Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Trump’s Erratic Military Policies

Brief #95—Foreign Policy
By Colin Rugg
In the wake of Jeffrey Goldberg’s September 3rd Atlantic report lambasting Trump for his disparaging comments about the United States Military, the president has come under fire from Military commanders and politicians on both sides of the aisle.

read more

As Social Media Giants Move to Curtail QAnon Trump Steps Up His Misinformation Campaign

Brief #21—Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
With the U.S. presidential election only weeks away, Facebook and other social media companies are struggling to show that they take the use of their platforms to spread misinformation and hate speech seriously, Facebook announced on October 6, 2020 that it had removed nearly 1,000 QAnon conspiracy theorist groups and promised to halt political ads after the polls close on November 3

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Coronavirus US and Global Update

Coronavirus US and Global Update

COVID-19’s Status in the US

After the Memorial Day Holiday, where all fifty states had reopened in some capacity, the concern of a summer second wave looms. These fears are compounded by the National Institutes of Health announcement that warmer weather is unlikely to stop the spread of the virus, after previous hopes that the summer could provide some reprieve before flu season and a likely second wave. Fears of additional cases come on the heals of national outrage and protests demanding justice for a killed unarmed black man, George Floyd. Masses gathered in the thousands across every state in the US, it is hard for such gatherings and social distancing to coexist. Legislators are still contemplating another round of stimulus checks and business bailouts, with an agreement expected no earlier than July. The United States has already passed 1.8 million cases and over 100,000 deaths.

-Head to the Washington Post to see state by state restrictions-

COVID-19’s Status Internationally

South and Central America are experiencing an onslaught of cases. However many previously ravished nations appear to be controlling the virus, with the exceptions of the United States and United Kingdom.

Iran reported nearly 3,000 new cases on Monday, the highest daily rise in two months, prompting concern the nation will have another wave shortly. New Zealand is set to reduce restrictions after the nation passes eleven days with no reported cases.

After mass testing in Wuhan, China, officials report they have detected a mere 300 asymptomatic carriers and no new COVID cases. The first Rohingya refugee death has been reported after it was confirmed a 71 year-old refugee living in the densely populated Cox’s Bazar camp.

Analysis:

With businesses reopening and social distancing measures still in place, COVID-19 is expected to be a staple for the American people. Hope is found in the 133 current vaccines being developed across the globe. About 7 in 10 Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine should one be developed and was both free and available for everyone, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. While President Trump has set a goal for millions of doses of the vaccine to be available by the end of 2020, scientist counter the ambitious claim as being unrealistic even with researchers around the globe scrambling for a safe and effective vaccine. States will likely see if the reopening of businesses will be for the best or result in an influx of new cases.

Engagement Resources:

 

Number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as of June 2, 2020 – Consult the CDC or Johns Hopkins for an update in numbers.

Nation Confirmed Cases Deaths
Globally 6,339,005 378,266
United States 1,828,736 106,046
Brazil 526,447 29,937
Russia 423,186 5,031
United Kingdom 279,391 39,452
Spain 239,932 27,127
Italy 233,515 33,530
India 207,183 5,829
France 188,450 28,943
Germany 183,879 8,563
Peru 170,039 4,634

 

African Americans Suffer Deprivation in all Economic Arenas

African Americans Suffer Deprivation in all Economic Arenas

June 2, 2020

Policy

In every measure contributing to well-being African Americans experience significant deprivations.  African American poverty was 20.8% in 2018, compared to 11.8% of the general population.  African American wages are still depressed, compared to white wages, even as the education gap has closed significantly.  Ninety percent of African American in young adulthood (25-29) now has a high school diploma and the portion with college degrees has doubled since 1968 to 2018 though it still represents only half as many degrees (22.8%) as in the white population (42.1%) of the same age.

African American workers bring home 82.5 cents to the dollar white workers receive, even when education level is controlled for.  African American workers experience 2.5 times the poverty of white workers.  Black and Latino workers represent 44.1% of the workers who would benefit from a federal minimum wage of fifteen dollars.  African Americans are twice as likely as white workers to be unemployed.  When household income is considered, African Americans accrue 40% less than average white households.

The starkest disparity, however, can be seen in wealth where the average African American family is worth only 10% of the wealth held by white families.  Average African American wealth has actually decreased from 1983-2016.  Moreover, the African American family is more likely to depend on that small asset for basic needs in retirement; children’s college education; down payments for a home; and crises arising from unemployment or illness.  College debt is higher among African Americans averaging $26,000 for men and $30,000 for women.

Wealth is a measure which speaks to intergenerational well-being since often a young couple buys a first home with help from their parents.  Owning a home speaks volumes regarding quality of life since neighborhoods where more people own their home tend to have better schools, recreation, services, and safety.  When African Americans buy homes, even in the middle class, they are steered to less affluent areas than their white counterparts.  Additionally, African Americans are twice as likely to be turned down for mortgages and are given no reason in 52% of these denials. African Americans are 105% more likely to be charged a higher interest rate and greater fees.

