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 Potential Benefits of a Guaranteed Minimum Income

Brief #80—Economics
ByRosalind Gottfried
The idea of a minimum guaranteed income (MGI) dates back to Thomas  Paine and the 18th century and has been promoted by such diverse people as Martin Luther King, Jr, President Nixon, economist Milton Friedman, and recent presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Nancy Pelosi has suggested that such a program should exist, at least till the end of the current pandemic, and two thirds of the House Democratic Caucus agrees. 

read more

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

Brief #128—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On June 15, 2020 the United States Supreme Court handed down the decision Bostock v. Clayton County. The case consolidated a number of cases because of a similarity of fact patterns and issue at the heart of each case. In Bostock, a county employee was fired for “conduct unbecoming” when the county discovered that the plaintiff had joined a gay recreational softball league.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Administration intent on keeping ranchers happy and wolf numbers down

Administration intent on keeping ranchers happy and wolf numbers down

POLICY

Wolves are native to Europe, Asia and North America and once were the most widely distributed land mammal on Earth. In the early 1990s, wolves were listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The Trump administration is now actively trying to delist gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act.

When deemed endangered, 35 (Canadian) wolves were introduced in Yellow National Park by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1995, wolves were reintroduced into other wilderness areas, most notably in central Idaho. Today, there are some 2000 wolves located throughout the Pacific Northwest.

The intent was to bring an apex predator back into nature, to make the ecosystem healthier by weeding out sick and weak big game animals. At the point at which 10 to 15 breeding pairs recolonized wilderness, the wolf was to be delisted. In Idaho, where the wolf population has grown faster than in other areas, there are currently about 800 animals there divided into roughly 100 packs.

Based upon a 2016 environmental assessment, the Administration’s Agriculture Department’s Wildlife Services agency has sanctioned the expanded killing of predators: mountain lions, coyotes, bears and wolves. This federal agency carries out wolf kills at the behest of state agencies like the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Kills are very efficient and make use of helicopters and location radio collars around the necks of reintroduced wolves.

The state agencies are in turn reacting to powerful interest groups, most notably cattle ranchers and big game hunters. Several wolf packs in their entirety were exterminated recently in Idaho and Washington due to cattle being taken by wolves. Policy guidelines explain that only a minimum of four livestock animals taken by wolves over a 10-month period is sufficient to trigger a “harvesting” of a guilty wolf pack. Big-game hunters claim that elk hunting has changed “forever” due to the reintroduction of wolves.

ANALYSIS

Wolves require 9 pounds of red meat per day; their prey of choice are elk, deer and moose. Those species are more abundant in those habitats where agricultural land meets the forest. And although wildlife ecologists are certain that wolves, as a keystone species, improve wilderness areas, ranchers and sportsmen are just as certain that the wolf is exacting a steep economic and lifestyle toll. Ranchers and hunters claim they are fighting for a way of life.

According to a 2015 U.S. Department of Agriculture report: 2% of cattle and 28% of sheep losses in the country were due to predators. Wolves accounted for a small percentage of these losses: 4.9% for cattle and 1.3% for sheep. The bigger culprits are coyotes, who accounted for 40.5% of cattle and 54.3% of sheep depredation, and wild dogs responsible for 11.3% of cattle and 21.4% of sheep deaths.

In the Trump administration’s effort to delist gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act, they argue that gray wolves have entirely recovered. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated: “We propose to list or delist, open a public comment period, gather all available information about the species, and then publish a final rule with our decision, based on the best available science.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service received over 1.8 million comments opposing the proposal and more than 100 scientists formally oppose the rule change. All along, hikers and environmentalists have argued that ranchers fail to take reasonable steps to protect their cattle.

For their part, the cattle lobby opposes what they term “ballot-box biology.” They don’t believe that urban elites understand the issues on the ground. If the effort to delist the wolf does not pass, ranchers may be less likely to work with public wildlife agencies and step up their “shoot, shovel and shut up” practices.

States like Colorado and Minnesota are not waiting for another Federal ruling. The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund is gathering signatures to place a measure on the 2020 ballot forcing the state to reintroduce wolves. In Minnesota, there is a one-page bill aiming to restore a previous federal policy which removed federal protections from gray wolves and permitted states to set their own wolf policies.

At core though, predation and economic numbers do not explain the plight of the wolf. Their future rests upon a set of widely divergent core beliefs: are wolves and other wild predators on this planet here to serve human intentions or is their reason for being and validity independent of arbitrary human perspective?

