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

 

Trump’s Refusal to Accept Defeat: Another Reason Why He Is Not Fit For Office

Brief #4—Transition of Power
By Linda F. Hersey
Although Donald Trump is the first sitting president to refuse to concede after losing a U.S. democratic election – shocking the nation and leaders across the world —  his wild claims of conspiracy and election fraud come as no surprise to a handful of academics, attorneys and political strategists who weighed the danger of such an outcome prior to Election 2020.

read more

Explaining the Minimum Wage

Brief #99—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The term minimum wage actually refers to several different things.  There is the federal minimum wage which is the lowest wage that employers can pay their workers unless they are in an exempt category of tipped workers.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
The Corruption of Jared Kushner

The Corruption of Jared Kushner

USRN Corruption Blog Post 

The Corruption Blog  digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration. 

Post #18 The Corruption of Jared Kushner 

By Sean Gray

July 20, 2020

Jared Kushner is Donald Trump’s son-in-law and the father of three of his grandchildren. He has stayed in the president’s good graces despite numerous political mishaps and public relations hits. The pair have much in common besides a shared workspace. Both are the sons of wealthy New York real estate magnates, the source of most of their wealth. Both have relied on their lofty beginnings to propel them to tremendous riches and influence. And both, since 2017, have used their Executive Branch positions to further enrich themselves at the expense and /or neglect of the American public.

Kushner’ qualifications for Senior Adviser to the president are questionable at best. He graduated with Honors (as did 90% of his class) from Harvard in 2003. However his curious acceptance to the school was investigated by ProPublica editor Daniel Golden for his 2006 book ‘’The Price of Admission’’, which focused on American elites buying their offspring into prestigious institutions. Golden spoke to officials at Kushner’s high school alma mater who told him bluntly, ‘’there was no way anyone in the administrative office thought [he would get in on merit]’’. The same official expressed disappointment that other more deserving students who applied were excluded. Charles Kushner, Jared’s dad, sat on Harvard’s fund raising-related Committee on University Resources and in 1998 (the year before his son’s admission) pledged a $2.5 million gift to be paid in ten annual installments of $250,000. Harvard does not comment on individuals applicants and the Kushner family has denied any connection between the tax-deductible gift and Jared’s acceptance.

Kushner began in the real estate business while attending college, selling rental properties in nearby Somerville, Massachusetts. When his father was imprisoned for tax fraud, Jared took the reins of the family business at the age of 26. Like Trump before him, Kushner sought to expand his father’s real estate empire and set his sights on Manhattan. His purchase of the 666 5th avenue  building in New York for a then-record $1.8 billion represents one of the biggest financial boondoggles in the city’s history. The exorbitant (and unprompted) bid greatly expanded  Kushner Company’s acquisitions, but also greatly amplified its risk. The property was greatly over leveraged (Kushner put down only $50 million in equity) and steadily lost money from the time of its purchase. When Brookfield properties effectively bought the building in 2018, it paid $1.28 billion, or roughly two-thirds of what Kushner paid a decade earlier.

More recently,Westminster Managements, owned by the Kushner company, is currently being sued by Maryland’s attorney general for ‘’hundreds of thousands’’ of unsanitary and unsafe conditions in its Baltimore units. The suit also alleges that the company has victimized tenants ‘’at all stages of offering and leasing’’. Westminster Management has also continued its predatory practices in spite of the Covid-19 pandemic. While millions of Americans have found themselves furloughed or fired, The Kushner Co. has with cruel indifference served tenants with lawsuits, debt collections and eviction notices.

When Kushner was appointed to a presidential  Senior Adviser role he immediately requested ‘’Top Secret’’ clearance. Top secret is the highest designation and is intended to shield information that ‘’unauthorized disclosure [of] could reasonably be expected to damage national security’’. On the forms submitted to make the request, Kushner omitted multiple foreign contacts which raised the specter of possible conflicts of interest. He offered the explanation that a member of his staff had prematurely ‘’hit send’’ on an incomplete form. No mention was made of an attempt to retrieve the form. When he resubmitted his application, under the section ‘’foreign contacts’’ Kushner included a 2016 meeting he attended at Trump Towers with agents of the Russian government offering dirt on political opponent, Hilary Clinton.  The meeting made him a subject of the Mueller Investigation.

