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

 

Is the CARES Act Effective?

Brief #79—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The effectiveness of the late March 2.3 trillion dollar Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES), Act remains hotly debated.  It is the most comprehensive act of government support since the depression, and its cost is similar to expenditures characterizing wartime. 

read more

Trump Sinks in the Polls Amid Unrest

Brief #4—Presidential Election News Update
By Iryna Shkurhan
Last Tuesday, several states held their primaries with open polls while protests against police brutality and racial injustice took the nation by storm in all fifty states. Amidst the civic unrest, President Trump’s poll numbers plummeted as prominent Republicans also publicly renounced him. Primaries still remain in several states with the focus shifting to the results of local elections.

read more

Why Have Some Countries Been Better Able to Contain Covid-19 Than Others

Brief #85—Foreign Policy
By Hassan Elsebai
The Coronavirus death toll now exceeds one hundred thousand in the United States and is far ahead of every other country with respect to both deaths and confirmed cases. Followed by the UK with almost 40,000 deaths(June 1st). Italy and Brazil take third and fourth place, respectively. To understand how we got to this point it is imperative to examine the early actions taken by these countries’ leadership.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Impeachment Inquiry Grows

Impeachment Inquiry Grows

Donald Trump endured a rough week in the headlines and on Capitol Hill. Public support for the impeachment inquiry against him has grown as key witnesses have detailed a clearer picture of the scope of the corruption surrounding his foreign policy. He stands accused of leveraging $391 million in military aid to Ukraine in exchange for a baseless investigation into wrongdoing by Joe Biden and his son Hunter. With each witness who has appeared before the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee, more doubt has been cast upon Trump’s assertion that he did nothing wrong.

Fiona Hill, the first White House official to cooperate, and an expert in Russia-specific foreign policy, testified that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, was attempting to circumvent official diplomatic channels in order to run a shadow foreign policy to the president’s benefit. She told lawmakers in the same 10-hour session that she confronted U.S. EU ambassador, Gordon Sondland about Giuliani’s highly irregular behavior. It is not known how Sondland handled the complaint. Text messages presented to the House Committee show Sondland to have been integral in pressuring Ukraine to open the president’s  desired investigations. Hill’s immediate supervisor was former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who was allegedly furious upon learning of Giuliani’s activities. A source familiar with Hill’s testimony recalled Bolton likened the president’s lawyer to a ‘’hand grenade who’s going to blow us all up.’’ Bolton advised Hill to express her concerns to White House counsel. Given his position in the administration, Hill’s testimony raises the prospect that Bolton may be called to share what he knows before the committee.

George Kent, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, working on Ukraine matters, painted a similarly damning picture. Before the same committee he testified that acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, selected three Trump political appointees to oversee the president’s agenda in Ukraine. Virginia Representative Gerry Connolly, who was present at the hearings, relayed Kent’s testimony to the press. He stated State Department officials had been shelved in favor of Energy Secretary Ricky Perry, Sondland, and special envoy Kurt Volker, the former two being hand-picked by Trump. Kent was told to ‘’lay low’’ after voicing his concerns about Giuliani.

Mick Mulvaney was in the headlines for all the wrong reasons this week. His name came up in both the testimony of Hill and Kent. Taken together he appears to have played a facilitating role in the president’s transgressions. The combined word of two career foreign policy experts have him putting key players in the scheme in place, and personally partaking in the ‘’drug deal’’ as John Bolton described the arrangement. Trump has admitted he withheld military aid to Ukraine. He has admitted he strongly pushed their president to initiate an investigation into a political rival. The one saving grace in his incredulous defense has been: ‘’there was no quid pro quo.’’ Mulvaney put the last holes in that sinking ship at a televised press conference from the White House. He acknowledged an investigation into the 2016 election was one of the reasons for the release of the aid in question. When presented with the fact that what he’d just described was a quid pro quo, Mulvaney responded: ‘’We do it all the time’’ and added ‘’get over it.’’ Mulvaney’s admission came as a shock and put Trump’s allies in an increasingly precarious position.

