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

 

The Crisis in Worker Wages

Brief #82—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Fair wages, universal healthcare, paid parental leave, paid sick leave, paid annual leave.  These should be the minimal components of employment.  It is not rocket science. These things are attainable and would help both the employer and the employee. 

read more

The Crisis in Worker Wages

Brief #82—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Fair wages, universal healthcare, paid parental leave, paid sick leave, paid annual leave.  These should be the minimal components of employment.  It is not rocket science. These things are attainable and would help both the employer and the employee.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
President Trump Signs Controversial Executive Order to Combat Anti – Semitism On College Campuses; Executive Order; December 2019

President Trump Signs Controversial Executive Order to Combat Anti – Semitism On College Campuses; Executive Order; December 2019

Policy Summary: On Wednesday December 11, 2019 President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order declaring Judaism a “nationality.” The executive order goes on to state that a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will have occurred if there is discrimination against Jews in programs and activities in schools, universities and college campuses that receive federal funding. As originally written, Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. The Jews and the Jewish community were not defined or grouped in any of the Title VI categories until President Trump signed the executive order to include them. LEARN MORE

Analysis: The controversial executive order signed by President Trump is guided by the noble purpose of combatting anti – Semitism but the order has serious flaws. First, the executive order likely runs afoul of Free Speech and the First Amendment. Second, the executive order may be unconstitutional.

Since the executive order was written specifically for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 application of the order has been focused on discriminatory incidents that occur at schools, colleges and universities that receive federal funding. What President Trump was likely trying to do with this order was to try and suppress criticism of the State of Israel that has become more commonplace at American schools of higher learning today. More and more students are asking the tough and uncomfortable questions when it comes to the policies of the State of Israel and that state’s treatment of the Palestinian people. There has also been growing support on college campuses for the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) Movement which is working to end international support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. The worry with President Trump’s order is that the bill will be used for more than protection of Jews from anti – Semitic incidents but will instead be used to try and silence legitimate criticism and protests against the State of Israel and her inhumane policies. This bill could very well be used to try and force college students to adopt the viewpoint stated by the government instead of letting students come to their own conclusions about the Middle Eastern conflict and the peoples involved. This executive order is a direct affront to the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and is trying to conflate anti – Semitism with legitimate criticism of Middle Eastern policies. The U.S. Government should never get in the business of telling students which side of an issue they should take, much less make the receipt of federal funds contingent on whether students takes the government’s view.

Secondly, there is a lingering issue whether this executive order signed by the President is valid. The President is in charge of enforcing the laws of the United States after Congress has voted on and passed the bills. During this process, Members of Congress write the bills, laying out all of the obligations and consequences that the proposed law will provide. In addition, they also write the definitions that are to be used for many of the obscure and frequently used words so that there is no confusion as to what the words mean and the larger bill covers. The President cannot simply add a meaning to a specific word or clause on a whim. If Congress wanted “Jews” to be categorized as a “national origin” then they would have been specific in stating so when they crafted the bill. While the purpose of combatting anti – Semitism is admirable, it seems that the White House simply ignored legislative procedure and exercised executive powers in a manner that was not to be used by the executive branch. LEARN MORE, 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.

Photo by Nathan Dumlao

Bribery is an Impeachable Offense

Bribery is an Impeachable Offense

The Corruption Blog

A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.

Blog Post # 10: Bribery is an Impeachable Offense

Bribery, extortion and quid pro quo have all been used to describe the conduct of President Trump towards Ukraine in the Impeachment Inquiry. $400 million in critical military aid to the US ally was put on hold. It was the intention of the president to secure investigations (or at least an announcement of them) into Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s work with the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. Through weeks of public and private testimony these facts have been established and little doubt remains that the two were connected.

Regardless of terminology, Trump’s actions can be, at best, descried as improper and inappropriate, at worst, illicit and treasonous. Bribery is a logical focal point for the inquiry as it is specifically listed in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. It would also represent an abuse of office, which is also grounds for impeachment and removal.

The textbook definition of bribery is ‘’corrupt solicitation,

acceptance or transfer of value in exchange for an official act.’’ The statue guards against impropriety by public officials and provides the system recourse when officials prioritize their personal interests over those they represent.

The Thing of Value

The field for the Democratic presidential nomination is a crowded one. Former Vice President Joe Biden is the frontrunner according to almost every national poll. Donald Trump enjoys rabid support amongst his strong base, but has never seen his overall approval rating rose  above 40%. He is deeply unpopular with large swaths of the electorate and faces an uphill battle for reelection. The stakes for him are uniquely high. A loss could subject him to an indictment for the various instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller Report or for financial crimes in the Southern District of New York. No incumbent president has ever had as much to lose by not securing a second term. Trump needs every advantage he can find for his 2020 bid and in this case enlisted the help of a foreign head of state.

