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
Latine Life, An Often Overlooked but Important Minority

Latine Life, An Often Overlooked but Important Minority

Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
June 30, 2020

Summary
The Latine population will comprise the largest group of nonwhite, non Hispanic voters in the 2020 election at 13% of eligible voters, up from 9% in 2008.  Thirty two million Latine voted in the 2018 election.  At 18% of the population, they are the fastest growing demographic in the US.  Sixty percent have Mexican origins. Two thirds of the group is native born.  About half of the group lives in CA, NM, and Texas with significant populations also found in NY, Arizona, and Florida.

Many myths regarding Latine persist, in the media, and sometimes the group is ignored in articles about discrimination which consistently focus on African-Americans.   Recent protests against police brutality and systemic violence against African Americans have been heavily supported by Latine who also suffer disproportionate attention from law enforcement.   Seventy eight percent of Latinos report feeling discrimination from police.  They are more likely to be stopped by police than white drivers with less basis for the stop while white motorists are more likely to be found with illegal articles and less likely to be stopped.  National data is virtually non-existent but recent articles highlight deaths in Arizona and the Bay area inflicted against young Latinos.  In the Bay area, two young men Erik Salgado (23) and Sean Monterrosa (22) were killed in June by CHP and Vallejo police respectively, and each for suspected minor property crimes.  Neither was armed.  In CA LatinX are 39% of the population and 46% of deadly shootings.  The April death of Carlos Ingram López in Tuscon has belatedly led to the resignation of the officers involved and an investigation into the incident. Articles regarding LatinX protests make the point that they support The Black Lives Matter movement while suggesting that Brown lives are also in peril.

In recent years the US high school graduation rate has met a new high but it is not equivalent across groups.  In 2017, the overall rate was 85%, with 81% Hispanic and 89% White graduating.  Disparities in college graduation are larger with just 15% of Latinos having bachelor’s degrees compared to 41% white (in 2014).   College enrollment data reveals less disparity with 35% Latino enrolled compared to 42% white.  Nearly one half of LatinX college students are enrolled in two year pubic colleges which has contributed to a significantly lower rate of student debt in head of households who are under 40 years old (22% and 42% respectively).  Attendance in college has doubled in the past two decades.

In the era of the Covid 19 epidemic, LatinX households are highly impacted with 49% reporting they, or someone in their household, has either lost a job or suffered a pay cut compared to 33% of the general population.  Eight million Hispanics work in the restaurant, hotel, and other service sector jobs hard hit by closures and layoffs.  They are almost twice as likely to test positive for the virus than their portion of the population would predict. Latine income averages 74 cents to the white dollar; the figure for Latinas compared to white males is most dramatic at 54 cents.  Latine are 1.7 times more likely than Whites to live in poverty and their households have an average of 1/8th the wealth of white households.  Head of households with college degrees average twice the income of those without a degree and four times the wealth.

Analysis
Latine often are compared to African Americans, in the media, rather than being considered as a discriminated group in their own right.  It is recently that racism has been viewed as more than a Black and white issue. A lot of anti-immigration sentiment is aimed at the LatinX population even though they are not the largest group currently immigrating to the US (that is Asians).  The portion of Hispanics who are foreign born is smaller than those who are native born.  Yet the stereotypes and condemnation of the group proceeds despite the fact that in many measures the group fares better than other groups; less suicide, substance abuse, crimes than other groups and greater longevity than whites in spite of many measures of discrimination suffered by group members.  Recent anti-immigration sentiment has led to less immigration and some Latine choosing to leave the country.  Bills such as SB4 in Texas create an intimidating environment with increased questioning regarding citizenship of suspected Latinx individuals even with no legitimate cause for the stops or for minor traffic offenses.  The Trump administration has gone all out on states and municipalities pledging sanctuary status and refusing to comply with government efforts to promote deportation.  So far the courts have mostly supported the sanctuary efforts.  Acknowledgement of the essential roles the Latine population play today, and throughout history, in the fight for civil rights is yet another area which is sorely lacking in the education curricula and in the culture at large.

Learn More

Reistance Resources

Trump Administration to Freeze Immigrant Work Visas Through Remainder of 2020

Trump Administration to Freeze Immigrant Work Visas Through Remainder of 2020

Policy Summary

Earlier this week, the Trump Administration announced they would place a pause on Green Cards and most categories of work visas through the remainder of 2020. Through an Executive Order, President Trump will temporarily freeze H-1B visas – which includes several visas for non-immigrant workers in specialty occupations and their dependents – for highly skilled workers. Even foreign medical workers will not be granted a work visa unless they are specifically working on COVID-19 research and/or care. These restrictions would exempt food-service workers and immigrants already living and working in the US.

