JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Richmond Rally Demonstrates Increasingly Militarized Right-Wing Movement
Brief #24—Gun Control
By Ivan A Moore
Constitutional Right To Prayer and Religious Expression In Public Schools Remains The Same Despite New Proclamation From President Trump
Brief #112—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Bulldozers back Trump’s rule changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Brief #73—Environment
By Todd J. Broadman
More Restrictions are Set Up for SNAP Beneficiaries
Brief #67—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Is the GDP an Obsolete Concept?
Brief #65—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Trump’s 3 Million Dollar Iran Problem
Brief #76—Foreign Policy
By Erin Mayer
Has The Equal Rights Amendment Been Ratified And Added To The U.S. Constitution?
Brief #76—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay/strong>
The Expanding Reach of Facial Technology – Has the Trump Executive Order Released a Monster?
Brief #10—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
Ohio Anti – Abortion Bill Proposes an Impossible Procedure and Creates New Crimes
Brief #66—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Is The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) On The Verge Of Being Ratified and Added To The U.S. Constitution?
Policy Summary
In 1923 Alice Paul, a member of the National Women’s Party, drafted and submitted to the U.S. Congress the first version of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The intent was to guarantee in the Constitution equal rights for women alongside men but the amendment was not approved at that time. In 1943, Ms. Paul redrafted the text of the amendment. In October 1971, the constitutional amendment with the 1943 text was introduced in the House of Representatives where it passed by a vote of 354 – 24. The amendment was then introduced in the Senate and passed by a vote of 84 – 7. After passage by both houses of Congress, the Constitution required that the amendment be ratified by three – fourths of the state legislatures in order to be added to the Constitution. This meant that thirty – eight (38) states would need to vote for the amendment. The amendment was sent to the states in 1972 but with a seven – year deadline for ratification. Between 1972 and the 1979 deadline thirty – five state legislatures voted to ratify the amendment. The deadline was later extended by Congress to 1982 but by that time the final tally of states ratifying the amendment remained at thirty – five, three short for the amendment to be enacted.
In March 2019, the North Dakota Legislature introduced a resolution that sought to rescind their state’s approval of the amendment in 1975. The resolution was approved in the North Dakota House by a vote of 67 – 21 but was defeated in the North Dakota Senate by a 24 – 23 vote. The vote in North Dakota comes on the heels of two additional states voting to approve the ERA recently – the Nevada Legislature voted to approve the amendment in March 2017 and Illinois in May 2018. The addition of Nevada and Illinois brings the total of number of states approving to thirty – seven, one shy of the thirty – eight required. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment raises a number of interesting legal and procedural issues that still need to be sorted out. The U.S. Constitution in Article Five has laid out the appropriate procedures to introduce, consider and ratify amendments to the constitution, which were properly followed by the Equal Rights Amendment. However, this amendment has run into two issues – whether a deadline and subsequent extension for ratification is within Congress’ power and whether states have the power to rescind a prior ratification of the amendment.
As to the issue of a limited time period and subsequent extension of that time period, there is no question that there was an initial seven year deadline for the states to ratify. But when it appeared that not enough states would ratify before the expiration of the seven – year deadline, Congress went ahead and granted an additional three – year extension. What Congress can do to overcome this roadblock is to simply vote to remove the deadline for ratification. And this is exactly what Congress has taken steps to do as both the House and Senate have introduced resolutions in 2019 to remove the ratification deadline from the ERA ratification process. There clearly is support in Congress to have additional states debate and vote on the amendment.
The final issue of whether a state can rescind a prior ratification of the amendment also raises a novel question of law. While the Constitution is silent on this point, making it ripe for litigation, Linda Coberly of the ERA Coalition Legal Task Force points to historical and legal precedent that recissions of prior ratifications have not been counted as was the case in a prior nineteenth century amendment ratification battle. It also brings up a contradiction that was illustrated in the recent attempts in North Dakota to rescind their ratification. If opponents of the ERA point to the deadline issue as making it impossible to have a future state ratify the ERA now, then why did North Dakota go to the trouble to vote to rescind their ratification from 1975? The actions in North Dakota seems to have implicitly acknowledged that the Equal Rights Amendment is on the verge of being ratified and politicians in North Dakota wanted to get ahead of the issue while they believed they had a chance to do something.
