JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Role of the Judiciary in Interpreting Environmental Policy
Brief #76—Environment
By Shannon Q Elliott
The Importance of the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act
Brief #75—Environment
By Todd J Broadman
US-China ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal and Its Global Implications
A blog series that looks at the impact of US public policies on other countries.
Blog Post # 4 US-China ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal and Its Global Implications
By Rakesh K. Singh
Emboldened by Senate Acquittal, Trump Doubles Down on Abuse of Power
After Donald Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, Senator Susan Collins and other Top allies of the president expressed confidence that he had learned a lesson. The idea was rife with cock-eyed optimism to begin with and in the week since, he’s gone out of his way to...
The Trump Administration’s Anti-Peace Plan
Brief #79—Foreign Policys
By Erin Mayer
Trump Lifts Restrictions on Military Use of Land Mines
Brief #78—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
Student Loan Debt Soars with No Clear End in Sight
Brief #38—Education
By Ivan Moore
Should Facial Recognition Technology Be Used In Schools?
Brief #113—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
US Income Inequality Explained
Brief #66—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Important Takeaways from the 2020 Democrats Tax Return Releases
Policy Summary
Since before he was elected, President Donald Trump’s tax returns have been a source of considerable controversy and speculation from voices on both sides of the aisle. Despite building his campaign on his reputation as a successful businessman and skilled “dealmaker,” Trump went to considerable lengths to hide the documents that would prove his statements true. No other president in U.S. history has refused to release his tax returns when asked raising the one question that Trump avoided answering but always seems to come back to haunt him-what is our president hiding?
As it turns out, all those with suspicions regarding Trump’s motives were right to be so. A few days ago, an expose published in the New York Times revealed that the decade of 1985-1994 saw Trump lose over $1 billion in business deals that failed for various reasons. The tax return documents obtained by the New York Times did not just reveal many of Trump’s claims about his wealth and success in business as being false. They gave rise to a concern that Trump may be guilty of violating federal tax laws by failing to report the significant losses he suffered.. Trump has claimed that all his “relevant” documents are currently in the hands of the I.R.S. for auditing but it remains unclear what “relevant” means to him.
No President has so much speculation regarding crooked motives regarding personal financial documents since Nixon’s dealings with wealthy campaign backers drew unwanted attention. In 1973 Nixon released four years worth of tax returns. The Congressional Committee that reviewed them determined that Nixon owed nearly $500,000 in back taxes. In the decades that followed, this scandal was overshadowed by the events of Watergate but when House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) brought forth a subpoena in an attempt to drive the process of Trump releasing his tax returns forward, the events of Nixon’s presidency again caught the attention of lawmakers.
State legislatures across the nation are taking action to ensure that their president is held to the same standards of transparency as other citizens when it comes to personal financial documents. Last month, bills were introduced in 18 states that if passed would require every presidential candidate as well as their running mate to release their individual tax returns before they could qualify for the 2020 election ballot, typically for at least the previous five years. The list of states to introduce such bills includes New York, Illinois and Washington with the recent addition of California. A strong advocate for politicians releasing their tax returns, California Governor Gavin Newsome has released his own and promised to continue doing so on an annual basis during his time in office.
Analysis
Plenty of Trump’s Democratic challengers did not hesitate to release their tax returns despite the looming possibility that doing so could compromise certain cornerstones of their campaigns. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) released his, it revealed the candidate who had built a movement preaching against America’s wealthiest class was himself a millionaire. The economic elite also now includes Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) who’s income combined with that of her husband, was over $846,000 in 2018. Both Sanders and Warren can chalk up much of their wealth to the sales of the books they have published since the 2016 election. Like Sanders, Warren has also built a campaign on policies that rely heavily on levying increased estate taxes on America’s wealthiest classes. Added to the list is California Democrat Kamala Harris whose tax returns revealed that her income in 2018 was roughly $1.89 million, though most of it was earned by her attorney husband. Though it may seem somewhat hypocritical for the Democrats running on platforms built on levying estate taxes and reducing economic inequality to be counted among the 1%, all such candidates have clearly recognized the bigger picture-that the complete transparency that they obtain by releasing their tax returns helps draw important contrast between themselves and the President they are trying to unseat.
There are several primary reasons why candidates such the 2020 Democrats should release their tax returns without pressure from Congress or the House of Representatives. The first is that doing so eliminates any conflicts of interests regarding who they are taking donations from. Plenty of Democrats, including Sanders and Harris have taken a stand against Super PACs funded by billionaires whose business interests could easily be linked to their generous donations. Suspected conflicts of interests regarding campaign donations are exactly what led to the secret that Nixon was trying to hide being discovered. Since Trump took office, the question of who truly helped win the election and who is influencing his administration’s policies has received almost more scrutiny than any other with voters suspecting everyone from Russian political figureheads to his billionaire backers.
By releasing their tax returns, the 2020 candidates who have done so have helped erase the notion that they are “working” for anyone besides the American people. Chris Kelly, director of Tax Policy at the notoriously right-learning Cato Institute went on record telling ABC News that none of the candidates who had released their tax returns as of April 17th 2019 were “ seemingly cheating or getting away with anything.”
The second significant benefit to releasing tax returns while on the campaign trail is that it clearly indicates how much each candidates has given to charity. For Democratic contenders to not be charitable would likely prove problematic for their campaign as many of their campaign primary policies center around levying taxes on the wealthy that are intended to fund social programs. Given what the public now knows about the personal finances of the candidates who are pushing for these policies, though, it would seem more important than ever for the 2020 Democrats to keep pace with giving generously. As of now, Warren has given the most of any candidates to charity, as she and her husband reportedly donated roughly 6% of their household income in 2018. Sanders, on the other hand, donated less than 4% of his household income although according to his campaign, the proceeds for his 2014 book The Speech were all donated to charity but the donation did not appear on his tax returns.
