JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Coronavirus and an Inevitable Global Pandemic
Brief #69—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Trump and the Chaos of 5G Network Policy
Brief #11—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
Democrats Unite
Ron Israel Managing Editor
U.S. RESIST NEWS
February 28, 2020
Trump’s Department of Energy Sits on Congressionally Approved Renewable Energy Funds
Brief #76—Economics
By Jacob Morton
How President Trump and Senator McConnell Have Been Reshaping the American Judiciary
Brief #114—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Trump’s New Budget Reviewed
Brief #67—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Betsy DeVos Proposes New Title IX Definitions
Brief #39—Education
By Ivan A Moore
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
Trump Declines to Join Global Effort to Prevent the Use of Social Media to Promote Violence
Summary
The horror of such an appalling act being directly broadcasted to so many people around the world provoked New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron to propose the Christchurch Call to Action on May 16th. The initiative, which was also supported by India, Australia, Canada, Germany, and several more countries, as well as several tech companies, sought to prohibit the use of social media in support of violence. It suggested collective, voluntary commitments form governments and companies to prevent the production and dissemination of terroristic content on social media, while still being supportive of international standards of freedom of expression. It also specifically outlined industry standards for media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist attacks, and called for real-time review of live-streams.
In response to the call, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and Amazon pledged to update their terms of use, enhance user-report systems, advance technology to recognize dangerous content, and release regular reports on their efforts. The Trump Administration, however, refused to sign on, stating that “While the United States is not currently in a position to join the endorsement, we continue to support the overall goals reflected in the call” and that “We encourage technology companies to enforce their terms of service and community standards that forbid the use of their platforms for terrorist purposes”.
Analysis
Some, such as Adrian Shahbaz, a research director for watchdog group Freedom House, have warned of potential dangers that the Christchurch Call could pose to freedom of speech. “There is a tendency after large-scale, national security crises and terrorist attacks to overreact to the problem”, Shahbaz told NPR. “One of the ideas Jacinda Ardern mentioned was perhaps delaying any live-streaming. The fear we have is that we’re sort of sleepwalking towards a future in which all social media posts are filtered prior to being posted.” For better or worse, some of the Call’s signatories also already regulate speech in a far more restrictive manner than the United States. Under French law, individuals can be imprisoned for making supportive statements about terrorists or terrorist attacks. “However, most have identified Trump’s refusal to sign on as being due to his long-standing belief that tech companies are politically biased against conservative voices rather than any universal commitment to freedom of speech.
Earlier in May, Trump stated that he was “continuing to monitor the censorship of American citizens on social media platforms” and declared that “it’s getting worse and worse for conservatives on social media” after Facebook banned several far-right figures including Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. He also specifically demanded that Twitter unblock right-wing actor James Woods, who was temporarily suspended for using the hashtag “#HangThemAll” in response to the Mueller report. Trump hasn’t been quite so supportive of the freedom of speech of those who don’t support him, such as threatening jail-time for flag burners. There is certainly a need for a national conversion about the need for laws that address the responsibilities of social media companies with regards to extremist violence, but that also keep in mind the constitutional need to protect freedom of speech . Trump, however, does not have a real interest in this conversation, and would rather avoid taking action in preventing terrorist attacks to protect his own supporters.
Resistance Resources
- Freedom House – An independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world
- Love Aotearoa Hate Racism – A coalition of unions, migrants, community and faith groups which led an anti-Islamophobia rally last March in New Zealand to support victims of the Christchurch attacks.
Photo by Sara Kurfeß
More than U.S. China Relations are Threatened as the Trade War Continues
Policy Summary
Last year at this time, when I first joined U.S. Resist News, many of the political and economic headlines featured two popular terms-’tariffs’ and ‘trade war’. As Trump tariffs were levied on all matters of imported goods, the negative effects that they were quickly spurring became apparent and the outcry on the part of the industries rose up. These policies quickly spanned to affect the global economy and U.S. farmers were locked out of international trade markets and manufacturers were rendered unable to import the supplies they needed. Given all this, it stands to reason that most of the nation hoped the trade war would quickly be resolved.