Federal law does not require Executive Branch employees to divest of assets, but they must be recused from a matter when ‘’it would have a direct or predictable effect on the employee’s financial interests or certain interest that are treated as that of their own, [including] those of a spouse. Kushner’s personal holdings and stake in his family business likely represent conflicts under both provisions. On their federal disclosure forms, Kushner and Ivanka Trump list assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Of Kushner’s real estate holdings, a number were secured with significant capital from foreign investors. He is personally liable for several loans on his properties. Given his wide portfolio of government responsibilities, many in the realm of foreign policy, it stands to reason that Kushner should have either been made to divest  such assets, or recuse himself from a good deal of the activities of his office.

Kushner also was a beneficiary of the CARES Act Paycheck Protection Program . A crucial part of the coronavirus relief legislation, it was intended to keep small businesses afloat while they remained shuttered or hindered. Public outcry led to the disclosure of three Kushner companies and other wealthy individuals connected to the White House receiving aid. The New York Observer, which Kushner had previously operated, and is still run by his brother-in-law, was approved for a loan in the $350,000-$1,000,000 range. As was the subsidiary of Kushner Co. Esplanade Livingston LLC. Princeton Forestal, in which his family owns a 40% share, was approved for a loan in the $1-2 million dollar range.

Jared Kushner, and other real estate investors also stand to reap  benefit from the CARES Act based on a back-door provision in the bill. Section 2034 pertains to corporate taxes and allows businesses to write off all net operating losses incurred going back five years. The previous cap on deductions of that nature was capped at $500,00, per 2017’s  Tax Cuts and Job Acts. The provision is expected to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans, especially those invested in real estate.

In 2018, Kushner was tasked with brokering peace talks between Israel and Palestine. He has been given an outsized role in the federal administration’s response to the coronavirus. Both times he was spectacularly ill-prepared for the challenges. Neither of the efforts have gone well, as continued tumult between the Middle Eastern countries and surging rates of Covid infection in the US can attest  Yet Kushner has stayed in this role for which he is unsuited while his business conflicts-of-interest have gone unchallenged.

Trump’s Incumbent Powers Are Losing Their Strength

Trump’s Incumbent Powers Are Losing Their Strength

Presidential Campaign Update 

The Presidential campaign update regularly provides USRN readers with updates on the newsworthy activities of November 2020 presidential candidates Donald J Trump (Republican) and Joseph R Biden (Democrat)

Brief # 5 Trump’s Incumbent Powers Are Losing Their Strength

By Iryna Shkurhan

July 20, 2020

Trump’s incumbent advantages, money and the power of the presidency, are losing their strength as his mistakes pile up and former supporters turn their backs. Four months before election day, Trump is trailing Biden in almost every poll nationally, and in key swing states. And while Biden’s team out-raised Trump’s in the past two quarters, the President’s reelection campaign believes its cash-on-hand edge and hiring head start puts him ahead with voters.

The Candidates

Joe Biden has surpassed President Trump in fundraising over the past two months, without hosting any in person events. Jointly with the Democratic National Committee, $282 million was raised for the presumptive democratic nominee’s campaign. Compared to the $266 million that Trump and the Republican National Committee raised in the same period.

While Biden has transitioned his campaign to the virtual realm with online operations to avoid the risks of courting voters in person, Trump’s reelection campaign hasn’t let the ongoing pandemic stop him from hosting in-person events. His first campaign rally was held in Tulsa, Oklahoma despite recommendations from health experts against an indoor event where masks and social distancing were not required. The turnout was significantly less than expected as the stadium was not close to full capacity. Two weeks later, reports of an uptick of covid cases in Tulsa county were attributed to the rally.

A recent national poll shows Biden leading by 15%, while last month the same poll showed Trump behind by 8% only. Polls coming out of Texas reveal that it stands to become a swing state this election with Trump at 46%, and Biden polling at 45% approval . The presumptive Democratic nominee  has an edge in five swing states- Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The president’s poll numbers on his handling of the coronavirus and civil unrest regarding racial injustice are also significantly low. With these two dominant issues confronting the nation, Americans are viewing the president’s response as insufficient and detrimental to the crises at hand.