On the whole, it is clear that Trump’s consistent refusal to release his tax returns did nothing but present his opponents with an opportunity to distinguish themselves from him and prove to voters that they had no conflicts of interest. Those who have nothing to hide clearly have nothing to fear by disclosing their financial information as the candidates who were quick to disclose theirs have demonstrated. Some of Trump’s tax returns are supposedly still under audit and more details are likely to emerge as the election nears. That can’t be said for any of his Democratic opponents. The future is still uncertain but I can’t imagine any scenario in which the further scrutiny of Trump’s personal finances helps his chances of being reelected in 2020.
- Resistances Resources:
The Roosevelt Institute is a nonpartisan think-tank that produces research on matters involving economic policy and democracy. - The Tax History Project is a research organization established by Tax Analysts in 1995 to provide scholars, policymakers, students, the media, and citizens with information about the history of American taxation.
- The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an nonpartisan think-tank dedicated to promoting democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues including economic and tax policy.
Photo by Kelly Sikkema
Trump Kills Agreement with Cuban Baseball Federation
Policy Summary
The Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua in April, using the language of the Cold War. The most severe regulations were focused on relations with Cuba. U.S. citizens will now be permitted to sue any entity or person “trafficking” in property from U.S. citizens after the 1959 revolution. The three Presidents before Trump had suspended this legal option, as it would interfere with trade and national security. The amount of money that Cuban Americans can send to relatives on the Caribbean island will also be limited by the Trump administration, and there will be new restrictions on travel to Cuba for all U.S. citizens. Those actions further reverse President Barack Obama’s attempts to thaw the long-term frozen political relations with Cuba, which Trump has called “terrible and misguided.”
In December of 2014, President Barack Obama attempted to normalize relations with Havana. Major League Baseball negotiations were soon initiated with the Cuban Baseball Federation in order to begin legally transferring Cuban stars to play in the United States. These moves were viewed as a progressive means to deal with the illegal cross-border smuggling of ballplayers. The attempt to normalize Cuban-American relations was strongly opposed by anti-Castro Republicans, including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Cuban-American. Finally on April 2nd of this year, the Cuban Baseball Federation released the first list of players able to sign contracts directly with Major League Baseball organizations. However the progress was soon came to an abrupt stop this month, after the Trump administration ended the deal.
Analysis
Officials in the Trump administration claimed Cuba’s support for the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro as their main reason for the change of heart. The day previous to the canceled baseball agreement, John Bolton, the national security adviser, commented about Maduro and Washington’s attempts at trying to oust the dictator. On Twitter Bolton wrote, “America’s national pastime should not enable the Cuban regime’s support for Maduro in Venezuela.” But that is not entirely what this is about.
President Obama’s attempt to end more than five decades of stone walling Cuba was supported by a large portion of Americans, who saw the deal as long overdue. For many, granting certain athletes from Cuba the ability to perform legally in the major leagues was a win for both sides, in a few ways. Players who often attempted dangerous ventures, such as hiring smugglers, could legally and safely pursue their long-strived for careers overseas. Currently, the average salary for players in Cuba is $50 per month. Therefore, many players rationalize the risks of leaving Cuba illegally. To date, more than 350 Cuban ballplayers have defected since the start of 2014Accepting the claim of an “independent” Cuban Baseball Federation was considered a necessary unpleasantry.
The Trump administration did not see it this way. The current administration instead claimed the Cuban federation was not independent of the Cuban government, as the Obama administration had ruled. Nikole Thomas, the acting assistant director for licensing at the Office of Foreign Assets Control, explained the U.S. government’s reasoning to end the deal, claiming the Cuban federation would receive 25 percent of a player’s signing bonus for a minor league player and between 15 and 25 percent for a major league player.
Yet it can be said that revoking the agreement was a bad choice. There are those that see Cuba’s decision allowing their athletes to work in the U.S. as a step in the right direction, even if some finances may have ended up in the hands of the Cuban government. Although Cuba should be discouraged from supporting the Maduro administration, it seems to have become the excuse for those on the right to indulge in their obsession to continue with the international freeze on relations with Cuba. Sadly, what the Trump administration and Marco Rubio have achieved is to prevent Cuban baseball players to reach their professional aspirations without having to enter into the United States at great peril and abandon their right to ever return to their homeland or families on the Caribbean island.
Engagement Resources:
- Roots of Hope is an international network of students and young professionals working to inspire young people across the globe to think about and proactively support our young counterparts on the island through innovative means.
- Engage Cuba is a national coalition of private companies, organizations, and local leaders dedicated to advancing federal legislation to lift the 60-year-old Cuba embargo in order to empower the Cuban people and open opportunities for U.S. businesses.
- The U.S.–Cuba Cooperative Working Group (USCCWG) promotes mutually beneficial engagement between the U.S. and Cuba’s cooperative sectors in an effort to support US cooperative growth and Cuban economic progress that will result from the ongoing success of strong and vibrant cooperatives in both countries.
- 14Ymedio is the daily digital newspaper founded by human rights activist and Cuban Hero, Yoani Sanchez. They are established in the USA as a non-profit, which can receive donations from US individuals and entities.
- The Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba (“FHRC”) is a nonprofit organization established in 1992 to promote a nonviolent transition to a free and democratic Cuba with zero tolerance for human rights violations.
Photo by Jose Morales
Pentagon Diverts Military Funds for Trump’s Wall
Policy Summary
In response to the surge of apprehended migrants at the US Southern Border in recent months, swamped border officials have been hoping for more funding and government support. The Pentagon recently announced that they will be diverting funds from various military operations and programs towards contributing to Trump’s wall along the US Southern Border. Roughly $1.5 billion will be directed towards Trump’s wall from programs like surveillance plane systems, InterContinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), and Airborne Warning and Control Systems that go alongside ICBMs (AWACS). Of the $1.5 billion, $604 million will come from the Afghan Security Forces Fund, $344 million will be from the Air Force, and $251 million from a project that was intended to destroy chemical agents in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993) ban of chemical weapons. In addition to the pledged $1.5 billion, there will be an additional $1 billion of Army personnel funds and $3.6 billion from military construction projects potentially diverted as well. The acting Defense Secretary, Patrick Shanahan, has confirmed diverting the funds will not impact military readiness.