Whatever the legal and procedural issues are at play in the long battle to approve the Equal Rights Amendment it is becoming clear that there is widespread support for the amendment. Nevada and Illinois have recently voted to ratify. And Congress, with their attempts to extend the deadline along with Representative Carolyn Maloney’s (D-NY) symbolic introduction of the amendment in Congress this year, shows that the struggle for gender equality is still ongoing. It is a battle that many people still want to fight for nearly one hundred years after Ms. Alice Paul delivered the Equal Rights Amendment to Congress for the first time. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) – webpage with info on the status of the ERA.
- National Organization for Women (NOW) – women’s advocacy group containing info on the ERA and other issues.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
Photo by Yeo Khee
Betsy DeVos Special Olympics Cuts
Policy Summary
The Department of Education’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year led to scathing criticism this week. In particular, the suggestion made by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ to eliminate funding for the Special Olympics was met with disbelief and contempt. The Education Secretary’s budget proposal, in all, would propose over 7 billion dollars in cuts, slashing nearly 10 percent of the department’s overall budget. DeVos went on to suggest $60 million in funding to charter schools and creating a tax credit for those donating to scholarships at private schools. In regard to the $17.6 million cut to help fund the Special Olympics, the world’s largest sports organization designed to help children and adults with intellectual disabilities and physical disabilities, DeVos simply suggested it should be solely supported by philanthropy. “We had to make some difficult decisions with this budget…we are not doing our children any favors when we borrow from their future in order to invest in systems and policies that are not yielding better results,” DeVos said to the House subcommittee.
After a large public outcry President Trump, in a session with reporters, said that he had “told his people” to restore the cut in Special Olympics funding (an amount so small that either Trump or the notoriously wealthy Betsy DeVos, could probably fund out of their own pockets.
Analysis
For some time, DeVos has been an avid supporter of charter schools, educational institutions that receive government funding but function independently of individual state school systems and are therefore, models of public asset privatization. DeVos and her ilk argue supporting charter schools allows parents to have a choice in schools and that funding should follow suit. However, supporters of public-school claim that financial support from the government towards charter schools and private schools undermines conventional, public schools, where most of American students learn today.
On Tuesday, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (D) of Wisconsin questioned the Education Secretary’s proposal, asking, “Do you know how many kids are going to be affected by that cut?” Pocan went on to reference a recent report by a nonprofit group that claimed the U.S. government has recently spent $1 billion on charter schools that never opened or closed due to poor management and various other reasons. Chairwoman of the subcommittee on Tuesday, U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D) of Connecticut, said the budget proposal was “cruel and reckless,” and would “hurt the middle class and low-income families that most need our help.” During the meeting on Tuesday DeLauro openly confronted Betsy DeVos, asking, “As secretary of the Department of Education, how can you support, even boast, about taking 10 percent … away from our teachers and students?”
Education and political experts have reassured concerned citizens that the proposal is not definite or guaranteed. The proposals have not been executed and will still require approval from Congress. In the end, it is doubtful that any of the proposed budget slashes or proposals to boost “school choice” is likely to pass. Over the past two years, a republican-majority House rejected DeVos’ most severe proposed budget cuts. With Democrats currently in the majority, DeVos is far less likely to gain traction.