Lending gaps have contracted very little in fifty years and costs not at all.  In the fifty years from 1968-2018, the portion of home ownership among the African American population has remained stagnant and is currently 30% less than among white families. A HUD study of renters revealed that African Americans suffered barriers to “favorable” neighborhoods in that they were shown fewer units, charged higher rents, and denied leases when compared to whites.   As a result, they are more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty and in areas with less educational resources; less job opportunities; and fewer services.  African Americans, as a result of wage and job discrimination, are more likely to become homeless representing 40% of that population and comprising only 13% of the US population.  Discrimination against ex-convicts also contributes to homelessness and unemployment due to laws limiting access to public housing and other programs.  The rate of incarceration of African Americans tripled between 1968-2018.

Various measures of quality of life show an equally dismal condition.  African Americans are twice as likely as white households to experience food insecurity, meaning that they have to reduce their intake and/or change their eating patterns.  African Americans are more likely to be in food deserts where access to fresh produce is limited and there is a dependence on convenient stores and small grocery stores equal higher prices.

The areas of health insurance, health care, and mental health also reveal the stark realities of African American life today.  Not only are African Americans more likely to be uninsured and under insured, they also pay more for their health insurance.  Almost ten percent are uninsured and 18% of adults are underinsured. Even more significant is the cost of insurance.  The average white family pays about 11% of their income on health insurance premiums; copays; deductibles, and pharmacy items whereas the average African American household spends 20% of the household income solely on premiums.  African Americans are highly likely to be concentrated in the states that did not buy into federal Medicaid expansion. This program allows for Medicaid to be extended to those making a little more than the official federal poverty level.  These states include seven southern states, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas.  The residents who do not gain Medicaid coverage because they make too much do not make enough to qualify for tax credits to gain subsidies and so they are the segment which is likely to fall through the cracks, remaining uninsured.

Due to all of the above-mentioned circumstances, the African American community suffers more avoidable illness; greater maternal and child mortality; pregnancy complications; lack any consistent or quality care; depends on emergency rooms for non-emergency conditions; and often just goes without treatment.  The latter situation is even more pronounced in areas of mental health and substance abuse. It is no wonder that the death rates are greater, and the longevity less, among this group.

Analysis

Racism begins with the history of slavery; it persists in state sanctioned policies today.  Slave labor is estimated as corresponding to 14 trillion dollars in unpaid work.  But unpaid, poorly remunerated labor of African American extends through reconstruction to the New Deal, where the population was restricted to occupational segregation sanctioned by government programs. The Freedman’s Bureau encouraged former slaves to remain with the families they worked for in agricultural and domestic labor.  The newly freed citizens could be fined if they sought work outside these areas.  Laws were passed to prohibit ads for better jobs in distant locales and recruiters could not provide any financial assistance.

With the New Deal institutionalized disparities in jobs and wages again was supported by legislation.  Innovations of the Fair labor Standards Act of 1938 initiated a 40-hour work week, overtime, child labor laws, and a minimum wage.   African Americans were excluded from jobs with better working conditions, benefit, and collective bargaining.  The jobs they inhabited, in agriculture and domestic work were excluded from the legislation where there was no minimum wage, set work week, benefits or oversight.  By the mid twentieth century, when agricultural jobs were contracting and domestic labor was becoming mechanized, unfair lending practices in the Department of Agriculture, lynching, discriminatory lending, and the KKK drove African Americans north and west seeking better opportunities.  Once resettled, many of the newly migrated workers were subjected to de facto segregation in low wage domestic and service work even if they escaped the Jim Crow mandates of their southern origins.

Laws integrating this discrimination into the institutional structure are seen in such areas as tipped servers’ minimum wages which can be as low as $2.13.  Only seven sates mandate that serving staff must be paid the federal minimum wage guaranteed to other workers.  “Right to work” laws, which establish that nonunion workers benefiting from union contracts cannot have a portion of union dues deducted, exist in eight of the ten states with the highest portions of African American workers.  Agencies like the Equal Economic Opportunity Commission, which are supposed to ensure fairness in the workplace, are severely underfunded and can investigate a fraction of received complaints.  Agencies which advocate for fair treatment and support of workers have been underfunded.

The stress of poverty on the body and community cannot be underestimated.  It affects everything from health, to family life, to community standards.  One sure fix is to put more money into protective government agencies and make them accountable for their mandates.  Another policy, pointed out by experts in the field, suggests that all the tax money that has been used to increase policing efforts should be shifted to create better social programs addressing labor conditions and the safety net.  Massive re-evaluation of jobs, and their value, would likely result in increased wages but nothing really can replace incorporating a living wage, healthcare for all (unattached to employment), and decent costs for housing, education, and daycare/preschool.

Another more controversial remedy refers to reparations for slavery.  Many African American leaders suggest that funds be made available to African American communities to be used for programs they develop to support the progress of their communities as they see fit.  That seems like an overdue step in acknowledging the hundreds of years of systemic exploitation.

