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
The Future of Retail is Up for Grabs as a Result of Covid-19

The Future of Retail is Up for Grabs as a Result of Covid-19

Policy
The April reports show a 16.4% drop in retail sales, lower than the predicted rate of 12.3% for the month of April.  This rate is nearly double the March rate of 8.3%.  The drops were seen to a greater or lesser extent across retailers, even extending to grocery stores.  Clothing and accessories were down 79% in April; electronics and appliances down 60.6%; furniture and home furnishings down 58.7%; gas stations down 28.8% and grocery stores reduced by 13.2%.  The decline in grocery store purchases is attributed to the inference that people are buying more groceries in stores like Wal-Mart and Targets and/or Amazon in order to limit potential exposures to the virus.  Sales of athleisure wear and comfort clothing have been robust though no firm data has been reported.  The only area which saw an increase in sales was online businesses which gained 8.4% in sales.

The temporary shuttering of stores has led several retailers to file for chapter 11 bankruptcies.  These include Neiman Marcus, J. C. Penney, and J Crew.  They join a growing list of companies, over the past decade, which have moved to restructure by contracting their retail outlets and laying off staff to try to meet goals set in Chapter 11 planning.  They join other retailers in chapter 11which include Toys “R” Us; Pier 1; Payless Shoesource; and Forever 21.

Although the pandemic was the catalyst for the most recent filings, it is not the only culprit in the devastation of formerly major retailers.  Analysis suggests that the causes of the downturn in sales are also attributable to these companies’ inability to compete effectively with online options and to a tepid response to attracting younger customers to their client base.  Another significant factor troubling retailers is the debt incurred by buyouts from private equity firms which have added payments in interest and fees to declining sales.

Analysis
Sixty eight percent of the 21.5 trillion dollar US economy relies on personal consumption.  What the future holds in these areas is difficult to predict.  Experts suggest that the return to a “normal” pattern cannot be expected until 2021 but the question of whether there will even be a return to previous habits remains open.  People may be more cautious about spending money but if long term trends in work change so that more people will work at home, part or full time, it is likely that the sale of clothing, gasoline, and automobiles may not return to previous levels.  It is also unclear whether the chapter 11 goals for restructuring affected companies will be made or if they will suffer permanent closings and layoffs.  When Toys “R” Us went into chapter 11, 30,000 workers were let go with no severance pay even though creditors, attorneys, and consultants were paid.  If companies go into full bankruptcy more workers will lose their incomes and reverberations will be felt in consumption, home buying, and other related areas.  Companies such as Amazon, Etsy, and Wayfair are making this possibility veer towards a probability.  The US departments of Commerce and Consumer Protection will need to attend to these likely future trends.

Learn More

Resistance Resources

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection  A federal agency collecting complaints and conducting investigations into fraudulent and unfair business practices.

Pompeo’s Weird Iran Scheme

Pompeo’s Weird Iran Scheme

With the coronavirus pandemic rightly taking center-stage over the past few months, the limelight has been shifted from traditionally discussed topics of foreign policy.

Policy Summary
With the coronavirus pandemic rightly taking center-stage over the past few months, the limelight has been shifted from traditionally discussed topics of foreign policy. However, this does not mean that the Department of State has shuttered its doors and ceased working. In fact, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came forward in late April with a rather convoluted plan to re-impose UN sanctions on Iran by way of a thorny legal argument that worked around President Trump’s declaration of withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the unilateral application of sanctions by the U.S. The strategy was conjured up by the Trump administration following the realization that the UN conventional arms embargo on Iran was going to expire in October, with Russia desiring to return to business-as-usual arms sales with the Iranian regime. The Trump administration has argued that if the arms embargo is not extended past its expiration date in the fall, that Iran will begin re-supplying weaponry to various national security threats and terrorist groups.

Let’s begin by first looking at what the Iran nuclear deal is meant to do and what state it is currently in. First, the accord is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA. The Obama-era agreement was struck between Iran, the U.S., EU, China, France, Russia, UK, and Germany; with the U.S. being the arguable lynchpin. The JCPOA forced Iran to send 97% of its generated nuclear fuel to Russia (as of 2016), along with limiting its production of nuclear material for the duration of 15 years and opening Iran’s nuclear facilities to inspection by the UN. In terms of the JCPOA’s current state, to all of the available evidence, Iran followed the agreement for a year following Trump’s declaration of the U.S.’s withdrawal from the accord but has been gradually violating set restrictions over the past year despite rebukes and threats by abiding European signatories. The Iranian regime has declared that it will go back to abiding by JCPOA limitations if Trump agrees to lift U.S. sanctions and re-enters the deal on the previous terms. Despite these sanctions, Iran has refused to negotiate with the Trump administration, which wishes to negotiate a far more stringent nuclear agreement.