Analysis
This monetary diversion comes shortly after the Army’s personnel budget freed up $1 billion that the Defense Department transferred to wall construction in March. There are no official laws in place that bar Secretary Shanahan from diverting these funds, but moving forward it could pose difficulties for the Defense Department the next time military leaders go to Capitol Hill to seek additional funding. The diversion of these funds also proves the Trump Administration isruthless in their single-track goal of building an essentially, negatively symbolic yet useless wall.
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 Ilario Piatti
The Trump Administration’s Relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran
If one were to attempt to understand the Middle East solely by means of the rhetoric of the White House and State Department, it would be reasonable to assume that Saudi Arabia is an unlikely ally, slowly making its way towards Democracy, while Iran is a tyrannical regime bent on military expansion and hegemonic rule.
Of course, this framing conceals a far more complex state of affairs and does so on behalf of the Trump administration’s interests in both countries.
The differing attitude of President Trump – and by extension the US foreign policy – towards these two countries was demonstrated in two events last year, the May withdrawal from the Iran Deal, and the December murder of Jamal Khashoggi. The first apparent difference between these conflicts is that while Khashoggi was clearly assassinated by the Saudi government, perhaps even at the request of its Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), Iran never violated the Iran Deal, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The responses were similarly disproportionate. The Trump administration has done everything in its power to isolate Iran, sanctioning the Iranian energy, shipping, and financial sectors, leading to a drought in foreign investment in the country. Britain, Germany, and France have found a way to circumvent the sanctions to import food, medical goods, and humanitarian aid into the country, but this may not be enough to rationalize Iran’s continued participation in the Iran Deal.
For a few weeks following Khashoggi’s murder, US lawmakers gathered on cable news to condemn Saudi leadership, the fawning profiles of MBS and his “revolution” came to a halt, and Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative conference – once hyped as “Davos in the Desert” – was largely boycotted. However, as Trump explained in a statement which opened with a denunciation of Iran and cited the billions of dollars worth of arms the Saudis have bought from US arms companies Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, “[Saudi Arabia] have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran. The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and other partners in the region.” There were no large-scale sanctions of the Saudi government, and the story faded away.
This unequal attitude towards the two countries is not new. Saudi Arabia has long been the number one buyer of US arms, even if it required President Obama to slip arms deals past Congress as they returned to their home districts for the 2010 midterms. This patronage has not bought the United States enough goodwill from the Saudi government to prevent them from suppressing Arab Spring protests in Bahrain or enforcing a brutal military campaign and blockade on Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, which has led to a massive famine and cholera outbreak considered by the UN to be “world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”
Hostility towards Iran, however, has been a key component of US foreign policy for decades, with neoconservatives threatening and joking about attacking Iran since the fall of Saddam Hussein. In Washington its accepted without question that Iran is the ultimate source of evil in the Middle East, and war is inevitable. US support of Saudi troops in Yemen, which was stated by one former CIA official to be the deciding factor keeping Saudi Arabia in the war, are excused on the basis of curtailing Iran’s influence in regional affairs. However, this justification is flimsy considering the tenuous connection between Iran and the Yemeni Houthis. In fact, the fear-mongering about the dangers of Iranian expansionist ambitions is dubious as a whole. Iran has relatively limited military capabilities, as most of its military assets are left over from the cold war, and militant groups such as Hezbollah act independently, not as the pawns of Iran they are described as. The anti-Iran Middle Eastern coalition of Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates vastly outperform Iran economically, and wield state of the art militaries. Even if Iran wished to significantly expand its influence, a Shiite country in the largely Sunni Middle East wouldn’t have much success. If we remove the distorting filter of the US government’s rhetoric on Iran, we see a country striving for some semblance of independence and stability in an unstable region, not a world power with imperialist dreams.
The real danger to the stability of the Middle East lies in the United States refusal to accept Iran’s sovereignty. By constantly placing so much importance on countries like Saudi Arabia due to their anti-Iran attitude, we overlook egregious violations of human rights. If the neoconservatives do get their wish, and goad Saudi Arabia and Iran into war, it might not turn out as well as they hope. Saudi Arabia is perched on an uneasy alliance between the oil-rich House of Saud and the extremist Wahhabist religious establishment. Through the funding of oil profits, most of the Saudi population enjoy basic social provisions, with the exception of foreign workers and Shiites. The Mullahs provide divine endorsement for the House of Saud in return for their government’s spreading of fundamentalist Islam in the region. Mass support for the government is faint, and can vanish in the event of a crisis. The Saudi government has abandoned much of its ambitions of diversifying the economy away from oil, a short-sighted approach in the era of rising ecological crisis.
Iran’s government enjoys far more support from its population, largely due to its allowance of democratic control of large parts of the government. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was re-elected in 2017 with a higher margin than the previous election, and US antagonism will only increase domestic support in the face of foreign intervention. If the Trump administration doesn’t start playing fair with Iran, they may get the war they’ve been striving for, but it may not go their way. We have seen the devastation created by proxy wars such as Syria and anti-insurgency efforts such as Iraq. A war between powerful states, between Sunnis and Shiites, each with complicated sets of interests and alliances across the region, could give rise to a level of destruction that we’ve never seen in a region known for its destructive conflicts.
Resistance Resources
- Peace Action: A grassroots peace network which has helped reduce US aggression towards countries such as Iran.
- Equality Now: An international network of lawyers, activists, and supporters holding governments responsible for ending legal inequality, sex trafficking, sexual violence & harmful practices against women.
White House Demands Additional Funds for Southern Border
Policy Summary
The White House has recently asked Congress for $4.5 billion in emergency funds for the US Southern Border. Of this $4.5 billion, $3.3 billion would be dedicated to humanitarian assistance (housing unaccompanied migrant children, feed and care for migrants in custody, and staff processing centers), $1.1 billion for border operations (personnel expenses, detention beds, transportation, and investigative work), and $178 million for mission support (additional personnel, technology upgrade, and pay adjustments). The requests for additional funding have specified that said money would not be used to build additional miles of wall and would play no part in contributing to Trump’s wall. A large portion of this funding would greatly increase the capacity of the Department of Health and Human services to better care for unaccompanied children, especially by providing additional beds.
