Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

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

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Trump Continues to Deport Infected Migrants

Brief #96—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Amidst the global lockdowns as a result of COVID-19, the Trump Administration deported 76 migrants on a plane to Guatemala in March. Of those 76 individuals, 71 had tested positive for COVID-19. Guatemala currently links about a fifth of their confirmed cases to those 71 individuals.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Facebook Political Ads Letter” Highlights Need To Pursue Sweeping Changes Beyond Social Media Platforms; November 2019

Facebook Political Ads Letter” Highlights Need To Pursue Sweeping Changes Beyond Social Media Platforms; November 2019

Policy Summary
 On October 28, 2019 the New York Times published a report and a copy of the letter directed to Mark Zuckerberg that a number of Facebook employees signed. The letter contained criticisms of Facebook’s recently announced policy concerning misinformation in political advertising on the social media platform. The letter was prompted by recent comments from Mr. Zuckerberg himself who said that Facebook will no longer ban advertisements with “false or misleading content” and will not “fact check” the content of political ads. Mr. Zuckerberg reasoned, “We think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying.” And he also stated “I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy.” LEARN MORE 

Analysis
The letter signed by a number of Facebook employees highlights the complexities of dealing with political speech from politicians and their groups (political action committees (PAC’s),  and the national political party on social media platforms and in determining if the speech may be false and misleading. Mark Zuckerberg does get it right when he stated that Facebook should not be in the business of censoring politicians or in monitoring their content. People must decide for themselves the merits of the message that politicians are putting forth.

But the letter highlights a problem with political speech that pre – dates the rise of social media platforms that is not necessarily restricted to digital activities. In this article about the 2008 presidential campaign from TIME magazine Amy Sullivan charts the history of false and misleading statements from election candidates and shows that the United States has a long history of allowing falsehoods from candidates in the political arena. While false and misleading advertising can be regulated despite First Amendment Free Speech concerns, political advertising is categorized separately as political speech and that allows uncensored, misleading and false information to reach the public. The rationale for not censoring or regulating political speech is that it permits people to judge for themselves what appeals to them. This is a highly contentious position that has been made all the more difficult with social media platforms and the speed with which messages can spread, the ability to target specific groups and the amount of money being spent on political ads.

What needs to change here is not simply adding new rules for political advertisements on social media platforms alone but adding new rules and regulations that will apply to all kinds of media – new mediums such as social media and podcasts as well as old medium such as newspapers, television and radio. The proposals outlined in the Facebook letter – clear labels on what is political advertising, restrictions on ad targeting and spending caps – are all good steps that will undoubtedly help promote transparency on social media platforms. But change also needs to go deeper and change the American tradition of allowing misleading campaign statements and advertising that face no repurcussions. Mark Zuckerberg in deciding to no longer ban false and misleading political advertising was likely just following the American rules concerning political speech as they have been applied to TV, newspapers and radio. And until America comes around and changes the landscape to those old mediums there is no reason for the new mediums, such as Facebook, to follow a different path. 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-logoKon Karampelas

Should Journalists Predict Likely Nominees in the Presidential Election?

Should Journalists Predict Likely Nominees in the Presidential Election?

Policy
Journalists and pundits, with  very few exceptions, notoriously failed to seriously consider the possibility that Donald Trump would win the 2016 Presidential election.  But more significantly, the Democratic candidates were given unequal consideration both within the party machine and by the press.  In 16 hours Sanders was subjected to 16 negative stories published in the Washington Post.  Clinton was subjected to media scrutiny regarding non-issues such as the neckline on her shirt when she was addressing the Senate.

In 2020  the media has questioned whether Elizabeth Warren is electable citing stridency, excessive liberalism; age; and other nonsense disregarding the content of her policies and the strength of her convictions.  Still other writers are now pointing to the fallacy of focusing on centrists as electable, particularly for swing voters, and taking a lesson from 2016 talking about getting out the vote. They claim that the large number of young, LGBTQ, and progressive, ineligible to vote in 2016, can be the segment that can elect Warren.