Almost a year later, one of the most important aspects of the trade war has yet to be resolved-the matter of trade relations between the U.S. and China. While trade talks between Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping were initially scheduled for some time ago, they were halted when the Trump administration accused China’s negotiators of going back on earlier promises they had made regarding legislative changes to their nation’s trade policy. China, on their part, accused Trump of not being realistic in his demands. Both leaders are scheduled to meet in June 2019 at the G-20 Summit but even if they agree to restart the stalled trade talks it will take even more time to reach any sort of resolution.
Trump recently increased the current tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imported goods and has made clear threats to impose the same on an additional $300 billion dollars worth. In addition, he went so far as to try and stop American companies from selling components to Huawei, one of China’s most prominent telecommunications corporations. Placing a company like Huawei on a blacklist like this will cause problems for the economies of both U.S and China. The latter was quick to retaliate with some tariff increases of their own on popular American imported goods. In an interview with CNBC, a Chinese Government official stated that China wanted to see the U.S. take action on their part before they would consider resuming trade negotiations.
Analysis
When he addressed the matter of further tariffs being levied against China, Trump insisted that the additional costs would be covered by the Chinese. That seems to be working out about as well as his promise that Mexico would pay for his proposed wall on the American border. According to a recent study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the opposite is true and that tariff costs have been thrust directly onto the shoulders of the U.S. companies who import the most goods from China.
This pattern is not new to U.S. economists. We saw it during the early days of the trade war when U.S. importers were forced to raise the prices of the products they produced. That caused sales to decline and workers to be laid off. The effects were particularly severe for America’s farmers and agriculture workers who were locked out of the global trade markets on which they depend to maintain healthy profits. The way it looks from here, rural America is once again poised to feel the worst of the trade war’s effects. Many manufacturers who employ large numbers of midwestern workers are being forced to close down plants and lay off employees. Two well known examples are General Motors and The Mid Continental Nail Corporation.
The negative effects for these regions likely won’t stop with job losses, though. Midwestern citizens are likely to see the costs of the consumer goods they also depend on go up. Both Walmart and Macy’s, two of the most popular retailers in the midwest have indicated that that they will likely be raising their prices on everyday products if Trump proceeds with the tariffs he has mentioned. These cost hikes, though, will probably not be confined to items like clothing and household supplies. Rural areas are also home to telecom companies that will likely find themselves unable to import the necessary supplies from Chinese providers. The transmitters and receivers that allow telecom providers to deliver their service to rural areas are primarily manufactured by Huawei. While large carriers such as Verizon and AT&T do not use Huawei equipment, many smaller carriers depend on it. If they are unable to import the products they need, they could be left with infrastructure that is already aging and degrading. Poor weather conditions could compel them to malfunction, causing significant problems for the entire region that could go as far as preventing people from calling 911 in the event of an emergency.
Since the trade war began, Trump has claimed that his administration’s tariff policies are beneficial to the U.S. economy. “Trade wars are easy to win” he proudly tweeted. As previously stated, though, overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. Making it hard for U.S. manufacturers to import the supplies they need and for farmers to sell their crops in international markets is causing significant economic problems. Continuing Trump’s tariff war will only make things worse, particularly for those who were already struggling.
The midwestern farmers who are still suffering from the effects of the trade war were, for the most part, proud members of Trump’s base during his 2016 campaign and they are not alone. Last year saw the Mid Continental Nail Corporation of Poplar Buffs Missouri lay off vast numbers of its workers and Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs drove their costs through the roof. In Butler County where the factory is located, Trump received 80% of the votes. Perhaps these voters will reconsider who they vote for in 2020.
Resistance Resources:
- The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a nonpartisan think tank that produces research and analysis on international economic policy related matters.
- The Rural Wireless Association is a trade association that advocates for wireless carriers in rural areas and works to make sure their voices are heard on Capitol Hill.
- The Council on Foreign Relations is a nonpartisan think tank and research organization that specializes in matters involving foreign policy and international relations.