The Trump Administration boasts the action of this Executive Order would allow Americans to obtain the 525,000 jobs taken by foreign workers over the course of the year. They have argued this tactic is necessary, especially amidst a historic period of American unemployment as a result of COVID-19 lockdown. The technology, landscaping, and forestry sector will be particularly affected by this Executive Order.

The Trump Administration has not yet made any remarks about how asylum seekers will financially support themselves while awaiting a court decision. With the changes surrounding work visas, it is probable that migrants and asylum seekers would not necessarily be deterred but rather forced to make money illegally or to support themselves while awaiting a decision or provide “free” labor and receive a slighted compensation. Many Republicans have considered this a victory for the “immigration hawks” in the White House.

Analysis

The H-1B visas have been an effective mechanism for supporting the US economy. Many brilliant scientists, technology specialists, medical researchers, and others come to the US on H-1B visas and contribute expertise in their field while working in the US. Though President The US economy is facing a severe recession and high unemployment rates. Drastically cutting the flow of immigrant expertise  may not be the best answer to this crisis. Doing so operates on the assumption that all immigrants are taking “American jobs” rather than acknowledging the reality behind America’s historic economic success and the role immigrants and foreign workers play – whether it is in low-skilled or extremely specialized jobs. Such an Executive Order only furthers the xenophobic Trump agenda and hinders  the socioeconomic and political contributions immigrants can and have made to the US.

Resistance  Resources

  • The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
  • Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
  • 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
Capitalism Butts Up Against US Core Values in the Global Economy

Capitalism Butts Up Against US Core Values in the Global Economy

Policy Summary:

             Earlier this month, the surging video communications company Zoom joined the growing ranks of enterprises that have made concessions to or followed Chinese directives on content, censorship, and other aspects of company policy. On the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, several activist groups that had organized meetings over Zoom had their accounts suspended and later reinstated following public backlash in the West, with Zoom attempting to strike some semblance of compromise by promising to develop applications for the control of accounts based upon geographical location. As many companies have already discovered, the tantalizing consumer base in China comes packaged with strings, and these strings are often at odds with Western conceptions of free speech in the capitalist market.

The past and current year have been full of such clashes between the demands of the CCP party line and the expectations of Western consumers for their beloved corporate powers to champion the all-American values of democracy and free speech. The General Manager of the Houston Rockets made a now notorious tweet expressing support for the pro-democracy Hong Kong protests, which was met by a statement of condemnation from China and an apologist statement by the NBA that would later be walked-back following public outcry. In a similar episode, Activision Blizzard banned an e-sports player from official events for a year in response to said player voicing support for Hong Kong autonomy during a live-streamed interview, along with firing the two casters conducting the interview. Once again, Blizzard walked back the severity of the punishment following Western public backlash, reducing the bans on both the casters and the player to six months.

Looking at the NBA, Blizzard, and Zoom as case studies in this emerging phenomenon, one notices immediate parallels. All of these companies have significant and growing consumer bases in China. 10% of total NBA profits are currently generated in China, with this being projected to only increase to 30% in the years to come. In 2019, Blizzard made almost $100 million in revenue in China. Zoom has regularly listed China as one of its top markets and around 30% of its workforce is based in the country. All three of these companies, and all companies within the international market for that matter, have a lot to lose if they resist the demands of the CCP.

Analysis:

If I may be blunt and let a bit of my more radical, liberal-arts background peek through, what Western audiences are confronting with such consternation is the purpose, and by extension the inevitable limits, of the capitalist market that they so strongly cling to. The purpose of an enterprise within capitalism is the generation of profit. It is not to respect free speech, freedom of assembly, or what have you. If these concepts and their support increases one’s revenue, praise be! A corporation, a company, a capitalist entity within the market is meant to make money. Everything else is secondary. Therefore, if (in a wholly hypothetical situation of course) an authoritative regime demands certain concessions in order to allow a company access to a demanding consumer population, it is by all the best logic of capitalism that a company does so.

However, this linear thinking of capitalism does not account for the issue of world systems. The U.S. is and continues to be the greatest consumer market in the world. China, despite its formidable capacity, will not surpass it for at least a few decades by most accounts. Companies within the world market must therefore contend with the competing giants of the dominant American-led, Western market demands and the growing CCP-controlled market demands. In the West, enterprises are expected to uphold and respect the tenets of democracy, free speech, etc. In China, the CCP expects enterprises to censor certain topics, encourage public stability, and maintain a relatively positive image of the party. These two systems do not play nice with each other for obvious reasons. I feel almost sorry for Zoom and the others. How is one to make money off both?