The president has repeatedly demonstrated a tenuous grasp of issues that matter to voters. His 2016 campaign heard more chants like ‘’Build the Wall’’ and ‘’Lock Her Up’’ than it did any substantive discussion of key issues facing the nation. In soliciting an investigation of his chief political adversary, Trump was looking for new material for an old political trope. Had all gone according to his nefarious plan, he could have done enough damage to knock Biden from his perch atop the DNC leaderboard, or spent debates baselessly slamming his corrupt conduct. In 2016 Trump fixated on Hilary Clinton’s emails and her involvement in the Benghazi attacks. Often and loudly he asserted her actions were criminal. Extensive investigation revealed her conduct was not improper and the matter yielded no criminal convictions. Nevertheless, his base ate it up and it helped secure him the narrowest of wins in the race. No credible evidence has emerged of wrongdoing by either Biden.

The Official Act

When House Democrats were establishing their quid pro quo narrative, the freeze on military aid and a White House visit for Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky were said to be the commodities leveraged for the Biden investigations to take place. The hold or release of Congressionally-Approved military aid is an official act. Arranging a visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is not. Ukraine’s dependence on foreign assistance is literally a matter of life and death. Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukrainian forces have resisted further incursion by Russian-backed seperatists. The conflict has claimed 13,000 lives in the past five years. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not been shy about wanting to reestablish his country as a global superpower, so the illegal annexation of Crimea should not be taken lightly or as a one-off. When Congress voted to authorize lethal aid to the US’ embattled ally, it was a bipartisan show of support and strong pushback against Kremlin aggression. Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert that support for his personal benefit is an egregious official act, an abuse of office and yet another example of his coziness towards Russia.

Trump’s supporters are quick to point out that no one directly heard the president say that he was withholding military aid from Ukraine in exchange for digging up dirt on a political opponent. Aside from being a laughably weak defense, it hardly matters. Any objective analysis of the evidence presented before Congress since September reveals a diversion of foreign policy that confounded experienced diplomats and served the benefit of one man. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s  personal lawyer has acknowledged trips to Ukraine in the hopes of instigating investigations into the Bidens. He told the New York Times ‘’We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do.’’

The testimony of William Taylor and Fiona Hill revealed a backchannel of diplomacy where stated foreign policy goals took a backseat to investigations the president wanted announced; where control was wrested from career officials and replaced with personal appointees and associates of Trump’s. Trump mega-donor and EU ambassador, Gordon Sondland, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that it was his understanding that military aid for Ukraine was contingent upon Zelensky announcing investigations into the Bidens.

Trump finally released the aid on September 11th, after a concerted effort to initiate the investigations he wanted done, after a whistle-blower complaint about the incident had been made, and  after a Politico story detailing the freeze.

The president’s defenders would point to the fact that the aid was released and none of the investigations into Biden or Burisma were ever announced. To do so would require one to draw a line between the two and ignore everything in between. Both the freeze on the military assistance and its eventual release were official acts in Trump’s capacity as president. A preponderance of evidence suggests that the initial hold was tied directly to  Ukraine bending to the demands of Trump and his cronies. Those demands were intended to benefit the president and no one else. Only after the rouse was exposed did he and his cohorts abandon it. A bank robber who gives himself up when he hears the helicopters and SWAT team outside is still subject to the penalty for robbing a bank.

 

Photo by unsplash-logoJp Valery

Trump Threatens New Tariffs for Brazil and Argentina

Trump Threatens New Tariffs for Brazil and Argentina

Policy

President Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum coming from Brazil and Argentina.  In March of 2018 he exempted these countries from a new tariff and, despite a negotiated settlement in May,  in which Brazil and Argentina agreed to cap shipments to the US to avoid the imposition of putative actions by Trump, he has chosen to void that May 2018 agreement.

President Trump stated that  Brazil and Argentina deliberately manipulated their economies to weaken their currencies.  He claimed that the depressed currencies pose a threat to US farmers.  Economists suggest that the weakened currencies were not deliberate but a result of economic slowdowns and government policies in these countries.  Trump likely was reacting to the contraction of US manufacturing, in the last four months, especially in the  output of real estate, industrial, and technological companies.

Analysis:

As a result of US tariffs imposed against China, that country has shifted much of its purchases to Argentina and Brazil.  These South American countries have been experiencing severe economic and political instability.  Argentina has experienced rampant inflation, increased indebtedness, and severe poverty under President Mauricio Macri who was voted out of office in October.  Trump’s threats also indicate a shift in relations with President Jair Bolsonaro who had tried to strengthen his ties to the US and President Trump.

Trump’s new tariffs have precipitated the largest drop in American stocks since early October. A trade group of Brazil’s steel manufacturers warns that the tariffs would damage the industry in the US as well as in Brazil.  So far Trump’s threats have not been implemented and experts suggest there are legal limits to how much he can increase the tariffs (see Section 232 of the US Tariff Expansion Act)  They suggest that, if implemented, the tariffs will be legally challenged, e.g. y the World Trade Organization).  In the meantime, Trump’s threats have resulted in instability in relations with Brazil and Argentina.