Public support for the impeachment inquiry crossed the 50% threshold for the first time this week. That number exceeds even the sunniest number for Trump’s job approval. The inquiry has gained momentum and shows no sign of letting up given Mulvaney’s gaffe and the president’s failing attempts at obstruction. At this point all Trump backers can do is promote the incorrect talking point that the inquiry is illegitimate without a vote in the House. Removing this president through conviction in a Senate trial remains a tall order, but with each incriminating development, the prospect seems more plausible.

Photo by unsplash-logoAlejandro Barba

Are Tariffs a Boon or Bust for American Workers?

Are Tariffs a Boon or Bust for American Workers?

Policy
Economists contest Trump’s boastful statements regarding his economic policies declaring tariffs a boon to manufacturers, workers and consumers.  Tariffs operate like taxes and increase prices to consumers while  simultaneously sacrificing the creation of new jobs. They are not, as Trump has declared, paid by the exporting companies or countries.  Trump’s tariffs in China, and subsequently in the EU, have had extensive negative impacts and questionable small positive consequences.  Though six manufacturing areas have seen some job growth the other 14 categories have not.  Machinery and metal industries have had accelerated job growth but more negative impacts on other industries have resulted. Farmers have been impacted by tariffs on soybeans to China.

Beginning this Spring, Trump increased the China tariffs on another 100 billion dollars worth of goods in mid-September and proposed another 200 billion dollar increase in December.  The total cost of tariffs, including proposed extensions to the end of the year, is 196.7 billion dollars.   It is estimated that current tariffs have cost 300,000 jobs to be sacrificed and the number is projected to rise to 450,000 by the end of the year.  In retaliation for the tariffs imposed on China that nation has increased duties on 75 billion dollars worth of US goods.     Trump then extended tariff reform to the EU and Canada costing jobs and imports. The EU then responded in ways that have affected the sales of  American products. Some examples are a 25% increased tariff of Kentucky Bourbon has decreased overseas sales in the industry which has depended on foreign imports for much of its growth. Harley Davidson has contracted as a result of EU taxes causing the company to shift production to Thailand and to reduce its US workforce.

Analysis
Uncertainty in business causes distress resulting in suspending plans for expansion and spending.  Trump touted the tariffs as a way to compensate for the trade deficit, where the US imports more goods than it exports, but it has not accomplished that.  US exports account for 12% of the GDP and many industries depend on cheap imports, so the tariffs will negatively impact both prices to the consumer and new jobs.

A loophole in the trade law allows for packages under $800 in value to cross the borders from Canada or Mexico without any extra cost as long as they are mailed to individuals.  To avoid the duties more goods are being shipped over the borders and mailed by disbursement centers into the US.  The delivery of small packages jumped by 46% in 2018 with much of this growth likely attributable to the trade wars.

Not only have prices gone up, and job creation stalled, but wages have not increased and any tax benefit which might have been realized from the 2017 reform has been eliminated by increased consumer good prices.  The groups absorbing the biggest hit are those that generally suffer from slowed economic conditions such as decreased jobs; low wages; and high unemployment.  These struggling groups, most of them low wage earners, are bearing the brunt of the trade wars.

References:

Resistance Resources:

  • https://tariffshurt.com/   A website supporting a national campaign to resist the tariffs featuring articles, charts, and figures to demonstrate the cost of these policies.

Photo by unsplash-logoRenan Kamikoga

African Americans Still Behind in Jobs and Wealth Under Trump

African Americans Still Behind in Jobs and Wealth Under Trump

Policy
In a time of almost unprecedented high levels of employment it is of interest that African Americans are not enjoying an equivalent gain.  The average unemployment rate for blacks  is 6% which is at least twice as high as for whites.  This holds true when controlling for education and other factors such as length of unemployment.  Even that data does not tell the whole story since when majority black cities are considered (cities with 50% or more Black populations including those of “mixed” race”), the data show a much more dramatic chasm.  In cities such as Newark, NJ; Detroit; and Flint the unemployment rates for Blacks are 15.8%, 17.4%, and 25%+.  When wealth is studied, a bigger divide is demonstrated where white wealth is more than 10 times the average wealth of Black households.  The gap actually has increased in the post-recession period.  Trump takes much of the credit for the overall employment gains but data indicate the trend began in 2009 with the largest gain occurring between March 2010 and Jan 2017.  The drop in Black wealth also signifies a downward trend begun in the recession and sustained in the Trump administration.