Resistance Resources:

  • https://www.westernwatersheds.org/  The mission of Western Watersheds Project is to protect and restore western watersheds and wildlife through education, public policy initiatives, and legal advocacy.
  • https://www.woodriverwolfproject.org/  The Wood River Wolf Project collaborative promotes the coexistence of livestock and wolves by proactively using nonlethal measures to prevent depredation.
  • https://www.wolfactionfund.com/   The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund (RMWAF) is an organization of committed conservationists motivated by the belief that Coloradans overwhelmingly support the gray wolf’s return to the state.
  • https://centerforahumaneeconomy.org/  The Center for a Humane Economy is the first non-profit animal welfare organization that focuses on influencing the conduct of corporations to forge a humane economic order.
  • https://www.conservationnw.org/  Keeping the Northwest wild since 1989, this organization connects the big landscapes, restores iconic wildlife and protects our natural heritage for future generations.
  • https://www.wolfquest.org/   A game about wolf ecology in Yellowstone National Park.

Photo by unsplash-logoEva Blue

Recap and Analysis of the Impeachment Inquiry’s First Public Hearings

Recap and Analysis of the Impeachment Inquiry’s First Public Hearings

After nearly two months of closed door hearings, the first set of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump took place this week. The President stands accused of withholding $413 million in military aid in exchange for investigating Joe Biden, and his son Hunter’s involvement with the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. Acting ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State of European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent testified before the House Intelligence Committee for five and a half hours last Wednesday. Ousted ambassador Marie Yovanovitch took the stand on Friday. None were on the infamous July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Zelensky that served as the catalyst for the impeachment. Nor did any have direct knowledge of a pay-for-play extortion scheme between the White House and the eastern European nation. Nevertheless, each provided key information contextualizing the scandal. Though no smoking gun was revealed, each painted a picture of highly irregular diplomacy, in which Trump’s personal interests were prioritized over U.S. national security.

Much of the two hearing’s contents had leaked during the earlier portion of the inquiry. Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff opened his remarks on Wednesday with a comprehensive timeline of the Trump-Ukraine affair. The testimony provided by Taylor and Kent largely backed up the case presented from the left side of the aisle. Taylor was in contact with many high-ranking US diplomats in Ukraine. He observed ‘’two channels of policymaking and implementation, one regular and the other highly irregular.’’ The regular channel was the one carrying out the administration’s official position of strong support for Ukraine, which is highly vulnerable due to Russian incursion into its territory. It was this stated policy that encouraged the 72-year old Taylor to come out of retirement to resume a career of decorated public service. The irregular channel he observed was one where State Department officials were increasingly pushed to the sidelines. Through his contacts with others working on US-Ukraine relations, Taylor formed an understanding that military aid and a potential White House visit by Zelensky were predicated on the opening of the investigations Trump sought. He testified the scheme was the brainchild of Rudy Giuliani. He envisioned a ‘’nightmare scenario’’ in which Zelensky acquiesced to the demand, to the detriment of both nations and to the delight of Russia. Taylor was told explicitly by EU ambassador Gordon Sondland ‘’everything’’, meaning the White House visit and security aid were dependent on a public announcement of investigations into the Bidens and Burisma. The Democrats’ star witness never spoke to Trump directly, but drew a clear line between the president and the bribery charge at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

George Kent, the State Department’s top expert on Ukraine, played an important, but less substantive role. He did not speak at length about quid pro quos, but rebuffed numerous Republican defenses of the president. Members of the GOP cited ‘’Ukrainian election interference in 2016’’ and endemic corruption as reasons for Trump’s reluctance to give the money to the fledging democracy. Kent concurred with the conclusion of every American intelligence agency that Russia, and not Ukraine had meddled in the ’16 election, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. He also noted that corrupt Ukrainians had enlisted the help of Rudy Giuliani to smear and remove Marie Yovanovitch, who had been lauded for her anti-corruption agenda.