Learn More

Resistance Resources

Trump’s New Moves to Contain China: End Hong Kong’s Privileged Treatment and Withdraw from the World Health Organization

Trump’s New Moves to Contain China: End Hong Kong’s Privileged Treatment and Withdraw from the World Health Organization

June 3, 2020

In another blow to U.S.-Chinese relations, Trump has recently announced he will begin the process of ending Hong Kong’s privileged economic treatment due to a newly introduced security law pressured by mainland China. 

Policy Summary: 

In another blow to U.S.-Chinese relations, President Trump has announced he will begin the process of ending Hong Kong’s privileged economic treatment due to a newly introduced security law pressured by mainland China. The move has drawn significant Chinese ire and hints at a worrying (but possibly not unwarranted) escalation in the simmering tensions between the Trump administration and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have declared that the reasoning for said shift is due to the loss of Hong Kong’s status as a separate and distinct territory from China. In conjunction with the ending of said treatment, there are supposed, but vague, threats of imposing sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials that have been designated as having played a role in the gradual loss of the territory’s autonomy by the Trump administration. Chinese foreign nationals that are deemed to be potential security threats will be denied entry into the U.S. And to top it all off, in a related stroke of foreign policy, Trump has stated that he will cease U.S. invovlement in the World Health Organization (WHO), which he has accused of handling China with kid gloves over the unfolding Covid-19 pandemic.

First, what is the history of this so-called “privileged treatment” and what is Trump threatening? Hong Kong’s special status was created in 1984 through the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which the U.K. agreed to hand over control of its former colony of Hong Kong to China with the promise that the newly-created territory would not be subject to the CCP’s political or economic systems for 50 years. Ever since, Hong Kong has enjoyed a privileged extradition treaty, favorable trade agreements, a lack of tariffs and controls imposed upon the mainland, and many other favorable conditions with the international community. However, the CCP has historically, and especially of late, been accused of attempting to erode Hong Kong’s autonomy and bring it more securely into the fold. It was under such accusations that the people of Hong Kong rose up in mass protests beginning in June 2019 with demands for civil liberties and further independence from Beijing’s control.

Second, what is this new security law that has drawn so much fuss? The law would allow CCP organs to crack down on anything perceived as anti-Beijing dissidence, and possibly permit mainland security agencies to be extended into Hong Kong. Due to be enacted in September, it is still unclear as to what exactly will be made illegal, but many theorize that it will outlaw any discussion of secession, any subversion of CCP authority, the prosecution of all activities designated as terrorism directed against China or Chinese interests, and the blocking of foreign interference in Hong Kong. It is most certainly a blow to democratic freedoms and signals a less force-based approach by the CCP to reign in what has become a PR nightmare for the regime.

Third, what is Trump’s issue with the relationship between the WHO and China? The WHO has repeatedly commended China on its response to Covid-19 despite the regime’s tight-lipped refusal to share information regarding its domestic response and heavy-handed control measures of the virus. This has drawn Trump and others to declare that the WHO is too dependent upon the financing and collaboration of affluent UN member states, such as China, to properly carry out its mission. The crux of his argument is that the WHO is too scared to publicly unmask the CCP’s guilty part in the spread of Covid-19, and that due to this unwillingness, the WHO no longer serves the interests of the U.S.

Analysis:

Let us begin with the situation in Hong Kong. I can understand the Trump administration’s decision to revoke the territory’s privileged status as a way of striking back at the CCP. Although I believe that we as Americans should step down off our self-styled high horse as leaders of the free world and embrace a humbler desire to pursue the extension of liberties for liberties sake, the new security bill is in no doubt a stain upon democratic freedoms. From a strictly contractual standpoint, China may not have wholly replaced the economic and political systems of Hong Kong, but they have certainly begun the process well before the 50-year landmark. And from the standpoint of striking a blow to China, Hong Kong is a notable crown jewel to shatter. With expensive properties, a thriving commercial and financial sector, and notable stock exchange, it is a ripe target for retribution.

However, I caution against what I would deem to be a far too expansive blow. What is needed is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. The CCP are naturally going to attempt to finish off the protests that have been carrying on for over a year. Their use of military and police tactics drew international condemnation and has had little effect on quelling the unrest. They are now attempting to move more subtly through legislation. If we withdraw the entirety of Hong Kong’s status it will decimate the very people we are attempting to help. The territory’s usefulness to the regime is dictated by the favorable treatment. Yes, it will hurt the CCP, but only for a short time. Once Hong Kong is deprived of its status, the people have no bargaining chip to utilize.

Turning now to the issue of Trump’s grievances with the WHO. He is not the first to raise such complaints. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is just one example of the WHO being accused of gross inefficiency and an inability to deliver results. However, should the U.S. really be drawing out of the largest international health organization during a pandemic? I would say no. Although there is certainly cause for investigating the WHO’s handling of Covid-19 and the repeated praise heaped upon China despite evidence to the contrary, our reckoning with the WHO can wait until the pandemic is over. Otherwise we would be shooting ourselves and the rest of the world in the foot. Premature reprisal, however well-intentioned and possibly well-founded, requires far more evidence and forethought than what Trump is putting in. Let the world heal, do not deprive it of needed funding and research before we have left the woods behind.