Analysis
Part of the explanation for Black unemployment rates can be attributed to the geographic regions inhabited by predominantly Black communities but it is certainly not the whole picture.  African Americans are clustered in metropolitan areas which are less likely to be centers of new jobs such as in the tech industries.  The McKinsey & Company study, where the above data is drawn from, indicates that Black unemployment is double that of whites even when other factors are controlled.  The report also suggests that Black workers are at greater risk of future job loss due to their concentration in jobs vulnerable to automation such as truck driving, food service and clerical support. Non-degreed, young black males are especially at risk since they inhabit this demographic more than any other group.  Trump’s policies affecting taxes and home ownership are also likely to further impede the progress of Black family affluence.  The McKinsey authors suggest that this trajectory can be diminished but it will necessitate attention to specific social policies regarding jobs skills training, education, and support of  local economies none of which appears to be a priority in the current administration.

Learn More:

Resistance Resources

Photo by unsplash-logoLinkedIn Sales Navigator

White House and Congress at Odds Over Great Lakes Carp Threat

White House and Congress at Odds Over Great Lakes Carp Threat

POLICY

The silver carp is a variety of Asian carp, a freshwater cyprinid fish native to China and eastern Siberia. The fish can grow up to 4 feet long and weigh 100 pounds and were brought to the United States to control algae in catfish ponds and waste-treatment plants in Arkansas and Mississippi. They escaped into rivers after flooding or were released and made their way up the Mississippi River.

This invasive species is now a serious environmental and economic threat to U. S. freshwater environments. A female silver carp can lay up to five million eggs at once. They rapidly eat the bottom part of the food chain in a lake–the phytoplankton and zooplankton. Phytoplankton include algae, which use photosynthesis to produce energy.

Researchers have concluded that the Illinois River has highest concentration of silver carp on the planet where they now account for 70% of the aquatic life. The lurking threat is that the Asian carp reach the Great Lakes. For almost two decades, a population of Asian carp has been multiplying downriver from Chicago. The is a possibility that the fish could transit the Great Lakes Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal on route to the Great Lakes.

In an effort to prevent this, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a key player. In May of 2019, they sent Congress a $778 million proposal to install a series of electric barriers, flushing lock systems and using underwater speakers to bombard the fish with noise. Environmentalists are hoping Congress approves this proposal so that the fish can be stopped at a dam near Joliet, Ill.

Scientists forecast that there is a small window of time to stop this invasive species before it inflicts irreparable damage to the Great Lakes and the $7 billion fishing industry.

ANALYSIS

The Army Corps proposal represents a compromise between proposals to erect barriers that would seal off Lake Michigan from the river and less drastic measures such as stepped-up commercial fishing. For example, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources has contracted with commercial fishing operators and that effort has removed 8.5 million pounds of Asian carp from the upper Illinois River. (The captured fish are processed into non-food products such as fish oil, fertilizer and pet treats).

The Trump administration has made repeated efforts to block this proposal and associated report; the report was finally issued only after the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill to force its release. The administration has felt the influence of cargo carriers who do not want waterways blocked. For example, the American Waterways Operators, which represents the barge industry, gave $108,500 in campaign contributions to the representatives who voted against the appropriations bill. The barge industry’s PAC has donated $50,500.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., does support the “war on Asian carp,” and wants to double ongoing funding to $25 million for efforts in Kentucky made through the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. His bill also includes more than $9 million for the U.S. Geological Survey and its work to combat the spread of Asian Carp in Western Kentucky lakes and in the Ohio River and Tennessee River basins.

A total of 28 states are actively lobbying for additional carp management funds.