As the country sees rises in coronavirus cases in 39 states, the President’s lack of response and denial of the severity of the crisis is costing him supporters, and American lives. After months of refusal to wear a mask, Trump finally wore one (for a day during a visit to an army hospital) after more than 140,000 Americans have died from the virus.

Even as the majority of Americans report not wanting Trump for a second term, many progressive voters are hesitant to vote for Biden. He has failed to get behind progressive issues that are in the forefront of the political conversation today. The main one being defunding the police- redirecting funds from the police to other services- which the majority of Americans support.

But this week Biden aligned his policy initiatives with progressive ideals by unveiling his plans for dealing with climate change in a live broadcasted speech. He revealed plans to increase the scale and urgency or investments in clean energy and water, while creating millions of union jobs in the process. One important pledge was to ensure that 40% of the economic benefits from his proposed clean energy initiative go toward disadvantaged communities.

Despite Biden leading the polls by wide margins, even in swing states, many voters are still concerned about the surprise of the last presidential election repeating itself. Election day in 2016 was a wake-up call which confirmed that polls are not always accurate.

The Conventions

The Democratic party has announced that the 2020 nominating Convention will be held mostly virtually starting on August 17. The event in Milwaukee has been scaled back to include only 300 people, with delegates receiving authorization to vote by email.

The Republican Convention, which is scheduled to start on August 24 in Jacksonville, Florida, is being scaled back as coronavirus cases in Florida reach new peaks.  Total attendance has been limited to 7,000 people, with 2,500 of them being delegates. It’s in sharp contrast from measures the democratic party is taking in response to the pandemic.

Echoes of a Massacre: White Supremacy Rears its Head in Wilmington

Echoes of a Massacre: White Supremacy Rears its Head in Wilmington

By Laura Plummer

July 17, 2020

“People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them.” – James Baldwin

On June 4, a sergeant with the Wilmington Police Department in Wilmington, NC, was conducting a routine audit of patrol cameras when she came across on-duty policemen using shockingly racist language while they believed the camera was off. Corporal Jesse Moore and Officers James Gilmore and Kevin Piner referred to black people as “negroes” and n——s, disparaged blacks in positions of power, talked about purchasing assault rifles so they could “go out and start slaughtering”, and said they were “ready” for a “civil war” to “wipe ‘em off the map.”

The sergeant quickly moved the tape up the chain of command and, on June 23, the trio was fired. In a statement, Chief Donny Williams called their comments “brutally offensive” but urged the public to not “judge our officers based on the conduct of a few.”

The “bad apple defense” is a common refrain when individual authority figures are exposed for wrongdoings. We are told that these cops do not represent the majority of law enforcement. The fact that the sergeant turned over the tapes immediately and that the men involved were summarily terminated does bode well for the WPD’s anti-racist internal culture, especially as the tapes had not leaked to the press and so could not become the target of public outrage. In addition, Chief Williams created an action plan both to hold the officers accountable and to prevent similar incidents from recurring.

But what is particularly noteworthy about this incident is the actual language used, language that is not only racist, but genocidal. The mention of a race war is common rhetoric used by radical white supremacist groups. This violent fantasy and the casual way in which the officers discussed it recall a period in the city’s history that is less about bad apples and more about a rotten tree.

Or in this case, a forest.

If you’ve never heard of the Wilmington Massacre of 1898, you’re not alone. It’s not a staple of school history curricula, despite the powerful impact it had on the spread of white supremacy throughout the south. This is due in part to the fact that, up until recently, the event was portrayed as a race riot incited by blacks. It’s now well documented that it was a calculated white supremacist c’oup d’état.

In 1898, Wilmington was the largest city in the state with about 25,000 residents, 56 percent of them black. Its black and white coalition government was neither Republican nor Democrat, but Fusionist. Blacks held public office, owned businesses, published a newspaper, worked as skilled craftsmen and even served in law enforcement.

