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
Supreme Court Likely Invoked Purcell Principle to Deny Expanded Access to Voting in Texas and Alabama

Supreme Court Likely Invoked Purcell Principle to Deny Expanded Access to Voting in Texas and Alabama

Policy Summary: Over the last few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders regarding voting rights, which could have an effect on the November 2020 election. On June 26, 2020 the Supreme Court issued their order in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott. The case started when the Texas Democratic party initiated a lawsuit to force Texas Governor Abbott and the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to permit all eligible Texas voters to vote by mail regardless of their age or physical condition. Because of COVID-19 Governor Abbott had postponed the July 2020 runoff elections and doubled the time period for early voting by personal appearance. However, Texas Democrats did not feel that this went far enough to protect citizens from voting during the worldwide pandemic. They brought suit to suspend current rules on mail – in voting and make the option available to every Texas citizen who wanted to vote by mail. The case went through the Texas judiciary system where the Texas Supreme Court ultimately stayed the preliminary injunction granted to the Texas Democratic Party pending the outcome of the case in federal district court where a connected proceeding was in progress. The federal district court again sided with the plaintiffs. The case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which ruled against the plaintiffs resulting in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order upholding the order issued against the plaintiff’s claims although the order did include a minimal one-line comment from Justice Sotomayor.

On July 2, 2020 the Supreme Court issued an order in Merril v. People First of Alabama. The case originated when a number of civil rights groups brought a lawsuit to help lift usual voting restrictions for voters who wanted to vote but had concerns about voting in person during the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon ruled that curbside voting would be permitted (where voters can drive up, receive a ballot, fill it out in their car and give it back to an election worker). And, he ruled that the rules in Alabama for absentee ballots requiring two witnesses to sign off would not be required. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which blocked Judge Kallon’s orders, ruling 5 – 4 along conservative lines. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: The orders issued by the Supreme Court are notable because of the legal issues they deal with and the near lack of explanation or legal analysis explaining the rationale for the decision. Both cases are voting rights cases during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and deal with whether or not voters in Texas and Alabama will be able to cast a ballot without having to put their health at risk. The options offered in Texas and Alabama were actually good options that were designed to let people vote safely while allowing the elections to be conducted efficiently. The Democratic Party in Texas sought to include every eligible voter who wanted to vote by mail. And Alabama was set to allow voters to vote in their cars without ever leaving their car and to do away with witness requirements for absentee ballots. But the Supreme Court did not let any of these temporary measures go into effect and simply issued an order without the usual long opinion to explain why.

But even if the Court did not lay out their reasoning the reason for the Court’s decision can likely be found in the Court’s voting rights opinion from Wisconsin that they issued this last May in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee and in a little known legal doctrine called the “Purcell Principle.” The basis of the Purcell Principle is simple – courts should not issue orders which change election rules in the close period of time before an election. In the Wisconsin case, the Court reasoned that changing the rules so close to election time might cause confusion for voters and might even be a reason for voters not to vote. There, the Court ruled that changing the rules to the absentee ballot rules would violate this principle but instead their ruling had the perverse effect of having a significant number of voters not have their absentee ballots counted. The situations in Texas and Alabama are nearly the same – voters are worried about being infected with COVID-19 and had an option to vote remotely and yet the Supreme Court nixed those efforts with unexplained orders. It seems highly likely the Court relied on the Purcell principle. Shouldn’t the Court have at least explained and put pen to paper the merits of the Purcell Principle and the rationale for relying on the Purcell Principle in a COVID-19 situation? The right to vote is one of the most cherished fundamental rights but with the issuance of these two orders the Court instead looks biased when the rule it relied on prevented thousands of people from voting and looks even worse when it failed to give a full explanation for blocking the efforts to help them vote. While the Supreme Court in the Wisconsin decision said that it wanted to prevent confusion among voters its efforts here have instead caused more unnecessary confusion. The states still have a chance to make the necessary changes to the absentee voting rules before November and hopefully Texas and Alabama can make things right and expand access to the ballot box for their state’s most vulnerable voters. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Resistance  Resources:

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

Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling in Abortion Rights

Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling in Abortion Rights

The Policy

The Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have closed all but a single abortion clinic in the state. The 5-4 decision of June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo annulled an anti-abortion law limiting admitting privileges. Under this law, doctors who performed abortions were no longer permitted to have admitting privileges for nearby hospitals. At minimum, two of the three abortion clinics in the state would be forced to close, requiring women to drive farther and wait longer for the single doctor that would be left to meet the demand of 10,000 abortions women in Louisiana seek each year.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the nearly identical 2016 case out of Texas set a precedent for the outcome of June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo. This case also centered on doctors performing abortions not being allowed admitting practices at surrounding hospitals. While the prior rule was made with a ruling of 5-3, in the months after the death of Justice Antonio Scalia, the same conditions were found in and ultimately applied to June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, resulting in the same outcome despite the current make up of the court. After this decision, Louisiana’s three remaining abortion clinics are permitted to stay open.