Yovanovitch took the stand on Friday through hours of emotional testimony. Like Kent, she also could not speak in detail about the administration’s coercive efforts, but detailed vividly the circumstances surrounding her removal. Rudy Giulani worked with a corrupt Ukranian prosecutor to orchestrate a smear campaign against her, which would eventually lead to her being recalled from her post. She added “[p]erhaps it was not surprising that when our anti-corruption efforts got in the way of the desire for profit or power, Ukrainians who preferred to play by the old, corrupt rules sought to remove me.’’ While she testified, Trump took to Twitter to denigrate the service of the former ambassador. When Chairman Schiff read the tweets aloud and offered Ms. Yovanovitch the chance to respond she said “[i]t’s very intimidating. I can’t speak to what the President is trying to do, but the effect is to be intimidating.” Schiff introduced the idea that witness tampering could be added to the list of offenses against the president.

Perspective is critical in viewing how the proceedings have gone to this point. Democrats are likely pleased to have laid the groundwork for an impeachment case that begins with severe impropriety in foreign policy. Three highly respected civil servants all testified that regular diplomatic backchannels existed in Ukraine, undermining US interests and security. Even for the most ardent Trump defenders, these facts are difficult to dispute and the witnesses that provided them, difficult to discredit.

GOP representatives that have enabled Trump’s lawlessness for almost three years also seemed pleased with the results. It must be acknowledged that for all Taylor, Kent and Yovanovitch said, none of them spoke directly to Trump or his operatives about the scheme.

A formal vote to impeach is almost as certain as Trump’s acquittal in a Senate trial. Removal from office was and remains a very high hurdle to clear. To this point in the inquiry it is difficult to imagine the Democrats have moved the needle much. Republican members of the House still espouse baseless conspiracies that conform to Trump’s worldview. The people most directly involved in the scandal have been blocked or refused to testify. Democrats have balked at the idea of enforcing subpoenas through a prolonged court battle. So unless Rudy Giulani, Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton have a sudden attack of conscience, it is unlikely the public will hear from those most directly involved in this skullduggery. Still the testimony to date, and yet to come is telling and undoubtedly worthwhile.

Trump has flirted with impeachment regularly since his inauguration. House Leader Nancy Pelosi resisted the calls as long as she could on political calculus. The move could well backfire on Democrats, but it is necessary nonetheless. As the scope of the administration’s misdeeds in Ukraine come into focus, it is clear they could not go unchallenged. To do so would be a tacit endorsement of egregious abuse of office. Ben Franklin famously described the United States as a republic- ‘’if you can keep it.’’ If we are to keep it, checks on malignant executive overreach are worth the risks they entail.

Learn More:

Photo by Darren Halstead

The Middle Class is Not Benefitting from Trump’s Economic Policies

The Middle Class is Not Benefitting from Trump’s Economic Policies

Policy
The concept of social class has been amorphous and remains so.  Most economists suggest it is the middle 3 quintiles of the American population (or people at 21-80 percent of the population in household income).  Others suggest it would be households at 2/3s of the median household income, now at $61,372, to double the median income.  While the upper end of that is reasonable, a household income of $41,119 does not seem to provide for the comfort and security associated with middle class.  Juxtapose such a definition with a recent report from the Brookings Institute on low wage workers.  Their analysis shows that 44% of workers ages 18-64 are in the low wage category and more than half of these individuals are the sole or primary breadwinners in their families.  There are 53 million Americans who are the “working poor;” individuals with jobs but unable to meet basic financial stability.  These people are at risk of food insecurity and homelessness.  Given this data, it is hard to believe that the bulk of households in the second quintile of US households are actually living middle class.  In most areas, people making less than the median (49% of households), would not be living a comfortable middle-class quality of life.

This data provides a counter argument to those made in recent articles saying that the middle class is thriving under Trump. It can be extrapolated from all the data on jobs, wages, and income that this statement applies only to the part of the middle class making the upper end of what economists designate as middle class.  Research shows that most low wage workers have not benefited from the increases in wages and manufacturing jobs which have been expanded under Trump.  It is “factual” that, under Trump, the median US Household income increased by 1.8% and that wages grew by 3.3% (2018) instead of the more common figures of 2.5-2.7% for 2016-2017.  But what is equally true is that these data are more characteristic of the better paid wage workers, leaving the lower paid workers stagnant at best and worse off when considering the costs of housing, daycare, and medical expenses in the average household.

Analysis:  The Trump administration can claim that the “middle class” or “workers” are better off but more careful analysis shows that middle class, as currently defined, incorporates a substantial group of households which are stretching their budgets and barely making it, or not.  The lower end wage workers have incomes which have stagnated or decreased, largely due to lack of permanent employment as well as depressed wages. Any discussion of material alluding to the middle class should be taken with a critical examination as the lower segment of the “middle class,” clearly is not.

