JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump Urges Schools to Reopen Amidst Pandemic
Brief #43—Education
By Amy Swain
Despite warnings from top health officials, and a steady increase of COVID-19 cases and deaths, Trump is determined to send students back to school on a normal timeline. There have more than 135,000 COVID related deaths reported at this point, with a constant increase in numbers.
Environmental Justice Stops Fossil Fuel Pipelines in Their Tracks
Brief #90—Environment
By Jacob Morton
Two major victories for environmental justice have been served this past week.
Can Women Afford to Work?
Brief #83—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
There are more women working today than not though the peak year of labor force for women was 2000 (59.9%) down to 57.9% in January 2020.
Hearings to Abolish Minneapolis Police Start This Week
Brief #5—Policing in America
By Laura Plummer
Minneapolis is the epicenter of the nation’s ongoing debate on police reform.
The Corruption of William Barr Part 2
Brief #17—Corruption Blog
By Sean Gray
The Corruption Blog is a series of blog posts by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Targeted Districts
Brief #5—Congressional Campaign News
By William Bourque
Our continuing coverage of battleground house elections brings us to Texas’s 22nd district, rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report.
Supreme Court Likely Invoked Purcell Principle to Deny Expanded Access to Voting in Texas and Alabama
Brief #130—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Over the last few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders regarding voting rights, which could have an effect on the November 2020 election.
Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling in Abortion Rights
Brief #76—Healthcare
By Taykor J Smith
The Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have closed all but a single abortion clinic in the state. The 5-4 decision of June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo annulled an anti-abortion law limiting admitting privileges.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) Examined
Brief #88—Foreign Policy
By Gwayne Gautreaux
Touted by supporters as the new NAFTA 2.0, one of the major tenets underlying the Trump Administration’s foreign policy platform was recently put into practice.
For the first time in two decades, Congress has approved spending for research on gun violence
Policy Summary
For the first time in two decades, Congress has approved spending for research on gun violence. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) will receive $25 million. Previously, funding for such research has been barred by the Dickey Amendment, an NRA-backed rule which says the CDC cannot “advocate or promote gun control.” Congress has since recanted its previous position, stating that the CDC can conduct research that does not involve advocacy. The organizations will study a wide range of topics, including the link between domestic violence and gun violence, as well as suicides involving firearms.
In contrast to this surprising shift, H.R.8, or the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, has stalled in the Senate. The bill would mandate background checks when firearms are exchanged between private parties (e.g. consumers). More specifically, it would require a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer to preform a background check before the weapon can be transferred.
In spite of its name, the bill has failed to gain bipartisan support. It was sponsored by a Democrat, Mike Thompson of California’s 5th District. Of its nine original cosponsors, five were Republican, but it has not received any additional GOP cosponsors since its introduction. After being passed in the House in February, it was read in the Senate and placed on its legislative calendar. It has been largely ignored since, becoming one of hundreds of bills passed in the majority-Democrat House to languish in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Analysis
Although Congress has been forced to acknowledge the epidemic of gun violence in our country, it stops short of enacting even basic protections for the public. The CDC and NIH research may eventually force its hand, but collecting and analyzing their findings will be a lengthy process. In the meantime, H.R.8 has another year to move forward before the 116th Congress concludes in January 2021. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely to happen given Mitch McConnell’s relish in making the Senate a graveyard for Democratic bills. In fact, he has publicly stated that he will not bring a gun bill to the floor unless President Trump agrees to sign it beforehand. With that in mind, H.R.8’s future looks bleak.
Even if H.R.8 were passed, it wouldn’t reach the foundations of the problem. It doesn’t address that background check requirements for licensed dealers are already too relaxed. As long as our government remains beholden to the NRA, meaningful change–and public safety–will be unattainable. Americans will continue to die en masse.
That said, the research may have an impact in the long run. Unbiased scientific evidence will allow the CDC and NIH to quantify the epidemic in a manner that’s difficult to refute. That is, the GOP’s deaf and dumb routine on gun violence will gradually become untenable. It’s a step in the right direction, though a small one in the face of our current crisis.
Resources
- Giffords Law Center offers state-level analysis of gun control legislation, as well as a “Gun Law Scorecard” documenting the correlation between strong laws and lower death rates.
- Moms Demand Action has a wealth of information on gun violence, as well as a decade-long analysis on mass shootings.
Photo by Max Kleinen
Congress Debates Modifications to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Despite Opposition; Congressional Bills
Policy Summary: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
In the last few months, there has been a movement in Congress to reconsider Section 230 and to maybe roll back the protections that Section 230 provides. In June 2019 Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” which would modify Section 230 significantly. The bill would remove automatic Section 230 immunity for big tech companies. Additionally, the bill would condition immunity for big tech companies if they can prove through “external audits” that their third party moderation practices are “politically neutral.” And on October 16, 2019, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing that featured testimony from Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Legal Director Corynne McSherry defending Section 230. And just this past month, Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi backed a move to omit Section 230 protections from a number of potential global trade deals. Speaker Pelosi’s office noted that Congress was still debating the future of the law as one reason why it was not included in upcoming trade deals. LEARN MORE
Analysis: While Section 230 has always been controversial since its passage in 1996 the recent genesis for the debate in Congress over the section lies in Congressional frustration with Facebook, Twitter and other online platforms in developing a workable policy that addresses hate speech, political speech and other speech concerns. The inability to make progress in that arena has prompted Members of Congress to turn to Section 230 and maybe make some changes to that law to encourage online platforms to rein in companies to motivate them to deal with the speech concerns that have plagued many of those platforms and websites.