The media, with its polls and pundits is fond of prognostication but this is not innocent or idle chatter. It does matter and it does sway people.  As a consequence, some voters stay home while others vote for who they are convinced can win, regardless of the specific view of the candidate.  We know, for example, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sabotaged Bernie Sanders as a result of the financial power wielded by Hillary Clinton.  Clinton’s fundraising and supporters managed to pay off the vast majority of debt racked up by Obama’s re-election and his sleepy attention to fundraising.  Clinton’s activities resulted in her being awarded control of the party’s finances, spending, and strategies a full year before she became the nominee; a privilege generally reserved for the person after s/he becomes the nominee.  This has been documented by Donna Brazille as acting chair of the DNC in pursuance of her promise to Bernie Sanders to see if the election was rigged by the party.

Research shows that, in 2016, the media treated Trump more fairly that the Democrats.  He was given balanced coverage on his tweets and scandals to his primary concern in the area of immigration. In contrast, the media paid greater attention to Hilary Clinton’s scandals than to her substantive stance on issues

 

Analysis
Research on the role of the media suggests that “unethical journalistic practices,” along with social media proliferated “disinformation” and propaganda leading to Trump’s election.  Do we want a recurrence?

Media channels need to limit themselves to the social scientific data culled by reporters and to substantive stories on policy and issues.  Journalists and pundits should refrain from statements based on their feelings of what people want or what they might see as essential.  All social media content should be looked at with an eye for ferreting out  sensational and incendiary statements and personal attacks and scrutinized for content.  Failure to tend to these matters can foretell a rerun of the difficulties besetting the 2016 election

References/ Learn More:

 

Resistance Resources:

Photo by AbsolutVision

Microsoft wins $10B DoD JEDI Contract – Did Trump’s Antipathy for Jeff Bezos Play a Role?

Microsoft wins $10B DoD JEDI Contract – Did Trump’s Antipathy for Jeff Bezos Play a Role?

Policy Summary

The US Defense Department’s (DoD) $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract for the procurement of cloud computing services has been awarded to Microsoft’s Azure Cloud Computing Platform positioning the company as the provider of choice for the Pentagon and other Federal agencies for years to come. The contract spans a maximum 10 years if all options are exercised.

The announcement on October 25, 2019 concludes a multi year search for a vendor to move the DOD’s computing infrastructure from distributed government owned data centers to the public cloud infrastructure.

The system as envisioned would be a worldwide, highly available, secure, resilient cloud computing and storage environment that would seamlessly extend from the homefront to the battlefield. The JEDI cloud will be able to support the rapid development and deployment of virtually any application and protect the most sensitive national intelligence information in support of real-time decision-making. Pentagon leaders envision JEDI as including mobile, even miniaturized, backpack-portable servers that will provide tactical units with highly classified, mission-critical and actionable intelligence. Ultimately, it is hoped that JEDI will change DoD itself, transforming how it captures, processes, understands and exploits data from a myriad of sources and uses this information to drive decision making.

The announcement came two days after Defense Secretary Mark Esper recused himself from the selection process and two months after President Trump reportedly asked the newly installed Defense Secretary to reexamine the awarding of the cloud-computing contract because of concerns that the deal would go to Amazon.

Analysis

Cloud computing services are environments created by private sector software and hardware companies to facilitate the building, testing, deploying, and management of applications and services in managed data centers. The cloud provides an easy way for organizations to create and grow computing capacity without having to invest in physical plant. Amazon, through its Amazon Web Services (AWS) division, controls nearly half of the overall public-cloud infrastructure market (47.8%), leading by a wide margin Microsoft (15.5%), Alibaba (7.7%), Google (4%), and IBM (1.8%) according to Gartner Research and Analysis.

The process was mired in controversy from the outset as Amazon had a hand in writing the project specifications and was considered a front runner throughout. President Trump’s antipathy for the company and in particular its founder Jeff Bezos would seem to have played a large role in the ultimate awarding of the contract to an alternate vendor.

Large organizations worldwide have been moving their computing operations to cloud based data centers for the past few years in a trend that has seen the Federal government lagging behind. The major drivers to switching to cloud operations are costs and productivity gains that allow organizations to concentrate on their core strengths rather than having to staff data centers and provide the power, cooling, and floor space to support them.