We can now turn to Pompeo’s new strategy to drag Iran kicking and screaming to the negotiation table. The tactic relies upon the UN upholding Pompeo’s claim that despite Trump unilaterally imposing sanctions and declaring U.S. withdrawal from the deal, that the U.S. is still a so-called “participant state” to the deal due to it being an original signatory. If this premise is accepted, the U.S. would hypothetically be able to pressure the restoration of pre-2015 UN sanctions on oil sales and banking activities if the arms embargo is not prolonged. The Trump administration would then be able to lord its ability to re-impose far more stringent sanctions over Russia, ensuring that the U.S.-backed arms embargo would be extended.

It was reported by the New York Times that Pompeo is anticipating that upon the U.S. demanding that the Security Council prolong the arms embargo, Russia will immediately veto it. The U.S. would then assert that it is still a participant in the deal, as it is an original signatory and argue that Trump’s declaration of withdrawal did not revoke the U.S.’s rights as such. The Times did not provide the text of this legal argument, but I am curious as to how Pompeo can make such an assertion. Setting this aside however, if the claim is accepted by the UN, the U.S. would then point to Iran’s violation of the treaty’s limitations and demand a return to pre-2015 UN sanctions, as put forth in the JCPOA.

Analysis:

This is, at best and in my untrained legal opinion, a tenuous gray area to say the least. Although the U.S. is certainly an original signatory to the JCPOA under Obama, Trump has most definitely withdrawn from the deal and has been imposing US sanctions for the past two years. I may not be a lawyer nor am I well-versed in contracts, but it was my understanding that upon a party choosing to leave an agreement, it can no longer make demands as though it is a participant in said agreement. How does Trump leaving the JCPOA mean the U.S. has retained its powers as a signatory? I am not arguing that the arms embargo should not be extended or that its extension is not in the best interest of U.S. national security, but that the Trump administration is flagrantly attempting to have its cake and eat it too. A small criticism perhaps in the enormous fabric of the fight over the Iran deal, but certainly a bizarre one of note.

In addition, Pompeo’s plan was announced after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched a military satellite, which he asserted to be proof of Iran’s space program not being peaceful in nature. What this has to do with the UN arms embargoes and the nuclear deal I have no idea. Perhaps it was meant as evidence of Iranian aggression that would support the use of Pompeo’s legalese tactic? Who knows? Either way it’s an odd spark for an equally odd case.

Governments, parents, and even children are itching for schools to reopen, but COVID-19 may keep them closed.

Governments, parents, and even children are itching for schools to reopen, but COVID-19 may keep them closed.

Governments, parents, and even children are itching for schools to reopen, but COVID-19 may keep them closed. Recent events have led districts to second-guess a fresh start this fall: The pandemic’s expected death toll continues to rise as states move to reopen against the advice of scientists; Coronavirus task force advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has warned against assuming that vaccines and widespread treatments will be available by fall, calling the expectation “a bridge too far”; and in recent weeks, the popular belief that children are “safe” from the virus has been turned on its head by emerging reports of a new pediatric inflammatory syndrome.

On May 12th the entire California State University system announced that it will hold the upcoming semester online, and universities around the country are expected to follow suit. As difficult as this situation is for college students, it may be impossible for schoolchildren. Even for those with consistent Internet access, the lack of structure and high stress levels will prevent kids from meeting standard academic milestones. In fact, many analysts are expecting them to lose ground in an intensified version of the “summer slide.”

Meanwhile, President Trump has been pushing for schools to reopen as soon as possible. He rejected Dr. Fauci’s suggestion to remain cautious in the fall, calling it “not an acceptable answer.” Trump added, “We have to open our schools. Young people are little affected by this.”

Analysis

Despite President Trump’s optimism, the risks of a rushed reopening cannot be understated. Setting aside his apparent ignorance of pediatric inflammatory syndrome, children are not the only ones affected by potential outbreaks in schools; staff and students’ families will also be caught in the crossfire.