But is removing the immunity from those potential lawsuits the best way to approach hate speech and online bullying that can be found on those platforms? While those concerns need to be addressed on a daily basis and no workable solution has yet been drafted, it is telling that two of the most well known civil rights groups in the country have come out in defense of Section 230 as written and have taken the position to oppose changes to the law. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a blog post that praised Section 230 and listed instances where the law has helped to foster technological innovation and free speech while even acknowledging that mistakes can happen here and there. But the overall point made by the ACLU is that Section 230 is positive. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has issued one – page information sheets that explains why Section 230 is important, not broken and a benefit to society. The info sheets is similar to the points made by the ACLU and is significant because it comes from EFF – a well – respected non – profit group whose mission is to defend civil liberties in the digital world.
The other side of the argument in Congress has made waves for what it is suggesting but the option, specifically from Senator Hawley in Missouri, is seen as nothing but a last resort for Congress’ failure to push online platforms to workable speech policies. Senator Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” is disturbing on a number of levels. His bill would give the federal government a role in determining what speech is appropriate on websites which can easily lead to censorship of topics that the government does not favor. And the term “politically neutral” is a term that is so vague that it can only cause confusion in trying to have it implemented in a fair and objective manner. This bill from Senator Hawley would destroy any benefits that Section 230 has brought over the last twenty – three years.
While the debate in Congress continues over the future of Section 230, it is becoming clear that Section 230 has had a positive effect. While it can of course be improved as any law can, the positions taken by the ACLU and EFF touting its benefits should be taken seriously lest the U.S. make a rash and uninformed decision to modify Section 230, especially in a way that Senator Hawley’s bill proposes to go. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Lawfare – legal website’s essay on the history, development and motivations for enacting Section 230.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit group webpage on Section 230.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group webpage on Section 230.
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.
Photo by Quino Al
Correcting Trump on Wind Power
Last weekend President Trump gave a much-publicized speech to young conservatives in Florida, which included his thoughts on wind energy. In response to his remarks, I wish to target some of his talking points and illustrate how they muddy the waters of discussion around renewables. For his narrative uses a common tactic of discrediting support for environmentalism by abandoning comparison in favor of political soundbites and criticisms of the energy system.
First, Trump says that wind turbines are made mainly abroad, with the insinuation being that the U.S. is supporting foreign industry and that we should stop purchasing them. Claiming that wind turbines are mainly manufactured abroad is, at best, a gross oversimplification. Wind turbines are constructed from a litany of parts, with some being produced in the U.S. and others overseas. According to the Department of Energy’s annual Wind Technologies Market Report, as of 2017, domestic manufacturing of wind turbine components is strong on the whole. Domestic industry accounts for the creation of 70 – 90% of wind turbine towers, 50 – 70% of blades and hubs, and over 85% of nacelle assembly. Although the domestic turbine industry is reliant upon imports, this does not warrant an all-inclusive condemnation of wind turbine production.
Secondly , Trump spoke about turbine manufacturing generating enormous amounts
of greenhouse gases which threatens us all as it furthers the process of global warming. Manufacturing of wind turbines probably creates some some greenhouse gases, but this does not mean that it should be stopped. There is also no data on the amount of greenhouse gases created by wind turbine production specifically, so Trump’s claim of a “tremendous” amount is a factually bankrupt, subjective judgement. In addition, if Trump is so concerned about emissions, why does he support expanding the fossil fuel industry and the reduction of anti-pollution protections?
Third, Trump says that homes near wind turbines are worth 50% less than comparable properties. This is a contested claim, with some studies arguing against and others for. Many studies show that homes near turbines sell for anywhere between 10 – 50% less than comparable homes, but many others declare a negligible impact, while still others show that properties around wind turbines already have low property values. Although Trump’s assertion of 50% is nothing but a political soundbite, it is possible. Yet property value is dependent upon the location of said homes, the surrounding environment, and an array of other factors. It also should be noted that more and more wind turbines are being located on wind farms far removed from residential neighborhoods.
Fourth, Trump claims that turbines are “noisy, bird graveyards.” Addressing the claim of “noisy,” wind turbines do indeed create noise. This is unavoidable. However, General Electric reports that at 300 meters (the closest that you are allowed to build a home next to a wind turbine), they create less noise than the average air conditioner. Perhaps that is too noisy for some, but it’s a subjective judgement. Turning to “bird graveyard,” it is true that turbine blades kill birds. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2013, turbines kill 679,000 birds per year at most. This means that at most, each turbine in the U.S. kills 12 birds a year. Perhaps this can be defined as a graveyard, but once again, it’s a subjective judgement. In addition, collisions with building glass kill somewhere around 500 million birds a year. If Trump is really so concerned about bird graveyards, perhaps he should consider how his support of offshore drilling effects waterfowl.