American and Western audiences expect their businesses to preach and support democratic values. Capitalism and the American identity have become so intertwined by our nation’s very founding by the Virginia Company, the fight against communism, and much more that we forget that capitalism does not care about our identity. Sure, the people within a company might, but capitalism cares about growth and profit. Politics, ethics, and what have you only becomes of interest when it impinges upon them. And at the moment, it does not appear that CCP demands have in any way stifled their economy. State-led capitalism has in fact seemed to have ushered in an extremely long-winded period of unrivaled growth and expansion within China.

I see three options for companies in the current world market. One, they can continue on their current course of stumbling between the CCP and the West, giving out and redacting apologies and condemnations depending on which system pushes harder. Two, they can choose to operate solely within the Western or Chinese market system. This eliminates any possible tension because due to the following of only one ruleset but brings with it the cost of losing out on a formidable consumer base. Or three, they can go the road of Zoom. This would most probably look like the provision of tools for CCP censorship use and control, the isolation of U.S. consumer information from Chinese sources, and the donning of a public image of walking an incredibly fine line.

I also see two options for Western, and particularly America, consumers. One, we can accept that companies will pursue profit and that this is simply the natural outcome of our market system. This would involve the surrendering of the notion that businesses based or founded in the U.S. should pursue our values in all areas of operation. Or two, we can demand that companies operating or founded in the U.S. enforce and support the propagation of American ideals. This would most probably involve boycotting companies that fail to do so, public action, policy from the government, and substantial growing pains as the companies in question choose sides. However, I would argue that both options must include some degree of disassociation of capitalism from the American identity. We must realize that although capitalism may have been integral in the formation of the U.S., it is not ours to claim sole ownership of. It has only been stained with our values within our system. Its core has not changed to fit free speech or other notions within it. One may only look to corporate lawsuits against negative journalism and whistleblowers as proof. The sooner we recognize this crucial fact, the sooner we will come to understand the plight of companies caught between Washington and Beijing.

The Potential Benefits of a Guaranteed Minimum Income

The Potential Benefits of a Guaranteed Minimum Income

Policy

The idea of a minimum guaranteed income (MGI) dates back to Thomas  Paine and the 18th century and has been promoted by such diverse people as Martin Luther King, Jr, President Nixon, economist Milton Friedman, and recent presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Nancy Pelosi has suggested that such a program should exist, at least till the end of the current pandemic, and two thirds of the House Democratic Caucus agrees.  The idea of the payment, also called a Basic Income Grant, is that all Americans should achieve a certain level of financial stability and it proposes monthly payments to individuals and families could accomplish this.  The manner in which the program would be run has been the subject of serious debate.  Some proponents want a payment to all Americans with a tax structure in which the payment would be paid back to the government if a certain income level was attained.  Others suggest that it should be income qualified;  some suggesting it should only be paid to those under the poverty line while others suggest it can be a subsidy to people or families earning considerably more (100,000 for individuals and higher for families).

Supporters of the MGI suggest that it would have multiple benefits:  It eliminates extreme poverty; reduces government bureaucracy; subsidizes wages so that people can do work they want, regardless of the wages; it can help young couples start a family; pay for persons caretaking relatives; increase mental health by reducing stress; improve the economy by stabilizing it, especially in times of contraction; increase high school graduation; and compensate for jobs lost to automation (the single largest threat to jobs).  Opponents object saying that it is a disincentive to work; is a “handout” to the poor; will cause inflation; will not eliminate poverty; and could provide payments to all draining funds from the poor.  So far, in places where such programs have been tried, no negative effects have been reported.

Analysis

Finland instituted monthly payments to 2000 randomly selected persons, 25-58 years of age, in 2017-18; no one was allowed to opt out.  Payments were not means tested and there were no conditions imposed. In comparison to a large control group, the group receiving the payments worked more days than the control group and reported better financial security, mental health, and cognitive function.  Employment increased for families with children and for non-Finnish speakers.

In 2013 Switzerland had an unconditional basic income in its election and it was not supported, people feared negative outcomes.  In the 1970s a village in Canada instituted a GMI and positive impacts were reported.  Families received the equivalent of $16,000. Some of the grant was lost with wages but not dollar for dollar. Village families increased their long term savings; teenage boys stayed in school (instead of working to augment family income); women took longer maternity leaves; overall well-being improved with less hospitalizations, especially for mental health; small businesses were improved upon; children saw dentists; and more flexibility in work and caring for family was reported.