Resistance Resources:

President Trump Engages in Free Speech Fight with Twitter

President Trump Engages in Free Speech Fight with Twitter

Policy Summary: The Communications and Decency Act (CDA) was passed in 1996 and provides that an “interactive computer service” is immune from civil liability if they publish information from third – party users.

On May 28, 2020 President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order titled “Preventing Online Censorship.” The executive order was prompted by Twitter’s decision earlier in the week to place labels on tweets emanating from President Trump’s verified Twitter account. On a May 26, 2020 tweet from the President about perceived mail – in ballot fraud, Twitter for the first time added a link at the bottom of the tweet that said “Get the facts about mail – in ballots” which was preceded by an exclamation mark in an oval. That signaled that there were other facts to the issue that were not mentioned in the President’s tweet.

In Section 2, subsection (b) of the executive order, the President directs all executive departments and agencies to examine whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is properly applied in a manner to ensure that a social media platform cannot enjoy immunity from civil liability while engaging in acts of censorship of a third – party user’s views. Additionally, President Trump ordered further rule – making to clarify the instances of when a social media platform is engaging in acts of censorship. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: Twitter’s announcement that they would append labels to tweets from President Donald J. Trump’s Twitter account is unique in that it is believed to be the first time that Twitter has sought a way to combat the numerous falsehoods that have become a feature of the President’s tweets. Brad Parscale, President Trump’s campaign manager, called the move by Twitter “biased” and a way to “obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters.”

But the executive order and the statement from Mr. Pascale have misconstrued the situation. There is no obstruction and interference or an issue with free speech because Twitter has in no way placed limits on what President Trump wants to write or tweet out. The President still has control over the message he chooses to type out and put up on his Twitter feed. Twitter has not altered his tweets in any way to change the message contained in his tweets. What they have merely done is added a hyperlink on the bottom of the tweet, separate from what the President has typed out, that encourages readers to “get the facts” and additional info. Readers can still read the President’s tweets in their original form intended by the President while also having the option of further researching the issue and coming to their own conclusion after comparing other available evidence. President Trump has a long history of spewing out outright falsehoods and debunked conspiracy theories and it appears that Twitter has become fed up with the political vitriol that have roots in President Trump’s tweets. But this executive order will do nothing to help create an environment where free speech can flourish and all viewpoints are welcome. By directing his executive order at Section 230 of the DCA and the issue of civil liability the President and his team are avoiding the issue of whether their tweets have merit and may simply be angry that their tweets can be contradicted with opposing and established facts. If the President’s tweets are not being altered or blocked from view in any meaningful way then there is no free speech violation.

Finally, the President’s executive order is another incident in a trend where President Trump falsely believes that he has the power to amend the law. The President of the United States has no power to change existing law. Only Congress has the power to do that. The President only has the power to execute laws that have already been passed and can only direct federal agencies to administer the law as it currently exists. His executive order cannot override the requirements of Section 230 of the DCA. Two Internet legal scholars – Eugene Volokh at UCLA and Eric Goldman at Santa Clara University – state that Congress has already rejected the model that websites are civilly liable for a third – party user’s speech that they publish. Since Congress has already decided this issue, President Trump cannot unilaterally change it or have it be modified in a significant way by federal agencies.

This situation is the direct result of President Trump’s Twitter behavior. Had the President been more thoughtful about his tweets than Twitter likely would not have had to take the action that they did this week. But the President’s actions in response to Twitter’s move illustrates that his views on free speech and presidential power are not rooted in the established concepts of the First Amendment and what the White House can do to affect meaningful change. LEARN MORE, 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

Senator Collins Faces Strong Challenge from Speaker Gideon

Senator Collins Faces Strong Challenge from Speaker Gideon

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

Update #  2 Senator Collins Faces Strong Challenge from Speaker Gideon

June 1, 2020

Susan Collins has long been respected as a moderate and fair Senator her entire career, that is, until she sold out her constituents and voted for Brett Kavanaugh.  This was the final straw for many moderate Mainers who may now plan to cast their vote for Maine Speaker of the House Sara Gideon, a progressive democrat from Freeport, ME.

Gideon is a second-generation American who was the leader of the push against Paul LePage, the state’s former Republican governor.  Gideon is seen as the likely choice for the democratic nomination by many in the state and, after announcing her candidacy on June 24, 2019, Gideon raised over 1 million dollars in the first week of her campaign.  Since then, Gideon has out-fundraised Collins by about 1.5 million dollars, with about 43% of those donations coming from small, individual contributions.  On the Collins side, only 10% of donations have been smaller individual contributions, and about 80% of the candidates money has come from large individual donations and PAC’s.  This has to be alarming to many Mainers, who have seen Collins as a senator by the people, for the people.  However, as the nation and Maine’s political landscapes have changed, Collins has too, becoming more partisan and taking a significantly larger amount of money from PAC’s and larger individual donors.