Fifth, Trump argues that turbines should not be constructed in “beautiful fields.” Once again, Trump is making a subjective argument. Turbines are constructed in areas where there is regularly enough wind to generate energy. The wind does not conform itself to the built human environment. Also, according to the Department of Energy in 2017, 91% of new wind installations are owned by private entities. Private ownership is to be respected under our system of law, so if a property owner chooses to build a turbine on their property, so be it. Perhaps Trump is suggesting a form of authoritarianism? Unlikely, but his desire to preserve supposedly virgin landscapes from the aesthetic stain of wind turbines comes with economic, moral, legal, and environmental impacts.
Sixth, Trump claims that after 10 years, turbines face serious repairs, with the implication being that they are unfeasible in the long-term and unprofitable. Perhaps he’s referring to how every 8 – 10 years a turbine’s gearbox typically needs to be rebuilt. However, this does not mean that the turbine is finished. The design life of a modern, industrial turbine is usually projected as being 20 – 30 years, with this being negatively or positively affected by a multitude of factors such as the turbulence of the site. Maintenance price will obviously rise as the turbine gets older, but this is no different from any other machine and does not render turbines economically unviable. If the turbine was placed somewhere that does not have enough regular wind or the owner cannot front repair costs a turbine can be a profit failure, but this is utterly dependent upon context. Trump is assuming far too many variables for this claim to be correct.
Finally, Trump implies that wind energy only remains financially viable because of government subsidies. The industry does receive $176 billion in government subsidies. In addition, U.S. wind energy faces the struggle of balancing significant demand and growth with robust competitive pressures from foreign firms and the anticipation of reduced domestic demand due to the decreasing of Production Tax Credits (PTC). The argument for or against government subsidies, no matter the industry, hinges upon whether the tax dollars spent in the short-term to support positive growth leads to a clear public good and economic profit in the long-term. I believe that this is the crux of Trump’s argument, and when examined, displays his inherent bias against renewables and the influence of the fossil fuel lobby upon his campaign.
Trump’s most coherent and factually correct arguments (namely bird deaths, noise, government subsidization, and the manufacturing of turbines creating emissions) rely upon his opinion. It is his opinion that bird deaths by turbines are unacceptable, that manufacturing turbines generates far too much greenhouse gases, that turbines make too much noise, and that the government is giving the wind energy industry too much money. These are all very real and factually correct effects of producing, installing, and running wind turbines. However, when we speak about combating climate change, we must utilize a comparative lens. Whether we are speaking about paper straws, LED bulbs, or the institution of a carbon tax, we must measure the status quo against the alternative. For example, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind energy creates 11 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (CO2/kWh) of energy generation. Coal produces 980 grams CO2/kWh, and natural gas produces 465 grams CO2/kWh. In this example, if we are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, wind energy far and away defeats fossil fuels. Opponents may point to the necessity of having fossil fuel backups for wind power and that turbines need to be driven to sites with fossil fuel-powered trucks. This is all true, but it does not mean that wind energy and renewable energy on the whole should be demonized or abandoned. It simply points to the need to continue developing and improving green energy along with improving transportation modes and systems, manufacturing, and further the growth of green energy networks. Compared to fossil fuels, renewables cannot be said to be worse for the environment, and they generate economic growth in their own right. Global Share Statistics reports that the wind industry will be valued at $160 billion in 2024 fueled by a growth rate of 12%.
Does Trump say that wind energy should be abandoned? No, but he certainly implies that it should be publicly defunded, limited in growth, and that people should not invest in it. He claims that he wants “the cleanest water and air in the world” for the U.S., and yet his rhetoric and the implications of his speech point to something altogether different.
Photo by Richard Horne
A Rare Moment: Democrats, Republicans and Trump Agree on New Trade Agreement
Policy:
In a rare alliance, the Democrats worked to support revisions to Trump’s United States Mexico Canada Trade Agreement. The current bill, passed by the House in mid-December and expected to succeed in the Senate early in the New Year, represents significant changes to the original 2017 bill. This bill essentially replaces the highly unpopular NAFTA (the 1994 Clinton era North American Free Trade Agreement). Trump, as well as many other political and labor entities, belives that NAFTA has had dire consequences on American manufacturing. The new agreement, hailed by the Democrats as a win, provides for more worker right, environmental protections, and eliminating a ten year mandate extending patents for drugs. The bill also addresses intellectual property rights, protects US manufacturing by providing for zero tariffs for parts made in the US, and establishes significant oversight for the Mexican authorities should they fail to institute the terms of the agreement. The agreement affects 1.2 trillion dollars in North American merchandise trade. The Mexican government passed the agreement in June and is expected to do so for the amendments in the New Year. Canada is also expected to pass the agreement though Trudeau’s party requires the support of one other party to obtain the needed votes.