Learn More References:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/meet-the-low-wage-workforce/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=79131545

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/middle-class-revival-trump/

https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/what-is-middle-class-14833259

Resistance Resources:

http://livingwagecampaign.org/  An organization preparing material for activists committed to instituting a living wage.

Photo by unsplash-logoTaylor Wilcox

Leading 2020 Democratic Candidates Immigration Positions

Leading 2020 Democratic Candidates Immigration Positions

Policy Summary

Due to the Trump Administration’s repeated crackdowns on immigration matters, immigration has been a very prominent and important topic in regards to the 2020 46th presidential election. Several of the leading Democratic candidates have rather similar views, but vary to some degree on the minute details. A brief summary of the immigration positions of Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are outlined below.

Joe Biden

Biden believes immigrants should have health coverage and that the US should build more clinics around the country so illegal immigrants can be cared for should a medical emergency arise. He also supports DACA and believes that  Dreamers should have clear paths to citizenship.

Mike Bloomberg

Bloomberg takes an economic approach to immigration and preaches the value that  immigration provides  for the US economy. He claims the American Dream cannot survive if the US tells dreamers to go elsewhere and bring their talents with them; that failing to fix the broken immigration system is to inflict self-harm on the US economy. Bloomberg believes that  immigrants who are graduates with advanced degrees in essential fields should receive or be put on a path to receive green cards (rather than providing “first-rate” STEM educations to foreign students only to send them back to their nation with now competitive knowledge and expertise). He also believes that immigrant entrepreneurs who have interested American investors should receive temporary visas that can become permanent should their ideas take off. Bloomberg puts a heavy emphasis on the critical role immigrants have played in the revitalization of economies throughout America in both small towns and big cities.

Pete Buttigieg

Buttigieg supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, DACA, and is against sending troops to the US Southern Border.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders believes there is an urgent need for immigration reform, visa reform, restructuring of  ICE, and expansion of DACA. He agrees that securing the border is important, but that it can be done without building a wall. Sanders seeks to protect guest and undocumented workers from labor exploitations and to hire more judges to process asylum claims. Sanders stresses the importance of immigrants and undocumented workers because they are “doing the extremely difficult work of harvesting our crops, building our homes, cooking our meals, and caring for our children. They are part of the fabric of America”

Elizabeth Warren

Warren arguably has the most robust immigration position, thus far. She seeks to “create a rule-based system that is fair, humane, and reflects our values.”  Warren’s main goals are, in no particular order:

  • Increase and restore US foreign aid to Central America to target crime, disrupt trafficking, address poverty, reduce sexual violence and enhance programs for at-risk youth and rally the international community to match this
  • Raise the refugee-cap to 125,000 in her first year and 175,000 in the following years. She also proposes establishing an Office of New Americans designed to support new immigrants in learning English, and civics and provide employment focused training courses.
  • Reverse the Muslim Travel Ban and Remain in Mexico policy; eliminate expedited removal and provide due process for all immigrants coming to the US
  • End unnecessary detention, eliminate private detention facilities, decriminalize migrations and refocus enforcement on serious criminal threats
  • Separate law enforcement and immigration enforcement, remake CBP and ICE (no warrantless arrests, increase Homeland Security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, preventing smuggling and trafficking), create a Justice Department Task Force to investigate accusations of serious violations like medical neglect, and physical and sexual assaults of detained immigrants

Engagement Resources

  • The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
  • 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.
  • us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.

Image by unsplash-logomicah boswell

A New Facial Recognition Technology Bill That Does Not Go Far Enough

A New Facial Recognition Technology Bill That Does Not Go Far Enough

Policy Summary
On November 14, 2019 Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Chris Coons (D-MD) introduced in the U.S. Senate the Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act. This bi – partisan bill introduces limits on how federal agencies can use facial recognition technology. Both senators issued a statement that called the bill a way for American citizens to be “protect[ed] from facial recognition abuse.” Specifically, the bill would require federal law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant if they are to use facial recognition technology to continue to track and monitor a suspected person’s movements in excess of seventy – two (72) hours. LEARN MORE

Analysis
The bill introduced in the U.S. Senate adds a much needed criminal procedure limitation on the use of the still emerging facial recognition  technology but, as ACLU senior legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said, “The bill falls woefully short of protecting people’s privacy rights.”