In 2018, Customs and Border Patrol dealt with over 50,000 unaccompanied children and so far in 2019, there have been just over 35,000. The average length of stay in a government shelter has been 66 days, which is significantly higher than previous years and requires adjustments to be made to humanely house all these individuals. The acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan stated before a House of Representatives subcommittee that his department would be running out of money due to the spike of migrants crossing the southern border very soon and was in desperate need of additional financial assistance.
This resolution has been deemed unlikely to pass, but the acting Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russel Vought, has warned that other funds within the Department of Health and Human Services – that is ideally used for refugees and victims of human trafficking and torture – might need to be tapped into if their requests are not fulfilled by Congress.
Analysis
The air of desperation in the White House’s request for funding plays a large but concerning role in how the Democratic Caucus reacts to the demands. Many are torn and for good reason. Over the course of Trump’s presidency, there has been an ever-growing level of distrust, consistently being reinforced by various anti-immigration policies and rhetoric. Many Democrats are torn between being vehemently against feeding into Trump’s demands and taking part of the clean–up, while others feel it is also their duty to acknowledge the humanitarian crisis. Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA), exclaimed, “so you create chaos, and then ask for more money?” Similarly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) proclaimed, “this administration has not proven itself worthy of one more dollar.” In many regards, this sentiment is shared not only among the Democratic Caucus but also the American public who have lost hope as the Trump Administration has been eroding confidence in the immigration system over the past few years.
Due to the increase in unaccompanied children crossing the border – as well as the 3 minor deaths in US Custody since December – the situation presents itself as a huge problem in which Democrats will have to decide if they will gawk or look away.
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.
FWD.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
Photo by Jonathan Adeline
Proposals of the 2020 Democrats-What They Are and What They Mean
Policy Summary
As the 2020 race to White House progresses and the first presidential debates draw nearer, the candidates comprising the overcrowded democratic field continue to lay out more policies. Many of the economic policies presented by Democratic hopefuls have centered around an issue that, thanks to President Trump’s policies, democrats feel is ripe for reform-taxation. Many of the proposals involving taxes are directly linked to other policies that have formed the cornerstones of candidate campaigns.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made many headlines when she rolled out a plan centered around making higher education more affordable. Under her plan, all tuition costs would be eliminated at every two and four year public college and university with additional $50 billion on aid provided to historically black colleges and universities. Warren also proposed a policy that, if implemented, would allow America’s buried in student loan debt with annual incomes below $100,000 to have $50,000 of their debt forgiven. Warren proposed paying for this plan, which would cost an estimated $1.25 trillion over a decade by implementing what she has referred to as an “ultra millionaire tax.” The tax would affect households with annual incomes of over $50 million and would involve a 2% tax on every dollar earned by each household over the $50 million threshold. For every dollar earned over $1 billion, the tax would be raised to 3%.
California Democrat Kamala Harris has proposed giving America’s teachers a 23% base pay increase, which would amount to roughly $13,500 per year. For teachers at underfunded schools with disproportionate student of color ratios, the raises would be higher. Harris has estimated that the ten year cost of this plan would be roughly $315 billion, a cost she intends to help cover by levying a further estate tax on America’s economic elite. According to Politico, her campaign is currently deciding how best to implement the necessary estate tax reform, considering options such as eliminating the current legal loopholes that have allowed Americans to altogether avoid paying any estate tax.
Other candidates seem more focused on workplace related matters Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) has proposed the FAMILY Act, a plan that would guarantee paid leave from work of up to 12 weeks for both new parents and those caring for either ill or critically injured family members. The costs of such a policy would be covered by a payroll tax of 0.2 percent on the wages of each worker which would be divided between them and their employer.
Cory Booker (D-NJ) meanwhile, has focused on another problematic element-the racial wealth gap. His plan centers around providing savings bonds for all newborn babies worth $1,000 at the start. For babies born to low-income households, additional funds of up $2,000 would be provided. All such money would be kept in a low-risk savings accounts managed strictly by the U.S. Treasury Department. It has been estimated by Booker’s team that bonds given to children of low-income households could be worth roughly $45,000 by the time the children turn eighteen. Booker would cover the costs of this plan, estimated at roughly $82 billion per year, by curbing the estate tax exemption. His plan would include surcharges on all estates worth over $10 million, and prevent people reducing their capital gains on inherited assets, such as property and stocks.
Analysis
Examining the policy proposals involving tax reform laid out by many 2020 democratic contenders, one theme immediately stands out-estate tax reform.
“Tax the rich” has long been a war cry among democratic politicians and voters but it certainly seems an opportune time for such legislation. The estate tax exemption system still has plenty of loopholes that allow America’s wealthiest and their decedents to avoid paying taxes on inherited wealth while the middle and lower classes struggle to pay theirs. Without these loopholes, the federal government would see an increase in tax dollars that would allow it to make significant strides toward repairing the loss in revenue and increased deficits inflicted by the tax policy of the Trump administration.
One of Senator Warren’s central arguments regarding her student loan forgiveness plan was that forgiving the majority of student loan debt would help spur economic growth. The evidence to support this claim is substantial. More than 44 million Americans are currently affected by student loan debt and when consumers are spending significant amounts of each paycheck on student loan payments, they aren’t spending as much as they could be on consumer goods and services. The Brookings Institute projected that more than 40% more borrowers were likely to fall dangerously behind on their payments by the year 2023. The looming crisis is likely to continue hindering economic growth if it is allowed to continue. Thinkers on the far right have argued that Senator Warren’s plan is unfair to those who have already repaid their loans but given how small that number is in comparison with those who are still buried in debt, it seems that the clear economic benefit of forgiving student loan debt outweigh the cost of doing nothing.