Analysis:
The Democrats are embracing this revised agreement as a win, particularly for gaining ten years of de-regulation of prescription drug patents allowing for the sale of generics; workers’ benefits, right to establish independent unions, and government accountability for these; intellectual property protection; and the opening of the Canadian milk market to US farmers. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he will not vote for the bill. He suggested that is it was only a moderate improvement over NAFTA, which he also did not vote for, and that it did not address climate control or prevent companies from opening factories overseas. Although the Democrats failed to stop the legal protection for companies’ internet content, a win for big tech, all in all they are climbing success with the revised agreement. The section in question provides a legal shield which protects companies from liability for their internet content. The general sentiment among Republicans is dismay with the concessions Trump made. Generally, labor is supportive with the AFL-CIO endorsing the agreement even as a subsidiary, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers dissented claiming a failure to stem the flow of jobs to Mexico. Although the USMCA is widely seen as a significant improvement over the original proposal, the Democrats fear this will align Trump with more support from workers. The overall impact on trade and jobs will be revealed in the future but it is bound to be an improvement over the 1994 NAFTA, which proved almost universally unpopular once it was implemented.
Learn More:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-democrats-say-they-back-trumps-revised-trade-deal-with-canada-and-mexico-citing-recent-changes/2019/12/10/46cd0662-1b4f-11ea-8d58-5ac3600967a1_story.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/12/19/house-passes-reworked-north-american-trade-deal-victory-trump-democrats/
- https://theweek.com/speedreads/885450/bernie-sanders-reveals-wont-vote-usmca-says-climate-change-omission-deal-outrage
Resistance Resources:
Photo by chuttersnap
Good til the last drop: Colorado river’s drought contingency plan
POLICY
40 million people in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming depend upon the Colorado river for their water. This is in addition to a water-hungry $5 billion-a-year agricultural industry. There is a 2007 agreement – that includes Mexico – governing water usage; this agreement expires in 2026.
The Colorado river feeds two major reservoirs: Lake Mead and Lake Powell, both of which are at historically low levels. Currently, the reservoirs are about half full.
A 19-year drought coupled with a pattern of hotter and drier temperatures have forced all parties back to the negotiating table to agree upon a “drought contingency plan.” This is a voluntary agreement to use less water than allowed under the original 2007 agreement. Quality of life issues along with environmental justice have moved front and center in these discussions.
Although California and Arizona failed to meet an earlier deadline to wrap up negotiations, they did finally come to agreement in May of 2019; all parties are now signed onto the revised usage plan with all agreeing to use less water.
Signatories also include Native Indian tribes. There are 29 tribes in the Colorado River Basin; they have annual rights to 2.8 million-acre-feet of river water – approximately the amount allotted to the entire state of Arizona.
California’s Imperial Valley is the largest single user of Colorado River’ water – 20% of the total water allotment. Farmers there use that water to grow about 80 percent of the nation’s winter crops, including lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, sweet corn, watermelons, cantaloupe, and onions. Farmers also produce alfalfa and Bermuda grass hay, which is used as dairy feed in the U.S. and abroad.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is the federal agency which oversees nationwide water resource management, and its current Commissioner, Brenda Burman, has been actively facilitating negotiations. The USBR falls under the U.S Department of the Interior.
ANALYSIS
Some climate models show the Colorado River flows dropping as much as 30 percent by the middle of the century. Water managers will have to face the fact that there is less water in the system. As a whole though, the Trump administration and its Department of Interior, which oversees the Colorado River and its management, have not been willing to acknowledge climate change.
Are the Arizona’s golf courses and the fountains of Las Vegas more important than irrigating farms for food? There are complicated tradeoffs between sustainable management of water supplies, conservation, affordability, infrastructure investment and equity. And while Phoenix citizens get only 7.5 inches of rain a year, they are not solely reliant upon the Colorado; they draw from two other rivers: Salt and Verde and have over a trillion gallons of native groundwater, which they fastidiously protect as a savings account for future generations. And demand has been reduced. In Phoenix, usage has fallen 30 percent in the last 20 years – while serving nearly 400,000 more people, the result of a long-term culture change regarding the way residents view water.
Another significant consideration is the hydro-electricity supplied by the Colorado River.The Hoover Dam on Lake Mead generates, on average, about 4 billion kilowatt-hours of hydroelectric power each year for use in Nevada, Arizona, and California – enough to serve 1.3 million people. A large drop – below 950 feet – would be enough to shut-off the turbines.
President Trump did finally sign a bill in April of 2019 authorizing the drought contingency plan (DCP), following the bill’s passage through Congress with bipartisan support. Trump’s Interior Secretary, David Bernhardt, has indicated that he wants the USBR to be more inclusive of tribal leaders, environmental groups, non-governmental organizations and others interested in the management of the river.
Resistance Resources:
- https://www.watereducation.org/ creates a better understanding of water issues and helps resolve water problems through educational programs.
- http://www.livingrivers.org/index.cfm empowers a movement to instill a new ethic of achieving ecological restoration, balanced with meeting human needs.
- https://westernresourceadvocates.org/ protects the West’s land, air and water to ensure that vibrant communities exist in balance with nature.
- http://uswateralliance.org/ advances policies and programs that build a sustainable water future for all.
Photo by Ramin Khatibi
US Contributes to the Failure of Global Climate Change Meeting
Policy Summary
Last week, the Chile/Madrid UN Climate Change Conference closed with disappointingly familiar lip-service to the value of addressing climate change while doing nothing to challenge the status quo or address historical emission sources. Officially called the 25th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change (COP 25), the meeting in Madrid was meant to discuss progress made towards the goals set in the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. The Paris Climate Accord is an agreement signed by over 200 nations to reduce and limit greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is thought to be the point at which Earth will experience the most destructive effects of climate change. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres opened the conference with a speech that declared it as the “point of no return” in the fight against climate change, which makes the outcome that much more discouraging and further highlights the fact that such talk is nothing but hollow words.
