlantic-ocean

Natural Resources Defense Council. (2020, June 05). Trump Illegally Eliminates Protections for First and Only Monument in the Atlantic Ocean [Web log post]. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/trump-illegally-eliminates-protections-first-and-only-monument-atlantic-ocean

Proclamation on Modifying The Northeast Canyons And Seamounts Marine National Monument. (2020, June 05). Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-modifying-northeast-canyons-seamounts-marine-national-monument/

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