Delving a bit deeper into the candidates financial backings, opensecrets.org reports that Votesane PAC has been the largest contributor to the Collins campaign, putting $116,325 into Collins at this point in the campaign.  Gideon, on the other hand, had her largest donation from EMILY’s List, a nonprofit that supports progressive women running for Congress.  Gideon has already garnered an endorsement from the organization, so it’s no surprise to see them as her leading donor.  Gideon looks to keep up the pressure on Collins, financially at least, as she raised 7.1 million dollars during the first quarter of 2020, reports the Portland Press Herald.

Although Gideon isn’t the official nominee, with a July 14th primary still to claim that, Gideon seems to have garnered a significant amount of support from the Democratic establishment in Washington, who understand the importance of Senator Collins to her party.  This election cycle marks a potentially historic moment for the state of Maine, who could be represented by a congressional contingent that doesn’t include a Republican for the first time since before the Civil War.  Polls suggest that this may not come to fruition, with District 2 Representative Jared Golden facing a hard fight in a district Trump won in 2016.  With the senate race however, local and national polls show that Gideon may be a step ahead of the incumbent, with the Bangor Daily News reporting that a poll done by Victory Geek shows Gideon with a 9 point lead.  Most experts suggest that this race is key in the Democratic strategy to take control of the senate, which will most certainly mean money from across the country may be funneled into this race by Democrats and Republicans alike.  The battle for the senate is just heating up and this race in Maine is one to watch for an indication of how the rest of the country may vote in presidential and congressional elections alike.

2020 Congressional Campaign Updates

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

An Overview of Key 2020 Senate Races

An Overview of Key 2020 Senate Races

Update # 1: An Overview of Key 2020 Senate Races

June 1,2020

6 Key Races for the Democrats to flip the Senate

The control of the Senate has been one of the key ways in which President Trump has wreaked havoc on the United States and our democracy, and the Democratic Party would like nothing more than to snatch it from the Republican’s hands this fall.  With the nation at such a volatile point with both Covid-19, large-scale unemployment, and the recent killings of people of color at the hands of police officers, it has become evident that the elections of 2020 may shape the course of our nation for many years.  The Republican Party currently holds the Senate 53 to 47, as well as holding the tie breaking vote in Vice President Pence.

270towin, an election tracking website, rates four 2020 Senate races as toss-ups.  Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, and Colorado are  four states that have vulnerable Republican incumbents with strong Democratic challengers, who have all received significant financial support from national democratic organizations.  John Hickenlooper, the challenger from Colorado, garners the most national attention, having been governor for 7 years and having briefly placed himself in the running for the Democratic presidential nomination.  The challenger in Arizona, Mark Kelly, is known for being an astronaut and the husband of shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords.  He has run his campaign on a moderate platform that isn’t in favor of the Green New Deal.  The challenger from North Carolina is Cal Cunningham, a former member of the Army Reserves who has criticized incumbent Thom Tillis for voting to remove coverage from the Affordable Care Act for individuals with pre-existing conditions.  The final challenger is Sara Gideon, from Maine, who is running against Susan Collins.  Gideon served as the Maine Speaker of the House and has focused on not taking PAC and big-money donations.  It seems she has succeeded in this mission, as 43% of her funding is from donations under 200 dollars.

All of these races are integral to the Democratic push to flip the senate, as a win in all of these races would pull the senate 51-49, in favor of the democrats.  However, it is worth noting that a few democrats are also at risk of losing their seats.  The most well-known of these  is Doug Jones, from Alabama, who defeated Roy Moore, who was accused by 9 different women of unwanted sexual advances.  Jones’s election marks the first time since the early 90’s that a democrat has been elected to the senate in Alabama, showing how difficult the state has been for democrats.  Jones faces a tough competitor in either Tommy Tuberville, former University of Alabama football coach, or Jeff Sessions, who stepped down from the senate to be appointed Attorney General in 2017.  On the other hand, Montana is a state where the democrats look to flip back, with incumbent Steve Daines running against Montana governor Steve Bullock, who won re-election in 2016.  Daines hasn’t been a particularly notable senator, with most of his votes staying within party lines.  It is worth mentioning that Daines initially endorsed Marco Rubio for president in 2016, potentially alienating Trump supporters in his home state.  Montana was one of two states, the other being North Carolina, that Trump won but also elected democratic governors in 2016.

All in all, there are many races to watch this election season, but the hopeful democratic control of the senate may fall into the hands of voters in these six races.  The campaign pages of all the democratic candidates will be linked below, if you wish to learn more.