Resistance Resources

Photo by unsplash-logoJohn Westrock

Healthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic CandidatesHealthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic Candidates

Healthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic CandidatesHealthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic Candidates

As we reach 56 weeks before the 2020 elections, candidates have detailed their proposals for improving the health of the nation and have discussed them during the recent debates. Voters have understandably placed healthcare in their top concerns when choosing a candidate. The top five candidates rank in the order of Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg.

  • Elizabeth Warren MA Senator

Warrens stance on healthcare is in defense of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid from republican attacks. Warren supports Medicare for All, which would provide all Americans with a public health care program.

Other Focus Areas:

  • Lower the cost of prescription drugs through Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, allowing the Department of Health and Human Services to manufacture generic drugs to combat drug prices that have spiked due to high demand and limited producers.
  • Prioritize mental health through the Behavioral Health Coverage Transparency Act where insurance companies would be held accountable for providing adequate mental health services and ensure American’s rights are protected as guaranteed by law.
  • Fighting the opioid crisis with the Comprehensive Addiction Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, investing 100 billion in federal funding to fight the epidemic by providing funds for addiction treatment in affected communities.
  • Protecting access to healthcare in rural areas by increasing funding to community health centers, fighting hospital mergers that primarily push rural hospitals out of business, and investing in future healthcare workforces with well-established apprenticeships.

 

  • Joe Biden Former Vice President

Former Vice President Joe Biden has put two areas at the core of his health care platform: Insurance and drug prices.

Biden wants to protect and build on Obamacare/ACA by adding a public option. The key component to his healthcare proposal revolves on Obamacare, not creating drastic structural changes, stating that the ACA was a historical feat. His main additions to the ACA are to give Americans more choice in the form of a public option like Medicare, reducing healthcare cost, and making the healthcare system less complex to navigate through.

Biden vows to stop the abuse of drug companies and to cut drug prices. One key step in fighting the high prices is by repealing the laws that ban Medicare from negotiating lower prices with pharmaceuticals. With such an action, companies will be forced to regulate the drug prices and prevent manufacturers with no competition from placing prices so high. Additionally, Biden proposes allowing consumers to buy lower priced medications from other countries.

  • Bernie Sanders VT Senator

Bernie Sanders is another candidate who has healthcare at their core and also supports Medicare-for-all. While Bernie has been seen as the farthest left-leaning candidate in many cases, many support his approach to ensuring all Americans have access to medical treatment and healthcare.

Sanders also wants to tackle the important issue of drug prices, he proposes lowering prices through negotiating with pharmaceuticals with the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act, by allowing low-cost prescription drugs to be bought from Canada and other countries through the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act, and by fixing drug prices to an average based off of five major nations (Canada, UK, France, Germany and Japan) through the Prescription Drug Relief Act.

Sanders is currently taking a step un unchartered territory by proposing to eliminate existing past due medical debt, which currently stands at $81 billion nationally.

  • Kamala Harris CA District Attorney

Harris believes healthcare is a right, not a privilege and wants all Americans to have access to healthcare. The California DA has proposed a version of Medicare for All. This plan expands on the established policy enacted by Obamacare and would eventually transition to a nationwide Medicare system over the next ten years. Both public and private options will be available for all.

Other Focus Areas:

  • Tackling the pharmaceutical companies and lowering prescription drug prices through mandating the Department of Health and Human Services to set a fair price for drugs based on OECD countries. Harris is even willing to take executive action should congress hesitate in ensuring the American people have access to lower prescription medications.
  • Ensure the women’s reproductive rights are protected and extended by nominating Justices that agree with Roe v. Wade, securing Plan Parenthood’s ability to function, and addressing racial disparities in the healthcare system.

 

  • Pete Buttigieg South Bend, Indiana Mayor

Buttigieg’s proposal for healthcare come 2020 centers on “Medicare-for-all who want it”, a memorable phrase from the debate stage. The Medicare for All Who Want It plan will allow everyone to opt in to an affordable, comprehensive public alternative plan, without mandating people to buy in. This affordable public plan will incentivize private insurers to compete on price and bring down costs and would eventually lead to a single-payer health care system.