There is hope that, like the retail sector, schools can reopen earlier if they do so gradually. The United States could follow the example of Denmark, which reopened schools for the lower grades on April 15th. In addition to increased hygiene measures, children are required to stay six feet apart, and classroom sizes are limited to ten. However, questions remain about the viability of doing this in larger schools. Denmark chose to open primary schools first for good reason: they tend to be smaller, and they’re more likely to be within walking distance. In densely-packed high schools, creating a safe plan would present a significant challenge. The cited NPR article suggests staggering schedules to reduce class sizes, meaning kids could attend on alternating days or in daily shifts.

As with every aspect of public life, coronavirus presents an impossible choice for schools and families. Proposed safety measures can only do so much to mitigate the risk, especially since children have more difficulty understanding and adhering to social distancing policies. However, at some point the suffering caused by missed milestones and social isolation rivals that of the virus itself. The spectre of disease is coupled with that of a mass-scale academic and developmental backslide.

While the fall quarter is up in the air, districts should do more to address the drawbacks of distance learning. Some schools are not offering online instruction due to lack of preparedness and equity concerns. This summer is the time to train teachers and administrators, as well as develop an effective online curriculum — preferably at the state level. Some districts have offered wifi and laptops to low-income students, but the current patchwork of resources is hurting children nationwide. Federal and state support for such programs would go a long way towards making phased reopenings possible. A staggered schedule will be much more viable if kids can learn effectively from home.

Perhaps we’ll get lucky and the situation will improve drastically by August, but we need to prepare for the worst now. Having effective digital options will reduce the rush to return to the classroom before it’s safe.

Resistance Resources

  • Khan Academy
  • Scholastic’s Summer Read-A-Palooza program offers free e-books. This year, they’ve also launched Home Base, where kids can create an avatar, track their reading progress, and more.
Trump Administration Policies Help Spread Covid-19 to Central America

Trump Administration Policies Help Spread Covid-19 to Central America

Policy Summary
Since March, the Trump Administration has expelled almost 10,000 migrants using emergency public health measures that have granted US Customs and Border Protection temporary authority to bypass immigration laws. There are now fewer than 100 migrants in federal custody.

In April, forty-four migrants on a deportation flight from the US to Guatemala tested positive for COVID-19. Prior, there were only 800 confirmed cases total in all three Northern Triangle countries. Within Guatemala there are two major urban hospitals and smaller regional facilities. Their capacity to handle a potential outbreak as a result of these forty-four confirmed cases is extremely limited. The Mexican government has since agreed to accept the rapid return of migrants from Mexico and the Northern Triangle, according to a recent agreement with the Trump Administration. However, it is unclear how sustainable this plan would be given the large volume of migrants the US has been deporting.

Analysis

The US is bound to the customary international law principle of non-refoulement (the practice of not forcing refugees or immigrants to return to a country where they are subject to persecution). Due to these rapid return measure the Trump Administration has employed since lockdown, migrants are now not only unable to claim asylum and/or other forms of humanitarian protections but are also being expelled to countries in which they fear persecution.

Additionally, the US has almost directly spread the pandemic in Guatemala, where their health system is severely hindered and could cost many individuals their lives. Many of the forty-four deported migrants showed symptoms prior to boarding their flights. Knowingly spreading the virus to an incapacitated region, is not only unethical, but a careless way to attempt to reduce the number of confirmed cases in the US by expelling migrants.

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
Hawaii Wildlife Fund defends Clean “ Wai” Water

Hawaii Wildlife Fund defends Clean “ Wai” Water

Summary
Hawaiian culture is sacred. Hawaiians give much respect to the history and folklore of their state. Forest, streams, oceans and humans are all interconnected creating “Ohana” one family, protecting invaluable resources. Hawaiian mythology tells a tale of Kane and Kanaloa; Gods of Water, who when they desired to drink would dig their hands into the earth calling on the fresh water to quench their thirst. Circa 2020, if one were to dig into the earth in Maui County, that drink of water would include seepage from the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility.

Conservation groups are on a mission in Hawaii. Protecting the vitality of the ocean is a major focus. In 2012, Hawaii Wildlife Fund (HWF), along with The Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club- Maui Group and West Maui Preservation Association, initiated a civil action against Maui County, alleging that The Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility was injecting treated sewage into groundwater that inevitably reaches the Pacific Ocean. HWF states that the injection wells are a direct point source of pollution and therefore in violation of The Clean Water Act (CWA). The facility would need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPEDS) from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to be in compliance with the CWA. As a result of failure to comply, pollution has created severe biological disruptions to coral reefs, marine life, strained social goods and economic services.