Some cities such as Stockton and Santa Monica CA have experimented with GMI and some Silicon valley philanthropists are promoting the idea, particularly as  a response to the increases in unemployment due to automation.

Stockton is a city with a diverse population and an average household income of about $46,000.  Participants in the GMI were drawn randomly from volunteers whose household income was under the city’s average.  No one spent money on frivolous purchases.  Money was used for emergences like car repairs and healthcare; 40% went to food, 25% to sales and merchandise, 12% to utilities.  The study was accomplished eight months into the 18 months of the project.  No research has yet been published on the whole experiment.

The recent crisis in the economy instigated by the corona virus not only has brought discussion of the GMI to the forefront, it has caused the illumination of the many areas of inequality in the US from housing, to healthcare, to income, to access to emergency resources.   There is some reason to be optimistic that a Democratic president will attend to these disparities.

Learn More

Resistance Resources

A Look At Tight House Races in Georgia’s 6th and Pennsylvania’s 10th Districts

A Look At Tight House Races in Georgia’s 6th and Pennsylvania’s 10th Districts

By William Bourque

In American elections, the swing state reigns supreme.  Now, more than ever,  voters in swing states decide the course of American democracy more than any other.  Here at U.S. Resist News, we have been looking at some of the closest house races across the nation.  This week, I will focus on house races in the swing states of Georgia and Pennsylvania.  Both of them have key implications in the race for President, as well as for control of the house.

Starting off in Georgia’s 6th district with incumbent Lucy McBath, a tightly contested race is expected.  She faces Karen Handel, who is the former representative for the district who McBath beat in 2018 by a margin of about 4000 votes.  This district is one that historically leans republican, which can be backed by 2016 presidential results.  Trump won GA-06 by 1.5 points, a close margin in comparison to 2012, where Romney beat Obama by a whopping 23.5 points.  McBath is the first democrat to represent the new 6th district, which was redrawn in the early 1990’s and includes the city of Roswell and many northern suburbs of Atlanta.  Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich hails from Georgia’s 6th, which shows just how much of a stronghold it was for the right.  McBath has campaigned on being a strong advocate for gun control, as she lost her own son to gun violence in 2012.  She has also promised to continue to fight for affordable healthcare for all Americans.  McBath faces a difficult test ahead, but the two-time cancer survivor is no stranger to challenges, which she plans to face head-on.

Pennsylvania’s recently redrawn 10th district, which includes Harrisburg, may be one of several districts in the state to have a red seat turn blue.  In 2018, The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s redrawn congressional districts, leading to some upheaval and discontent from state republicans.  The incumbent is republican Scott Perry, who won a close contest in the first-ever race in the newly drawn district.  Perry faces former Auditor General of Pennsylvania Eugene DePasquale, who has a history of winning close races in the state.  A recent poll from FiveThirtyEight has Perry with a three point advantage.  It is interesting to note that Vice President Biden holds a slight lead over President Trump in the district, in poll done by GBAO, an organization from Washington D.C. Depasquale’s campaign is running on his strength as Auditor General and his experience in the Pennsylvania Legislature, where he served for 5 years.  Perry has shown himself to be an avid follower of President Trump, voting with hum 95.8% in this congressional session, according to FiveThirtyEight.  Depasquale has to lean on his  base of democrats who supported him in the race for Auditor General, as well as those republicans who can’t support their President any longer.  The race is bound to be close, and we will continue to cover it at USResist News

Supreme Court Issues Landmark LGBTQ Decision But Leaves Other Issues For Future Cases

Supreme Court Issues Landmark LGBTQ Decision But Leaves Other Issues For Future Cases

Policy Summary: On June 15, 2020 the United States Supreme Court handed down the decision Bostock v. Clayton County. The case consolidated a number of cases because of a similarity of fact patterns and issue at the heart of each case. In Bostock, a county employee was fired for “conduct unbecoming” when the county discovered that the plaintiff had joined a gay recreational softball league. In Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, Donald Zarda was fired by his employer after they discovered that he was gay. And in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Aimee Stephens initially presented herself as a male to the funeral home when she interviewed for the job but after she was hired she informed her employer that she intended to live and work as a woman. She was subsequently fired. In each case the fired employee brought a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging discrimination based on sex in the appropriate federal district court with each eventually finding their way to a separate circuit court of appeals. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the employer was justified in firing Gerald Bostock. However, the Second Circuit in Mr. Zarda’s case and the Sixth Circuit in Ms. Stephens’s case both ruled that that each had a claim to sex discrimination under Title VII and allowed their cases to proceed. The cases were then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In a 6 – 3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: The decision in the Bostock case is seen as a landmark ruling for LGBTQ rights but there are other issues lurking in the decision that needs to be monitored in case there is an attempt to water down the decision or significantly alter its effect in the future.