Other Focus Areas:

  • Improving mental health and combatting addiction by reaching a mental health parity, where mental health and substance abuse disorders are treated with the same priority as physical conditions. Buttigieg would see that health plans providers and insurance companies will face fines and penalties should they violate meeting these standards. Regarding addiction, Buttigieg pledges a $100 million grant for affected communities, to hold companies that exacerbated the opioid crisis accountable, and to expand naloxone programs to all 50 states.
  • Focus on healthcare in rural states by reducing care shortages in rural areas by training homegrown healthcare workers, invest heavily in telehealth, and expand transportation services to Americans in need.
  • Make medicine affordable by cutting out of pocket spending for seniors, capping monthly prescription spending under the proposed healthcare policy to $250, and reduce the cost of life saving drugs like naloxone and insulin.

 

Engagement Resources

Photo by unsplash-logoNatasha Spencer

With US Presidential Race 13 Months Away – Email in the News

With US Presidential Race 13 Months Away – Email in the News

Policy Summary
In a 30-day period between August and September 2019, the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) observed more than 2,700 attempts by a group dubbed Phosphorus to identify consumer email accounts belonging to specific Microsoft customers and then attack 241 of those accounts. The targeted accounts were associated with a US  presidential campaign, current and former US. government officials, journalists covering global politics and prominent Iranians living outside Iran.

News reports shortly afterwards identified the Trump re-election campaign as the primary target.

Two weeks prior to this report,  Mitch McConnel the Senate majority leader, finally permitted an amendment to provide $250 million under the Financial Services & General Government Bill to “help states improve their defenses and shore up their voting systems.”

Analysis

State actors are losing no time gearing up their operations to gain leverage and access to any and all presidential contenders. As in 2016, the primary purpose of these infiltrations appear aimed at gathering emails and intel to leak at appropriate times to damage or aid a particular candidate. In this case, the attack seemed to originate with Iran which has been in a long tit-for-tat cyber campaign with the US.  Microsoft has identified additional unrelated attacks from Russia and North Korea,

What is surprising is the relatively unsophisticated nature of these exploits. In many cases, it was reported, the attackers attempted to use publicly available personal information both to identify the email accounts belonging to their intended targets and in a few cases to attempt attacks. Spear Phishing, or targeted emails designed to lure an unsuspecting user to divulge information or install malicious software were also deployed.  This software could then be used to spy on or sabotage a network at a later time.

Cybersecutiry is not a major concern for campaigns in this early stage of the election cycle. With funding tight, only a handful of presidential campaigns have invested in a full-time cybersecurity officer. Instead, they have relied on advice from the Democratic National Committee and DigiDems, a Democratic technology firm founded after the 2016 presidential campaign. It is surprising that the Trump campaign’s defenses were so unprepared.

It is a hopeful sign that the Senate is willing to move forward with funding to protect our elections. It is discouraging that the effort is beginning so late in the game.  Equally disheartening is the active denial from the President that email break ins were a significant part of the disinformation campaigns of 2016 and that they are an ongoing challenge for the 2020 cycle..

Resistance Resources

  • DigiDems works in partnership with Democratic Party organizations and leaders in tech to develop on-the-ground programming and support.
  • Protect Democracy is a nonpartisan nonprofit committed to preventing our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government. Their white paper on election manipulation can be found here
  • Common Cause has a section dedicated to guaranteeing voting rights and fair and unbiased elections.
  • Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy is a comprehensive report from the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Future of Voting.

Photo by unsplash-logoWeb Hosting

Hong Kong and U.S. Relations Examined

Hong Kong and U.S. Relations Examined

Policy Summary
President Trump has been reluctant to address the escalating situation in Hong Kong. However, this week he spoke out about the protest movement occurring as the island city seeks its independence from mainland China.

“We discussed Hong Kong and I think great progress has been made by China in Hong Kong, and I’ve been watching and I actually told the vice premier it really has toned down a lot from the initial days of a number of months ago when I saw a lot of people, and I see far fewer now,” Trump told reporters last week.