Trump Administration Proposes New Faith-Based Protections for Health-care Providers
Policy
The Trump Administration has announced an expansion of the Conscience Rule, allowing medical professionals to refuse providing or payment of services should professionals choose. The US Department of Health and Human Services has expanded upon its rule within the Protecting Statuary Conscience Rights in Health Care policy. The rule specifies that clinicians and institutions do not have to provide, participate in, pay for, cover or make referrals for procedures they object to on moral or religious grounds. Additionally, the rule provides protections involving advance directives that detail a patient’s wishes for care at the end of life. According to HHS the rule mandates that hospitals, clinics, universities and other institutions that receive federal funding comply with such rules. While this expansion is not a creation of a new law, the rule guarantees and mandates that the law and protections will be enforced.
Analysis
Rules like this one will pave the way for discrimination for countless demographics. The expansion of this rule undermines access to care for women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. The oath taken by medical professionals instils a commitment to providing safe healthcare with no discrimination. Permitting such allowances puts the previously mentioned groups in harm’s way. Residents of rural areas will also be affected. Many rural area medical facilities are religious hospitals which prohibit procedures deemed “intrinsically immoral”. These procedures include abortion, preventative care for HIV or AIDS, providing naloxone, sterilization, contraception and assisted suicide, in addition to treating people of the LGBTQ+ community, all of which would fall into the category of “intrinsically immoral.”
Such a regulations ensure facilities comply by holding necessary funding ransom. If a provider decides not to comply with the conscience regulations, they face losing federal funding. The Office for Civil Right’s Conscience and Religious Freedom Division will oversee complaints of violated rights
While this expansion is focused on protecting the rights of the providers, it ignores the rights of patients based on moral belief, regardless of medical necessity. A major portion of Trump’s base, religious conservatives, find the conscience rule is key in protecting their rights. It can be assumed that this rule expansion was created to directly connect with his base amid similar court cases and the 2020 election. A person’s belief should in no way determine the services a patient should receive. By allowing this expansion of the conscience rule the Trump Administration is permitting the discrimination and harm of patients with impunity.
In addition to civil liberty organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, other opponents like San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera have all promised to fight and bring lawsuits against the expansion of the Conscience Rule, citing that the expansion will reduce access by vulnerable groups to critical healthcare.
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union : A national organization working to defend civil liberties across the United States.
- The National Women’s Law Center : A non-profit that advocates for women’s rights through litigation and policy initiatives.
- Planned Parenthood : Reproductive rights advocacy group that provides affordable and accessible health services to women across the US.
- Human Rights Campaign : America’s largest civil rights organization, working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality.
- Lambda Legal : A national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of the LGBT community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS through litigation, societal education, and public policy work.
Photo by Aaron Burden
Democracy at risk
By Joseph E. Stiglitz, Originally published in the Boston Globe
For those of my generation — born before or during the World War against fascism and who’ve seen the victory of the West over Soviet totalitarianism — the idea that democracy would once again be at risk is almost unthinkable. But it is, and in the very place that claims to be the bastion of democracy, the United States.
Democracy is, of course, about more than having elections once every four years. It’s about systems of governance that give voice to everyone and put no one above the law. It’s also about the protection of basic human rights, including those of ethnic and racial minorities. But America has flipped around traditional concerns about the majority oppressing the minority: Now we have a different kind of minority trying to impose its will on the majority, in ways that the majority often views as infringing on its basic rights.
It is easy to understand the new fight: A vast majority favor some things that the minority strongly oppose, and the only way for the minority to prevail is to undermine democracy. The means justify the ends, so they seem to believe — even if those undertaking this assault against democracy make constant appeals to democracy and freedom.
The vast majority of Americans, for instance, believe that we should have more progressive taxation (not the system we have whereby the very, very rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than those who work for a living); they believe the minimum wage should be increased, that access to health care should be a basic human right, that women should have control over their bodies, that there should be more stringent regulation of banks, that climate change represents a threat to our future, that the right to bear arms does not mean an unfettered right to have assault weapons that enable mass killings. A coalition of minorities in opposition to each of these viewpoints has succeeded in blocking what the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is the right thing to do.