Worldwide, greenhouse emissions continue to rise despite the promises of elites and governments across the board. In 2015 at the signing of the Paris Climate Accord, those states officially recognized that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced and declared that said emissions were to peak in 2020 at the latest and begin to fall through the concerted effort of countries who signed the Agreement. However, in order to reach the set goals of the Paris Climate Accord, emissions will now need to drop by an annual 7.6% for the next ten years. On full display at the COP 25 conference was the impact of the U.S.’s absence from the Paris Climate Accord, along with the interests of other powerful, industrialized states. Both of these facets will be examined in the analysis. Despite Trump’s formal withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the absence of any Trump administration officials at the COP 25, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a 15-member congressional delegation were in attendance. Speaker Pelosi noted that “we’re still in,” meaning the US Paris Agreement withdrawal doesn’t legally take effect til after the next US Presidential election.
A major hope for COP 25 was the construction of rules for an international emission-trading system, which was discussed at the 2018 COP conference in Poland. Such a system would involve a global market for carbon dioxide emissions, where each state and business would receive a supply of carbon credits. Those that emit below a set cap are able to sell their left-over allowance of credits to those that do not, letting governments and businesses trade their carbon dioxide outputs. Proponents argue that trading will encourage greenhouse gas producers to limit their emissions. However, those at the COP 25 were unable to come to an agreement over the rules of such a system.
Analysis
COP 25 was hamstrung from the start and drastically hindered by wealthy state’s unwillingness to admit to and reduce their impacts upon increasing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice, fossil fuel companies are lobbying and encouraging wealthy countries to force through carbon emission-trading markets. Such markets do not actually reduce emissions, which is what is needed to meet the Paris Climate Accord targets but compensate for increased emissions and create the false image that governments and businesses are addressing climate change. It ignores the fact that the vast majority of historical greenhouse gas emissions have come from the Global North, that the over-consumption of the Global North is the direct cause of climate change, and that those that are the most privileged will have to surrender thought-to-be inherent pleasures and patterns to ensure that the marginalized do not shoulder the burden that they did not create.
Emission-trading does not actually limit emissions, as each new business is afforded a new supply of carbon credits and those industries that over-produce carbon dioxide can easily access more credits rather than limit their production. Market-based solutions cannot hope to address climate change, as it is the market itself and the pursuit of profit and continual economic growth that has created anthropogenic climate change. If governments, corporations, and the people themselves cannot accept that human and ecological well-being should come before growth, then the future of human civilization is doomed to hang in the balance.
The U.S. has displayed disappointing leadership and a complete unwillingness to engage with climate and environmental justice matters. The Trump administration has signaled its intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, and even the Democratic congressional delegation that attended the COP 25 conference objected to provisions that would hold the U.S. and other wealthy states accountable for the destruction that climate change has wrought. The fossil fuel industry is expected to grow, at a minimum, 50% more than what is needed to meet a 2 degree Celsius cap by 2030, and 120% farther than what is required to meet the 1.5-degree Celsius target recommended by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change in a recent report.. The U.S. will certainly be a principle driver of this expansion, as its domestic fossil fuel industry, the international fossil fuel corporations based within it, the American military-industrial complex, and the consumption habits of its population show no signs of ramping down. It appears that everything, including greenhouse gas emissions, is big in America.
The hollow promises and lip-service of elites and governments must be resisted. It is the privilege of those in the U.S. and the Global North to have the power to affect change to a disproportionate degree. The burden of climate change is being unduly forced upon those that are marginalized within the global order, and the abuse of people of color, women, youth, indigenous peoples, and those communities on the frontline of climate change cannot be tolerated.
Engagement Resources:
- Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice – a global movement of over 200 environmental justice, climate justice, civil rights, environmentalist, and other civil society groups that are fighting for change in the struggle against climate change
- ActionAid – fights for women’s rights, poverty alleviation, and climate change issues
- NYRenews – a coalition of over 200 community groups in New York fighting for progressive climate laws
- Got Green – an environmental justice organization based in Seattle seeking to grow community power in environmental, racial, economic, and gender issues
Photo by Roxanne Desgagnés
Federal Court of Appeals Case Rules On The Limits of Obligations Of Colleges and Universities In Title IX Campus Sexual Assault Incidents
Policy Summary
On December 12, 2019 Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder issued the opinion of the court in Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University. This opinion helped to clarify how “student – on – student” sexual harassment incidents are to be handled as it pertains to the causes of action a victim can pursue under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX is a civil rights provision that was passed to supplement the Higher Education Act of 1965. It reads “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” In the early 2000’s, this law evolved and was now primarily being used to adjudicate alleged sexual misconduct between co – eds on college campuses.