While Senators Lee and Coon tried to tout the benefits of the proposed bill a number of criticisms about the bill emerged from numerous interested parties. One issue was that the bill does not prohibit the use of the technology to identify persons. This had been the way the technology had been used by law enforcement authorities. The bill only addresses continued ongoing surveillance of a person, which occurs only after identification by law enforcement. It does not prohibit use of the technology to identify people in real time or through the use of photos like DMV photos. Another issue is that the bill is completely silent on the use of the technology by private companies who want to scan the faces of their customers for use in a commercial and profit – driven context later. The bill also does not mention the use of the technology in public housing units with the growth of the smart home technology market. A previous bill was used to address that specific housing issue but was ignored in the Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act.

What is significant here is that there are a large number of ways that facial recognition technology can be deployed and used in an invasive and inappropriate manner. This bill only addresses a tiny portion of how to bring facial recognition technology under control and within constitutionally permissible limits. More research needs to be done and a more comprehensive bill needs to be constructed in order to prevent the technology from being used in a manner that goes drastically further than most American citizens will allow in their homes and their communities. 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 unsplash-logoLudvig Wiese

Trump’s Roll Back of Fuel Economy Standards

Trump’s Roll Back of Fuel Economy Standards

In August 2018, President Donald Trump called for the replacement of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which identify mile-per-gallon targets for vehicles by 2025, with the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle (SAFE) rules.

Policy Summary:

In August 2018, President Donald Trump called for the replacement of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which identify mile-per-gallon targets for vehicles by 2025, with the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle (SAFE) rules. Meant to limit and improve automobile emissions through the requirement of meeting a minimum of 54.5 miles-per-gallon by 2025, CAFE is a cornerstone of mitigating the transportation sector’s impact upon the environment. Through this action, the Trump administration has once again displayed its commitment to rolling back key environmental policies and betrayed its true bedfellows: corporate interests.

CAFE standards were first created in 1975 following the Arab oil embargo. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was tasked by Congress to create mile-per-gallon targets, with the Environmental Protection Agency joining the effort in 2007 due to its charge of regulating vehicle emissions. The CAFE 2025 mile-per-gallon objective was a hard-fought settlement arranged by the Obama administration with the American auto industry. Each vehicle was given a fuel economy target decided by its size and class, and monetary fines are applied if a manufacturer does not meet these benchmarks. However, the concession was made with the auto industry that the average target across all cars sold in a respective fleet was more important than the individual vehicle target. This allows manufacturers to still sell inefficient vehicles by producing fuel-efficient cars in conjunction that outstrip their given emission goals. CAFE is also a credit system in that auto firms can amass credits if they surpass standards, with it being permissible for these credits to be used in the future or given to past vehicles. In addition, credits can be relocated to other fleets or exchanged with fellow manufacturers. With such flexibility, a company can underperform on CAFE targets and still meet standards with the application of past credits or credit trades from others in the auto industry.

The Trump administration is arguing against the findings of a 2016 EPA review of CAFE standards for model years 2022 – 2025, which kept said targets and claimed that the auto industry had reasonable options for fulfillment. Trump claims that the standards are throttling the auto industry, keeping manufacturers out of the U.S., and therefore stifling economic growth. He and the former and current heads of the EPA, Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler respectively, have unveiled the SAFE rules as a replacement for CAFE standards. SAFE applies to model years 2021 – 2026 and would hold mile-per-gallon standards at 2021 CAFE levels. SAFE also annuls California’s Clean Air Act waiver to set its own emission standards and would force the state and thirteen others that followed its lead to conform to federal emission levels. Although SAFE was anticipated to be signed by Trump sometime around March 2019, the standards have yet to be put into place and it is unclear of when and if they will come to pass.

Analysis:

Trump’s call for the elimination of CAFE standards is obvious kowtowing to auto industry interests. Car producers have decried the targets for years, threatening rising vehicle prices due to the supposed cost of production. Mark Fields, the CEO of Ford, even told Trump that CAFE standards could be met, but at the loss of 1 million U.S. automotive jobs. They also posit that the 2016 EPA review was rushed and that due to lower gas prices, Americans are moving away from fuel-efficient cars. However, instituting SAFE rules would do little but increase air pollution, further contribute to anthropogenic climate change, and pad the pockets of auto companies.