The Clean Water Act, is the nation’s primary federal law governing water pollution. The main purpose of the statute is to restore chemical, biological and physical integrity of the nation’s navigable waters. The act establishes a structure to discharge pollutants, and activates the EPA to set standards for municipal and commercial industries. The Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility is authorized by the EPA to operate four class V injection wells, to dispose of effluents. Producing 3-5 million gallons of liquid waste from the county’s 40,000 residents, the injection wells are essentially pipelines that travel far beneath the earth’s surface,entombing waste into porous rock. The concern lies with the seepage from the injection wells which invade groundwater, and ultimately marry into the Pacific Ocean.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund 2020, has endured a lengthy litigation process. The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 2014 ruling was in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court agreed that the Lahaina Wastewater Facility needed to apply for an NPDES permit, and referred to the injection wells as a “direct” point source.  Maui County challenged that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Maui County argued that the injection wells were a source of indirect pollution and named  groundwater, as the culprit which indirectly infused de minimis amounts of liquid sewage into navigable waters.  The Circuit Court upheld the lower court’s ruling. Maui County, unsatisfied with the verdict petitioned The United States Supreme Court, who granted the petition in February 2019.

Analysis

The SCOTUS issued its 6-3 decision on April 23, 2020. The issue; Whether the CWA requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater. In interpreting the language of the CWA, which defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, the court held that “a permit is required when there is a discharge from a point source directly into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge.”

The outcome is a victory for environmentalists who work tirelessly to defend navigable waters against an administration who is hellbent on gutting clean water. The Trump Administration repealed the Clean Water Rule of 2015, which protected drinking water for 117 million Americans. They also finalized The Navigable Waters Protections Rule this past April. The vague policy undermines the CWA, cutting protections for national waters. Environmentalists along with some states are ready to sue, on grounds that the new policy is dangerously weak.

The good news? If and when litigation battles commence over the intention of The Clean Water Act, courts will be able to refer to County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund 2020. This ruling offers communities reprieve that industries will be held legally responsible if they are negligent in dumping pollutants into navigable bodies of water.

Learn More

Resistance Resources

  • Blue Coast . (2020). Retrieved from bluecoast.org: http://www.bluecoast.org/kanaloa.html
  • EarthJustice . (2020). Retrieved from earthjustice.org: https://earthjustice.org/blog/2019-october/what-the-trump-administration-is-doing-to-your-water
  • Hawaii Wild Life Fund. (2020). Retrieved from wildhawaaii.org: https://www.wildhawaii.org/
  • Surf RIder Foundation . (2020). Retrieved from surfrider.org : https://www.surfrider.org/initiatives/clean-water
  • West Maui Preservation Association . (2020). Retrieved from .savewestmaui.com: https://www.staradvertiser.com/2020/04/23/breaking-news/in-maui-sewage-case-u-s-supreme-court-sees-broad-reach-of-clean-water-act/
Netanyahu ‘Confident’ Trump will give green-light for Annexation

Netanyahu ‘Confident’ Trump will give green-light for Annexation

Speaking to an Evangelical pro-Israel group, Netanyahu assured the audience that Israel’s annexation of the West Bank will likely be supported by the Trump administration. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo has stated that the decision to annex is up to Israel and the US will relay its thoughts privately.

The Palestinians have expressed extreme disapproval over any measures to further diminish the geography of a long-promised Palestinian state. However, with annexation, any hopes for a two-state solution are effectively thrown out the window rendering it geographically unfeasible. The extension of Israeli sovereignty will slice through the West Bank engulfing and fragmenting Palestinian territory, reminiscent of the South African Bantustans.

The emergence of a turbulent political climate in Israel after a series of three inconclusive elections led to a deal to form a unity government between the right-wing Likud, and the center Blue and White parties. One of the stipulations in that deal is for either party to possess veto power over any legislation proposed by the other with one exception: Netanyahu’s plans for annexation will remain unchallenged as long as it receives support from Washington.

The US holds the authority to stop this plan in its tracks. However, the Palestinians are not holding their breaths for an American intervention, a notion that was underscored by Trump’s unveiling of a so-called ‘Middle Past peace plan’ earlier this year.  Netanyahu stated “Three months ago, the Trump peace plan recognized Israel’s rights in all of Judea and Samaria,” referring to the West Bank by its biblical name. “A couple of months from now, I’m confident that that pledge will be honored,” he added. The Trump administration yet again proved to the Palestinians—and to the rest of the world—that the US is no longer an honest broker for peace.