The Latest on Trump’s Tax Returns

The Latest on Trump’s Tax Returns

By Sean Gray

June 1, 2020

The Supreme Court is set to determine the fate of Donald Trump’s taxes case by session’s end in late June. Condensed into one case for the sake of expediency are lawsuits filed on the president’s behalf against subpoenas from the House of Representatives and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Congress has subpoenaed documents, including Trump’s tax returns from his financial institutions. Manhattan’s DA sent a grand jury subpoena to two of Trump’s banks as part of an ongoing investigation into financial crimes by the eponymous organization.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that Congress’ request serve no legitimate legislative purpose. As for the NY subpoena, his lawyers have made the audacious claim that a sitting president has immunity from investigation. Neither argument has held up in three lower or appeals courts. The decision of the justices promise to have far-reaching consequences. The ideologically divided court found flaw in the cases presented by both sides when arguments were held last month. A reversal of the previous court’s decision threatens to pull the country in a decidedly dictatorial direction.

Right or wrong, Congress has had its eye on Trump since he took office. He ascended the presidency amid foreign election interference and has been accused of myriad dirty dealings. His supporters have long viewed this oversight as bitter harassment. His lawyer’s arguments fall along those lines. To prevent their clients tax returns from seeing the light of day, Trump’s legal team have argued that the subpoenas are politically motivated and lack legitimate legislative purpose. History is not on their side. Precedent dictates Congress may legislate wherever it is needed.

The subpoenas issued by the Manhattan DA are more like a straightforward criminal investigation. They were originally served by the federal court’s Southern New York district, who moved on from the case at the request of the Justice Department. Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan prosecutor and named plaintiff in the case, took the reins. Also issued in the wake of Michael Cohen’s testimony, the subpoenas seek eight years of tax returns from Trump and the organization that bears his family name. Trump’s lawyer’s arguments against the subpoenas posits that a president is shielded even from investigation while holding office. Like so much that has been said in defense of the indefensible in the last four years, this is dangerous nonsense. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both made sweeping claims of executive privilege when they found themselves in legal hot water. Nixon claimed the tapes Watergate prosecutors wanted in charging presidential aides fell under executive privilege. Clinton argued he was immune from a civil lawsuit for sexual harassment while in office. Both president’s lost their court battles. The president may be immune from litigation which would pull focus from his enormous responsibilities, but none has been ruled above the law. A deviation from precedent would place Trump exactly there. Given his proclivity for law-breaking and lack of accountability, it’s frightening to imagine how Trump might respond having that status conferred upon him.

The legal challenges mounted by the president’s attorneys are likely to fail. At this juncture it would take a remarkable reversal of decades of precedent to allow Trump to keep his records private. While the legal legitimacy of the subpoenas are at issue in court, the political ramifications cannot be ignored. The impact of the case may well depend on timing. When the Supreme Court adjourns for the summer, they’re under no obligation to render a final verdict and may elect to send the case back to a lower court for re-deliberation or in search of the a ‘’limiting principle’’ to justify any restraint on Congressional oversight. Such a move would have little effect on the case’s ultimate outcome, but would delay its conclusion until after the election. It could in fact, render the court’s decision moot

Voters in a functioning democracy ought to know whether a candidate was engaged in ongoing criminal behavior prior to casting a ballot. They should also know if the ‘’successful businessman’’ running for office has any entanglements, foreign or domestic which may represent a conflict of interest. A releasing of Trump’s tax returns will enable voters to make an informed judgment about this matter. Smart money says Trump will have to produce some, or all of the documents requested of him. More pressing is what, if any impact the decision may have on the 2020 election.

Learn More

California GOP Wrongly Takes Up Voter Mail Fraud Issue In California Lawsuit

California GOP Wrongly Takes Up Voter Mail Fraud Issue In California Lawsuit

Policy Summary: In April 2020 President Donald J. Trump again claimed that mail – in ballots encouraged cheating and dishonesty with state voting processes. On May 24, 2020 The Republican National Committee and a number of other GOP groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California in an effort to stop California Governor Gavin Newsom’s May 8, 2020 executive order to send all California voters a mail – in ballot for the upcoming November 3, 2020 election.

Governor Newsom’s executive order sets forth three things – [1] that each state county election officials shall deliver vote – by – mail ballots to all registered voters who are eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 election, [2] that no limits will be placed on in – person voting opportunities that are feasible, and [3] that Governor Newsom’s administration will continue to partner with the Secretary of State and the Legislature to explore in – person voting opportunities as well as other details for the November 2020 election. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: Once again, as in recent state elections in Wisconsin in 2020 and North Carolina in 2018 have shown, the Republican Party is attempting to manipulate the issue of absentee and mail – in ballots to suppress votes.

First, the contention in the California lawsuit that vote by mail “invites fraud” and “illegitimate voting” is simply a false assertion that has already been debunked numerous times. In an extensive analytical piece by the Washington Post the article states that the issue is being used to advance a partisan agenda by the GOP even though some GOP figures publicly and privately question President Trump’s attacks on mail – in voting. Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida praised the mail – in voting system in his state while frequent Trump critic and Republican Senator from Utah Mitt Romney said that a majority of his state participates in mail – in voting and that it has worked very well in Utah. State mail – in voting systems, when properly administrated and monitored, are an effective and reliable voting option.