Under SAFE standards, manufacturers pursuing higher profit margins will naturally produce more trucks and SUVS, which have far higher price-tags than fuel-efficient cars. This is only a short-term gain concentrated in the hands of the auto industry. CAFE standards benefit both Americans and the economy. When people spend less money on gas, they have more money to spend on goods that are not provided by foreign oil powers, increasing domestic economic growth. CAFE also makes the U.S. auto industry more competitive with foreign producers, which are increasingly making inroads into fuel-efficient, electric, subcompact, and hybrid car production. If the U.S. auto industry thrusts all of its weight behind less fuel-efficient vehicles, it will hamstring itself in pursuit of short-term profits, as automobile trends are already drifting towards higher fuel-efficiency and will no doubt accelerate as the effects of climate change snowball further.

Freezing mile-per-gallon standards at 2021 CAFE levels also increases air pollution and furthers the impact of anthropogenic climate change. We must make headway against greenhouse gas emission from the transportation sector, and siding with corporate interests that desire short-term economic gain over long-term environmental sustainability is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Air pollution is a serious health detriment to the domestic U.S. population, along with the rest of the planet, as air currents connect us all no matter where we live. In addition, emissions are only accelerating and further adding to the issue of climate change. Although the Trump administration may encourage an ignoring of and belittling of climate science, we must recognize the falsities being fed to us and work towards collective action to resist short-sighted policies such as the proposed SAFE standards.

Photo by Sara Farshchi

Trump supports free speech on college campuses, when it is conservative free speech

Trump supports free speech on college campuses, when it is conservative free speech

Policy Summary:
On March 21st, 2019, Donald Trump signed an executive order at the White House meant to, according to its text, “encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including thorough compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions.” In attendance were Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Turning Point USA leader Charles Kirk, and several college students from across the country who claimed to have been marginalized by staff for advocating for conservative values.

This order will be enforced through the withholding of “Federal Research and Education Grants” from campuses deemed to not to promote “free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.”

The executive order will not impact, according to the text, “funding associated with Federal student aid programs that cover tuition, fees, or stipends.”

Analysis:
This Executive Order, on the surface, is about protecting students’ rights to free speech, but put into context, it stands to benefit right-wing ideologies on College campuses more than anything else. Several studies indicate that the need for the White House to step in and create this legislation is exaggerated. While a Gallup-Knight Foundation Survey in March of 2018 does indicate that College students’ confidence in their right to free speech has declined since 2016, the number of cases where Colleges attempted to disinvite guest speakers has also dropped. Also, in 2018, the number of faculty dismissals for expressing conservative opinions versus liberal opinions were virtually the same.

The vague language in the actual text of the Executive Order also makes it difficult to determine whose free speech will be protected, and what constitutes a violation of this free speech. The terms “open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate” does not include any specific examples, as well as does not make any exceptions for cases of language regarding racist language or anti-Semitism. The language of the policy also does not specify what this disruption actually entails.

It is also worth noting that one of the primary driving forces behind the creation of this executive  order was Turning Point USA, whose self-proclaimed mission is “to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.” The organization has been known, according to Vox, to engage in such activities as “dressing students in diapers to protest safe spaces [and bringing] intentionally inflammatory speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos to provoke their left-wing opponents.” The organization’s leader, Charles Kirk, was present in the audience at the signing of the Executive Order, as well as Kaitlyn Mullan, a University of Nebraska student, whom Trump claimed “was approached by staff and a graduate instructor, and was berated and cursed at” for staffing a table for Turning Point USA. Kirk himself said is the Order was the “culmination of Turning Point USA’s tireless work to break the left’s stranglehold on campus, a grip that has suffocated the free exchange of ideas and helped indoctrinate an entire generation to hate America, the freest, most prosperous, decent and generous country ever to exist.” The fact that a heavily right-leaning organization backed the bill is a red flag for the bill’s true intentions.

Resistance Resources:

  • Association of Public and Land Grant Universities – “The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) is a research, policy, and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening and advancing the work of public universities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.  The association’s membership consists of 242 public research universities, land-grant institutions, state university systems, and affiliated organizations. “
  • Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -”FIRE protects the rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of liberty for every American. FIRE defends those whose rights are denied on campus, regardless of identity or viewpoint, and we educate those on and off campus about these rights and their importance.”