Engagement Resources:
- The Special Olympics mission remains even more vital today as it did when the movement was founded in 1968. Special Olympics strives to create a better world by fostering the acceptance and inclusion of all people. Through the power of sports, people with intellectual disabilities discover new strengths and abilities, skills and success. Get involved here: https://www.specialolympics.org/get-involved
- The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET)is the only national membership organization dedicated solely to meeting the needs of special education teachers and those preparing for the field of special education teaching. Join the cause here: https://www.naset.org/index.php?id=556
- The Stand Up 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. It reveals the true teaching and learning in public schools and it provides a means for people to demonstrate support for their schools. Support the mission here: http://standup4publicschools.org/#block-views-the-pledge-block
- 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. By supporting public education around the world, Pearson can help more people discover a love of learning and make progress in their lives. Learn more here: https://www.pearson.com/corporate/about-pearson/the-importance-of-education.html
Photo by Charles 🇵🇭
President Trump Issues Duplicative Executive Order to Cater to Voting Base
Policy Summary
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” On March 21, 2019 President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13864 titled “Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.” The stated policy in the order is “to promote free and open debate on college and university campuses.” In order to help implement this stated policy, covered federal agencies shall take appropriate steps to ensure that institutions “foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging and diverse debate” by “compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
Professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School has called President Trump’s executive order duplicative of current law and is nothing more than a symbolic act. Caroline Mala Corbin in an opinion piece in the Washington Post said that the order creates no new protections for campus speech and simply restates a college or universities’ current obligation under federal law. So why did President Trump go to all the trouble to put forth an executive order that he himself called a historic act?
This executive order is an attempt to re-frame the narrative and push the story that there is a crisis on college campuses regarding free speech and to appeal to President Trump’s conservative and religious voter base. Jeffrey Adam Sachs issued a report from the Niskanen Center that studied the claims of a free speech crisis on college campuses and found that the evidence does not support the claim. Instead it found that there was no statistical difference in older and younger generations when it analyzed and examined their support for free speech. What is likely at play here is President Trump trying to incite his conservative and religious fanbase that their ideas are under attack from left – leaning forces in society, most notably institutions of higher learning. However, his use of free speech to court this voter base comes fraught with other complexities as many of the private and Christian education institutions he caters to have been some of the most frequent violators of the Free Speech Clause under the First Amendment. Jerry Falwell, Jr. of Liberty University has had a number of incidents where his actions have raised eyebrows as to whether he truly supports free speech on campus and censorship issues with the student newspaper. Mr. Falwell is a staunch supporter of President Trump and seems to have influenced the President that conservative ideas are being attacked on college campuses. But this is simply not the case as studies have shown. The executive order that the President signed is nothing more than a weak attempt to give religious universities a rallying cry for ideas that may not be in the mainstream of American society. The idea of pushing, promoting and protecting the idea of free speech on college campuses is a noble goal. It would have been better for President Trump to offer real solutions and real change instead of a watered down version that requires colleges and universities to do something that they are already required to do. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s comment on the executive order.
- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) – infopage on non – profit group’s mission to protect individual rights in educational institutions.
- World Magazine – case study on the free speech issues plaguing Liberty University.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org
Photo by Srikanta H. U
The National Security Hoax
Policy Summary
Trump has claimed that the flow of drugs, criminals and illegal immigrants from Mexico has provided enough reason to believe the US Southern Border threatens national security. He has declared a national emergency, and therefor the ability to use existing allocated federal nudget funds to build his wall. These funds include $3.6 billion from military construction projects , $2.5 billion from counter-narcotics programs and $600 million from the Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund. Combined with the authorized $1.375 billion for fencing in the spending package discussed in brief #64, there would be $8 billion available for Trump’s wall. This is significantly more than the original $5.7 billion he demanded.
The right for a president to declare a national emergency is the product of the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which was enacted to rein in presidential power and restore Congress’s constitutional role as a check on the executive branch, during a time when there was a growing imbalance between Democrats and Republicans. Since then, national emergencies have been declared nearly 60 times (and half of them remain active) but are more targeted to foreign affairs like freezing properties, blocking trade exports, imposing economic sanction son foreign trading partners; not re-directing money from the Federal budget.