Israel’s occupied territories in the West Bank remain illegal under numerous international laws and have been subjected to UN resolutions urging the state’s withdrawal.

The plan to annex received overwhelming condemnation from the international community. Joseph Borrell, foreign policy chief for the European Union said that a potential annexation “would constitute a serious violation of international law.” The Middle East peace envoy for the United Nations Nikolay Mladenov dubbed the move as crippling the prospects of a future two-state solution and will “close the door to a renewal of negotiations and threaten efforts to advance regional peace.” Nonetheless, Trump’s salient relationship with Netanyahu guarantees a green light for even categorical violations of international law.

Analysis:

To be candid, the Trump presidency is a political windfall for the nationalist Israeli Prime Minister. Netanyahu sees the Trump administration as a window of opportunity to push controversial policies with an American stick, an opportunity that is not fully guaranteed come November. In the midst of Israeli elections, Netanyahu is hoping that voters keep an Israeli expansion in their minds while heading to the polls. To compound his motivations further, Netanyahu is facing criminal charges of corruption, fraud, and breach of trust and is betting on the fact that staying in office and maintaining a fruitful relationship with the US President will mitigate his legal fate.

Donald Trump has election concerns of his own. With an already unshakeable Evangelical voter base, a dogmatic approval of Israeli wishes will further buttress his popularity among the Conservative, pro-Israel voters.

It is in the interest of all Americans to make sure the President does not sanction the illegal activity of any country. The US’s historic position as an honest broker for peace, and for a two-state solution has been completely gutted under the administration of Donald Trump. The US should use its influential position to pressure the Israeli government to comply with international laws rather than to allow itself to be implicated as supporters of an illegal occupation.

Resistance Resources

  • Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Is an American activist organization focused on peace through the self-determination and security of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. JVP gathers Jewish-American support in an attempt to spread awareness of the illegal occupation with the goal of having Israel abide by international law.
  • Americans For Peace Now  Has since 1978 been apposed to Israeli expansion and has been keeping track and publishing construction and settlements in the West Bank. been working tirelessly to persuade American leaders and the public to adopt policies that work towards a two-state solution and consistent with American interests.
  • Foundation for Middle East Peace is a center for peace based in Washington D.C. that has been keeping track of Israeli settlements in the west bank and also publishes legislation relating to Israel in the US congress. FMEP urges for complete human rights for the Palestinians.

 

Learn More:

We Are 16 States Away from Being Able to Have an All Mail-In Presidential Election

We Are 16 States Away from Being Able to Have an All Mail-In Presidential Election

Policy Summary: In the United States, an absentee ballot is a voting option that permits a registered voter to receive an official ballot from the state and return the ballot to the state board of elections after he or she has filled it out at a place other than a local polling booth. The ballot is traditionally filled out at the voter’s home prior to the designated Election Day and returned before or on Election Day. The ballot is valid in every respect except for the fact that the ballot is not marked at a local polling booth.

As of May 2020, sixteen states permit voters to cast an absentee ballot but only with an approved excuse that is listed in the state statute concerning absentee ballot voting. Citizens in these states can only qualify for an absentee ballot using one of these approved excuses. Any other excuse, no matter how valid, is not accepted. Many of the same approved excuses for an absentee ballot can be found in these states – for U.S. military service members serving abroad, for those with illness or disability, those incarcerated for a crime that is not a serious felony, the person is an elected official and for workers who work shifts during polling hours. Some states also impose additional requirements such as an affidavit swearing to their excuse. The remaining thirty-four states and the District of Columbia allow various forms of absentee ballot voting for its citizens that do not require the voter to have an approved excuse. Any voter in these remaining states who requests an absentee ballot will simply receive one. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: With the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping the United States in 2020 there have been concerns as to how the virus will affect upcoming U.S. elections. This includes upcoming state primary elections this summer that have already been postponed at least once and the national election in November 2020. In early April, Wisconsin refused to postpone their state election and presidential primaries because of the virus which resulted in the state bungling election operations (delayed distribution of absentee ballots with some never even being delivered and only opening five polling booths out of a potential one hundred seventy – eight in the city of Milwaukee). This has led to calls for an absentee ballot election for the remaining 2020 scheduled elections.

While thirty – four states and the District of Columbia have made voting by absentee ballot a viable and easy option the remaining sixteen states have still not made the process to vote by absentee ballot in their state as easy as it should be. Most of the states are red states in the South (Indiana, NY and Connecticut are the other states). The main impediment at the moment is the process to qualify for an absentee ballot. The sixteen states still require an approved excuse and it is not exactly clear if the threat of a deadly virus qualifies as an approved excuse. This could lead to a possible scenario where a voter would request an absentee ballot because of fear of infection from COVID-19 and be denied.