Analysis:

While some find this to be a shock, given the conservative-leaning majority of the court, others call this case “Supreme Court 101” saying that it was nearly a no-brainer, citing the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling where states cannot place an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion. Consequently, a law like this in Louisiana, that places a significant undue burden on a woman’s ability to have an abortion, would be easily struck down.

From fetal heartbeat bills, to the ectopic pregnancy bill, cases directly targeting a women’s right to abortion access have been making headlines in recent months. With the appointment of conservative justices by Trump, many anti-abortionists see this as an opportunity to take a case and challenge Roe v. Wade. While this law does not upend Roe v. Wade, it is part of a broader strategy of implementing restrictive state laws, that when put together, threaten overall access and the validity of the monumental 1973 case.

The deciding member of the Court was Chief Justice Roberts, who joined the liberal wing and upended the Louisiana law. Conservatives were quick to condemn both the ruling and Chief Justice Roberts, notably, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany were against the ruling.

Striking down this law increases access to abortions in the state of Louisiana, specifically for two marginalized demographics, those who have a lower income and women of color. About 8,000 abortions were performed in Louisiana in 2018, according to state statistics and more than two-thirds of abortion patients there are women of color. Limiting access will do exactly what the Court vowed to prevent, placing undue burden on women’s access to abortion care.

Engagement Resources:

The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) Examined

The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) Examined

July 8, 2020

 Summary:

Touted by supporters as the new NAFTA 2.0, one of the major tenets underlying the Trump Administration’s foreign policy platform was recently put into practice.  On July 1, the USMCA (United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement) officially replaced NAFTA as the economic blueprint to regional trade.  For the past 3 years, the Trump Administration has been revising and modifying specifications of the free trade policy that has governed the rules of North American cross-border commerce.

The administration has repeatedly attacked previously negotiated free trade agreements, characterizing them as one-sided trade deals that weakened America’s competitiveness in the global market.  NAFTA was no exception to presidential criticism. In the past, the president has threatened to punish American manufacturers who sought to utilize supply chains south of the border, by subjecting them to tariffs on domestic re-entry, even when U.S. businesses have been able to lower costs, raise profits, and increase market capitalization.

Briefly, some of the elements of USMCA incorporated as part of the revision were higher degrees of protection for the automotive industry through more stringent rules of origin.  Auto manufacturers must ensure that 75% of the components used in the production of passenger vehicles come from North America, up from 62.5% under the original NAFTA terms.  If producers fail to comply, automobiles in production will be subject to duties and tariffs each time automotive content is exchanged from country to country.  The lifecycle of the automotive manufacturing process requires extensive cross-border mechanical flow of parts and commercial testing, exposing producers in the region to inflated costs.  Besides meeting a quota on automotive contents, the USMCA requires that 70% of the steel and aluminum used in production must originate from either Mexico, Canada, or the U.S.  Moreover, labor initiatives ensure that nearly 45% of content must be produced by regional workers, earning a minimum of $16 per hour.  Although other general labor, environmental, and intellectual property provisions were administered through USMCA, the basis of the Trump trade policy has been built on a foundation dominated by the tenets of mercantilism, targeting a host of actors ranging from domestic industries to global trading partners.

Analysis:

President Trump has repeatedly used false narratives and misguided nationalism as the “smoke and mirrors” to justify his protectionist agenda. Nothing has been politicized more and understood less than the benefits of foreign trade.  The Trump administration has cultivated the notion that trade policy has been negotiated from a position of weakness, to which Americans have long shouldered the cost, citing the overall trade deficit as proof of his claims.

The problem with this assertion is that it’s rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the global economy operates.  While it is certainly true that the U.S. runs a persistent trade deficit with most of its trading partners, the balance of trade is an inconsequential metric in determining success in the global market.  The gains to trade are not governed by the ability to run a positive balance of trade, but rather by the capacity to increase overall standards of living.  In fact, the trade deficit is only a portion of the total effect of international commerce and is reciprocated and financed by a capital surplus.  Dollars spent abroad on imports always come to return as capital investment, maintaining the constant flow of jobs and economic growth.  However, because the Trump administration has politicized the trade deficit as a means of imposing protectionist policies, the president has used this as justification to shield some of the biggest companies on the planet from foreign competition, all at the expense of taxpayers.  Truth is, the trade deficit is no more a symptom of economic failure than the trade surplus is of economic success.