Moving operations to the cloud does have its risks. Physically securing the infrastructure will be a new challenge and interconnectedness of systems will be a point of vulnerability. It is not at all apparent that what is good for Microsoft is good for the US military but the flexibility and scalability of the cloud environment would make this switch in technology advisable.

Whether the best player won is a serious consideration for a system that the nation will  rely on for its defense. In addition, having a single vendor supporting such a vital technology would be contrary to the notions of data and system redundancy. The President’s intercession at the 11th hour against a company that he has a history of bashing should be worrisome for the DoD and the American people.

Resistance Resources

  1. The Brookings Institute has a discussion of the JEDI procurement process and Presidential interference.
  2. Wired has a full discussion of how the process began and how it went wrong.
  3. The conservative Americans for Tax Reform oppose a single vendor approach to critical infrastructure
  4. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) provides science-based analysis of and solutions to protect against catastrophic threats to national and international security.

 

 

Photo by unsplash-logoTadas Sar

Administration dismantles environmental protections that improve our “quality of life.”

Administration dismantles environmental protections that improve our “quality of life.”

POLICY

The Trump administration continues to aggressively roll back energy and environmental policies set by the Obama administration. The efforts aim to increase energy production and advance energy independence. The thinking is that keeping prices low translates into “improving the quality of life for all Americans.”

Among the numerous deregulation targets are:

The Clean Power Plan – enacted in 2015, which limits carbon emissions from power plants with a goal of reducing the ozone rate from 75 to 70 parts per billion. Ozone forms when carbon emissions from cars and factories react with volatile compounds, making the air hard to breathe and harmful to plants and animals. In Earth’s upper atmosphere, the colorless gas acts as a critical shield to space radiation.

The Stream Protection Rule – which regulates the restoration of water flows effected by mining operations. Trump signed H.J.Res.38 which blocked the Stream Protection Rule. The administration’s contention is coal mines have no off-site impacts and that lands are being safely restored. They claim that removing the rule reduces clean up expenses, keeps electricity costs down, and maintains $6 billion in state and federal tax revenue annually.

The Keystone XL pipeline – which would carry up to 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Alberta, Canada to Nebraska. Local supporters say the pipeline could more than double property tax receipts. On October 29, the Keystone pipeline spilled 383,000 gallons of crude oil across a quarter-mile area of northeastern North Dakota.

ANALYSIS

As the U. S. has experienced record heat, flooding, and fires, President Trump has stuck to his commitment to pull this country out of the Paris Climate Accord, which committed the U. S. to cutting greenhouse gases up to 28% by 2025 based on 2005 levels. According to the agreement, no country can officially withdraw until three years from the date on which it entered into the pact. The United States can and will formally submit its notice of withdrawal on Nov. 4.

The Trump administration is deeply connected and sympathetic to the energy industry and their lobbying efforts who tend to manipulate scientific uncertainties and emphasize the extremes in order to argue for their personal interests.

Examples include Robert Murray, head of Murray Energy, the country’s largest underground coal mining company whose policy wish list included withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord. Another Murray alum, Andrew Wheeler, was appointed director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Long time corporate energy lobbyist, Mike McKenna, was recently appointed deputy assistant to the President, and is expected to work on further dismantling energy and environmental rules and “improving the quality of life for all Americans.”

Trump’s senior science advisor, Kelvin Droegemeier, has stated: “Climate change is happening. There’s no question about it. The question is what are we doing about it…A strong economy is critical. We can’t upend the economy and expect to arrest climate change.”

Economics are at work though. The natural gas industry has become larger than coal in terms of employment and investment. As natural gas prices have fallen, coal is being pushed out of the market. Natural gas power plants emit 50 percent less CO2 than comparable coal-based power plants. During the production process though, methane gas is released – a potent greenhouse gas.

Indiana Sen. Mike Braun, a Republican, and Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat, are introducing the first-ever bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus. This group aims to work on improving energy efficiency and investment in R&D, as well as provide a forum through which proposals can be turned into meaningful legislation.

Meanwhile, the comment period for the State Department’s environmental draft of the Keystone Pipeline ends Nov.18. This draft is an update of the 2014 Statement; it analyzes the impacts related to changes since that time and incorporates new studies. Three law suits against the Pipeline, including one filed by the Native American Tribes, are being heard by a federal judge in Great Falls, Montana.