In January 2012 Emily Kollaritsch filed a report to Michigan State campus authorities alleging a sexual assault. An investigation was initiated and the perpetrator was placed on probation and prohibited from contacting Ms. Kollaritsch. However, Ms. Kollaritsch continued to see the perpetrator around campus which prompted her to file a “retaliation complaint.” Another investigation was undertaken but this time it was determined that no retaliation occurred and was merely the result of Ms. Kollaritsch seeing the perpetrator around campus. Afterwards, Ms. Kollaritsch brought a lawsuit against the school alleging a Title IX violation claiming the school’s actions deprived her of educational opportunities. The district court ended up dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims except four claims that relate to the Title IX claim. The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where the court ruled that Ms. Kollaritsch and the other plaintiffs did not have a Title IX case to pursue for their sexual assault allegations. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The issuance of the opinion in this case has caused quite a stir with a number of publications calling the ruling a “narrowing of a school’s Title IX obligations” to female students who are victims of sexual assault. But those interpretations are a bit extreme and overlook the overall effect of this decision on Title IX cases. The opinion is actually a pretty straightforward illustration of how a court interprets words and phrases in a statute and how a court can rein in interpretations that go further than what is allowed under existing rules and cases. In this case, Circuit Judge Batchelder helped elaborate on the Title IX cause of action against a school by the student by clarifying key terms found in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999). That case held that a school can be held liable to a student if [1] it is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment and [2] has actual knowledge that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive…to deprive the victims of…educational opportunities. Her opinion goes in depth to define each term but when it came time to apply the standard to the facts of Ms. Kollitscher’s case it found that she did not have an appropriate Title IX action. The court said that the victim merely “seeing” the perpetrator around campus did not amount to severe, pervasive and objectively offensive harassment. And it also stated that the school was not deliberately indifferent because it did not take an act or perform an act of omission that could be considered unreasonable to the victim. The court is careful to not be dismissive of the injuries suffered by the victim. But in a civil rights context which could have resulted in liability against the school the court made clear that a victim’s complaint must not be general in nature and must be factually specific as to the harm she suffered, why it was caused by actions taken by the school and not merely be a list of other harms suffered by third parties on campus.
While this opinion may be a controversial ruling at the moment, the key takeaway is that the ruling is laying out the outlines for how sexual assault claims based on Title IX at institutes of higher learning need to be approached. What the case did was help clarify what the obligations are of a school and other parties whenever a sexual assault complaint is filed at and against the school. The way schools approach sexual assault incidents may be different in the future after input from legislators, victim rights groups and other stakeholders but at least for now a court is wading into the issue with a plan that could lay the groundwork for a fair and workable plan in the area of campus sexual assaults. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
RISE NOW – Sexual Assault Survivors Bill of Rights – group advocating sexual assault survivors legislative reform bills.
RAINN – non – profit group geared to developing programs and services that support survivors of sexual violence and their loved ones.
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.
Photo by Mihai Surdu
The Economy in the Swing States and Re-election Forecasts
Policy Summary
In spite of generally positive economic indicators there are worrisome trends emanating from the Midwest, particularly in five essential swing states. Manufacturing and agriculture have been impacted by the tariff wars and there is every indication that even if the tariffs are rolled back the affected regions will not bounce back until after the election.
More specifically, job growth has decelerated almost to stagnation in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. There is evidence that the repercussions of the decrease in trade has extended to the movement and shipping of goods. Trump’s reduction in tariffs, announced December 13, was touted as a new beginning for the regionb but such declarations often have given was to false hopes of real continuity and relief. These trends to not bode well for working people in these areas.
Analysis:
Trump has boasted of the excellent economic indicators which he attributes to his administration. Attitudes towards the effectiveness of economic policies are good indicators of the electorate’s sentiments. Moody’s Analytics economists are predicting a Trump re-election, as are other entities using different models. Most draw on unemployment data, gas prices, basic economic indicators, approval ratings, and voter turnout in various combinations. Unemployment is at an all-time 50 year low and predicted to improve in 2020 along with the easing of the trade war. Major metropolitan areas are booming but the “rust belt” is suffering job losses.
Currently, there is a significant chasm between the macro indicators signifying a strong economy and the subjective feeling of “everyday” Americans. Democrats suggest that though 401Ks are doing well they are offset by increases in cost of living particularly in education, healthcare, daycare, and retirement. Pew surveys indicate that 49% percent of Americans are worried about their immediate finances with another 25% worried about the future.
These fears pre-date Trump but are exacerbated by fears surrounding the corrosion of the Affordable Care Act. Satisfaction with the economic situation has fallen 8% between May and October though 52% of poll respondents still approve of Trump’s handling of the economy. Pew surveys shows that 58% feel the economy is hurting the middle class and 64% say it hurts the poor while 69% suggest it is helping the wealthy. There is a general feeling, shown by Democratic PACs, that the candidates really need to focus very strongly on the day-to-day help they can offer to working Americans. Highlighting broken promises made by Trump can support this effort. For example, Trump’s claim that an Ohio auto plant would “come back,” actually was in contradiction to the eventual closing of the plant.
A person’s view of the economy is strongly tied to their partisan identification. Republican views of the economy rose with Trump’s election. Seventy five percent of Republicans assess the economy as excellent or good while 41% of Democrats do the same. Notable is the fact that Trump’s approval rating remains consistent at about 41.7%. The Democrats must be targeted when they criticize the overall indicators and their impact on “average” Americans.
Learn More
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/16/business/trump-midwest-swing-jobs.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-campaigning-roaring-economy-here-s-how-democrats-plan-n1102131
Resistance Resources:
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/small-donors-get-creative-to-give-over-and-over-to-2020-candidates-11572001202 An article on how to make multiple small donations to campaigns.