We cannot afford to ignore the economic benefits of Sen. Gillibrand’s FAMILY Act and Harris’ plan to increase teachers’ pay by way of implementing slight tax reform policies. Gillibrand’s plan would prove especially helpful for low-income parents, particularly mothers, who are forced to accept the financial burden of taking time off from their jobs for the birth of their children. Some women in such a situation risk losing their jobs altogether but are often faced with no alternative. It should also be noted that new parents are often faced with large bills so the loss of a second income can prove extremely problematic.
Harris’ proposal, meanwhile, highlights another important aspect of the American economy’s problems-that teachers are increasingly underpaid, particularly in low-income areas where public schools are underfunded.
We have some concerns about the economic implications of Senator Booker’s baby bonds plan. While the bonds that he wants to start awarding would likely prove an economic boon to the next generation, they do little to help our economy in the short term. The concept behind Senator Booker’s plan could almost be described as a double edged sword. While the positive attributes are quite clear, it will literally take eighteen years from the time the policy is implemented for them to materialize. In the time leading up to it, the U.S. will still be paying the price and unlike the plans laid forth by other candidates, they will do nothing to increase consumer spending and thereby spur economic growth for almost two decades. That will leave everyone else, including the parents of the baby bond recipients to continue struggling through an uncertain economy. While Sen. Booker’s plan is not without its positive aspects, it ultimately falls short of considering the economic growth factors that other candidates seem to have taken into account.
Resistance Resources
- The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the D.C. based think tanks the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that provides expert research and analysis on tax, budget and social policy related matters.
- The Center for Economic and Policy Research is a nonprofit research organization that provides research on economic and social policy
- Bloomberg BNA is an online source for tax, accounting and legal information, research and analysis.
Photo by VanveenJF
Fetal Heartbeat Bills are Mounting Against Women’s Reproductive Rights
Policy
Governor Brian Kemp recently made Georgia the fourth state to pass a “Heartbeat Bill”. Georgia joined Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi in passing restrictive bills banning abortions into law. Georgian legislators passed the “Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act” also known as a “heartbeat bill”, which criminalizes and prohibits abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as five to six weeks into pregnancy. The current gestational limit women in Georgia have to get an abortion is 20 weeks. This bill also includes an exception for rape, incest (both only with the accompaniment of a police report), situations where the mother’s health is at risk, and if a pregnancy is deemed “medically futile”). Such a law adds to other anti-abortion laws by Georgia such as women being required to wait 24 hours between requesting and obtaining an abortion, and minors being required to notify their parents before receiving an abortion. This law is set to take effect January 1st, 2020.
Analysis
This law and ones found in other state’s legislation are a direct attack on women’s reproductive rights, with opponents labeling this a “forced pregnancy” bill. The specific wording, targeting a heartbeat of a fetus, strictly prohibits women from having an abortion before many even know they are pregnant, essentially banning abortions entirely. The criminalization of abortions for women in Georgia and the mentioned states will not lower the need nor attempted abortions, but instead will create numerous health difficulties for women, resulting in additional health complications in a state with a devastatingly high maternal mortality rate.
One glaring issue with this bill has been its socially given name, a “heartbeat bill”. This is because the legislation calls for the prohibition of an abortion in the presence of a heartbeat and the associated time of six weeks. However, medical professionals will note that at six weeks what appears to be a heartbeat is not the case, instead it is simple vibration of developing tissue that is only present due to the mother. This vibration is called embryonic cardiac activity, which leads the unfamiliar reader or listener to believe that this occurrence is in fact the presence of a heartbeat. With the removal of this essential clause in restricting abortions, the viability and impact of this bill are reduced, and a later gestational week must be provided for permissible abortions. To the dismay of anti-abortion advocates, if this change was to be made, this would allow women to realize they were pregnant (at or around six weeks of pregnancy) and then legally get an abortion within the mandated time period, should they wish to. This specific clause with the faulty justification is an intentional attempt to restrict abortions to the fullest extent.
While this law will undoubtably be challenged, the ultimate goal of anti-abortion advocates is for such a case to be enforced in the state and should it be blocked by a federal judge, face appeals by the state and then make its way to the now right-leaning Supreme Court only to then be ruled valid. Should this occur, Roe v. Wade would be threatened by appeals, reducing the ruling’s legitimacy and constitutional power. The historic Supreme Court ruling protects a woman’s right to an abortion up until fetal viability or around 25 weeks. Laws like this one passed by Georgia are meant to eradicate protections and implement aggressive restrictions. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights have vowed to challenge the legislation well before it goes into effect in January 2020.
*Interactive map and extended list of states that recently introduced restrictive bills.*
Engagement Resources:
- Planned Parenthood : Reproductive rights advocacy group that provided affordable and accessible health services to women across the US.
- National Abortion Federation : Advocacy group which respects women’s ability to make informed decisions about her reproductive health.
- Spark Reproductive Justice Now: A reproductive justice organization based in Atlanta, Georgia, advocating for policies that protect and expand access to sexual health and resources.
- ACLU of Georgia : A national organization working to defend civil liberties across the United States.
- Center for Reproductive Rights : Legal group ensuring the protection of reproductive rights for every woman around the world.
Photo by Maria Oswalt
Supreme Court Examines “Worst of the Worst” Violators In Partisan Gerrymandering Case
Policy Summary
In 2010, Republicans in North Carolina won control of the state legislature and proceeded to draw the maps for the North Carolina local districts and congressional districts as required for the national decennial census. The maps were drawn to give an advantage to Republican candidates in the state. In 2016, the maps drawn in 2011 were declared unconstitutional as a racial gerrymander and struck down by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Harris. The state congressional maps were ordered redrawn but another court challenge was brought, but this time on the grounds of a partisan gerrymander. Partisan gerrymandering is when districts are drawn to give an advantage to members of a political party over another party.