Resistance Resources

  • https://www.wilderness.org/  Their mission and passion has been to protect our nation’s shared wildlands.
  • https://www.postcarbon.org/  Their mission is to lead the transition to a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable world by providing individuals and communities.
  • https://www.nrdc.org/keystone-xl-pipeline The National Resources Defense Council’s “stop the pipeline” campaign.
  • Public comment on Keystone Pipeline can be made to: Ross Alliston, Keystone XL Program Manager, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520 – or electronically:
  • https://www.regulations.gov  and enter docket number: DOS-2019-0033
  • https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/   Their mission is to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction.

Photo by unsplash-logoMarkus Spiske

Trump’s “Spying “Allegation Against the Obama Campaign Is a Hoax

Trump’s “Spying “Allegation Against the Obama Campaign Is a Hoax

Policy Summary
On October 25, 2019 President Donald J. Trump was interviewed by author Doug Wead for an upcoming book on President Trump’s presidency thus far and repeated a 2017 claim that the Obama Administration had been caught spying on his 2016 campaign. The President made clear that it was at the direction of President Obama and that he felt that he “had my wires tapped” in Trump Tower. The story continues to appeal to conservative and right – leaning voters and even prompted Attorney General William Barr to state during testimony before a Congressional committee hearing that he believed spying against the Trump campaign did occur. Mr. Barr’s comments also included statements that indicated he was open to investigating the charges of spying if there are other remaining issues to be addressed. LEARN MORE

Analysis
President Trump’s continued assertion that President Obama spied on his 2016 campaign is simply false. What had occurred is a routine national security process, which President Trump is trying to twist into a scenario where he can lob accusations of treason against the former 44th President’s administration.

What had occurred is that U.S. intelligence agencies were monitoring calls and communications of foreign nationals as they are permitted to do under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That statute permits secret intelligence courts to issue surveillance warrants against non – American citizens. Once the surveillance begins reports are written of the progress of the surveillance activities with the names of American citizens redacted if the activities of the foreign national surveillance target communicates or comes in contact with an American citizen. This safeguard procedure is implemented in order to prevent the government from spying on American citizens. However, a limited number of national security officials – including the National Security Advisor – are permitted to ask that the names of American citizens who have been redacted in a national security report be revealed in order to clarify the information in the report or understand the foreign intelligence value of the information. This is why a national security official would ask for American citizen names in a report to be revealed, or “unmasked.”

Prior to and during President Trump’s 2016 campaign and transition, properly issued surveillance warrants were issued and the United States was in the process of monitoring the calls and communications of Russian nationals. However, these foreign nationals soon made contact and communicated with Trump campaign and transition officials. National Security Advisor Susan Rice received the reports of the activities of the foreign nationals interacting with Trump campaign officials and, pursuant to law, requested that the names of Trump associates be revealed – unmasked – in order to get a fuller picture of what the foreign nationals were doing communicating with Trump associates. Susan Rice was authorized by law to do this in her position as National Security Advisor. What she was doing was simply following the activities of foreign citizens – Russian nationals – to determine if they were engaged in any sort of illegal activity. The fact that they ended up communicating with Trump campaign officials does not establish that the Obama Administration was spying on Trump officials. The only reason the American citizens from Trump’s campaign had their names revealed was because of communications they had with the foreign nationals. However, President Trump refuses to see and acknowledge this perfectly legal behavior even after it has been proven that the Obama Administration was not spying on his campaign. For him, it is just easier to try to accuse Ms. Rice and the Obama Administration in order to try and deflect from some of his own comments and activities, some of which raise questions about possible treasonous behavior in his own administration. 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-logoMarkus Spiske

Opioid Pharmaceutical Companies Reach 11th Hour Settlement and Avoid Taking Responsibility

Opioid Pharmaceutical Companies Reach 11th Hour Settlement and Avoid Taking Responsibility

The Policy

The morning of what would be a historic opioid trial, four of the biggest U.S. drug manufacturers and distributers reached a $260 million settlement with two Ohio counties, preventing the commencement of the landmark trial.

Distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson Corp. pledged to pay $215 million, while manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals will pay $20 million in cash and an additional $25 million in addiction and overdose treatment drugs. This comes from the co-lead attorney, Paul Farrell Jr., representing the Ohio counties Summit and Cuyahoga. Under this deal, there is no admission of wrongdoing on the companies’ part, but the distributors have agreed to change internal policies to prevent over-distribution in the future.

Monday’s settlement announcement means that only Walgreens remains as one of the original defendants for the Ohio trial, due to most of the defendants, notably, Johnson & Johnson and Mallinckrodt, already reaching settlements with the two counties a week prior. Walgreen’s trial is now postponed until next year, with the potential to be joined by other companies.

Additionally, just hours after the Ohio settlement was announced, a group of bipartisan attorneys general announced that they had reached an agreement with the previously mentioned four companies and Johnson & Johnson in a larger nation-wide lawsuit. This “global resolution” greatly surpasses the Ohio settlement with $22 billion paid in cash over 18 years and $26 billion in anti-addiction and drug treatment medication, totaling a massive payout of $48 billion.

Analysis:

While this settlement halts the federal case out of Ohio, it does not impede any further progress by other lawsuits outside of Summit and Cuyahoga, the two counties in the case. This case was intended on being a landmark case, where it would be used as a glowing example of how to attack the large pharmaceuticals and attribute blame and responsibility for their roles in the opioid crisis. At this stage, it appears as though another case will have to take lead. There are still thousands of counties, cities and towns who have filed cases, this federal one only represented some two thousand across the country.

Although the settlement will provide necessary funding and compensation for the devastation caused by the opioid epidemic, critics would have preferred a trial. By avoiding going to trial, there is no jury to find companies guilty. Notably and most disappointingly, the settlements intentionally did not include admission of wrongdoing or an apology, something people affected by the crisis so desperately want. All companies have maintained that the drugs in question passed intense FDA scrutiny and had labels explaining the risks of addiction.

Engagement Resources:

Photo by unsplash-logoanaluisa gamboa

How to Select the Best Democratic Candidate to Defeat Trump

How to Select the Best Democratic Candidate to Defeat Trump

After several debates, countless interviews and media coverage, it is still difficult for me, and perhaps many others, to identify the best Democratic candidate for President. Each of the leading candidates has strong points and weaknesses, and so making the best choice is going to be difficult.

What I do know is that I want a candidate who can do 3 things: (1) effectively take on Trump during a heated 3-month Fall election contest; (2) generate the greatest voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket and (3) have an approach to governance  that seeks to unify the country.

Let’s examine each of these attributes in a little greater detail. In terms of a strategy for taking on Trump, some people want a candidate that can go toe-to-toe with him on the debate stage, an experienced prosecutor like Kamala Harris. I myself think this strategy may further polarize the electorate, as they take sides in a war of attack dogs. A better approach might be an ignore/deflate strategy, where the Democratic candidate scarcely mentions Trump by name

while continually casting light on the failures of his policy agenda to do  much good  except benefit  the wealthy. This bashing of Trump’s policies would need to be coupled with an effort to convince the electorate of the merit of the policies of the 2020 Democratic platform, and would need to focus on core issues such as jobs, healthcare, abortion, racial justice,climate change, immigration and gun control. The need to address income inequality should  be addressed in proposals for stronger fiscal and monetary policies, while minimizing ad hominem polarizing bashing of rich people.

The  strategy for generating the best turnout depends on a candidate who can motivate voters in several key demographic  categories  —African-Americans and Latinos, suburban voters, people in mid-country swing-states , and young people. Unfortunately at this point I don’t see any of the currant candidates  appealing to all of these important demographic groups. More progressive candidates like Warren and Sanders have an appeal to younger voters who want radical change. More middle of the road candidates like Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, may appeal to mid-America and older African-Americans, but have yet to make inroads with younger voters, and with blacks in the case of Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

The third essential quality in a strong Democratic candidate is someone who stresses the need for unifying the country, who appeals to America’s morality and core values as enshrined in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Many Americans yearn for this after several decades of divisive politics.  A strong Democratic  candidate should offer a broad vision of reconciliation, unity, and respect for people who don’t agree with him or her. A unity approach also ought to put forward sensical ways for reforming the electoral system to make it more open, participatory, and responsive to the will of the people; reforms that would include  taking the money out of politics, protecting voting rights,  and linking the election of a President to the popular vote

There are those that say that such an approach is not what’s needed and won’t be heeded by the opposition. But I believe that promoting and  practicing an inclusive form of governance that  does not demonize the opposition is  desperately needed by our country right now. It is an approach that seeks to go beyond  the realm of the daily  Democrat/ Republican political power contest. There are some candidates who realizes the necessity of taking this approach, such as Corey Booker  Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Biden  but they have their own set of vulnerabilities.