Photo by Markus Spiske
Federal Courts Check Autocratic Uses of Executive Power
Policy
Recently, there have been some victories by way of upholding the US Constitution in the wake of the Trump Administration’s lawless attempts to limit immigration and install Trump’s long promised Border Wall. The first case, filed in El Paso covers Trump’s threat to declare a national emergency to re-distribute funds to construct his wall (in January 2019) and the second case addresses Trump’s proposed changes to the path to citizenship for Legal Permanent Residents (Green Card Holders).
El Paso County v Trump
Protect Democracy represented the county of El Paso, Texas and the Border Network for Human Rights in a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over the declaration of a national emergency to fund the construction of a border wall along the US Southern Border earlier this year. They sought and were granted an injunction to block the declaration from taking effect. An injunction is a legal remedy in the form of a court order that obligates a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. This lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in El Paso. The plaintiffs claimed Trump’s threat to declare a national emergency if Congress did not allocate funding for his border wall usurped the Constitutional Authority that Congress has and thus is inconsistent with the US Constitution’s separation of powers.
They also claimed that Trump’s demonization of Latino immigrants as sources of crime, drugs and violence has caused harm to immigrant communities and communities of color throughout the US and depicts Trump as an autocrat.
Inglis v South Carolina
In October 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced potential changes to the naturalization process that could present barriers to citizenship for 10,000+ non-wealthy applicants annually. Protect Democracy and several other organizations filed a lawsuit in California on behalf of the communities who would be harmed by the proposed changes.
In November, the plaintiffs asked a federal court to immediately ban USCIS from implementing changes until the pending lawsuit was resolved. They additionally asked the court to find Ken Cucinelli’s installation as the current acting Head of USCIS unlawful, therefore making the changes invalid. Cucinelli’s installation was allegedly unlawful because it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) that governs the process for filling vacant executive branch positions usually subject to Senate confirmation. Under the FVRA any incoming acting secretary would need to be the natural next in line, like a deputy, be previously Senate-confirmed for another job, or have been working at the department 90 days of the 365 days prior to the last confirmed secretary’s departure. Cucinelli does not meet any of these requirements.
In early December, a judge from the Northern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring USCIS from implementing the proposed changes.
Analysis
These court victories are a positive step in upholding the US Constitution and legal system in the face of a presidency with autocratic tendencies. In both Inglis v South Carolina and El Paso County v Trump, the emphasis on maintaining checks on the Executive Branch sends an important message about American democracy and enforces the notion that Americans will use the full extent of the law to ensure their rights are not infringed upon or abused.
President Trump has made several statements, carried out actions and used alarming rhetoric – in regard to immigration and other sectors of US politics – that contain autocratic auras. Fortunately there are still measures in place, such as the Federal court system, that can check excess use of power in the executive branch.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Protect Democracy: a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fighting domestic and international attacks to free, fair and fully formed self-government
- 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.
Photo by Aditya Joshi
Articles of Impeachment
Blog Post # 10: Articles of Impeachment
December 17, 2019
Articles of Impeachment have been finalized in the case against President Donald J. Trump. House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have settled on two charges and are scheduled to vote on Wednesday. The almost certain result is a vote to impeach, strictly along party lines. Following that likely occurrence, the president’s fate will be determined in a trial held by the Senate. Trump and a number of co-conspirators have admitted that nearly $400 million in military aid was withheld from Ukraine while they attempted to get the country to investigate Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory. Votes in the upper and lower houses of Congress are expected to be partisan. Much of the case’s substance has already been presented for public consumption. The proceedings may be lacking in suspense but are hardly insignificant as they could have great impact in the near and distant future.
Article 1 – Abuse of Power
This is not a statuary criminal offense per se. Nor is ‘’abuse of power’’ mentioned in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. However, bribery, treason, high crimes and other misdemeanors are listed as impeachable offenses. Each would be considered an abuse of power, and each, without embellishment could be used to describe Trump’s transgressions. Additionally, as current Trump sycophant, Lindsey Graham put so eloquently in 1998: ‘’You don’t have to commit a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic… impeachment isn’t about punishment… impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.’’
While the quote resonates today, the first article against Trump is more substantive than a noble ideal. Donald Trump, in conjunction with Mick Mulvaney and the Office of Management and Budget put a hold on $391 million in Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine. In the redacted transcript of the July 25th phone call between he and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky, Trump asked the newly-minted leader to investigate political rival, Joe Biden and the discredited theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 US presidential election. He has since doubled down on these requests by asking Ukraine as well as China to investigate the Biden’s on the White House lawn. Corruption is no less problematic when it takes place in plain sight.
The President’s defenders in the House have sought to dismiss the notion that any link exists between the freeze on aid and the requested investigations. The aid was released, no investigation was announced, and the Ukrainians never knew about the hold. This has been a popular refrain for Trump supporters involved in the inquiry. This specious reasoning ignores intention as well as key evidence. Aid was indeed released. It was released as the fiscal year was set to expire, a complaint about the withholding of aid had been filed by a whistle-blower, and as Congress announced its plans to investigate Rudy Giuliani and the unexplained halt on the security assistance.