Learn More:

Resistance Resource:

Photo by unsplash-logoRafaela Biazi

The 2020 Census – A Revolution in Understanding Who We Are or An Ill Timed Technological Experiment?

The 2020 Census – A Revolution in Understanding Who We Are or An Ill Timed Technological Experiment?

Policy Summary

Since 1790, the United States has engaged in a decennial census of its population. Article I Section 2 Clause 3 of the US Constitutional lays out this requirement:

The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

The Census is used primarily to apportion the States seats in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. In addition, funding for many Federal programs is based on census data. It is critical to the lives of many communities that their members be counted fairly and completely.

The 2020 census marks the first time in history that the US tally will be conducted primarily on-line. The majority of households will be expected to complete the form capturing size and characteristics of their families or living arrangements on a Census Bureau website. It is a system, however, that is largely untested. A similar attempt in Australia in 2016 encountered serious technical failures.

The Census will officially begin on March 1, 2020 with letters going out to every identified household inviting them to complete the questionnaire on-line or by phone. Door-to-door canvassers will begin their rounds on April 1, 2020.

Analysis

Introduction of new technology to the census process brings a promise of bringing down operational costs and casting a wider net to ensure fewer people are missed. Towards that end, the Census Bureau (a division of the Department of Commerce) is rolling out three new tools to aid in that effort:

  • Block Assessment, Research and Classification Application (BARCA) –  uses satellite and aerial imagery to help census workers see how every block in the country has changed over the past decade. This information is used to efficiently build out address lists for every home in the United States before the census begins.
  • Response Outreach Area Mapper (ROAM) – a mapping product that’s helping the bureau predict where people are least likely to respond to the census using historical and demographic data. This data can be used to assign on the ground census workers.
  • Enterprise Censuses and Surveys Enabling (ECaSE) – an app developed for the iPhone 8 that will individualize a census worker’s canvassing route, taking into account factors such as work availability, most effective times of day to visit a home, and any non-English languages the worker speaks. Not only that, but the app will collect demographic data required for the census, encrypt it and securely send it to the Census Bureau’s central database.

The census will carried out in two phases. The first will be a mail blitz in March to encourage respondents to go online with a unique code to complete the questionnaire.  This will be followed in April and beyond by door-to-door canvassing by an army of census takers that will be guided by the ROAM system described above and aided in data collection by ECaSE.

While these tools bring the promise of a more comprehensive census tally several factors should be of concern. Firstly, the census faces a degree of mistrust among immigrant communities over the failed attempt by the Trump Administration to include a question about citizenship status. Despite its removal from the final questionnaire long controversy might have a lasting chilling effect.

Security experts have warned that the Census provides an opportunity for scammers to attack the unsuspecting. While the Census asks no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) such as Social Security number, bank account information, or information about political party affiliation, widespread attention to the dangers of on-line scamming may discourage some from replying. The bureau is planning an extensive advertising campaign but ongoing privacy concerns may spook many.

What is more worrisome, however, is that the technology has been largely untested. A dry run in three communities (urban, rural and tribal) that was scheduled for 2018 was scaled back to a single test in Providence, Rhode Island and it was not a total success even in that limited framework. Concerns about hacking, disinformation and the general security of the system have not been addressed.  Given this administration’s lack of a coherent cybersecurity policy, there is serious doubt that the 2020 census will be complete or accurate

Resistance Resources

  • The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School has published a guide to legal and technical issues around the 2020 Census
  • The National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) is taking the lead on ensuring that Latinos, the nation’s second largest population are fully counted
  • Libraries will play an outsized role for helping people without access to broadband internet record their responses. The American Library Association (ALA) is preparing to meet this challenge
  • RockTheVote! is mobilizing to inform the citizenry about why the Census matters
  • The Greenlining Institute envisions a nation where communities of color thrive and race is never a barrier to economic opportunity.  The Census provides an opportunity to inform these communities.

Photo by unsplash-logoRyoji Iwata

The weather is right for climate-focused agricultural policy

The weather is right for climate-focused agricultural policy

POLICY

Over 10,000 small farmers and ranchers are making their voices heard, uniting to form a coalition in support of the Green New Deal (GND). This coalition views changes in the agriculture sector as essential to addressing climate change; they want to be front and center, and resolve to work alongside lawmakers to form policy.

The current system of industrial agriculture is responsible for about 13 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Those emissions are largely due to large-scale monoculture farming and beef production.

97% of beef produced comes from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These feedlots with their thousands of animals have an adverse impact on groundwater, surface water, and air. About 50% of the U. S. corn crop and its vast acreage in the Midwest, is dedicated to feeding these animals – mostly cattle. The balance is largely used for ethanol and high-fructose corn syrup production. Less than 5% goes into quality food (corn) that we eat.

These farming practices are not only unsustainable in the long-term – as contends this coalition of farmers and ranchers – they accelerate weather extremes and natural disasters.