First, the case was considered a surprise because of the current makeup of the court. Justices’ Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two recent appointees by President Trump, are considered conservative jurists and their appointments shifted the balance of the court and gave the court a solid five vote conservative majority.

So while the LGBTQ community is celebrating the decision, it is important to note that this case was more about rules of statutory construction (meaning of the phrase “because of sex) rather than a vindication of LGBQT rights based on constitutional principles. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion tries to take an “ordinary meaning” approach and finds “because of sex” based on biological distinctions between male and female and how “because of” is used in other statutes without the word “sex.” Justice Alito’s dissent wanted to interpret the term “sex” as it meant when the statute was passed in 1964. But Justice Kavanaugh had the most interesting argument in his dissent because he found Justice Gorsuch’s analysis based on a “literal meaning” of the phrase instead of an “ordinary meaning” of the phrase which can elicit more than one meaning especially when applied to the word “sex.” It may be confusing but the point is that the Supreme Court as now composed came to this celebrated decision by accident through tedious wordplay rather than out of any genuine concern for the LGBQT community. 

In the future, possible amendments to Title VII could conceivably change the law and another Supreme Court case could with one case severely curtail many of the constitutional rights that the LGBQT community has come to rely on. A number of justices have expressed skepticism over the “right to privacy” and 14th Amendment “fundamental rights” which were used to decide the landmark LGBQT cases Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. There is still a hostility in the Supreme Court towards LGBQT as a fundamental right under the Constitution that should give activists pause that the court will always be receptive to upholding LGBQT rights, the Bostock decision last week notwithstanding. With the right case, the Supreme Court could easily take the opposite position.

Finally, the decision did not specifically address and simply passed over the issue of how LGBQT rights and religious liberty will co – exist under the law. This has been a thorny issue as many religious persons and communities have been relying on their freedom of religion as a way to deny LGBQT persons from participating in American society. In the wake of the Bostock decision, a number of religious leaders expressed concern over the Supreme Court decision and voiced worries about now being exposed to lawsuits because of their hiring practices that are based on their religious beliefs. It is entirely conceivable that the Court could protect LGBQT rights today but side with religious advocates against LGBQT persons tomorrow. Advocates for LGBQT rights have won a victory but there are still many issues at play that could be dealt with by Congress and the Supreme Court in the near future that could still go in any number of directions – both good and bad. 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.

Police Reform Bills Stalled in Congress, Highlights Partisan Paralysis

Police Reform Bills Stalled in Congress, Highlights Partisan Paralysis

Despite broad swaths of Americans protesting in the streets, attempts to pass a police overhaul bill stalled in Congress last week. Both the GOP and Democrats introduced police reform bills, but neither survived the partisan divide, making it unlikely that Congress will take any action toward police reform before the November elections.

Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle support major reforms to policing, it may seem surprising that Congress couldn’t find enough common ground enough to pass a bill. After all, there were some commonalities in the GOP and Democratic bills, including measures to restrict the use of chokeholds, increase transparency through the use of a national database of use-of-force incidents, and strengthen the required use of body cameras.

The differences between the bills lay in the strength of the measures proposed (offering incentives versus imposing federal mandates) and, most significantly, the attempts by Democrats to peel back qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity, which is often cited by activists and civil rights groups as key to the lack of accountability in police departments, prevents police officers from being sued by victims and their families. This is important because civil suits are often the only recourse for victims of police violence, as prosecutors are resistant to pursuing criminal charges against police officers. The result is the shocking abuse of police power that has become all too common in the United States.

Currently, prosecutors must prove that an officer “willfully” violated an individual’s constitutional rights, while the Democratic bill lowers that standard to actions undertaken with “reckless disregard” for the individual’s rights. Lowering this standard would provide strong incentives for municipalities to restructure the police department toward de-escalation to prevent such abuses of power, as they are otherwise responsible for paying out damages to victims.

Analysis

In the wake of the protests, both Republicans and Democrats were quick to lament the death of George Floyd and call for police reform. So what explains the inability to come together to pass a bill pushing police reform?