Ultimately it is the Democratic voters in early primary states who will play the strongest role in determining the next Democratic candidate for President. Any candidate with a solid lead after these three primaries will likely emerge as the nominee. Let’s hope our brothers and sisters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Utah, and South Carolina choose wisely.

One thing is for sure though; although you can find flaws in each of them (as you can in all humans) any of the currant group of Democratic candidates is 10000% better than President Trump, who has more flaws than one can count. That said  we all need to actively support the chosen Democratic  candidate , whoever he or she may be, no matter what their strengths and weaknesses. No moaning and groaning, voting for a rogue candidate, or staying home. This election is too important.

Photo by unsplash-logoHistory in HD

Comparing the Ukraine Policies of Obama and Trump

Comparing the Ukraine Policies of Obama and Trump

Policy Summary

To help understand heightened tension between Ukraine and the United States in recent weeks, we need to trace  U.S. foreign policy with Ukraine from the Obama Administration to the Trump Administration. It is essential to note the similarities and differences between the two administration policies. The Obama Administration knew it was necessary to help Ukraine during her struggle with Russia in 2014. However President’s Trump’s policy towards Ukraine seems to be based on (a) his wish to appease Russia or at least avoid a conflict with Russia; and (b) his desire to use Ukraine to serve his own political interest.

In 2014, during Obama’s presidency, Russia wanted to undermine the post-Cold War order that was established in Europe. President Putin claimed it was his right to intervene in the lives of Russians wherever they lived. Putin justified his invasion of Georgia 2008 and Ukraine 2014 with this claim. The actions taken by Putin in 2014 lead to the U.S. promoting sanctions against Russia and supporting increased economic and security aid to Ukraine.

Why did Obama care so much about aiding Ukraine? The answer is simple; in 1994, the United States, Britain, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum. Signees to the Budapest Memorandum made the commitment to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity and pledged not to use force against Ukraine. President Obama and the other signers of the Memorandum were concerned about preventing Russia from re-establishing its sphere of  influence over former Soviet-bloc countries.

Countries that signed The Budapest Memorandum also pressured Ukraine to  give up  thousands of strategic nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers. The Obama administration provided aid to Ukraine to support its political and military reforms. Ukraine was the Obama administration’s beacon of light  towards democracy in Eastern Europe.

Trump on the other hand has proven to not be a huge supporter of Ukraine. Trump  has shown his admiration for Russia and Putin and. Perhaps because of this, has shown little interest in Ukraine. President Trump has done very little to reverse Russia’s 2014v invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In fact he claimed at the G7 Summit meeting in France that, the invasion of Crimea was a strong move  that proved the United States,  under the Obama administration, was weak.

So far Trump’s policy towards Ukraine has been focused on getting Ukraine to dig up political dirt on potential Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and on trying to prove a far right conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine not Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee server in the 2016 Presidential  election. Trump insisted on the withdrawal of the American Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch and halted military aid that Ukraine. Coincidently at the same time he asked Ukrainian President Zelensky for a “favor.” The favor being to investigate fictions about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. elections and the investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. After his talk with Zelensky on July 25, Trump’s hold on the military aid was lifted. President Zelensky has tried to run a campaign that focused on anti-corruption in Ukraine.With the current scandal between the United States and Ukraine, Zelensky’s anti-corruption campaign may have been tarred and weakened.