When compared to how the rest of the states have been administering their absentee ballots it is clear that, given enough time, states can efficiently and effectively conduct an all – mail election. The requirement of having an approved excuse should no longer be a barrier for any citizen who wants to cast their ballot. The Brennan Center of Justice has conducted research that shows mail – ballots have been the primary method of voting in five states, that mail – in ballots have bipartisan support and that voting by mail encourages fraud is simply false. While the approved excuses used by the remaining sixteen states are noble efforts to permit absent voters to cast their ballot it is clear that circumstances have changed and that other more modern options employed by the rest of the country is the wave of the future that needs to be implemented in the remaining states. There is no need to require a separate affidavit statement when a signature and warning on the back of the envelope will suffice. Additionally, many states on the west coast automatically mail a ballot to all voters with the option to drop it off in the mail or bring it to a voting booth on Election Day and those states have administered their elections with almost no administrative problems. With more and more people opting to vote at home by absentee ballot because of personal convenience there is no need to restrict absentee voter eligibility to only military service members and others who cannot physically appear at a local polling station. The traditional reasons for an absentee ballot have been swept away by the COVID-19 2020 pandemic. With more and more states employing no – excuse absentee ballots and a history of managing all – mail elections successfully it is time for the remaining sixteen states to follow their sister states and make an all mail – ballot election possible for 2020 and in the years to come. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

  • Rock the Vote – non – profit group’s infopage on each state’s absentee ballot voting rules.
  • Brennan Center for Justice – group statement on why COVID-19 should be accepted as an excuse to permit voters to vote by absentee ballot (with updates on individual states thus far in 2020).
  • Vote at Home – non – profit group’s webpage advocating for voters to have the option to vote at home and with a collection of vote at home documents and success stories.

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.

Unemployment Surges with Little Cause for Optimism

Unemployment Surges with Little Cause for Optimism

Policy:

The dramatic surge in unemployment in the April BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data comes with little surprise.  The current rate of 14.7% is the worst since the 1933 high of 25%.   Initial layoffs in areas of hospitality, leisure, transportation, and retail were followed by reverberations in supporting fields and in white collar occupations.  April saw the loss of 20.5 million jobs bringing the total to nearly 33.5 million jobs lost in the past seven weeks.  The current rate of unemployment is widely thought to be an underestimate due to its omission of discouraged workers—those no longer looking for work, estimated at 6.4 million—and those who were not counted for other reasons.  A person is not counted if s/he is working part time (estimated at 11 million up from 4 million before the pandemic) or working reduced hours and/or at reduced pay.  Additionally there is a category of workers who are not included in unemployment data and are not on sick leave or vacation but are absent for atypical reasons not specified.  This number is currently at 9 million though it normally averages about 1.5 million.

Not surprisingly, the repercussions have hit groups differentially with the hard hits among women, at 16.2% unemployment representing 11.9 million lost jobs compared to 10.4 million for men.  Male unemployment stands at 13.5%.    In contrast, the 2008 recession hit harder in construction and related occupations which had a disproportionate impact on men.  The pandemic has also reversed the gains  made in recent decades among minority workers.  Minority workers, African Americans and Latinos, have been hard hit with rates of unemployment at 16.7% and 18.9% respectively.  White unemployment is 14.2%.  Fears of these groups ability to regain the improved levels of employment are realistic since low wage workers are the ones who most often suffer the most dramatically when the economy contracts.

Analysis:

The alleged silver lining is that 78.3% of those affected report anticipating being temporarily out of a job and being rehired as the repercussions of the corona virus recede.  Is this optimism justified?  It is anyone’s guess but it is unlikely that all of these workers will have a business or job to go back to.  As the closing down of the economy persists, in spite of pockets of progress in some areas to resume “normal” business, there is reason to believe that the new “normal” will look different from the presumed norm.  Some small businesses will likely close for good while others are likely to open with diminished volume and workers.  Larger businesses, many of which are seeing white collar layoffs, stand a good chance of contracting in the future.  It is safe to say that no one can accurately predict what the future holds though some economists are estimating that the current unemployment rate, if it was to be most accurately accountable, is really at about 20%, moving closer to the 25% seen in the height of the depression in 1933.  It is also a good bet to say that local, state and federal budgets will constrict from a combination of spending to support the unemployed and Covid-19 related expenses coupled with a loss of revenue from reductions in income and spending.  One dramatic example can be seen in the state of California, considered the fifth largest economy in the world.   Governor Newsom had anticipated a surplus of 5.6 billion for the state budget of 2020-2021 and now the state budget office estimates predict a 54.3 billion deficit, with 3/4s of that impacting the new budget year starting in July. It is hard to say how the various levels of the government will respond to these deficits amid projections of protracted negative economic repercussions of the virus.  The best hope for a safe return for economic normalcy hinges on a vaccination which is likely at least a year or more in the future, at best.