Together, the administration and agribusiness monopolies are focused upon short-term economic benefits. Currently, corporate agriculture receives around $13 billion in annual subsidies through the Farm Bill. In addition to corn, other monoculture crops grown largely in support of industrial-scale livestock operations include: wheat, soybeans, rice, and peanuts.

While pointing to the ills of the current system, the small farmers coalition also highlights the sustainable benefits of building small-scale, local food systems: carbon sequestration in rich soils, local access to healthy food, and safe conditions for farmworkers. They insist that diversity of food produced, the re-building of rural communities, and racial diversity of farm ownership also be part of the solution. They want to go beyond organic and advocate for regenerative practices.

ANALYSIS

As part of the GND, this resolution aims to incentivize a shift back toward quality food grown in a way that values rich, living soils and a healthy environment. A shift to local food suppliers would mean a shift away from the dominant corporate commodity paradigm. Industrial-scale economics would be displaced by sustainable operations that produce a variety of crops and integrate all aspects of agriculture into each productive farm.

Raising livestock using grass-fed, regenerative ranching methods is labor intensive and does result in expensive meat. The resulting economics would decrease demand and consumption. If met with equivalent shifts in organic vegetable production, both the environment and public health will benefit.

In 2019, in spite of the current administration’s strong ties to the corporate-led food supply chain, the Dept. of Agricultural awarded $41.4 million in funds for projects that promote and provide incentives for low-income consumers to purchase more fruits and vegetables directly from local, small-scale farmers.

A recently released policy position paper authored by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition: Agriculture and Climate Change: Policy Imperatives and Opportunities to Help Producers Meet the Challenge, edifies funding opportunities and areas that can benefit from new legislation. (See first link under Resources).

Lawmakers united with this coalition include: U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Debra Haaland (D-NM). They have stepped forward in favor of ending subsidies for industrial monoculture, and recognize the link between these methods and rising temperatures, drought, irregular and severe storms, and flooding. They anticipate that American family farm culture can be revived.

Resistance Resources:

  • https://sustainableagriculture.net/  is an alliance of grassroots organizations that advocates for federal policy reform to advance the sustainability of agriculture, food systems, natural resources, and rural communities.
  • https://regenerationinternational.org/  is to promoting, facilitating and accelerating the global transition to regenerative food, farming and land management for the purpose of restoring climate stability.
  • https://www.sunrisemovement.org/ is building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority.
  • https://www.buylocalfood.org/  strengthens farms and engages the community to build the local food economy.
  • https://cfaky.org/  organizes cooperation among rural and urban citizens through leadership development and grassroots democratic processes to ensure an essential, prosperous place for family-scale agriculture.

 

 

Photo by NASA

Trump, Israel and the Middle East

Trump, Israel and the Middle East

Policy Summary

Military relations between Israel and the United States have remained close year after year. This union portrays a mutual interest in security throughout the Middle East. This was confirmed this Sunday as President Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss Iran and a number of other international issues. The White House released an email statement reading, “The leaders discussed the threat from Iran, as well as other critical bilateral and regional issues”. Reuters reported, “Relations between Iran and the United States have worsened since last year when Trump pulled out of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers and re-imposed sanctions on the country.”

Analysis

During the Obama Administration’s time in the White House, U.S.-Israel relations took a significant hit. In many ways, the Trump administration has created a sentiment of good will between the two nations. It began with the controversial choice to position the American embassy to Jerusalem as a reassuring nod that the city was the capital of the Jewish state. Eventually this led to the State Department announcing that it will no longer regard Israel’s settlements in the West Bank as “illegal”, although the UN has indeed deemed them as so.

This new sense of mutual kinship between the two countries has been further strengthened by Israel’s increasingly bolstered alliance with Saudi Arabia. Israel and Saudi Arabia creating these ties greatly benefits the U.S. First, the two are arguably the United States’ most crucial allies in the Middle East. Secondly, both nations are also leading purchasers of arms made in the U.S. Lastly, the two nations are predicted to band together to work to impede  Iranian expansionism in the area. All of these reasons result in a very pleased Trump Administration.

However, it has been made clear by Iran that they are not turning a blind eye to the union. Hossein Salami, the Head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, made the statement in a televised speech, making sure not to mince his words. “We have shown restraint … we have shown patience towards the hostile moves of America, the Zionist regime (Israel) and Saudi Arabia against the Islamic Republic of Iran … but we will destroy them if they cross our red lines,” he said in response to the developing multi-national ties.