This enraged Democrats (the parties were the opposite of what they are today), who had governed North Carolina since Reconstruction and who didn’t want to see former slaves and their offspring in positions of power. They began planning how they could overthrow the biracial government in Wilmington and deprive blacks of their rights to vote and to hold office.

They initiated a news campaign of racist propaganda painting blacks as incompetent and a sexual threat to white women. The campaign was meant to appeal to poor and working-class whites in North Carolina, to turn them against their black neighbors. White southerners were all too eager to have a scapegoat for their near-total dispossession following the Civil War. The Democrats won back the state legislature from the Republicans in November. However, Wilmington had elected a white Republican mayor and a black alderman.

Two days later, two thousand members of the Red Shirts, a paramilitary branch of the Democratic Party, descended on the city. Armed with machine guns, they burned down the public records office and the black newspaper, forced office holders to resign and shot dead at least 60 black men. Many more were wounded and thousands of black families fled. White sympathizers were banished.

Despite calls for Washington to intervene and seek justice, President McKinley turned a blind eye. White newspapers across the country adopted the narrative that the riot had been incited by blacks, and this version was codified in the collective consciousness. Almost overnight, Wilmington went from a majority black egalitarian southern city to a white stronghold that would endure for decades. Blacks in Wilmington were literally “wiped off the map.”

Over 120 years and a two-term black president later, three white uniformed officers were caught on video espousing many of the same sentiments as Carolinian Democrats did at the turn of the 20th century. While the very public killings of black citizens by police have mobilized a nation, even more insidious are the conversations that go on behind closed doors among those in positions of authority when (they think) the cameras aren’t rolling.

Learn More:

  • Wilmington’s Lie: The Murderous Coup of 1898 and the Rise of White Supremacy, David Zucchino
  • Personal Interview, Andrew Thornebrooke, Author of The Rearguard, July 09, 2020
ICE Rescinds Order to Deport International Students – an Update to Brief #98

ICE Rescinds Order to Deport International Students – an Update to Brief #98

July 17, 2020

Policy Summary

The July 6 Directive from the Trump Administration covered in Brief 98 faced immediate backlash and swift legal action by institutions of higher learning, municipalities, and tech companies. Within two days, Harvard and MIT sued the government in Federal Court to have the Directive reversed and declared unlawful, touting it “arbitrary and capricious.” Many colleges and universities expressed their support for the legal challenge and hoped for a similar outcome. Several schools had begun to adapt their fall semester plans with the original Directive in mind in a fashion that would retain their international students, such as hybrid instruction as well as offering one-on-one sessions for international students. Last week, the Administration agreed to rescind their original directive and implementation and changed the ICE rule.

Analysis

As expressed in Brief 98, international students not only enrich the American higher learning system, but also play a large financial role in funding the institutions. As a result of the original Directive, professors and educators across a wide array of institutions began planning their learning around the Directive in a way that would ensure their international students would still be able to receive instruction in the US. These institutions had not only a financial prerogative to enlist hybrid learning styles, but a moral one as well. The reversal of the Directive further proves the important role education plays in the American Dream as well as the power of academic institutions to keep that dream alive.

Engagement Resources

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

Trump Urges Schools to Reopen Amidst Pandemic

Summary

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

Resistance Resources:

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

Environmental Justice Stops Fossil Fuel Pipelines in Their Tracks

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources

Earthjustice

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

Friends of Buckingham Virginia

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

Natural Resources Defense Council

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

Learn More

Can Women Afford to Work?

Can Women Afford to Work?

Rosalind Gottfried

Economics

July 13, 2020

Policy

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

Learn More

 

Resistance Resources

Hearings to Abolish Minneapolis Police Start This Week

Hearings to Abolish Minneapolis Police Start This Week

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

# 2 Hearings to Abolish Minneapolis Police Start This Week

July 15, 2020

Summary:

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

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

Resistance Resources:

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

The Corruption of William Barr Part  2 

The Corruption of William Barr Part  2 

The Corruption of William Barr Part  2 

July 13, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Targeted Districts

Targeted Districts

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

July 13, 2020

Targeted Districts

Texas 22nd

Florida’s 16th

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

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

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