Learn More

States Re-Open: Is It Wise

States Re-Open: Is It Wise

By Sean Gray

The Coronavirus Government Watch Post is a new U.S. RESIST NEWS blog post written by Sean Gray. The Post provides information and analysis of the federal government’s response to the coronavirus. Wherever possible we seek to be supportive as the coronavirus threatens the health and economic welfare of our nation, and we need government leadership to deal with the virus crisis.

By last Monday morning 31 states in the US had  reopened portions of their economy. Mass gatherings are still be prohibited wide and social distancing practices remain in effect for businesses. New cases have been down overall, though some states and cities  saw n uptick at the end of April. Partial reopening is welcome news to many across the country eager to leave their homes and draw weekly paychecks. Viruses spread with indifference to such considerations.

14 consecutive days  with reduced hospital admission was the recommended threshold for states to consider easing stay-at-home orders. No state has reached that mark. There is short term gain in the public’s mental well-being and pocketbooks by allowing them outside and back into restaurants, barbershops and the like. But with no state definitively on the other side of the curve, and so much unknown about the viruses the moves seems shortsighted and destined to backfire.

The worst of coronavirus could be behind the United States. Still over the weekend

46,000 news cases and 2300 deaths were reported. There  still have been over 1,000,000 active cases nationwide. Those numbers include only individuals tested for the virus, which to date remains insufficient. A Harvard Study conducted to determine guidelines on safely reopening society concluded that the US would need to be running 5 million tests a day by June and 20 million daily by July. 5.7 million test have been run, total, in the country. Admiral Brett Giroir, who heads the government’s testing response, said those numbers would be impossible to reach in the timeframe. He hopes to complete 8 million tests in May.

The available data offers encouragement in the fight against coronavirus, but is incomplete. There is light peering in from the other side, but America is hardly out of the woods. Easing stay-at-home orders now invites the worst results they were intended to avert.

Lost in the rush to reopen is the medical community’s fluid understanding of coronavirus. Initially it was thought to be primarily a disease of the lung. It is now evident that Covid-19 threatens nearly every other major organ system. New York City has seen a surge in patients between 30 and 50 suffering strokes that damage areas of the brain responsible for controlling speech and movement. The median age for major strokes is 74, but doctors at Mount Sinai Hospital have been treating Covid-positive stroke victims in alarming numbers. New evidence suggests the virus attacks the kidneys harshly. Roughly 50% of people hospitalized for Covid-19 have blood or protein in their urine, an early sign of kidney damage. In New York City and Wuhan province (birthplace of the outbreak) kidney failure is so prevalent that 15-30% of patients require dialysis. Heart arrhythmia and inflammation have been widely reported. According to Johns Hopkins, 1 in 5 people who test positive will have heart damage. Gastrointestinal symptoms, immune system issues and conjunctivitis have also proven common in Covid patients. The medical community’s understanding of coronavirus is still in its infancy. To approach business as usual with such a nebulous understanding is reckless and impetuous.

These risks have been considered and largely overlooked by governors in over 60% of the country. Tomorrow 31 states will have moved closer to resuming normal life. Georgia, one of the last places to issue a stay-at-home order opened the widest on May 1st. Dining, retail and recreational venues are now open to the public. Capacities have been reduced and social distancing guidelines remain in effect but the move’s risk/reward profile isn’t promising. Short-term economic gain is as likely as a resurgence of infections. Social distancing isn’t foolproof and inviting a stir crazy state to congregate for kicks puts them at risk even with masks and a proximity of no closer than six feet. Citizens have grown restless inside while infections have decreased. Letting people back outside eases the former at the expense of the latter.