An interim trade pact was announced on Friday between the United States and China. The announcement comes at a time when leaders from both countries are experiencing escalating political pressures at home. President Trump claims the latest US-China trade deal could be “very positive” for Hong Kong. The President stated that protests in Hong Kong protests have de-escalated.

Analysis
President Trump’s remarks defy the reality of what has been occurring overseas. To many political observers, the Hong Kong protests have done the opposite of “tone-down” and are being met with increased resistance from China. Although Hong Kong’s government has vowed to withdraw an extradition law that initially sparked the protests, the protest movement has increased in size and transformed its demonstrations into a call for democratic reform. Often protesters are seen waving U.S. flags and the flags of other democratic nations in order to garner international support, in the “hopes to pose a potential challenge to the Trump administration as it seeks to negotiate a trade deal with Beijing”. However, these efforts seemed to be in vain with regards to President Trump.

Protestors in Hong Kong are disappointed with the U.S. leader as Trump has not backed their cause and instead has focused his sights on China. His effort to ratchet down the tariff war and reach a new trade agreement with China seems to be an effort that will help both Mr. Trump and Xi Jinping score points back home. Mr. Xi is dealing with the persistent protests occurring on the streets of Hong Kong, along with drastically increasing grocery prices which could be helped with imports of American food. On the other hand, President Trump is intent to shift attention away from an impeachment inquiry into his efforts to extort political favors from the leader of Ukraine. This past week both sides agreed that a tariff war compromise was necessary.  How this will continue to affect relations between Hong Kong and the United States is still to be determined.

Engagement 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.
  • Human Rights Watch is calling for the immediate release of the supporters of Hong Kong protests. Donate here
  • Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong. is fighting for independence and peace in Hong Kong. Join them here: https://standwithhk.org
  • Amnesty International is fighting to protect the rights of people in Hong Kong. Write to the government here and demand they respect and protect the rights of people in Hong Kong now.

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-logoSHUJA OFFICIAL

U.S. Attorney General William Barr Proposes “Back – Door” Access To Allow Government To Read Your Digital Messages

U.S. Attorney General William Barr Proposes “Back – Door” Access To Allow Government To Read Your Digital Messages

Policy Summary
On January 25, 2019, it was reported that Facebook was planning to implement end-to-end encryption of messages across its Facebook Messenger, Instagram and Whats – App messenger platforms. Facebook said that the plans would help users talk to each other much more easily across the platforms. The target date for full implementation is 2020.

On October 4, 2019 Attorney General of the United States William Barr sent an open letter to Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg titled “Facebook’s PRIVACY FIRST Proposals.” In the letter, which was also signed by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department Rt. Honorable Priti Patel MP and Australian Minister for Home Affairs Honorable Peter Dutton MP, the Attorney General asks Facebook to not continue with its plan to implement end to end encryption of messages across its messenger platforms and to include a means for law enforcement to access the content of communications sent through the messenger apps. This type of access is known as “back – door” access because it permits the government access to the digital communications without permission of the user or the social media platform. LEARN MORE

Analysis
End-to-end encryption of messaging is the process where messages are sent digitally between persons which can only be read by the sender and recipient of the message. Even Facebook engineers cannot read the message while in transit or if opened prior to receipt by the recipient. Facebook’s plan to implement end-to-end encryption for the three messaging systems was designed to ensure a level of reliability and privacy when a user sent a message to another user. However, it is William Barr’s request for “back – door” access that has alarmed many privacy activists.

The trouble with Attorney General Barr’s request is that his request for tech companies to provide access to government officials would simply undermine the privacy and security of ordinary people who want to have a simple conversation online. Many people message their family and friends for all kinds of reasons, some of which many prefer to keep confidential. And confidential messages are not always illegal. Some confidential messages may be for a romantic purpose or even for a professional purpose like conversations between an attorney and a client. If a “back – door” is built into the messaging system, then ordinary people can no longer be sure if their communications are confidential or private.