Photo by unsplash-logoAmanda Lins

The Role of Rudy Giuliani in the President’s Ukraine Extortion Scheme

The Role of Rudy Giuliani in the President’s Ukraine Extortion Scheme

Since the impeachment inquiry began on Sept. 24th, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has been busy. Rudy has been implicated numerous times in Trump’s scheme to gain political dirt on Joe Biden by withholding previously approved military aid to Ukraine. On October, 1st.  he hired Jon Sale, former Watergate prosecutor, to act as his criminal attorney. Giuliani has also refused a subpoena and vowed not to cooperate with the inquiry against Trump under the specious claim of attorney-client privilege. He has most notably made a series of bizarre television appearances, ostensibly in defense of his client, in which he has spewed misleading statements, outright lies and looked increasingly unstable doing so. That Donald Trump withheld desperately needed military aid to Ukraine is not in dispute. Nevertheless, there is still much to untangle about the entire saga. With each day’s damning testimony it becomes increasingly clear that Giuliani was a linchpin in it all.

The phone call that has Trump in jeopardy of impeachment occurred on July 25th. Rudy was laying groundwork for the extortion attempt more than two months prior. As early as May, Giuliani was pressuring newly-elected Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden’s involvement with gas company, Burisma,. It has become a popular Republican talking point that as Vice-President Joe Biden intervened to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to prevent him from investigating malfeasance by Burisma and his son. In reality, the former VP had prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired at the insistence of the European Union, International Monetary Fund, and internal Ukrainian anti-corruption organizations, due in large part to the belief that Shokin was not doing enough to counter corruption. Shokin had no case open on either Burisma and no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden has come to light. However truth has never been an obstacle Trump couldn’t overcome in discrediting a political opponent. To that end, Giuliani spent parts of the spring trying to initiate bogus Ukrainian investigations of Biden to aid Trump in the 2020 election.

Giuliani’s name has come up repeatedly in the course of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee handling the impeachment inquiry against President Trump. He has been portrayed as a rogue figure, blurring the lines of diplomacy to execute a shadow foreign policy. With remarkable consistency, Giuliani has been portrayed as an unofficial State Department member, handling foreign policy matters in the service of his client rather than the nation.

Marie Yovanovitch was the former US ambassador to Ukraine, with a reputation for combating corruption in the fledging democracy. When she represented an impediment to Giuliani’s political machinations, he complained to Trump who had her recalled. Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert, told investigators Giuliani ran shadow diplomacy, counter to official policiy to personally benefit President Trump. Diplomat William Taylor took the stand and confirmed Hill’s story.  Former Special Envoy Kurt Volker told the Committee he had warned Giuliani to be leery of the information that he was receiving and the motives of those providing it to him. The latter revelation suggests the Giuliani had reason to believe the basis of the investigations he sought was not legitimate.

John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, may take the stand this week. He was allegedly furious with Giuliani’s conduct in relation to the Trump-Ukraine scandal and advised Hill to raise her concern with NSC lawyers. His testimony could prove a damning blow to both Rudy and his client at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Consider that Trump mentioned his lawyer’s name eight times on the redacted memo of his call with Zelensky, and there seems to be unanimity on all sides that Giulani was intricately involved in the scheme to leverage military aid for political dirt. The testimony to date has cast Trump and Giuliani in a very scandalous light. Much of what has been said behind closed doors will likely bolster the formal impeachment case and Senate trial against President Trump. It seems at this juncture, that as much as Giuliani makes the rounds on conservative talk shows lambasting the impeachment inquiry,  he has handed House Democrats a healthy amount of evidence against his personal client.

Further compounding Rudy’s legal predicament are the arrests of his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The pair of Soviet-born, U.S. citizens with ties to Ukraine have pleaded not guilty to four federal counts of violating campaign finance law in the Southern District of New York. Accusations against the two include making false statements to the Federal Election Committee, funneling foreign money into a political campaign and exceeding federal limits on campaign contributions. The latter charge is most germane to Giuliani and the case against Trump. Fruman and Parnas donated $20,000 to the 2018 re-election bid of Texas Republican Representative, Pete Sessions. Following the contribution, the pair met with the congressman to enlist his help with ‘’causing the U.S. government to recall then- U.S. Ambassador [Yovanovitch from Ukraine].’’ Yovanovitch’s ouster is seen as an inciting event of the entire Ukraine scandal. Only after her removal did the events at the core of the House’s inquiry take place.