Democrats and many Republicans do not find Trump’s Declaration justified and have begun the process of taking legal action. National emergencies can last for 1 year and then are terminated unless a president renews the declaration 90 days prior; and every 6 months,
In response to the declaration, 16 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnestoa, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia) have filed a lawsuit challenging the national emergency, as well as organizations like the ACLU, Border Network for Human Rights and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Analysis
The House and Senate can pass resolutions to terminate national emergencies, known as a ‘legislative veto.’ Congress rejected Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, so Trump issued his first veto on March 15. Congress can overrise the veto if two-thirds of each house of Congress votes to do so (an unlikely prospect in the Republican controlled Senate.)
Trump has been quoted saying he “didn’t have to do this,” claiming he did not want to build the wall over a long period of time and just wanted to do so in a timely manner. His response comes off as a form of conning the American public into thinking that Congress made him resort to such an extreme.
Engagement Resources
- Opposition – No Border Walls: A resource that provides cities, states and coalitions of organizations that have taken a stance against Trump’s wall.
- Stop Trump’s Wall: a non-profit that opposes Trump’s wall that utilizes video submissions explaining why his wall is ineffective, not a good idea, bad for the environment, etc.
- Sierra Club: a grassroots environmental organization that has sued the US government in opposition of the wall.
Photo by Rishabh Varshney
Trump’s Remain in Mexico Policy
Policy Summary
In December, Trump put forth a policy on asylum seekers where individuals would be returned to Mexico while their cases were considered. This policy is generally known as ‘Remain in Mexico’ (as discussed in brief #61) though the Trump Administration refers to it as ‘Migrant Protection Protocols.’ Many individuals have fled Central America from gang violence, which does not observe state boundaries and such individuals’ lives could be at risk even during the waiting process. The UN High Commissioner on Refugees has confirmed that the majority of people fleeing from Central America have real claims of asylum. Many migrants will have to wait in underfunded and/or overcrowded shelters in Ciudad Juarez and/or Tijuana, which are not particularly safe and hostile to migrants.
Trump supporters and administration officials have addressed this concern by pointing out that some US cities, like Chicago, are equally as unsafe. Even Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen states the policy is a ‘vital response to the crisis at our southern border.’
The US cannot deport asylum seekers without at least a screening interview to determine if their case presents a ‘credible fear.’ Under the new protocol an individual also has to establish that they are ‘more likely than not’ to be persecuted if sent back to their country of origin, which is much harder to prove than the minimum ‘credible fear.’ Thus, various groups are suing the Trump Administration, claiming this policy is an act of ‘war on asylum seekers and our system of laws,’ as it violates US and International Laws of asylum.
Interviews with asylum seekers are one-o- one without access to a lawyer and the interviewer then passes on a report from the session to someone more senior at US Citizenship and Immigration services to make a decision. Usually 75% pass the interview, but Trump’s new policy skirts around this limitation by providing individuals with a hearing but having them wait in Mexico for such a hearing to take place.
Upon arrival in Mexico, they are granted humanitarian visas which allow them to live and work in Mexico for up to a year while they wait.
Analysis
The ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy is an ill thought out regulation and a human rights violation. IT is being implementd without the ‘reasoned explanation’ which is required. It also incentivize sillegal border crossings (by those seeking to escape the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy), and there is an unrealistic expectation that Mexico will provide safety, shelter, support services and legal counsel, and transportation for affected asylum seekers. Mexico has a record of detaining and deporting back asylum seekers to their home countries where they face serious threats to their lives and freedoms.
This policy also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which prohibits agencies from acting in a way that is ‘arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.’ It directly violates the US longstanding policy of nonrefoulement (not unique to the US) under which it is the obligation not to return people to places where they will face persecution, torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment
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 Baher Khairy
Trump’s European Foreign Policy
Last February, Nancy Pelosi led a bipartisan delegation of over 50 US lawmakers on a trip to Brussels in order to reaffirm US support for NATO and US-European relationsThere, at the Munich Security Conference, a senior German official anonymously spoke with the New York Times about the diplomatic crisis to which Pelosi was responding, stating “No one any longer believes that Trump cares about the views or interests of the allies. It’s broken”. This division among American leadership shows just how far off Trump stands in relation to many traditional conventions of US foreign policy.