Analysis
The Obama and Trump Administration view US foreign policy towards  Ukraine differently. The Obama administration focused more on the security and economic reform of Ukraine, because of the 2014 invasion of  Ukraine by Russia. The goal for US foreign policy at that time  was to make sure Ukraine would regain its democracy and protect its sovereignty. US/Ukraine policy was grounded in the Budapest Memorandum 1994. The question is, why? The Memorandum allowed for Ukraine to give up thousands of dangerous nuclear weapons, missiles, and bombers. If the United States does not continue to support Ukraine, it will show other countries that they should not forfeit their weapons of mass destruction if the protection they were promised is a lie.

It is clear President Trump is not supporting democracy in Ukraine. Trump sees Ukraine as another pawn in his chess game of ruling. Reformers in Ukraine are questioning what it means when the American President stands against them in their battle towards democracy. The Trump administration has forgotten how foreign policy and aid work. They have discredited the values of freedom and democracy for all, that our founding fathers had established in 1776. The Trump administration has failed to support democracies around the world, with Ukraine being the latest example.

Resistance Resources

  • PopularResistance.org  is a resource and information clearinghouse for this movement of movements. They provide a daily stream of resistance news from the United States and around the world, and a national events calendar.
  • http://unitedhelpukraine.org is a non profit organization in support of Ukraine’s freedom and independence. They organize multiple protests in response to Russia’s unlawful action in and against Ukraine.

Photo by unsplash-logoRae Tian

Trump’s Damaging Syria Decisions

Trump’s Damaging Syria Decisions

Policy Summary
Earlier this month, in response to a phone call request from Turkish President Erdogan, President Trump announced the evacuation of US troops from northern Syria. Shortly thereafter Turkish troops invaded an area of Syria, formerly held by US forces, who were there to help support America’s Kurdish allies in their fight against ISIS. US troops were mandated to abandon the Kurds, former US allies.

Last week the US negotiated a “ceasefire” with Turkey that enabled  Kurds flee the region, a deal that forced our Kurdish allies to relinquish territory to the Turks. Viewing themselves as abandoned by the US, the Kurds then formed an alliance with the Russian and Iranian-backed Syrian government. The Russians then struck a deal with the Turks that enabled them to take over  territory near the Syria-Turkey border that was formally held by the US.

Last week, the President changed his path. Trump began to favor a new Pentagon plan allowing a small contingent of American troops, approximately 200,  to remain  in eastern Syria in order to resist the Islamic State and to prohibit the advancement of the Syrian government and Russian forces into the region’s sought after oil fields.

At a Cabinet meeting President  Trump addressed his choice to withdraw US troops from northern Syria, contending that the US “never” agreed to protect Syrian Kurds indefinitely. The President suggested that the US should arrange an oil deal in order to help the Kurds financial situation, saying, “We want to keep the oil, and we’ll work something out with the Kurds so that they have some money, have some cash flow. Maybe we’ll have one of our big oil companies to go in and do it properly”. President went on to say that he was “the one that did the capturing” of ISIS fighters in Syria. During the Cabinet meeting, the President defended his earlier choice to remove troops from northern Syria, stating that the driving reason behind his decision was because he had campaigned on it. Trump stated that though his decision was not well received in Washington, crowds at his rallies cheered loudly when he said he’d bring American troops home. However, it was then subsequently learned that the troops that were withdrawn from Syria were sent to Iraq and not back to the US.

On Wednesday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry stated they believed the Syrian government should maintain control of all the oil facilities in the area. The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also commented, “The United States was the closest ally of the Kurds over the past few years. But in the end, the U.S. abandoned the Kurds, actually betraying them.” The same day, Russian military police started patrolling specific areas of northeastern Syria, including  joint Turkish-Russian patrols of the border region “as part of an agreement with Turkey that cemented Russia’s commanding role in the Syrian conflict as U.S. forces withdraw”. President Trump responded to the events on Twitter on Wednesday, “Big success on the Turkey/Syria Border. Safe Zone created!”

Analysis
Trump’s choice to remove US troops from Syria  is not sitting  well with the Republican party. Some of Trump’s  staunchest Republican allies are highly concerned with the removal of U.S. armed service in the area, as it has allowed for a Turkish offensive that in just over two weeks has killed scores of Syrian Kurdish fighters and civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands of residents.