What the Attorney General also overlooks is that there is still a way for law enforcement authorities to acquire the messages without the need for “back – door” access. In the United States, law enforcement can still apply for a search warrant and acquire the messages that are in the possession of the sender or recipient. Messages are routinely saved in “Sent” folders and “Inboxes” and would be available that way. The use of a search warrant would also ensure safeguards such as an unbiased judge’s approval for the search warrant and specificity in what the search would entail. What Attorney General Barr is suggesting is a way for law enforcement to actively read the messages while in transit and open them at the government’s discretion which is akin to government eavesdropping on phone calls while they are happening without probable cause or a warrant. Attorney General Barr’s proposal is in direct contravention to the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and a person’s right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” and secure “against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Finally, Attorney General Barr’s proposal is disingenuous because he is trying to make this an issue of child pornography and terrorism in order to tug at the heartstrings of ordinary citizens. While child pornography and terrorism are terrible crimes that should be pursued and punished aggressively those crimes should not be used as a justification to ignore or erode other rights related to privacy. If child pornography and terrorism are used as a justification anytime the government wants to do something than they will always be used as a trump card to override any legal protection or any kind of dissent. The ability to conduct investigations and prosecute all kinds of crimes has worked together with the Fourth Amendment and that framework shouldn’t be ignored just because of new technology or appeals to truly terrible crimes. New technology is no justification to ignore long held rights and cherished civil liberties. 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-logoChristian Wiediger

Seniors and the Economy

Seniors and the Economy

Policy Summary
One in four persons 65 and over is working and many are doing so because they need to.  Older Americans are the fastest growing group of workers in the country.  Longevity means, for some, many more years or work than anticipated earlier in life.  Few private sector jobs provide a defined benefit (pension).  One half of private sector workers have no retirement benefits and those with 401Ks  lost 1/3 of  their account value during the recession. This was particularly devastating to workers close to anticipated retirement, many of whom consequently have kept working.  Fifty percent of older Americans still help support adult children and many provide caretaking services either to grandchildren, ill children, and/or even older parents.  The median baby boomer savings is $150,000 –not nearly sufficient for a potential 30 year retirement.  Single mothers, many who worked multiple jobs to make ends meet, find that even with social security and food stamps they cannot make it.  Many of these women were likely to work full time, and more, but made relatively low wages and frequently had no benefits.  They are relying on food banks to survive.  It has been well documented that many seniors go without necessary meds, or cut meds, to make ends meet.  Women of color, and individuals in the LGBTQ community, also face similar situations.  More affluent older people volunteer at community agencies.  Volunteer work provides purpose and increases the physical and mental health of its incumbents and just as significantly contributes 73 billion dollars of value to the economy.

Although poverty among seniors has decreased over the past few decades it stands at 10% of all seniors and 12.1% of women seniors when utilizing the official poverty level.  If the supplemental poverty level is incorporated, a measure which takes into consideration the real cost of basic services, 12.2% of senior men and 15.6% of women are poor and even that statistic may underestimate the actual need.   One in twelve seniors faced food insufficiency in 2017.  Women 60-64 were twice as likely to be food insecure than those over 80,perhaps in part because they are unlikely to be collecting social security and are not yet eligible for Medicare to help with healthcare.  Trump has made multiple moves to cut SNAP (federal food supplement program formerly referred to as food stamps).  In October his proposed cut amounted to 4.5 billion dollars, affecting one in five families.  Though Congress has not made the requested cuts in the Department of Agriculture, the agency governing food stamps, Trump has made cuts by executive order and is likely to commit to more cuts.

Analysis
Although the portion of older people who are officially impoverished has decreased there are still many seniors struggling and many who are not counted because they make over the poverty level and/or are working into their “senior” years because they cannot afford to quit.  Many maintain grueling schedules in physically demanding work for which they are ill suited.  Single women, especially those who supported children, are likely to be working longer and also to have been unable to save since they were paying for childcare and other basic needs on a single income.  The proposed SNAP cuts would refigure eligibility by incorporating state standards for other expenses such as utilities, housing, and first time access to the internet.  Although a small group would gain an average of 13 dollars per month more would lose an average of 31 a month.  Northern legislators are against the cuts because of the pressure to protect their constituencies’ benefits while rural representatives are worried about saving programs where the government buys farm products.  In the midst of these political squabbles the elderly are suffering, many of whom are relying on standing in queues to receive food bank assistance.  In any case, SNAP and social security are not meeting the needs of elderly and the impoverished population of nonelderly is now lower than the senior rate.  Seniors have not made any economic gains under the Trump administration’s policies.  The US has no guaranteed basic income as seen in other countries and maintains a large bureaucracy, fragmented and inefficient, to provide for a reasonable standard of living.