Recently, Iran has proudly claimed responsibility for the September attack on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil facilities. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cautioned that he believed Iran was devising “additional attacks.” The Prime Minister employed the international community to put pressure on the state of Iran and to “support Israel when it is acting against this aggression.” The United States involvement with Saudi Arabia and its patent  favoritism toward Israel, while shunning Palestine, has only heightened current tensions with Iran. Where these potentially deadly tensions will lead to has yet to be seenn

Engagement Resources:

  • Peace Action places pressure on Congress and the administration through write-in campaigns, petitions, internet actions, grassroots lobbying, direct lobbying, electoral campaigns and direct action for issues such as international relations
  • Alliance for Middle East Peace works for peace in the Middle East, specifically between Israelis and Palestinians, by securing and scaling up funding to expand trust-building interactions between Palestinians and Israelis.
  • United Nations Peacekeeping’s (UNTSO) military observers have remained in the Middle East to monitor ceasefires, supervise armistice agreements, prevent isolated incidents from escalating and assist other UN peacekeeping operations in the region to fulfil their respective mandates
  • The Foundation for Middle East Peace promotes a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through education and advocacy.

 

This Brief was posted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst  Erin Mayer

Photo by Mariam Soliman

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Unveils Her Long-Awaited Plan to Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Speaker Nancy Pelosi Unveils Her Long-Awaited Plan to Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Policy

Last month, Nancy Pelosi announced the Lower Drug Cost Now Act, which was previously led by Representative Elijah Cummings, before his passing in October. The bill aims to tackle the current crisis plaguing Americans, astronomically high drug prices. Within H.R 3 is permission for the Health and Human Services Secretary to negotiate the prices of up to 250 brand-name drugs in Medicare that do not have competitors. Additionally, the secretary would then be able to impose harsh financial penalties on drug companies that fail to come to an agreement on lowering those prices. While the drugs within Medicare are the targets of lower pricing, Americans with private insurance, too, would be able to reap the benefits of this bill, not just Medicare beneficiaries.

The Lower Drug Cost Now Act also would cap out-of-pocket prescriptions costs for those covered under Medicare at $2,000 a year. A requirement of pharmaceuticals whose prices have surpassed inflation rates to reduce their prices, or to rebate the excess to the United States Treasury Department is one of the main goals of the bill.

Also included in the H.R. 3 is the creation of an international price index and reinvesting innovation. This International Price Index would be a reference tool to ensure that drugs sold internationally would be priced at the same rate in America as it is across the globe, to prevent the American population from being taken advantage of. The current state of pharmaceuticals is that a drug is being sold to another country and the people of that country pay far less for an identical medication. Such an index will create a maximum price for negotiated drugs, called the Average International Market (AIM) price, with the intention of increasing transparency and providing accountability. As mentioned, the bill also puts a new focus on reinvesting in research and innovations to pursue cures for diseases, disorders, and conditions. One of the main reasons why Big Pharma continues to make so much money is due to the fact that few cures have been found, therefore, the American population suffering from diseases, conditions and disorders will continue to line the pockets of Big Pharma for the duration of their lives, if nothing changes. When a focus is placed on finding cures, medications will no longer be necessary, and the crippling impact of drug prices will loosen the grip on Americans and their wallets.

Analysis:

This bill has been created to tackle the challenges faced by many Americans when filling prescriptions. The high price of drugs has left Americans stranded, some forgoing necessary medications, rationing medication to last longer, buying medication intended for pets as a supplement, or attempting to buy from outside the country, all with potentially deadly outcomes. Pelosi points to the price of insulin, a life-saving drug necessary in regulating sugar in people with diabetes, as the poster child for the outrageous price hikes of prescription drugs. Since its invention in 1922, insulin’s price has tripled between the 1990s and 2014, and the cost has nearly doubled from 2012 to 2016, from $2,864 to $5,705 annually. With this new bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates H.R. 3 would save the federal government $369 billion over 10 years.

With this saving, it seems as though few people can be displeased with this bill. However a majority of Senate Finance Committee Republicans opposed it in a committee vote, where it still passed. Republican and Senate FC Chairman Chuck Grassley is supporting a bill that crosses party lines in pursuit of lowering drug prices. Should Pelosi’s bill stall, Grassley has teamed up with Senator Ron Wyden in creating legislation to limit out-of-pocket costs for seniors in Medicare’s Part D to $3,100 annually. The Trump administration has its own proposal that would base the price of some Medicare drugs on an average of the lower prices paid by other countries, a common principle in Pelosi’s bill.

The American people have spoken and have made it clear that drug prices are too high, and something must be done. With many legislatures putting this issue at the forefront, it is likely a policy addressing these high prices will be passed shortly.

Engagement Resources:

This Brief was posted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Taylor Jazmine-Smith

Photo by unsplash-logoJoshua Sukoff

Trump Administration Plan to Drill for Oil and Gas in Central California

Trump Administration Plan to Drill for Oil and Gas in Central California

The Trump administration has recently re-introduced plans to lease hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land in central California to oil and gas developers, ending a five-year moratorium on such practices and opening the door for hydraulic fracking on public lands.

 Policy Summary: 

The Trump administration has recently re-introduced plans to lease hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land in central California to oil and gas developers, ending a five-year moratorium on such practices and opening the door for hydraulic fracking on public lands. The aforementioned moratorium was put in place by federal courts in 2013 when the Obama administration tried to allow similar leasing, with the judge in question citing that such practices should not be allowed until the environmental risks of fracking were better understood.