Trump ran for President on a platform which blamed China and Mexico for the lack of economic security in the US, but it didn’t take long for his derision to spill over onto Europe. Central to Trump’s ideology is a strong skepticism of multilateral agreements and a transactional view of foreign relations – a position which does not fit with the European strategy of previous presidents. In July of 2017, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, citing the restrictions it placed on US production capabilities. Last year, Trump went on to end the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Deal – two deals Europe depended on for assurances of security. The INF treaty reduced the danger of further Russian expansion into Eastern Europe, while the Iran Deal prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program that could easily target Europe. Trump has also tried to leverage Europe on trade, including them last year on steel and aluminum tariffs originally targeted against China, and more recently threatening to tariff automobile imports.
Any possible interpretations of these actions as the rectifying of an uneven but collaborative alliance were negated last July when Trump named the EU first when asked who he sees as being the “foes” of the United States. “In a trade sense, they’ve really taking advantage of us and many of those countries are in NATO and they weren’t paying their bills,” Trump told the BBC.
EU leaders have slowly accepted this new paradigm, with French President Emmanuel Macron stating last November that “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia, and even the United States”, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel joining him in advocating for the creation of a European Army which would complement NATO. These leaders no longer see a point in combating Trump over the issue of American defense expenditure in Europe, and would rather take threats such as that posed by Putin into their own hands.
However, it hasn’t only been rivals that Trump has found across the Atlantic. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Polish President Adrzej Duda have both earned Trump’s appreciation as they drift further from the EU and take a more nationalist tone. Duda is hoping to have a US military base built in Poland to deter Russian aggression, publicly offering to name it “Fort Trump”. Trump also complimented Poland for “standing up for their independence, their security, and their sovereignty” while the country was in the midst of a conflict with the EU over its undermining of its own Supreme Court. Viktor Orban has earned the support of Trump due to his similar policies of blaming immigration and globalism for the breakdown of Hungarian identity. Trump also complimented the 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK, viewing it as a parallel accomplishment to his own election later that year.
While Trump often picks out specific issues with the EU, it seems that his eventual goal is the dissolution of the Union. What is less clear is how much of Trump’s support for these nationalist, anti-EU movements is rooted in his desire to surround himself with like-minded heads of state or the belief that a more fractured global order will be easier to dominate economically and militarily.
Engagement Resources:
- Human Rights Watch – An international human rights organization which has worked to support Crimean autonomy against Russian aggression.
- Roots Action – An online activist group devoted to pushing US domestic and foreign policy in a progressive direction.
Photo by Hoil Ryu
Remington Arms Under Fire After Recent Supreme Court Ruling
Policy Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court recently ruled 4-3 that the families of nine victims from the Sandy Hook shooting can sue Remington Arms for its marketing practices. The gun manufacturer has been accused of specific marketing of their assault rifles targeting the exact demographic of the Sandy Hook shooter (young men).
Analysis
In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was passed to protect gun manufacturers from being sued by victims of gun violence. This ruling in favor of the victims from Sandy Hook may provide the opportunity to establish a new precedent in gun violence lawsuits by getting around the PLCAA.
Previous to this ruling, gun manufacturers have fought hard to keep secret the way they market their AR-15s, which have gained national attention, as they are commonly used in some of the deadliest mass shootings. The families of Sandy Hook victims are suing Remington to further understand the goals and objectives of their marketing techniques.
Some are comparing the secretive nature of gun manufacturers’ marketing to tobacco companies who were fully aware of the health risks of their product or to big pharma companies who knew the addictive nature of their products. While it may not be as obvious as the tobacco companies who had hundreds of health documents outlining the risks of smoking, the families of the Sandy Hook victims believe Remington is fully cognizant of who they are marketing their assault rifles to and the dangers that possesses.