The idea that the Ukrainians did not know about the freeze on aid is directly contradicted by Deputy Secretary Assistant of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, Laura Cooper. Cooper testified before the House Intelligence Committee that members of her staff received inquiries about the aid from Ukrainian officials on July 25th, the same day as the Trump-Zelensky phone call.
It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump attempted to use his office for his personal benefit at the expense of the American people. That he was unsuccessful doesn’t make his offenses any less egregious.
Article 2 – Obstruction of Congress
Checks and balances between co-equal branches of government are paramount to a functioning democracy. The sole power of impeachment rests in the House. It is their purview alone to investigate malfeasance within the Executive Branch and hold those responsible accountable. A president does not get to tell off Congress because he doesn’t like his conduct scrutinized. The subpoenas for documents and witnesses issued by Congress were legitimate and well within their right to demand in furtherance of their investigation. Trump is unambiguously guilty of this offense. It is his prerogative to not actively participate in the process of impeachment. It is not his prerogative to stonewall the House of Representatives and order his subordinates to defy lawfully issued subpoenas. This is not the conduct of a president, but of a would-be autocrat who believes himself immune from investigation.
On a different, but not unrelated note, ordering Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton not to testify looks more like damage control than anything else. Damning testimony was provided from government officials who could not be kept from the witness stand, most of whom were on the peripheral of the pay-for-play scheme. Given that, it seems far more likely that Trump ordered the most key players in the Ukraine saga to stay away, not because he felt the process was illegitimate, but because he knew and feared what they might say. When Trump defenders argue there isn’t enough in the articles to impeach a president, his own obstruction contributed to the perceived absence of evidence.
The Need for Accountability
America’s Founding Father’s wanted a system of government that would prevent any one branch from gaining an inordinate amount of power. They’d just rid the new nation of a monarchy and took pains to ensure there would never be another one. They also recognized that someone would come along to threaten that delicate balance, and impeachment was the remedy they prescribed. The framers of the US Constitution were invoked numerous times through the initial phases of the House impeachment inquiry; usually in reference to an individual who would subvert democracy through unchecked power. It hardly strains credulity to think Donald Trump is exactly the type of individuals the framers had in mind.
Since his inauguration in 2017, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a disdain and/or lack of understanding of crucial components of American democracy. Last year, when Congress refused to allocate $8 billion in funds for his long-promised Border Wall, he shut down the government. When Saturday Night Live mocked him, he suggested that libel laws be reexamined and seemed to think the First Amendment had not been challenged in court. He has persistently attacked a free press as an ‘’enemy of the people’’. He has publicly insulted long-standing allies while fawning over despots such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan and Kim Jong Un. He authored the quote ‘’then I have an Article 2, which says I can do anything I want as president.’’ This abridged list of the president’s autocratic leanings demonstrates that the man has little respect and less understanding of the guiding principles of our system of government.
None of this is to suggest that what Trump has done in regard to Ukraine is not bad in and of itself. Ukraine is a vulnerable ally amid a five-year conflict on its home turf. Russia is an adversary of the United States. President Putin seeks to re- establish Russia as a global superpower. It was to this end that Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and has supported Russian friendly fighters in a territorial dispute in Eastern Ukraine. ‘’Russia seeks to undermine core institutions of the West such as NATO, the EU and to weaken faith in the democratic, free-market system’’ per the US State Department’s own website. The sides are clear. Ukraine receives US dollars to support their nascent democracy and fight advances from Moscow. Trump spit in the face of an ally while delivering a boost to the Kremlin, all in the name of scoring cheap political points. If that doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment, what does?
Odds of Removal in The Senate Trial
For all the Republicans calling the impeachment process a sham, the party is doing everything possible to ensure that the Senate Trial is just that. Mitch McConnell, who as Senate Majority Leader is essentially the jury foreman, has already admitted to corrupting the process. In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity the six-term Kentucky Senator said there is ‘’zero chance’’ Trump is removed from office and that he’s ‘’coordinating everything [he] does with the White House.’’ Calls to recuse himself are certain to go unheeded. In a civilian criminal case, such efforts would result in a mistrial and possible jail time for the juror responsible.
The odds of removal were always lower than they were for impeachment. Twice in American history has an impeached president been brought before a Senate Trial and each time the Senate failed to deliver the two-thirds majority vote necessary for removal from office. Public opinion is split fairly evenly as to whether Trump should be impeached and subsequently removed from office. McConnell’s ‘’zero percent’’ quote is not likely a true probability of Trump’s removal but speaks loudly to the overwhelming odds against his conviction. Republicans are the majority in the Senate, with a 53-47-member advantage. Assuming 47 Democrats vote to convict Trump, 20 GOP members would also have to be persuaded to do the same. 20 defections, while not impossible, is exceedingly unlikely. A number of Senate Republicans are up for re-election in 2020 in states where Trump enjoys strong support and fear his cyber retribution. For almost three years Trump’s allies in Congress have regularly been put in a position to defend the indefensible. In that time, it has been made clear that most of them value their jobs over their concern for their country’s well-being. At this juncture it is difficult to envision 20 Republicans having the change of heart necessary to vote their conscience before the Senate trial.
Photo by Samantha Sophia