One cannot deny the influence of police lobbying groups: the United Police Officers Association Super PAC has spent more than $7 million in the past two years alone. Yet, those donations are handed out on both sides of the aisle.

Another reason for the stagnation is partisan branding, with Republicans seeking to brand themselves as siding with ‘Law and Order’ and Democrats siding with ‘Racial Justice.’ And while Democrats shot down the GOP bill for being “inadequate,” Republicans claimed the Democratic bill is too punitive toward law enforcement.

Yet, despite calls among many protesters and some progressives to defund or abolish the existing police system, the Democratic bill proposes neither, focusing instead on improving accountability among police officers and their departments. Nonetheless, Trump pushed the narrative that Democrats are irredeemably extreme, stating in a tweet “Radical Left Democrats want to Defund and Abandon our Police.”

Other Republicans and Democrats are also quick to reinforce and inflame these battle lines. Such cynical jabs may gain some points among the electorate, but they also reinforce the misconceptions that further polarize the country and prevent compromise and reconciliation. In truth, politicians generally care about racial justice as well as law and order. Pitting the brands in staunch opposition helps no one.

Still, staunchly playing to one’s base can be a fruitful strategy in an election year. Despite protests on his doorstep, Trump shrugged off the lack of progress. “If nothing happens with it, it’s one of those things,” Trump said. “We have different philosophies.”

Resistance Resources:

The US Human Rights Network is a national network of organizations and individuals working to strengthen a human rights movement and culture within the United States led by the people most directly impacted by human rights violations. They work to secure dignity and justice for all.

The Law Enforcement Action Partnership’s mission is to unite and mobilize the voice of law enforcement in support of drug policy and criminal justice reforms that will make communities safer by focusing law enforcement resources on the greatest threats to public safety, promoting alternatives to arrest and incarceration, addressing the root causes of crime, and working toward healing police-community relations.

Don’t Politicize A Pandemic

Don’t Politicize A Pandemic

By Ron Israel, Managing Editor, U.S. RESIST NEWS 

America sadly has the highest number of coronavirus cases in the world. Other countries that used to have high case-loads and mortality rates ( e.g. Italy, Spain, China, South Korea ) have found ways to contain the virus and keep their outbreaks under control. Why has the United States been unable to follow suit?  It is because of the politicization of the pandemic.

President Trump and his administration have consistently used the virus as a means to exacerbate America’s political divisions and stoke their voter-base. They have  ignored the public health emergency that the virus presents, downplayed  the seriousness of the virus and refused to listen to the scientific  guidance of their own   scientists. That guidance emphasizes  the wearing of masks, social distancing, staying at home when needed.  hand-washing, avoiding crowds, lots of testing and contact tracing and related public health measures.

The Trump administration has refused  to lead at the national level and  instead has  allowed states to do their own thing in response to the virus,  including opening-up without putting in place any of these basic measures.  It has resisted invoking the War-Time Powers Act and other public policy tools that would allow the government to mandate production of needed personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing devices .It has prioritized the allocation of limited PPE resources to mostly red states. It has stoked a false dichotomy between opening up and staying at home when it’s possible to sensibly do both.

President Trump sees the coronavirus as a threat to his re-election. But rather than tell the American people the truth about  the virus, and  take aggressive action at the national level to contain its spread, he continues to downplay its seriousness. His Republicans colleagues have gone along and seem to be using the virus as a means of voter suppression, witness  the small number of polling stations available in recent state primary elections in red states.

Trump’s failure to lead during this pandemic, and his willingness to politicize the virus, is resulting in a growing national tragedy. So many lives could have been saved, jobs preserved and spirits lifted had the President provided us with much needed national leadership.  Sadly the virus cases continue to rise in large parts of the country.  Trump’s politicization of the pandemic needs to stop.

US Withdrawal from World Health Organization Stuns Experts and Even Some Republicans

US Withdrawal from World Health Organization Stuns Experts and Even Some Republicans

In May, President Trump announced that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO). Announcement of the withdrawal comes after Trump time and again reviled the WHO’s handling of the novel Coronavirus response. Many experts have stated that the unprecedented move jeopardizes the efficiency of global health responses and can even obstruct the process of developing a vaccine for COVID-19.

Trump claims that the WHO had failed to act appropriately during the nascent days of the pandemic. Namely, for not sounding the alarm in time about the spread of the Coronavirus out of Wuhan.