Trump’s plan aims to open both public lands and mineral estates stretching across eight counties in Central California to oil and gas drilling; totaling more than 700,000 acres. The administration has argued that the negative impacts on air quality, wildlife, Native American resources, and surrounding communities can be prevented or greatly minimized. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is a division of the Department of the Interior, approved Trump’s oil and gas preliminary exploration plan supporting  the administration’s objective of establishing domestic independence from foreign energy sources.

The BLM is critical to Trump’s leasing plan because under split-estate parcels, it possesses the underground mineral rights of certain properties while private entities own the surface. When it made the recommended leasing plan available to the public, the BLM received more than four hundred objections over the thirty-day protest period, but officials say that none of them were valid. Moving forward, the agency is set to begin collecting decisions from energy companies on which parcels of land they wish to lease and then arrange lease auctions.

In terms of defending Trump’s leasing plan, the BLM posits that the fossil fuel industry supports 3,000 jobs and produces $623 million in tax revenue within the counties in question. California oil production has progressively declined over the past thirty years, and Trump made American energy independence a cornerstone of his campaign, calling for an increase in domestic drilling. He has tried to lift environmental regulations on federal lands across the country beginning in 2018, which has pitted him against Californian politicians who are looking to a greener future rather than one driven by oil and gas.

Californians point out that the maps included in the BLM report, which show areas where fracking leases could be most productive, center around land that borders national parks and national forests. The Western Energy Alliance, a coalition of private oil and gas companies, have released a statement saying that these areas are not actually national parks but wilderness areas that were already approved by the Obama administration for controlled drilling. 

Analysis
Hydraulic fracking is the process of fracturing rock to allow pressurized oil and natural gas to be collected near the surface for extraction. Primary concerns surrounding the practice of fracking are its negative impacts upon air quality, water quality, the quantity of water used, seismicity, and effects upon surrounding wildlife.

Supporters of Trump’s leasing plan, which are mainly oil and gas companies, say that limiting Californian oil production will cause an increase in oil imports from other states that do not have California’s stringent regulations and environmental protections. They also posit that quashing the leasing plan will increase domestic demand for foreign oil, eradicate jobs in California’s oil and gas industry, and will bring no environmental benefits.

However, environmentalists argue that opening wilderness areas to drilling and fracking will increase pollutants and increase disease among Californian citizens, do irreparable harm to endangered species, and increase climate change. Central California is cited as having some of the worst air quality in the nation and it is said that drilling and fracking will only make this worse. California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, claims that the plan is a misuse of national power. It is pointed out that the national parks, although they may not be the areas where the fracking and drilling is directly occurring, would experience worse air quality due to proximity and that pollution would create health threats to both visitors and the flora and fauna within the parks. Of particular concern are the properties near both public and private schools, parcels next to the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, and an area in Point Mugu State Park. Yosemite and Sequoia National Park are also on the map, with the Pacific Crest Trail in the Sierra Nevada Mountains being under threat as well. Fracking also poses more risks than drilling, with dangerous petroleum hydrocarbons such as xylene being released and an increased ejection of ground-level ozone which causes respiratory problems.

The BLM report says that the proposed fracking wells may necessitate the annual use of eighty million gallons of water, which is morally dubious due to the fact that many citizens in central California currently experience drinking water scarcities. Fracking also involves the use of chemicals linked to cancer such as naphthalene, trimethylbenzene, and methanol, with much of the proposed properties up for lease being on or near groundwater catchments that supply drinking water to both residential, urban, and agricultural areas.

Although the Trump administration may be right in that opening public lands to oil and gas development will increase economic growth in the short-term, it would appear to have little positive impact in the long-term. Oil production is already declining in California and has been for decades, and fossil fuels are projected to become more expensive as alternative fuel sources and technologies become less expensive and more efficient. The U.S. must lead the way towards a more sustainable future and leave behind artifacts of industrial, fossil fuel-driven capitalism that no longer suit the realities of climate change. In addition, fracking and drilling near national parks and drinking water supplies is incredibly damaging and short-sighted. It threatens the last remaining habitats for many species, endangers visiting citizens, and poisons the most necessary resource for society’s survival: water.

Engagement Resources: 

  • Center for Biological Diversity – involved in extensive anti-fracking policy and the proliferation of the natural world.
  • Sierra Club – has launched a campaign against the BLM proposed leasing plan.
  • Climate Reality Project – have local chapters throughout California resisting pro-fracking and anti-environmentalist policies.