On the contrary, the way to make American businesses more competitive is not through protecting them from foreign competition, but rather encouraging them to use the most efficient factors of production, whether its supply chains in Mexico or factories abroad.  More than half of the products imported from countries like Mexico and Canada are raw materials used by manufacturers in the downstream value-added sectors of the economy.  Allowing producers to operate in an open market ensures they will be able to lower cost, boost economic growth, and create economies of scale.  When small businesses can be the benefactors of an open market, rather than one restrained by tariffs, quotas, and subsidization, they are able to maximize profit and re-invest back in the U.S. economy, thus creating long-term sustainable employment.

A successful trade relationship should seek to promote mutual interests, where the benefits of one nation don’t undermine that of another.  The global landscape has transitioned since the times of the Cold War.  No longer does the international community reward power and conflict but rather peace and cooperation.  Countries who have integrated economic interests have a greater propensity to cooperate in achieving prosperity.

With that said, approximately a year ago, the Trump Administration publicly declared political victory after the U.S. forced Mexico to capitulate to initiatives set forth by the president in an attempt to get the Mexican government to reduce the effects of illegal immigration.  This so-called agreement was bound by the threat of billions of dollars of tariffs the U.S. promised to impose on Latin American imports in the absence of Mexico’s cooperation. The problem with this arrangement is that if Mexico fails to meet its objectives, the president will ultimately unleash the punitive effects of this mutual destructive scheme that would not only harm regional economic growth but would also exacerbate the effects of illegal immigration.

Rather than seeking a policy that would induce such austere effects for both Latin America and the U.S., the president should seek to promote incentives necessary to make both nations better off.  Policies that foster multilateral success would discourage citizens from leaving home in search of economic prosperity.  Granting U.S. market access would enable trading partners to boost earnings.  When America’s trading partners prosper and earn more, they can, in turn, buy more from American producers, which would ensure the U.S. remains competitive in the global market. The success of American exporters will always be contingent on whether foreigners have the financial necessities to acquire U.S. products.  Therefore, when the president seeks to punish our trading partners, he ultimately punishes Americans as well.

Ultimately, as long as the Trump Administration continues to deviate from the traditions that have promoted international security and global prosperity, neither the U.S, Mexico, nor Canada will be the benefactors of the potential windfall that the productive forces of unrestricted free trade can potentially unleash for North America.

Resistance Resources:

  • Center for Strategic & International Studies – [https://www.csis.org/topics/economics/trade-and-international-business] – is a non-partisan U.S. think tank that provides analysis of the climate, global trends, and risks in the global commercial environment.  They consult on policy issues ranging from   international trade, governance, competitiveness, and international economic development.
  • Cato Institute – [https://www.cato.org/research/trade-policy] – is a public policy research organization dedicated to the principles of freedom, free-markets, and peace.  Through publishing policy proposals, blogs, web features, op‐​eds and TV appearances, Cato has worked vigorously to present citizens with incisive and understandable analysis.
  • Mercatus Center – [https://www.mercatus.org/tags/trade-and-immigration] – is a university-based research center bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems. Their mission is to generate knowledge and understanding of the institutions that affect the freedom to prosper and live peaceful lives.
The Crisis in Worker Wages

The Crisis in Worker Wages

July 8, 2020

Policy

Fair wages, universal healthcare, paid parental leave, paid sick leave, paid annual leave.  These should be the minimal components of employment.  It is not rocket science. These things are attainable and would help both the employer and the employee.

A much quoted study, several years ago, showed that 40% of people in the US could not readily cover a $400 emergency expense.  Americans are strapped for cash.  Is the economy bad?  Prior to the Covid-19 virus, the economy was thriving in the sense that corporations were turning high profits and paying little corporate tax while providing a very low minimum wage to their workers.  Most workers’ wages were falling and/or stagnant when controlling for inflation.  Increasingly, American workers were not participating in the elevated profits and productivity of the American economy.

In terms of wages, it has been shown that many low wage workers were depending on government subsidies for healthcare and/or food while their employers lined their pockets.  The current stimulus, adopted to support the laid off workers, contains weekly payments of $600 provided by the federal government through July.  This can be added to the state payments the worker is receiving, which vary by state but are less than the full wages.  A recent NY Times article showed that for some workers this resulted in an average hourly wage of $21, more money than the $12 many workers averaged.  Fully 68% of those receiving unemployment benefits were making more than they did when they were working.