In April, the Trump Administration froze U.S. funding to the WHO. Trump then sent a letter to the WHO director demanding “substantive changes” to the organization’s procedures within the next thirty days or else the U.S. will permanently cut funding to the agency. Just eleven days later, Trump made the decision final.

This decision has seen bipartisan backlash. “I disagree with the president’s decision,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in a statement after the announcement. “Withdrawing U.S. membership could, among other things, interfere with clinical trials that are essential to the development of vaccines, which citizens of the United States as well as others in the world need. And withdrawing could make it harder to work with other countries to stop viruses before they get to the United States.”

The legality of Trump’s withdrawal is still not clear. However, if the decision does follow through, congress can challenge it.

“This decision is really so short-sighted and ill-advised, and all it does is put American lives at risk,” said Dr. Howard Koh, former assistant secretary for health in the Obama administration and now a professor at Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health.

Since the WHO’s founding in 1948, the U.S. has always played an outsized role in the agency’s operations. American experts hold many high ranking positions including in emergency committees which are in place to deliberate pandemic responses. It also remains unclear what would happen to their positions in the agency after a U.S. withdrawal.

Analysis

A global centralized response to pandemics—especially one like the COVID-19 pandemic—is the most effective way to combat their spread.

Many have interpreted the move to withdraw from the WHO as an attempt to divert attention from the Trump Administration’s botched Coronavirus response.

The U.S. leads the world in most COVID-19 deaths and many experts claim that the numbers wouldn’t be as high as they are today had the President taken the virus more seriously during its early days.

Earlier this year, Trump downplayed the severity of the virus and even praised Chinese president Xi Jinping for his handling of its spread—although the very reason Trump is blaming the WHO is for not being tough on China.

Perhaps rescinding membership of the WHO is just another part of efforts to tarnish globalization, which is part of the agenda of the right-wing’s anti-globalization, nationalist stance.

Whatever the case may be, precluding U.S. support to the WHO in the middle of a global pandemic will likely disrupt the vaccine development process, stifle an organized attempt at stopping the spread of the virus, and inflict other ramifications related to world health.

Learn more:

The World Health Organization is the world’s number one organization in helping stop the spread of diseases in less developed countries as well as all over the world. It has been at the forefront in attempting to mobilize the world against COVID-19.

Global Health Council is a coalition of organizations serving as a hub for business engagement on the world’s most pressing global health issues.

Trump Administration Refuses to Regulate Drinking Water Toxin Shown to Damage Babies’ Brains

Trump Administration Refuses to Regulate Drinking Water Toxin Shown to Damage Babies’ Brains

Policy

The Trump administration and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler have decided to end Federal regulation of the toxic chemical Perchlorate in America’s drinking water. Perchlorate is a chemical used in explosives, such as rocket fuel, fireworks, and ammunition. When the chemical runs off into our drinking water supply, it is known to inhibit the function of the thyroid gland and can damage the brain development in fetuses and infants. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, perchlorate can “cause measurable drops in IQ in newborns,” and one study showed that “9 out of 13 breastfeeding infants were ingesting significant levels of the chemical.”

In the early 2000’s, the Bush administration had decided not to regulate levels of the toxin in drinking water. In 2011, the Obama administration determined that “Perchlorate from runoff contaminates the drinking water of as many as 16 million Americans,” and decided the EPA should set a maximum limit of 15 parts per billion (ppb) of perchlorate allowable in our drinking water. Some individual states have since set their own limits for allowable concentrations of perchlorate; Massachusetts and California setting their limits respectively at 2 and 6 ppb. Andrew Wheeler and the current EPA had originally proposed setting the maximum limit for allowable concentrations to be at 56 ppb, but after analyzing the local water tests of only 15 water systems in a total of 12 states, have decided to drop the federal regulation of the chemical all together.

Wheeler claims new analyses show that perchlorate is not harmful in such low concentrations as we once thought, and that based on this new fact, the federal government no longer needs to regulate the chemical. Wheeler says that state agencies are doing enough on their own and the EPA’s analyses show that the country’s water supply contains low enough levels of the toxin. In a draft final action, the EPA noted that up to 620,000 people may be drinking water that contains perchlorate concentrations higher than “levels of concern” (56 ppb being what the current administration considers a “level of concern” versus 15 ppb of the previous administration or 6 ppb and 2 ppb of California and Massachusetts). The administration has said that it was “not in the public interest” to regulate perchlorate because it is burdensome to business, and the move is part of President Trump’s promise to “pare back burdensome ‘one-size-fits-all’ overregulation for the American people.”