Photo by unsplash-logoZbynek Burival

The Impeachment Inquiry Week Two

The Impeachment Inquiry Week Two

The past week of testimony in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump featured a host of damaging testimony. Week one saw House Democrats outline the case against the President, assembling the outer pieces of their proverbial jigsaw puzzle. Week two filled in many of the remaining pieces to give the American public a clear and comprehensive picture of their grievances against Trump. The testimonies of diplomats Marie Yovanovitch, William Taylor and George Kent largely contextualized the President’s offenses and chronicled the political sphere in which they occurred. Those that took the stand in Week Two possessed considerably more firsthand knowledge of the President’s alleged transgressions and put Trump damn near the center of all of it.

Donald Trump stands accused of withholding $400 million in Congressionally approved military assistance in an attempt to have Ukraine’s nascent democracy investigate political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter. During the elder Biden’s tenure as Vice President, Hunter served on the board of a Ukranian gas company, Burisma. Burisma is the largest natural gas producer in Ukraine and has been the subject of numerous charges of impropriety. Joe Biden, at the behest of President Obama and the international community persuaded Ukraine to remove its national prosecutor prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was seen to be lax on corruption and corrupt himself. No evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden has emerged.

Last week included testimony from Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence. Both were on the now infamous July 25th call between Trump asked Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky.  Vindman, considered the top Ukraine expert in the National Security Council, twice raised concerns to superiors about what he saw as irregularities in how Ukrainian foreign policy was being conducted. In a July 10th meeting with a Ukrainian delegation in which EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland was present, Vindman testified that Sondland repeatedly emphasized the need for the Eastern European country to initiate investigations into the Bidens. Vindman confronted him after the meeting, informing him ‘’his statements were inappropriate … had nothing to do with national security and were not something the NSC would get involved with.’’

Vindman again registered his concern to lawyers for the National Security Council following the July 25th call after hearing Trump say to Zelensky ‘’do us a favor though.’’ He noted the power one had over the other and that the implication of the ‘’request’’ was clear. Aside from the ethical dilemma, Vindman worried the move would result in the loss of support for Ukraine’s efforts to counter Russian aggression in their country and thereby undermine US national security. Vindman testified that he reported the call out of a sense of duty. After he filed a complaint, the record of the call was moved by the administration to a top-secret server exclusively reserved for sensitive matters of national security.

Williams took the stand alongside Vindman and played more of a supporting role. As a White House staffer, she was on the call taking notes and found the conversation ‘’unusual and inappropriate.’’ She observed that Trump’s ask of Zelensky seemed to only serve the President’s political purposes and not any broader foreign policy agenda. Williams noted that in May she had been told that the President had decided VP Pence would not attend Zelensky’s presidential inauguration. It is common practice that the president and vice president not be abroad at the same time, so that at least one of them is present in the event of a domestic crisis. That Trump declined to attend Zelensky’s inauguration and forbade Pence from doing so while the aid was on hold, further undermined the White House’s public support for a vulnerable ally.  After hearing the call, Williams connected the two events and thought they may explain the otherwise-inexplicable hold on military aid.

Former Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and former NSC official Tim Morrison also took the stand last week. Volker testified when he heard the call (firsthand) he was initially unconcerned and didn’t think anything illegal was being discussed. While Trump did not mention Burisma on the call, he did bring up both Bidens and suggested their activity in Ukraine warranted investigation. Volker was aware of Rudy Giulani’s push to investigate Burisma, but did not make a connection between the two. He would come to reassess the situation and acknowledge he should have realized that investigating Burisma was tantamount to investigating the Bidens. Volker stated ‘’the former [would be] appropriate and unremarkable and the latter unacceptable.’’ ‘’In retrospect I should have seen the connection differently and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections’’ Volker told the committee.

Morrison was also initially unfazed by the July 25th call. But as time passed and aid remained on hold he grew increasingly concerned. He told the House investigators that Sondland spoke directly and regularly with the President and that Sondlad had told Ukrainian officials that military assistance was ‘’likely contingent upon launching investigations.

A main attraction of the Week 2 impeachment hearing was Gordon Sondland, EU Ambassador and Trump mega-donor. The previous testimony had featured officials on the peripheral of the extortion scheme. Sondland played an active role in the scheme and provided more details on what exactly happened before the House.

Throughout his testimony, Sondland made it clear that he and others begrudgingly worked with Rudy Giuliani at Trump’s direction. Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer, had been in Ukraine as early as May trying to have Ukrainian authorities investigate the Bidens. ‘’We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani … simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt.’’ Sondland said the President never explicitly said that military aid and a White House meeting for Zelensky were not contingent upon investigations, he was ‘’under the impression that absolutely, [they were]. When asked point blank if a quid pro quo existed between the two parties, he testified ‘’ yes there was a quid pro quo.’’ He would go on to implicate Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney in the scheme. ‘’Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret’’ Sondland’s testimony corroborates the testimony of other witnesses and contradicts Trump, making him the witnesses closest to the President to implicate him in the scandal.