Analysis

The article’s authors point out that states mandate that a recipient of unemployment benefits must take a job offered that is comparable to their former job even if they will get less income than they are getting while unemployed.  The authors suggest the recipients should be able to turn down such jobs in favor of finding one equal to their unemployment payments.  They suggest this could result in workers negotiating for higher wages rather than the recent data which shows that wages for returning workers are decreasing.  They further suggest that the federal government make up the gap between a job’s wages and a $21 an hour wage representing a fair wage guarantee.  This would be one tactic to take.  Other suggestions would see the employer paying a fairer wage, at its own expense, and research shows this could be done without a dramatic decline in profit.  Only a very few small businesses would have to cut employees, or reduce hours, if the minimum wage was increased.  An additional source of revenue for  workers could come from a subsidy achieved by raising corporate taxes which currently are at all-time low.  Finally, unionization significantly aids the well-being of employees and it stands at an all-time low.  The current rate is 6.2% in the private sphere and 33.6% in the public sector.  The corona virus has driven the country to the edge of indecency with its meager wages and poor or nonexistent benefits.  To create greater economic equity, as well as quality of life,  politicians must address the deterioration of the measures which provide for the public good.  A thriving working and middle class is widely held to be beneficial for consumers and corporations and yet the nation is moving further from this reality.  Home ownership is good for business and is also on the decline, particularly among discriminated groups.  Creating a working  middle class which is economically viable is imperative to secure a thriving economy benefitting the increasing part of the population which lives on the edge.  Many economists, social scientists, and progressive writers support this view.  In addition, such job “benefits” as universal healthcare, paid parental and sick leave, annual leave, daycare subsidies, and tax relief must be made workers’ rights.  It seems only “fair.”

Learn More

Resistance Resources

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

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

By Rod Maggay

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engagement Resources:

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

The Crisis in Worker Wages

The Crisis in Worker Wages

Policy

Fair wages, universal healthcare, paid parental leave, paid sick leave, paid annual leave.  These should be the minimal components of employment.  It is not rocket science. These things are attainable and would help both the employer and the employee.

A much quoted study, several years ago, showed that 40% of people in the US could not readily cover a $400 emergency expense.  Americans are strapped for cash.  Is the economy bad?  Prior to the Covid-19 virus, the economy was thriving in the sense that corporations were turning high profits and paying little corporate tax while providing a very low minimum wage to their workers.  Most workers’ wages were falling and/or stagnant when controlling for inflation.  Increasingly, American workers were not participating in the elevated profits and productivity of the American economy.

In terms of wages, it has been shown that many low wage workers were depending on government subsidies for healthcare and/or food while their employers lined their pockets.  The current stimulus, adopted to support the laid off workers, contains weekly payments of $600 provided by the federal government through July.  This can be added to the state payments the worker is receiving, which vary by state but are less than the full wages.  A recent NY Times article showed that for some workers this resulted in an average hourly wage of $21, more money than the $12 many workers averaged.  Fully 68% of those receiving unemployment benefits were making more than they did when they were working.

Analysis

The article’s authors point out that states mandate that a recipient of unemployment benefits must take a job offered that is comparable to their former job even if they will get less income than they are getting while unemployed.  The authors suggest the recipients should be able to turn down such jobs in favor of finding one equal to their unemployment payments.  They suggest this could result in workers negotiating for higher wages rather than the recent data which shows that wages for returning workers are decreasing.  They further suggest that the federal government make up the gap between a job’s wages and a $21 an hour wage representing a fair wage guarantee.  This would be one tactic to take.  Other suggestions would see the employer paying a fairer wage, at its own expense, and research shows this could be done without a dramatic decline in profit.  Only a very few small businesses would have to cut employees, or reduce hours, if the minimum wage was increased.  An additional source of revenue for  workers could come from a subsidy achieved by raising corporate taxes which currently are at all-time low.  Finally, unionization significantly aids the well-being of employees and it stands at an all-time low.  The current rate is 6.2% in the private sphere and 33.6% in the public sector.  The corona virus has driven the country to the edge of indecency with its meager wages and poor or nonexistent benefits.  To create greater economic equity, as well as quality of life,  politicians must address the deterioration of the measures which provide for the public good.  A thriving working and middle class is widely held to be beneficial for consumers and corporations and yet the nation is moving further from this reality.  Home ownership is good for business and is also on the decline, particularly among discriminated groups.  Creating a working  middle class which is economically viable is imperative to secure a thriving economy benefitting the increasing part of the population which lives on the edge.  Many economists, social scientists, and progressive writers support this view.  In addition, such job “benefits” as universal healthcare, paid parental and sick leave, annual leave, daycare subsidies, and tax relief must be made workers’ rights.  It seems only “fair.”

Learn More

Resistance Resources

Trump Administration to Send Home International Students

Trump Administration to Send Home International Students

Policy Summary

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

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

Analysis

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

Engagement Resources

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

The Corruption of William Barr Part 1

July 6,2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resistance Resource

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

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

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

July 6, 2020

Summary

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

The Trump Administration’s Cynical Decision to Restart Federal Executions

The Trump Administration’s Cynical Decision to Restart Federal Executions

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resistance Resources:

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