 

Analysis

The scientific community and environmental activists have lashed out at this new decision by the EPA. Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council says, “[This] decision is illegal, unscientific, and unconscionable. The Environmental Protection Agency is threatening the health of pregnant moms and young children with toxic chemicals in their drinking water at levels that literally can cause loss of IQ points.” Olson also points out that the EPA had required some nationwide testing for perchlorate in drinking water only from 2001-2005, and thus it is “impossible to determine how severe a problem remains nationally.” Olson believes the decision by the EPA is illegal because it “defies a court-ordered consent decree requiring the administration regulate the chemical.” After the Obama administration in 2011 had decided that perchlorate could not be allowed in drinking water in concentrations higher than 15 ppb, a “legal duty to regulate perchlorate” was issued. The EPA still never issued an official standard to regulate the toxin, so in 2016 the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the EPA in federal court to set limits on perchlorate. The judge hearing the case decided the EPA needed “a fire lit under them,” and so the agency agreed in a “court-approved consent decree to propose a perchlorate drinking water standard by October 2018 and to finalize it by late 2019.” An extension was granted to the EPA for more study and the due date for an established standard was moved to late June 2020. Now, in June 2020, the EPA is claiming perchlorate requires higher concentrations than previously thought to be considered dangerous and so they are not going to set any standard for its concentrations in drinking water, because studies by the agency show that the majority of the country’s drinking water contains perchlorate concentrations lower than 56 ppb. The agency claims its analyses of just 15 drinking water facilities in only 12 states, shows, mostly, perchlorate concentrations are below 56 ppb, and so the rest of the country’s drinking water must be fine and the state agencies can do their own regulating of the toxin.

The NRDC points out that the 15 ppb health advisory established by the Obama administration for perchlorate concentrations was based on a 2005 study from the National Academy of Sciences. Wheeler, on the other hand, now claims that “a level of 56 ppb would be safe, and perhaps even 90 ppb would be fine.” The EPA has even admitted “that a standard of 56 ppb would allow those kids exposed to perchlorate in drinking water at above this level to have an average IQ loss of two points. People at the lower end of the IQ spectrum could lose far more IQ points.” The NRDC says that “In concluding 56 ppb is safe, the agency would allow an unprecedented level of adverse impact on children’s brain development.” The council also points out that the EPA “has decided to ignore all other health effects of perchlorate that scientists say can occur at lower doses, rejecting its own previous analysis. EPA’s new supposedly “safe” level is nearly 10 times higher than California’s standard for perchlorate of 6 ppb. It also is 28 times higher than Massachusetts’s standard of 2 ppb.”

Based on a report from the National Research Council on the effects of ingesting perchlorate, some California experts now recommend the standard for concentrations of the toxin be brought down to 1 ppb to protect bottle-fed infants. A “blue-ribbon” panel of scientists from New Jersey’s Drinking Water Quality Institute recommend “a maximum safe level of 5 ppb.” The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) even put out a statement saying, “It should be noted that this decision [by the EPA] was not reviewed by the peer reviewers of the U.S. EPA’s approach for the risk assessment of perchlorate.” The NJDEP further noted that even “using traditional EPA assumptions and analysis, a standard of 8 ppb would be called for.” What this means is that the EPA’s claim that 56 ppb or less of perchlorate is a safe concentration according to the latest health risk assessment, is not true. The NJDEP is saying that if the EPA conducted its health risk assessment the way the peer review boards said they should, then according to their calculations, the EPA should have recommended 8 ppb be the maximum allowable concentration of perchlorate in drinking water, not 56 ppb.

The NJDEP also points out that not all states have the laws in place to set their own regulations for perchlorate concentrations and thus rely on federal regulations for protection. So, for the EPA to justify no federal regulation based on the premise that states like California and Massachusetts have been able to successfully regulate the chemical, is not a valid argument. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urges “the strongest possible” federal limits. The AAP states that for the EPA to not regulate perchlorate “would set a precedent inconsistent with EPA’s stated mission to protect public health.” This statement rings particularly true when it appears that the EPA is providing the American public with a faulty analysis of the collected data.

 

Resistance Resources

  • Natural Resources Defense Council works to safeguard the earth – its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. combining the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. https://www.nrdc.org/
  • American Academy of Pediatrics an organization of 67,000 pediatricians committed to the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. https://www.aap.org/en-us/Pages/Default.aspx​
  • Environmental Defense Fund one of the world’s largest environmental organizations, with more than 2.5 million members and a staff of 700 scientists, economists, policy experts, and other professionals around the world. https://www.edf.org/

Sources Cited

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