In 2010 in Maryland, the state legislature drew a state congressional map that resulted in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District essentially being drawn in a way that would favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates for the foreseeable future. A legal challenge was brought and in 2018 a three judge federal court panel ruled Maryland’s state congressional map as drawn was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case as well as the case from North Carolina. Oral arguments for both cases were heard in March 2019 before the high court. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The big issue to be resolved before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether problems of partisan gerrymandering should be heard by the Supreme Court (and courts, in general) at all, and if so, if there is a workable legal standard that can be used to review partisan gerrymandering claims. The oral arguments on the two cases before the justices are instructive in this matter because it revealed how the justices might rule. While no one doubts that drawing state and congressional districts is problematic because of the potential for abuse and manipulation by the political party in power, there appears to be no clear consensus on how to fix the problem. The two most recent appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both pointed out that there are other options to pursue other than through the courts – state independent redistricting commissions, state Supreme Courts and state legislatures. This would seem to indicate that the conservative voting bloc on the court might instead prefer to leave the problem of gerrymandering to the political process to solve. This approach would probably leave voters with very limited options to solve the problems through the court system.
However, Alison Riggs of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina made an impassioned plea for judicial relief at oral argument when she said, ” We’re looking for situations where the parties are being treated differently and there’s a severe and long-lasting discriminatory effect on a disfavored party.” Justice Elena Kagan also pointed out that the focus should be on the “worst of the worst” violators who are manipulating the way maps are drawn. These two statements illustrates from a more liberal view that while not every unfavorable map should be deemed an unconstitutional gerrymander that there should at least be a limiting test that reins in the most egregious violators of gerrymandering as seen in the North Carolina and Maryland cases before the court now. Ms. Riggs even suggested a vote dilution test that could be used in the most extreme cases and one which would be used in the future.
There is no way to predict with precision how the court will rule in these cases but it appears the lines have been drawn. The conservative bloc on the court seems to prefer that voters address the issues directly with representatives in their individual states and to leave it as a political issue where courts will not get involved. On the other side are those who simply want to put a stop to the most extreme situations of gerrymandering that results in “long – lasting discriminatory effects on a disfavored party.” An answer will not come until sometime this summer but it does speak to the urgent nature of this issue that prominent Republican and Democratic politicians came together to urge the court to find a way to limit the abuses of partisan gerrymandering. It is now up to the Court to see if they can fashion a solution to a centuries long uniquely American problem. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Update: On April 24, 2019 a federal court presided by a three judge panel in Michigan issued a ruling that said that the state’s Republican controlled legislature unfairly drew some of the state’s legislative and congressional representative maps. The court held that 27 of the 34 challenged state districts diluted people’s votes and that all of the challenged districts were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. On May 3, 2019, a federal court in Ohio threw out Ohio’s own congressional map on the same grounds stating that Republican lawmakers in the state drew the map to give themselves an illegal partisan advantage as well as ensuring that elections in the district would be pre – determined in Republican candidates favor.
These two cases are similar to the Maryland and North Carolina cases that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for back in March. It also signals that partisan gerrymandering cases have become a hot button issue around the country as other states have also grappled with the problem – Pennsylvania along with the four other states mentioned. The Michigan case is noteworthy because of what the judges – both Republican and Democratic appointees – said in the ruling. In a rare departure, the three judges in the case sent a pointed message aimed at the Supreme Court and the current gerrymandering cases pending before the High Court. In a lengthy opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Clay he said, “Federal courts must not abdicate their responsibility to protect American voters from this unconstitutional and pernicious practice that undermines our democracy.” This statement was a clear signal to the Supreme Court and Justice Neil Gorsuch that simply leaving the process of drawing state district maps to the political process was not enough. Furthermore, Judge Clay went on to say ““Federal courts’ failure to protect marginalized voters’ constitutional rights will only increase the citizenry’s growing disenchantment with, and disillusionment in, our democracy, further weaken our democratic institutions, and threaten the credibility of the judicial branch.” By mentioning these harms and the long – lasting consequences that would likely happen if the Supreme Court chooses to do nothing with the Maryland and North Carolina cases, Judge Clay squarely put the ball in the Supreme Court’s hands. It was a clear message to the court to not look away simply because of right leaning political viewpoints. And in the Ohio case, the judges took the time to emphasize that their ruling was based on a three – pronged test which had also been used in the lower court rulings from the North Carolina and Maryland cases. The test asked whether the drafters of the maps intended to hobble their opponents, whether they succeeded and if there was another reason why the maps could have been drawn then the way they eventually were drawn. The judges concluded that the Republican drawn state maps failed all prongs of the test. What this means in the long term is that it undercuts Justice Gorsuch’s argument that this is a political problem that should be solved at the state legislature level. If four cases from four different states can utilize a judicial test to declare maps unconstitutional, then there can be a role for the judiciary to police this problem and determine the constitutional limits of partisan gerrymandering.
On May 2, 2019, Republican legislators in the Michigan State Legislature appealed the trial court ruling to the Supreme Court. The case will likely be consolidated with Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Banisek (the North Carolina and Maryland partisan gerrymandering cases now pending before the Supreme Court) with a decision issued sometime this summer. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Common Cause – non – profit group’s webpage on gerrymandering and work on Rucho v. Common Cause Supreme Court gerrymandering case.
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s webpage on redistricting and gerrymandering issues.
Educational Policies of 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates
Policy Summary
In the past, Bernie Sanders has sponsored bills to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, as well as to drastically reduce interest rates on student loan debt. Sanders’ is a proponent of tuition free public colleges and universities. Sanders’ also believes students shouldn’t have to reapply for financial aid every single year, and the use of work-study programs should be utilized at a higher rate. In regards to K-12 education, the Senator fights for higher-quality, affordable early childhood education and that No Child Left Behind should be seriously overhauled. When it comes to educators, the Senator believes colleges and universities should hire more faculty and increase their percentage of tenured and tenure-track professors. As for DREAMers, Sanders’ supports the position that children brought into America undocumented at a young age need to be given a fair and attainable opportunity to remain in the U.S., get an education, and contribute to the economy.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a fan of the No Child Left Behind Act in its early days who later turned away from the landmark federal education law, is the latest candidate to announce his running for the 2020 presidential election. Biden has not made education policy one of his signature issues during time in DC. However, serving as Delaware’s senator for 36 years and throughout his tenure in President Barack Obama’s White House, he had a K-12 record that touches on several issues. Biden was one of the first Democrats in recent history to support free public education for community colleges and four year public institutions. In 2016, the former Vice-President called for 16 years of free public education, including community college and four-year public colleges. Biden also backed universal pre-Kindergarten, paid for by closing some loopholes in the tax code. On May 7th, Biden publicly clarified his positions on multiple educational issues during a speech in Las Vegas valley. Biden touched briefly on how he believes teachers need more pay, smaller class sizes, and more classroom resource in order to succeed. The former Vice President has been quite outspoken on President Trump’s take on immigration, saying it’s “betrayal” to DREAMers. In 2017, he wrote on social media, “…roughly 800,000 people known as DREAMers arehere in America today. These children didn’t choose to come here, but now many of them are grown with families of their own. They’re paying taxes. They’ve joined the workforce. They went to college. Some of them joined the military. Now, they’ll be sent to countries they don’t even remember. These people are all Americans. So let’s be clear: throwing them out is cruel. It is inhumane. And it is not America.” Though Biden has only supported a path to citizenship for DREAMers he has yet to lay out a specific path to do so.