There are several elements in their attack. The first is intellectual: providing specious arguments in defense of the indefensible. An inheritance tax is recharacterized as a tax on dying, rather than what it is: a tax on passing wealth from one generation to another, in an attempt to prevent the creation of an inherited plutocracy. Or upending the language of “rights,” not noting that one person’s right to bear arms (assault rifles) results in the deprivation of a more fundamental, universal right — the right to live.
The second is undermining representation of those citizens likely to oppose, beginning with gerrymandering and voter suppression, but including making it more difficult and costly to exercise one’s basic democratic right, the right to vote. The United States is one of the few countries to have voting on a work day — making it more difficult for workers to vote; and some states have made matters worse by shortening the times polls are open and creating fewer and more inconvenient polling places.
The third is increasing the clout of money in politics, converting America from a system of one person, one vote, to one more akin to one dollar, one vote. Allowing unlimited corporate spending was a pivotal step.
The fourth is short-circuiting systems of checks and balances, when it is convenient for their agenda. While the separation of powers, with three branches of government, now under attack by the Trump administration, is critical here, so too is a free press, which President Trump has labeled as the enemy of the people.
When all of these fail, there is one more option: Tie the hands of government (or, to use Duke University historian Nancy MacLean’s term, put “democracy in chains”), so that it is near impossible for it to do anything. Better gridlock than allowing a democratic agenda to advance.
If we are to achieve an economic and social agenda that will lead to shared prosperity and societal well-being, we will have to first have political reform to restore democracy. It is also clear that it is nigh impossible to have sustainable democracy in a country with excessive inequality in wealth. Economic inequality inevitably translates into political inequality, and the resulting political power is then used to reinforce both economic and political inequality. An effective system of checks and balances requires a reduction in America’s current extremes of wealth inequality, where 1 percent controls more than 40 percent of the wealth.
Thus, economic and political reforms are intricately intertwined. There is hope: In earlier periods of our history, such as the Gilded Age, at the end of the 19th century, we pulled back from the brink. The progressive reforms of that era restored democracy and led to the creation of the first middle-class society in the world. While our democracy has been greatly distorted, especially by the power of money, people — voting — still count. It’s not too late. If enough of the majority turn out to vote, they can upend this undemocratic domination of the minority, and, rewriting the rules of our economy and our democracy, restore the democratic values for which America was once the beacon.
Trump & Kushner Propose Merit Based Visas
Policy Summary
President Trump recently announced a tentative immigration proposal spearheaded by Jared Kushner, his senior advisor and son-in-law. While there are no concrete courses of action outlined in the proposal, the idea is to revamp the visa system and redistribute annual visas based on ‘merit.’ Kushner and Trump want to recruit ‘top talent’ and judge grant visas to individuals with high employability like language capacity and education. Roughly 1 million people receive visas in the US per year and 12% of them are granted based on Trump’s definition of ‘merit.’ Whereas nearly 66% of green cards are issued to those with family ties – First Lady included. The White House wants to flip this distribution without lowering the overall number of visas granted in attempts to limit chain migration – a practice in which individuals are granted citizenship after a certain amount of time being sponsored by a US citizen who often has a familial tie in some capacity – and promote talent based immigration.
This proposal has not been wildly popular among either Party for various reasons. There is a lack of actual structure and identifiable plans within the proposal to turn it into law and it makes no mention of the existing immigrants who live here illegally or the reduction of immigration rates, which Conservatives eagerly await. Democrats see a huge gap in the proposal as it also fails to address a plan of action for DACA recipients, or ‘Dreamers’ as they are affectionately called. Trump had previously wanted to end the program and his lack of acknowledgement of existing immigration matters has left many on Capitol Hill weary, frustrated, and ultimately confused.