Some lawmakers believe that severe damage has been done to the counterterrorism mission and the international credibility of the United States. Representative Will Hurd, a Texas Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, called the cease-fire agreement, “terms of surrender” to Turkey. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Mark Esper is asking U.S. allies to contribute more to the defense of Saudi Arabia in order to protect from Iranian threats. “The plan is part of a broader U.S. campaign to get NATO allies to take on more responsibility for security in the Gulf, including pleas for nations to send ships, aircraft and air defense systems to the region”, reported by U.S. News

Mr. Trump has also come under heated backlash from numerous military leaders. This week, military officials are planning to brief Mr. Trump  on a  plan  to allow a small number of  troops to remain in Syria working with Iraq-based commandos. The President would have to sign off on any plan to leave forces in Syria. However, the President has openly stated he has little interest in leaving troops in Syria with the exception of protecting oil. “I don’t think it’s going to be necessary. I don’t want to leave any troops there. That’s very dangerous territory,” Trump told reporters during a Cabinet meeting. “I don’t think it’s necessary other than we secure the oil. It’s a little different section, but we need to secure the oil.”

Engagement Resources:

  • Across Syria, the International Rescue Committee provides lifesaving support to close to 1 million people—half of them are children—who are struggling to survive a war now in its ninth year. Learn how to help
  • Save the Children’s teams in Syria are working across three displacement camps, preparing to scale up to meet the increased needs of vulnerable children. Urgent support is needed to help this impending humanitarian disaster. Donate here
  • UNICEF is providing water, nutrition, education and protection to families and children in Syria while collaborating closely with partners to meet all the needs of the most vulnerable children. Learn more here
  • UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, is a global organization dedicated to saving lives, protecting human rights and building a better future for refugees, forcibly displaced communities and stateless people. UNHCR is monitoring the situation and remain ready to assist those most in need. Give here

This brief was compiled by Erin Mayer. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact ErinMayer@USResistnews.org

Photo by unsplash-logoAhmed Abu Hameeda

Red States, Blue States, Who Benefits the Most from Federal Funding?

Red States, Blue States, Who Benefits the Most from Federal Funding?

Policy
It might surprise Trump supporters that they enjoy a greater portion of federal expenditures to states than the population in the Blue states, particularly in view of the tax contributions of citizens in each set of states.  In fact, Citizens in Blue states appear to occupy different economic worlds than those in Red states, and the data show the Red state participants are experiencing more of economic strain in the current administration.  Red states are also less racially diverse than blue states with an average of 27% non-white compared to 50% of residents who are non-white in Blue states.   Yet Red state are more of a drain on the federal government accounting for a bigger portion of  benefits in federal aid programs—including food assistance, housing, disabilities, and Medicaid the return is more substantial in the red states which typically get a return of $1.71 – $2.13 on dollars contributed compared to blue state which generally get between 74-83 cents on the dollar. Red states, with high dependency on the federal government, 13 of the 15 highest utilizing states, voted for Trump white 10 of the 15 states least dependent on federal aid went for Clinton in 2016.  Red states also receive more support in their share of federal jobs and the portion of federal funds comprising state revenues.  Red counties which voted for Trump have seen an increase in job growth of 2.6% in 2017-18, while the growth rate in blue counties going for Clinton was 2.1%.  The issue is that these red state areas have had sluggish economic growth and the wages are low and the jobs ripe for automation.  Blue states also fare better in quality of life studies which include, among other things, employment, job growth, economic development, cost of living, government solvency, and livability.

Analysis
Contrary to what the media might suggest, especially conservative media, the largest gap between Red and Blue states lies in economic deficiencies not in racial differences.  In fact, Blue states have a greater share of non-whites and a smaller share of aid from the federal government.  They also have higher education levels in their population, with 35% of their population possessing college degrees compared with 28% in Red states.  The Blue states are more economically productive with output averaging 22% per worker compared to 15% for red states.   Blue state workers are also less likely to be working in manufacturing.  In the first year of Trump’s administration, disparities between Blue and Red states grew with blue states having greater rates of labor force participation and job creation.

Resistance Resources:

https://www.rockthevote.org/action-center/volunteer/  An organization working to get voters registered and engaged.  The best way for the Democrats to win is to show up in large numbers.

 

Photo by unsplash-logoPatrick Tomasso

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