Kamala Harris, a 54-year-old senator and former prosecutor, continues to blaze a strong trail throughout the United States. The native Californian has voiced concern over gun violence in schools and the consequences of racial profiling by administrators During a speech in Oakland, California this past January the Senator said, “I am running to declare education is a fundamental right, and we will guarantee that right with universal pre-K and debt-free college”. In March, she took her position on education a step further when she addressed teacher’s pay. Harris has focused on the educator unrest sweeping the country due to issues of low pay, crowded classrooms and education funding levels, etc. “We are not paying our teachers their value,” she said at a rally at Texas Southern University in Houston. Harris has even vowed to close the teacher pay gap by the end of her first term if elected president. The California Senator’s 10-year plan to increase teachers’ salaries amounts to an average of $13,500 or a 23% increase in salary per educator. The federal government would pay the first 10%, of the overall projected total of $315 billion, to states to fill the teacher pay gap, and then invest $3 for every $1 the states contribute. The plan Harris has created would also invest billions in evidence-based programs to boost teacher development, with half of the funds going to historically black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions. Harris’ plan would obtain the finances to do so via an increase in the estate tax for the top 1% of US taxpayers. In April, Harris promoted legislation allowing Dreamers to become eligible to work as staffers or interns in Congress..
Senator of Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, introduced a $1.25 trillion initiative to assist higher education by ending a majority of student loan debt and eliminating tuition at every public college. Warren would eliminate up to $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with a household income of less than $100,000; borrowers who earn above $100,000 and less than $250,000 would have part of their debt eliminated. Warren plans to expand federal grants to help students with non-tuition expenses and create a $50 billion fund to support historically African-American educational institutions. Warren, a member of the Senate education committee, has been very outspoken on how U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is not fit for the position she resides in. Warren has even created “DeVos Watch” on her website, detailing current oversights made by the Department of Education. The Senator was also one of just three Democrats who voted against the earlier version of the Every Student Succeeds Act as she thought it didn’t reach far enough on accountability. However, later in time, Warren agreed with all Senate Democrats in voting for the final version of the law. Warren has also been adamantly outspoken on her support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In 2017, the Senator wrote, “Dreamers are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. They are part of the diverse and beautiful fabric of our nation…President Trump’s decision to subject Dreamers to mass deportation is part of the bigoted and anti-immigrant policies that have been a cornerstone of his administration. Turning our backs on Dreamers makes us weaker, makes us less safe, and betrays our values.”
Pete Buttigieg has not had a significant amount of experience in education policy and politics. However, as a a Rhodes Scholar and Afghanistan veteran, he’s also looking to become the first openly gay president of the United States. The 37-year-old mayor has publicly rejected the idea of Free College, riding against the currents of the popular national movement. He also called for reviewing student loan refinancing and “robust ways to have debt forgiven” specifically for graduates who decide to go into public service. At his campaign rally celebration, Buttigieg made a point of voicing his support for the nation’s educators, “Empowering teachers means freedom, because you are not free in your own classroom if your ability to do your job is reduced to a number on a page.” He also says charter schools “have a place” as “a laboratory for techniques that can be replicated.” Buttigieg openly supports providing a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. He proposed extending amnesty and TPS status for Dreamers and other illegals in the country, as well as reforms for legal immigration and border security. However he has been criticized for being vague and not releasing particulars for any type of immigration policy proposals.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, is offering an image of a practical Midwesterner who will promote liberal policies to primary voters. The three-term Senator has cautiously attuned her positions on many progressive platforms, voicing her support without fully backing the issues or elaborating. On free four-year college, Klobuchar has been outspokenly opposed the idea since announcing a presidential run. Klobuchar answered a question from a young voter at at a CNN town hall forum, responding that she would not support the plan espoused by Senator Bernie Sanders for tuition-free college as she found the plan too expensive. She went on to say, “No, I am not for four-year college for all. If I was a magic genie, and could give that for everyone, and we could afford it, I would.” Instead, Klobuchar went on to explain that she would support easing restrictions on refinancing student loans, as well as expanding Pell Grants program. However, many feel as though the Senator is being timid in the face of special interests and Wall Street. Klobuchar has openly supported the DREAM Act. Posting messages on social media, such as, “…the Republican congress can’t allow 800,000 kids to be deported. Pass the Dream Act now.” Klobuchar supported Senator Harris’ proposal to allow DREAMers to work in Congress.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey is running for President and has a extensive record on education. In January, Booker vowed to run “the boldest pro-public school teacher campaign there is. However, many teachers unions and public school advocates are skeptical of such promises as in the past the Senator has often gone astray from more typical Democratic stances, such as promoting merit pay for teachers. In 2002, he supported policies such as school choice, including privately managed charter schools, accountability for low-performing institutions and assessments for educators based on student test scores. Booker has been a vocal critic of teachers unions, something that could be problematic as he tries to run a pro-teacher campaign. Consequently, in 2010, the Newark teachers’ union openly opposed his mayoral re-election bid. Booker’s close ties to Betsy DeVos may also allow for criticism throughout the campaign trail. He has supported school vouchers with the Education Secretary, an issue many Democrats and Progressives oppose and has also served on the board of directors of the Alliance for School Choice (now known as the American Federation for Children Growth Fund) with DeVos. Booker has openly stated that children of lower-income families and children of color need ways to abandon struggling public schools in their neighborhoods. Booker said, children are “by law locked into schools that fail their genius.” However, the Senator did not support DeVos’ nomination, saying his vote pertained to issues outside of school choice, that the answers she gave in her confirmation hearing about special education and student’s civil rights concerned him. Since then he has continued to publicly distance himself from the Education Secretary. Along with Senator Harris, Booker introduced the American Dream Employment Act, legislation that would rescind the current prohibition on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients from working or participating in paid internships in Congress. Booker commented on his support for the Act, saying, “For DREAMers, the United States is their home. They are our neighbors, classmates, community leaders, service members, teachers—DREAMers love this country…It’s time we show these DREAMers this country loves them back and allow them to work and contribute to this country in any way they choose, including working for the United States Congress. This legislation recognizes the dignity of these young people and the value they would bring to Congress as employees. When we lift up those around us, we all benefit.”