Week 2 concluded with the testimony of Fiona Hill and David Hale of the National Security Council and State Department, respectively. A popular defense of Trump has involved the Putin-backed conspiracy that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election. Hill began her testimony by refusing to even entertain such notions and stated that such assertions are harmful ‘’even when only employed for domestic political purposes.’’ Both witnesses stated that the link between Burisma and Biden was obvious, with Hill adding that she didn’t find it credible that Sondland didn’t see a link between the two. Hill testified about a meeting with Sondland where she learned of multiple channels of diplomacy towards Ukraine. One was run by career diplomats and sought to further US foreign policy, and the other run by Trump appointees and associates looking to bend Ukraine to the President’s will. She spoke to frustration with Sondland telling him ‘’this is all going to blow up. And here we are.’’ Hill outlined in detail how Trump enlisted the aid of his allies to pressure a weaker ally to acquiesce to his demands. Though she appeared as an impartial fact-witness, Hill made an impassioned statement against any president asking a foreign power from investigating a domestic political rival.

With the exception of Sondland, every witness who appeared before the House Intelligence Committee was a career government employee, called as a fact witness. The facts to which they testified confirmed the suspicions of wrongdoing that prompted the impeachment inquiry in the first place. Prior to their testimony, Trump maintained a whisper of deniability in the face of accusations he strong-armed Ukraine for personal political favor. After hearing what the witnesses before the House had to say, it is difficult to objectively examine the evidence and claim that Donald Trump is innocent of putting his own needs above that of the nation.

Unfortunately, that is just the tune the overwhelming majority of the President’s allies in the House and Senate are singing. Evidence mattered little to GOP House members involved in the series of hearings. Led by Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan, the Republican House members attacked the process and witnesses, and refused to take the process seriously. Most of the input from the right side of the aisle consisted of deflection and political rhetoric rather than   a coherent defense of the President. Despite the damaging testimony unfolding before Republicans, a great many of them have refused to acknowledge anything was amiss or impeachable about Trump’s conduct. Rep. Nunes called the hearing ‘’a train wreck for [the Democrats]’’ as though he didn’t hear the chorus of witnesses implicating the President in a bribery scheme. The elected representatives tasked with judging Trump have to this point made it abundantly clear they are more concerned with their own re-elections than they are with objective consideration of the President’s offenses. Holding leaders accountable for abuses of office is fundamental to a functioning democracy. However, like Trump, most GOP Congressional members have prioritized their own interests over those of the nation.

Photo by unsplash-logoFree To Use Sounds

Economics, Student Debt, Food and Housing Insecurity

Economics, Student Debt, Food and Housing Insecurity

Policy

A 2018 large scale survey of college students found that overall  36% of college students are food and housing insecure while 9% were homeless for at least one day in the past month.  Eighteen percent of community college student s, and 14% of four year college students, faced homelessness within the past year.  Students regularly couch surf or sleep in their cars.  Other data from the study show that 46% had difficulty paying for housing and utilities.  The situation for community colleges, disproportionately attended by students from lower income households, affected 37% of students who had insufficient food on a regular basis. The comparable data showed 29% of 4 year college students also suffered insufficient food supplies.  These issues are spreading from the low income students to middle class students whose financial aid might cover tuition but leaves them without funds to cover living expenses.

For many student loans provide for some of the gap between financial aid and actual life expenses.  Total US student debt amounts to 1.5 trillion dollars. Those students with the least ability to pay back loans borrow the most.  Many of these students fail to finish their programs and/or make low incomes and default on their loans.  Forty percent of students who borrow money for two year profit college programs default, while 32% in for four year profit school programs default​. Pubic community college students have a default rate of 25% in five years of after payments are due.  Twenty percent of all borrowers owe less than $40,000 while half of borrowers at for profit schools owe more than $40,000.  One fourth of the people with loan debt borrowed the funds for graduate school and that group is the least likely to default.

Analysis:

The majority of student debt is driven by insufficient funds and financial aid to live while attending college.  This problem is spreading to the middle class as households struggle to pay for housing, education, and healthcare. Ample evidence suggests that more mid-income households are relying on community and public colleges to educate their children and still accruing debt.  Most of the Democratic candidates have programs to forgive or reduce loan payment.  Under the Obama administration regulations were passed to monitor student lending and to provide loan forgiveness to profit colleges which practiced illegal and deceptive advertising.  Those colleges boast unrealistic salaries and job opportunities and frequently provide unsubsidized student loans.  In October 2019, Betsy DeVos, US Secretary of Education, was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to forgive loans to students from the Corinthian colleges which were closed in 2015 for breaking the law passed by the Obama administration.  It is widely agreed that those students who attend two year programs and many four year frequently have insufficient funds to live as students and, even if they complete their programs, do not make sufficient money to cover their student debt and live a responsible life style.  These students require relief form student debt, either by loan forgiveness or reduction.  Some of the community colleges, public institutions, as well as private schools are now developing programs to help with living expenses, especially during holidays and intersessions where sutents are shut out of cafeteria and dorms.

References:

 

Resistance Resources:

Photo by unsplash-logoLinkedIn Sales Navigator

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