Lev Parnas, spurned and discarded by the president, has opted to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry after an initial refusal in the aftermath of his arrest. In addition to his role in the removal of the former ambassador, he is alleged to have been enlisted by Giuliani to substantiate the unfounded smear campaign against Joe Biden. If Parnas proves the useful trove of information House Democrats hope he is, he could greatly strengthen the case against Trump and land Giuliani in serious legal trouble.

The objective of one’s personal lawyer is to look after the interest of his or her client. The objective of State Department personnel involved in diplomacy is to carry out official foreign policy. In his capacity as President Trump’s lawyer, Giuliani conflated the two ideas, interfered with official diplomatic channels and set in motion a chain of events that may end in his client’s removal from office. As President, Donald Trump is responsible for the attempted extortion of another country in exchange for personal political gain. However, it is impossible to overlook the implication that his lawyer not only failed to counsel against such a reckless course of action, but appears to have actively participated in the scheme.

Learn More:

Photo by Tina Hartung

Trump’s War on Emissions Standards

Trump’s War on Emissions Standards

Policy:

Trump is at war on the environment and on the state of California.  California has legislation which would impose more stringent emissions standards and increases  the efficiency standard of miles per gallon to 54.5 for autos and light trucks.  As California goes, so it is said, so goes the nation.  Forty percent of the US auto market resides in states or DC which have adopted the California standards.  Trump has made federal regulations which would lower the mpg to 37 and force all of the country to one standard.  It would also revoke a waiver allowing California, and other states and DC, to set their own standards.

There is a legal case challenging the administration’s mandate and several automakers are intervening in that dispute.  GM, Chrysler Fiat, and Toyota all support the administration’s rollback of standards.  Interestingly, these three automakers have dramatic records regarding these standards.  GM and Chrysler-Fiat are in the very bottom of 13 companies ranked for efficiency and emission.  Toyota is fifth from the bottom but is the only company to have worsened their ratings between 2012-2017.  Ford, VW, BMW, and Honda have made their own agreement with California to impose strict standards matching the state’s.  The group of manufacturer’s supporting the administration’s rollback claim to do so because the federal government is promoting “one national program,” and they maintain it will make regulation and enforcement easier.

Analysis:

Transportation, including air travel, accounts for the biggest portion of carbon dioxide emissions.  Attention to emissions standards and efficiency is essential since the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) declared that if climate change is not significantly reduced by 2030 irrevocable damage to the ecosystem will occur.  They suggest aiming for zero emissions by 2030.  The global elite, the 20% of global citizens accounting for 70% of emissions, are essential to mounting a viable effort to reduce the effects of climate change.  Instead of declaring war on California, and its leadership in imposing stringent emissions standards, the federal government should be adopting the same standards for use nation-wide.

Photo by veeterzy

Trump to Require Health Insurance as Proof to Receive Visas

Trump to Require Health Insurance as Proof to Receive Visas

Policy Summary
President Trump has recently issued a proclamation that would require immigrants to provide proof of insurance or adequate financial means should a health emergency occur, in order to be eligible to receive a visa that would lead to a resident green card. Insurance can be bought individually or provided by an employer, short term and/or catastrophic. However, Medicaid does not count, nor does any Affordable Care Act subsidies for that matter because the federal government would still be footing those bills. This would not apply to noncitizen children, college students on limited visas, asylum seekers, or refugees. This proclamation applies solely to individuals who are abroad and seeking immigrant visas. Trump claims immigrants are three times more likely than Americans to lack health insurance, which would make them a burden on hospitals and taxpayers, should they require health related coverage.

Trump has not expressed the amount of money immigrants would need if they did not have insurance already – or anticipate receiving it from an employer. This new rule would block nearly two thirds of prospective legal immigrants and greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the US with family sponsored visas. Most recently, a federal judge in Portland has put a hold on this proclamation and  voiced they disagree with Trump’s decision.

Analysis
While Trump has harped on immigrants posing a burden on hospitals and taxpayers, because they are supposedly two thirds more likely to lack health insurance, American citizens also lack health insurance and adequate coverage. Nearly 30 million Americans do not have health insurance and/or lack adequate coverage. So, while it could possibly be true that immigrants could contribute to an exacerbation of this issue, the main problem is the structure of  our healthcare system.

This proclamation is another attempt to move the US away from family-based immigration to a system based on merit and financial resources. Trump has failed to build the physical wall he long-promised his support base, but has made several attempts to construct an invisible wall to limit immigration.

Engagement Resources

  • The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
  • 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.
  • us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.

Photo by unsplash-logoHush Naidoo

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