The former Texas Representative Beto O’Rourke is seeking the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination. The native Texan is known for his charismatic speeches, locally-minded take on politics and his genuine manner on social media. O’Rourke does not support tuition-free public college. However, when asked to clarify he said he supported free community college the idea of debt-free, as opposed to tuition-free, four-year public college. At a town hall forum in Carroll, Iowa, this past April, O’Rourke went on to say, “I mention debt-free higher education if it’s a publicly financed, public-serving educational institution. And then for those who have accrued the debt, that $1.5 trillion, at a minimum, let’s refinance more of that at lower rates. And then let’s increase the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.” This came as a relief for many of O’Rourke’s supporters as O’Rourke did not sign on as a co-sponsor when debt-free college legislation was introduced in the House in 2018. On his first day in Iowa as a Democratic presidential candidate, O’Rourke addressed the issue of teacher’s pay across the United States, using Texas as an example of changes needed for the future. In March he said, “Nearly half of public school teachers in Texas are working a second or a third job, not for kicks, not for extra spending cash, but just to make ends meet. To put food on the table, to buy that medication with a $444 co-pay, just to exist. And at the same time, and the gentlemen said this in his question, out of their own pocket, they are buying supplies for their classroom, supplies for the students in them.” He has openly supported issues such as increasing the salaries of our nation’s educators and implementing universal pre-kindergarten, as well as his aversion to standardized testing.O’Rourke also has garnered much attention on the subject of charter schools. His wife, Amy O’Rourke started a charter school in El Paso 13 years ago, andnow works for an organization that backs the expansion of charter schools in the region and previously worked as a teacher in a private school. However O’Rourke has yet to speak out directly on the issue. Meanwhile, he has been outspoken in his support for providing a path for citizenship for DREAMers, recently releasing a 10-point plan that promotes citizenship for both “Dreamers” and their parents, as well as for “millions more” who now live in the U.S. illegally.
Analysis
When it comes to education, there’s consensus among 2020 Democratic candidates on some basic platforms, like increasing teacher pay. However there seems to be significant divergence when it comes to issues such as lessening the burden of higher education costs, how to solve the steeply-rising student debt crisis, and ways to repair our public school system. Although college-age millennials are a core part of the party’s base, education has not seemed to be a key issues in voter platforms. The 2020 election may be the time to change this, making education stances a more important issue for voters. Nominees like Sanders and Warren have much less of an uphill battle on the education front than nominees, such as Booker, who have supported issues such as charter schools or continuing to allow high-cost college tuitions. Candidates like Klobuchar and Buttigieg who have not supported free four year colleges, will face harsh criticisms from democrats, educators and teachers unions. However, only time will tell how crucial the American public finds these platforms and only voter interest can show candidates how seriously we taking their opinions, endorsements and promises.
Engagement Resources:
- The Stand Up 4 Public Schools campaign provides the public with a more accurate and thorough perspective of public education by capturing the ordinary, yet extraordinary activities and the dauntless and bold actions of educators – teachers, administrators, superintendents, and school board members – that help prepare students for the future.
- Pearson unequivocally supports the provision of free, high-quality, government-funded education led by well-qualified, well-trained teachers, for every child around the world.
- The Teacher Salary Project is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to raising awareness around the impact of our national policy of underpaying and under-valuing educators.
- dreamactivist.org was launched in 2008 by five undocumented youth as a site where we could share our stories of struggle and come together to develop strategies for self-defense in a country that considers them “illegal.”
- United We Dream is the largest immigrant youth-led community in the country, creating a welcoming space for young people, regardless of immigration status.
Photo by Kimberly Farmer
Kamala Harris Promises Action on Gun Legislation in Town Hall
Policy Summary
Frustrated by a lack of action by lawmakers, presidential candidate Kamala Harris vowed swift action if elected president during a town hall in April. Her proposed action would give Congress just 100 days to pass sweeping reforms of gun legislation before signing her own an executive order.
Analysis
In her April town hall , Senator Harris reiterated the importance of tightening gun laws in light of the many recent tragedies where no substantial legislation has ensued Harris’ plan would mandate obligatory background checks for customers of any dealer that sells more than five firearms in a year. Additionally, she aims to enforce stricter regulations on gun manufacturers. Her proposed plan would require Congress to act within 100 days of being in office or Harris would use executive authority to pass updated gun restrictions.
She also questioned why the mass shooting epidemic has gotten so bad in the United States that children are required to hide in closets at their schools for safety. She further criticized “supposed leaders in Washington” who have repeatedly failed to act and created a false choice between being in favor of the Second Amendment and taking all guns away.
Democratic presidential campaigns in the past, such as Hillary Clinton in 2016, gave very little mention to gun reformation. Harris’s proposed plan could be the beginning of a needed shift for future Democratic hopefuls.
- Engagement Resources
- March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
- Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
- Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.
Contact
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by Alejo Reinoso