What is not being mentioned is that Governor Newsom’s order is not moving the entire state voting system to a mail – in only system. His order was explicit that he and the Legislature were continuing to explore options with in – person voting and how to do that safely while in the midst of a pandemic. While Democrats have pushed for an expansion of mail – in voting during the pandemic they are also insistent that in – person voting options still be available. Voters could still have the option to vote in person or submit their ballot by mail. Current options, like in – person voting would not be eliminated. The voter would simply have more options to choose how they want to vote.

Finally, President Trump’s claims that that Democrats are encouraging voter fraud by pushing for mail – in ballot options is incredible when one considers the case of GOP operative Leslie Dowless in North Carolina, specifically in the 9th congressional district in that state. In that case, Mr. Dowless was charged with a number of felonies in connection with a scheme to improperly collect and tamper with the absentee ballots in a way that would give more votes to the Republican candidate for Congress from that district in the 2018 election. The end result was that the results of the 2018 election where the Republican narrowly won were voided. That caused the Republican candidate who “won” to step aside and another election to be held. The GOP cannot try to claim that mail – in voting causes fraud when one of their own operatives was caught engaging in a fraudulent scheme in the county’s absentee ballot voting system to help boost a Republican candidate’s chances. The GOP bringing a lawsuit in California to defend fair and honest voting options becomes suspect and exposes what the lawsuit is really about – an effort to discredit mail – in voting systems for partisan reasons, which at its core is nothing but another attempt to suppress votes. In this time where stepping outside to cast a ballot could mean the difference between life and death, the GOP would do better to find ways to help people vote instead of being an obstacle for voters who want to cast their ballot. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

  • Rock the Vote – non – profit group’s infopage on each state’s absentee ballot voting rules.
  • Vote at Home – non – profit group’s webpage advocating for voters to have the option to vote at home and with a collection of vote at home documents and success stories.
  • National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – article from notable website of comparative state laws arguing for both absentee and in – person voting options.
  • Center for American Progress – non – profit group article on why mail – in and in – person voting is essential for people of color.

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 Future is Green

The Future is Green

Policy

Green jobs are the future in spite of heavy layoffs during this period of labor market contraction.  Clean energy lost well over a half a million jobs since the virus hit the economy.  This figure corresponds to 17% of industry jobs.  In the state of California, where the loss was the most dramatic, 105,000 workers lost their jobs. Three years of job growth were eradicated in a month.  These were in the areas of solar roof installation; wind turbine technicians; factory work building electric cars; and work in Energy Star appliances and high efficiency air conditioning.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects solar installers and wind turbine technicians to be the fastest g rowing jobs in the next two years.  Clean energy, with a workforce of 3.4 million, represents three times the workers of the fossil fuel industry.  In spite of this disparity, as part of his response to the pandemic, Trump pledged to bolster the oil and gas industry by providing funds to insure future jobs.  He made no similar announcement regarding clean air or renewable energy; he completely ignored the issue of climate control.

In contrast, there have been a wide range of economists, environmental advocates and policy makers who promote clean energy job as the essential economic sector of the future, both in response to employment and to the impending climate crisis.  California governor Newsom convened a Business and Jobs Recovery task force and twenty states jumped on board urging clean air job creation.  One in three jobs in construction utilizes non-fossil fuel electricity while fossil fuel related construction jobs represent only 13% of jobs.  The New Green Deal, a program initiated by representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, supports federal jobs which support the transition to clean energy by promoting renewable energy projects; clean up at coal mines; increased mass transit construction; and other projects lowering the emissions of toxins.

Analysis

The New Green Deal can emulate the Works Progress Administration which put so many people to work in the depression in government funded jobs.  FDR failed to renew that program because his advisors said that if he did so he would be unlikely to ever rescind it.  But in today’s pandemic economy the importance of public jobs is highlighted.  These jobs should be government work on green projects and other needed infrastructure work. They should pay a living wage and have benefits and health insurance (unless healthcare gets separated from employment).  In the meantime, many policy experts are touting the Universal Basic Income (or guaranteed income) to help sustain citizens, and the economy, until employment can be revived.  Not only is this beneficial to the economic sustenance of the society, it also speaks to the mental health of citizens.  Unemployment has been shown to be correlated to suicide.  Suicide is on the rise and, in some areas the so-called “deaths of despair” outnumber deaths from the virus.

Learn More

USDA Lets Biotech Companies Regulate Themselves

USDA Lets Biotech Companies Regulate Themselves

Policy:

In response to President Trump’s June 2019 executive order for the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency took steps to streamline the process for approving biotech crops, including those produced by gene editing, the USDA has proposed the new SECURE Rule. This new rule will reduce USDA oversight and allow biotech companies to decide if their genetically modified plants/products need to be tested and regulated by the USDA. So, instead of the USDA testing and regulating all genetically modified/engineered plants before they are released for use, the biotech companies get to decide whether, or not, to recommend a product for review and regulation by the USDA.