Shuttering nonessential businesses and implementing social distancing was done with minimizing the loss of life and economic damage. Prematurely opening back up runs counter to that objective. History appears destined to repeat itself in this instance. Similar measures were put in effect across the US during the influenza pandemic of 1918. Many states lifted them after only a month. Their track records are universally abysmal. On October 18th, 1918 San Francisco closed ‘’all places of public amusement’’ and mandated face masks in public under threat of a $5 fine. Little over a month later the city buckled and allowed  residents to celebrate Allied victory in WWI. In early January ’19 the city saw 600 cases in one day and re-issued the mask ordinance. Comparable spikes occurred in St.Louis, Omaha and other cities which followed a similar course. 100 years ago the US’s population was about a third of its present total. The influenza pandemic also occurred before global and interstate commerce necessitated the unfettered movement of millions of people between states on a daily basis. In a smaller, more populous country, the governors move to reopen couldn’t contain the risks within their own borders.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has stated that a second wave of coronavirus seems inevitable. Given what we know and don’t reopening now is myopic and almost certain to backfire.

Federal guidelines on social distancing lapsed on April 30th and the states wre left to their own devices. Large swaths of Americans are or soon will be free to frequent nonessential businesses. The unemployment rolls will likely decline and the process of economic recovery may begin. But the risks are real and uncertain. In pursuing a ‘’new normal’’, many states may be pushing normalcy further off the horizon.

Learn More:

The dangers of America’s appetite for meat just multiplied

The dangers of America’s appetite for meat just multiplied

POLICY
Approximately 25% of all U.S. meat packing plants have been closed. The reason: COVID-19; over 4000 meat plant workers in 115 meatpacking plants have tested positive, more than 5000 have been hospitalized, and 20 have died. Meat processing is a highly consolidated industry: four companies—Cargill, JBS, National Beef, and Tyson—control more than 80% of the nation’s beef supply. These COVID outbreaks among plant workers are concentrated clusters. In a single Tyson plant in Indiana, 890 employees tested positive.

Similar numbers are reflected in processing plants located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and South Dakota. Some plants are voluntarily shutting down, while others have been ordered to cease operations, resulting in a significant supply chain disruption. As of April 27, Beef production was down nearly 25% year-over-year and pork production was down 15%. Tyson Foods, one of America’s biggest meat producers, warned in a full-page New York Times ad that the “food supply chain is breaking.”

According to the CDC, meat processing plants are deemed “critical infrastructure” and as such, asymptomatic workers at plants may be permitted to continue work even with the threat of exposure to COVID-19. They must wear protective gear. Deploying this same “critical infrastructure” rationale, President Donald Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act to mandate meatpacking plants stay open during the coronavirus epidemic. This is recognition that a meat supply shortage in the U.S. has political consequences.

A rung up on the supply chain, animal feedlots, have no place to ship their pigs, cattle, and chickens. Producers have started to “euthanize” animals in large numbers. For example, the state of Iowa processes about 50,000 pigs a day, and a significant number are slated to be “depopulated.”

There is anecdotal evidence that workers who do speak out about compromised safety are being threatened with job loss. Some managers have asked line workers to continue to work through mild symptoms. One Smithfield processing employee remarked, “If you’re not in a casket, they want you there.”

ANALYSIS
The Administration’s executive order underscores the political importance of meat in this country. There are economic ripples that reach major feed crops, rural bank loans, local property taxes, and even K-through-12 education funding. Glynn Tonsor, a professor at Kansas State University’s department of agricultural economics, thinks the problem will start to improve by June as meat processing plants find ways to operate in a COVID-19 world. On the other hand, longer-term employee illness could significantly slow down production for over a year, according to David Anderson, professor and extension economist in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University.

In the face of worker safety though, the Executive Order lacks teeth. Sick workers cannot be forced to show up to the plant. They cannot easily be replaced either; these are skilled jobs. The added federal COVID benefits on top of state unemployment insurance may also incentivize more workers to stay out longer. There is the harsh realities of the illness and threat of illness. Kim Cordova, president for workers at a JBS Meatpacking Plant in Greeley, Colorado, told The Washington Post that they are “treating workers like fungible widgets instead of human beings.”

The unions seem to be taking the middle ground by emphasizing the importance of America’s food supply as well as worker on-the-job safety, citing guidelines from the CDC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Yet the food supply is shrinking and some meats may increase in price more quickly than others. The production levels for pigs, for example, can be adjusted more efficiently than cattle because they get to production weight faster.

What is not given enough attention is the fact that the industry predominately employs immigrant minorities and people of color, the very same groups who are disproportionately dying of the virus.

Resistance Resources:

Photo by Charlie Solorzano

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