Analysis
In his speech, Trump claimed the plan was ‘pro-American, pro-immigrant and pro-worker’ and that the existing system discriminates against ‘genius’ and excessively favors family migration. While, this may seem like a trivial sentiment, it is a rather confusing statement given previous rhetoric surrounding immigration. In the context of the Trump Administration’s previous negative attitudes towards immigration, ‘pro-American’ and ‘pro-immigrant’ come off as contradictory statements.
Nancy Pelosi and many others agree that ‘merit’ is a condescending, umbrella term that could imply those who immigrated with family ties, illegally, or to work blue-collar jobs lack the credibility and respect individuals with ‘merit’ should receive. While, it is in every nation’s best interest to grant visas to individuals who may contribute to its economy, overlooking several components to immigration by overly focusing/selling employability based visas is not exactly a solution to existing issues either. Perhaps, rather than an ambitious switch of the distribution of visas, it is more practical to aim to increase the number of ‘merit’ visas without making it the majority.
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 David Everett Strickler
Is Discrimination Against the LGBQT Community Real?
Policy Summary
On March 13, 2019 Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced the Equality Act bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in various public accommodations and civil activities. Specifically, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity are classified among prohibited categories of discrimination and segregation. On May 17, 2019, the bill was passed in the House of Representatives by a 236 – 173 vote. The bill will now be sent to the U.S. Senate and if it passes there to the White House where it would need to be signed by the President to become law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: Human Rights Campaign called the passage of the Equality Act in the House of Representatives a historic achievement due to the fact that it is the first act passed by a house of Congress that is focused predominately on the LBGQT community. However, most Republicans in the House objected to the bill (eight Republicans switched their votes and voted to approve the bill) because of a number of criticisms. Chief among them was their claim that a bill of this nature would infringe on their religious beliefs while other more skeptical claims were put forth – elimination of women’s rights and the claim that Americans are already “tolerant.”
But is discrimination among the LGBQT community so pervasive that legislation is needed? Was Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) correct in stating that Americans are already tolerant of gays and lesbians? According to polls conducted by Human Rights Campaign, nearly two – thirds of LGBQT Americans reported incidents of discrimination. And there are currently thirty states that have no state laws that a LGBQT person could rely on to protect their job, their search for a home or in being denied a service if a business agent or employer made a negative decision because of their sexual identity or intimate personal relationship. This law would fill in the gaps of coverage nationwide and ensure that LGBQT persons would be protected from instances of discrimination that appears to be more prevalent than previously reported. Senator Mike Lee’s claim that Americans are already “tolerant” ignores the fact that LGBQT discrimination still occurs at an alarming rate and his statement even implies that LGBQT persons are not worthy enough to have their claims heard in court. An incident of LGBQT discrimination is not less deserving than any other legal complaint and deserves a chance to be heard in court and remedied in an appropriate manner.
The other criticism of this bill refers to an argument that religious groups have been trying to rely on in a number of recent cases. Religious groups often point to the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion. They claim that as Christians their religious beliefs do not permit them to accept same – sex marriage and homosexuality and so any bill that legitimizes these issues forces them to betray their religious beliefs. However, their argument shows that these religious groups are simply using religion as a way to deny LGBQT persons the chance to participate in normal society as ordinary and accepted citizens. A LGBQT person could be denied the chance to marry a person of their choice, denied from adopting and raising children of their own and generally denied from living their lives in the manner that they choose. This religious freedom argument was famously debunked by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado when he said that it was one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric when one uses his religion to hurt others. That seems to be the case here with those who object to the Equality Act on religious grounds.
The Equality Act appears to provide more protections for those who want nothing more than to participate in American society without having to suffer because of private life choices they’ve made. For that reason, the bill is a positive enactment and the U.S. Senate and the President should put aside their silly objections and self – serving criticisms and pave the way for the bill to be enacted into law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Human Rights Campaign – non – profit group’s statement on Equality Act.
- Equality Federation – non – profit group advocating for LGBQT people to have a fair opportunity to thrive and provide for themselves in this country.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s blogpost on the Equality Act.
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.
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.