If a biotech company decides a new product does not pose any risk as a future pest to other crops, then it may release that plant/product for use by the industry without even notifying the USDA. As a guide for which crops require government regulation and which crops do not, the new SECURE Rule essentially states that a new genetically engineered (GE) organism is exempt from government regulation if it:

  1. a) was developed using material from an organism that is not a current plant pest
  2. b) was engineered using “conventional breeding methods,” or
  3. c) was modified by introduction of a “gene, allele, or structural variant” that came from a plant of the same species or of a species that is known to be compatible through “conventional breeding methods.”

“Conventional breeding methods” refers to methods of genetic engineering via wide genetic crosses, embryo rescue, or protoplast fusion. In short, these methods are performed, essentially, by introducing desired genetic factors into plant populations where they may be adopted by the plant population through the natural mutation processes plant populations undergo when exposed to certain factors and environments. If all goes well, some plants from the next generation will have naturally mutated to exhibit the desired traits. These methods are considered to produce low plant-pest risk organisms (meaning low risk of becoming a future major pest). Any genetically engineered plants that do not meet these criteria are still subject to USDA regulation…as long as the biotech companies that produce them are honest about their methods and/or choose to report the new product.

Analysis:

The new SECURE Rule has faced a lot of criticism from a broad range of interest groups. According to a statement from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), “Despite a unified position from environmental groups, consumer organizations, biotech crop developers, and food industry stakeholders imploring USDA to eliminate a provision allowing crop developers to self-determine whether their products are regulated, the Trump administration refused to require developers to even notify the agency of products they believe are exempt under the new regulations.” The representatives of these interest groups, in a letter delivered to the USDA on March 6, 2020, asked that the agency at least include a process by which biotech companies must report any newly produced organisms. They wrote, “Independent of whether the final rule retains the self-determination provision, we strongly encourage the Agency to include in the final rule a process by which a developer is required to notify the Agency of a GE plant that the developer has determined meets one of the exemptions in proposed 340.1(b) or (c) prior to placement on the market.” The statement further explains that “This mandatory notification process would provide a developer with an opportunity to affirm that a GE plant meets an exemption, and it also would provide additional information to the marketplace and consumers.[…] By providing this additional information to consumers regarding what products are available in the market, the Agency is providing an opportunity to grow consumer confidence in the U.S. food supply.” Despite the USDA’s justification and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s praise of the new rule for creating a faster path for the release of biotechnology, this coalition of interest group representatives ended their statement saying, “Many of our organizations hope for modification to the original proposal, we believe that USDA’s final rule should provide opportunities for transparency that can be achieved without limiting innovation or these new products’ potential benefits for society and the environment.”

Many fear that the USDA’s new rule is dangerous because it eliminates too many checks and balances on the biotech industry and its potential effects on our food supply. Aviva Glaser, director of agriculture policy at the National Wildlife Federation says, “There is a need for adequate safeguards and effective regulatory oversight to ensure that there aren’t unintended consequences to biodiversity from these new technologies, but unfortunately, USDA’s rule falls short of achieving this.” Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director for the CSPI, explains that “While some genetically engineered products are safe and beneficial, the federal government needs a regulatory system that tracks product development and ensures safety before products are marketed.” For the CSPI and of the new rule, he says, “We support science- and risk-based federal oversight of genetically engineered plants to ensure they are safe to humans and the environment before they are released for cultivation or restoration, but today’s final regulation does not achieve that result.”

Many, including Center for Food Safety senior attorney Sylvia Wu, feel it’s a good idea to update the legislation for regulating GMO products, that hasn’t been revised since 1987, but view the new SECURE Rule as simply another tactic by the Trump administration to “push through yet another industry-friendly policy that could have ramifications for the country’s food supply.” Instead of fixing the deficiencies and improving the efficiency and strength of the regulatory legislation, the Trump administration is simply cutting back regulation and oversight all together. Wu states that “the revised regulations dramatically scale back USDA’s regulatory authority, leaving most GMOs unregulated, [and] the new regulations finalized by USDA, paradoxically named the SECURE rule, are anything but secure.”

As Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy for the Consumer Federation of America puts it, the bottom line is this: “Consumers have a right to know how gene editing is being used to produce the foods they buy in the market. This rule will undermine public confidence in the food supply and ultimately set back beneficial uses of this technology.” 

Resistance Resources:

Center for Science in the Public Interest

  • Founded in 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest is perhaps the oldest independent, science-based consumer advocacy organization with an impressive record of accomplishments and a clear and ambitious agenda for improving the food system to support healthy eating. https://cspinet.org/

National Wildlife Federation

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

Environmental Defense Fund

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

Consumer Federation of America

  • The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) is an association of non-profit consumer organizations that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education. Today, more than 250 of these groups participate in the federation and govern it through their representatives on the organization’s Board of Directors. CFA is a research, advocacy, education, and service organization. https://consumerfed.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