Resistance Resources:

LEARN MORE:

 

 

Photo by unsplash-logoMatthew Bennett

Breaking Down The White Houses’ Stated Reason for Refusing to Cooperate with Impeachment Inquiry

Breaking Down The White Houses’ Stated Reason for Refusing to Cooperate with Impeachment Inquiry

The impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump’s dangling of military aid in exchange for political favors was met with obfuscation this week. US Ambassador to Ukraine, Gordon Sondalnd was blocked from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee shortly before he was scheduled to appear. This obstruction was swiftly followed by a letter from White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, to House Democrats, that no cooperation with the ‘’illegal inquiry’’ would be forthcoming. His tactic was hardly surprising and came as public support for impeachment reached record highs. Cipoollone’s argument against the legitimacy of the inquiry rests on questionable legal legs.

The first issue Cipollone raises in his letter justifying non-participation is that inquiry is invalid and violates due process. He argues the impeachment  move is unprecedented and that Trump is being treated differently than any other American accused of wrongdoing. Cippolone’s first charge is patently untrue. The Constitution lays out the framework for impeachment and the first order of business is a Congressional investigation into alleged offenses. Additionally, in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, an investigation of the facts preceded a vote before the House of Representatives.

The due process argument is similarly baseless.  When ‘’loss of life, liberty or property’’ is at stake, the defendant has the right to call witnesses, confront his accuser, have defense counsel present, etc. No such loss is at risk in this case. The worst that can happen to Trump is removal from office. As such, there are no Constitutional grounds to invoke these rights. Even assuming Trump were afforded the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants, they would not be relevant at this juncture. To suggest that those hypothetical rights have been violated would be equal to suggesting a criminal defendant’s rights had been violated in the event he were not presented with all evidence against him prior to an indictment.

Cipollone’s second line of reasoning against cooperation with the inquiry is entirely political. He states in his letter that the ‘’invalid impeachment inquiry’’ is an attempt to undue the lawful results of the 2016 Presidential election and influence the upcoming 2020 race. This idea is better suited as a talking point for Trump and his GOP backers in the House and Senate. It has no basis in law and certainly isn’t grounds for ignoring lawfully issued subpoenas. The argument also implies any political bias against President Trump would somehow negate an investigation into any potential malfeasance. He argues the entire spectacle is a partisan charade without acknowledging the severity of the allegations against the president.

His final point of rationale sounds like he’s parroting Trump in formal legalese. Cipollone writes: ‘’Your current effort is founded on a completely appropriate phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine.’’ He notes Trump’s ‘’extraordinary step of declassifying and publicly releasing the record of the call’’  presents  as evidence that the President did nothing wrong. Trump has admitted to asking Zelensky to investigate political rival, Joe Biden. That he withheld critical Congressionally approved military aid is a matter of public record. Special Envoy, Kurt Volker’s testimony last week revealed that a White House visit was contingent upon the requested investigation into Biden. Yet his lawyer seems to be arguing that no quid pro quo existed, because no one ever used the phrase.

Trump has often acted with indifference towards law and order in his time as President. His policies have been subjected to a myriad of legal challenges. He has publicly broken norms that rise to the level of illegality on numerous occasions. The letter from Cipollone, presumably at Trump’s behest,  rises to a new level. He is in essence raising his alternative view of the facts at hand and presenting them as reasons why he cannot be investigated. The argument’s raised in Cipollone’s letter are ludicrous and lean into a dangerous precedent. It concludes with an appeal to House Democrats to drop the matter entirely. If they were to acquiesce to the demand it would make it clear to this President and future ones that they are in fact above the law.

Learn More:

Photo by unsplash-logoCaleb Perez

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