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.
Contact
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by Rux Centea
Trump Administration Proposal To Use Social Media To Confirm Disabilities
Policy Summary
On August 14, 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act which initiated the program in the United States. In 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law amendments to the Social Security Act which added disability insurance benefits to the Social Security program. This week the New York Times and other news outlets have reported that the Trump Administration is outlining a plan to use social media accounts to confirm a person’s disability in order to deny future payment of benefits to the recipient. However, of March 2019 no plan has been formally introduced or announced. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
While details of the proposed plan by President Trump are not known at this time it is important to note what exactly is disability insurance under the Social Security program and the available benefits. According to the Social Security website disability insurance pays benefits to persons and members of their family if they are “insured” – meaning a person has worked long enough and paid the Social Security taxes through the years. Other factors that are taken into consideration are a person’s medical history, line of work and other forms of income. The program is designed to give persons who have paid their taxes into the program a safety net of payments for a limited time should the person suffer a physical injury that would prevent them from continuing on in their job and earning income on their own.
However, the program also has been susceptible to fraud. According to the Social Security Administration it paid out $3.4 billion in benefits to people who did not deserve it in 2018 alone. The problem has been ongoing for so many years that three new disability investigations units were established in the Office of the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration in September 2018. While no one doubts that disability fraud is a major problem with significant financial implications, the potential solution of social media spying to confirm a person’s disability raises more red flags and questions than it purports to solve. Social media posts and pictures are not always accurate indicators of a person’s physical condition. And allowing the government to use social media posts to make their case against a person may not simply be restricted to Social Security disability cases in the future. The door would open for any government agency to rely on social media posts to take a position against a person in any number of cases. What is needed is a set of safeguards to ensure that the government does not have free reign to sift through whatever they want on a person’s social media account. This could include the use of warrants, policies that limit what the government could look at and even restrictions on the time periods that posts and pictures could be made available to the government – say, if a person applied for disability insurance in 2015 then the government could not look at posts and pictures from prior to 2012. While there are many issues to be sorted out in this potential Trump Administration policy, we must wait to see if a plan is put forth before there can be any discussion of details and possible suggestions for improvement. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- National Committee To Preserve Social Security & Medicare – non – profit group’s webpage on Social Security and disability insurance issues.
- National Organization of Social Security Claimant’s Recipients – infopage on Social Security payments and disability insurance benefits.
Photo by ROBIN WORRALL
Trump Declares National Emergency, Yet Signs a Compromise Bill
Policy Summary
Earlier this month, the members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees passed a new spending bill that addressed 7 spending bills that had expired during the government’s recent shutdown. The bill is very hefty at 1,100 pages, but received an 82-16 vote to pass it. Trump signed the bill, while simultaneously declaring a national emergency in order to acquire emergency funding for his wall. With the declaration of a national emergency, Trump can possibly have access to the Treasury Department’s drug forfeiture fund, the Defense Department’s drug interdiction program and military construction budget. In our next Brief we will report on the status of efforts to provide the greater amount of border wall funding (at least $5 billion) that Trump seeks to get through an Emergency Declaration.
In the new spending bill House and Senate Appropriations Committees agreed on $1.375 billion for “physical barriers” at the border which will fund approximately 55 miles of fencing (a very small figure compared to the $5.7 billion Trump has been demanding for the wall). Republicans have described the amount as a “down payment” and have coined this phrase to help persuade the President to sign the bill to avoid another shutdown. The $1.375 billion is to be implemented with some guidelines: physical barriers refers to pedestrian and levee fencing along the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and there is no concrete allowed. Only the existing technologies can be used for the building of fencing and barriers. In total, there is supposed to be $22.5 billion allocated for border security: in addition to funds for 55 miles of physical barrier, funds for more border security agents, customs officers, immigration judges and technology to detect drugs and weapons. However, the overall number of detention beds (currently 49,057) is supposed to decline to 40,540 for the year. Federal workers are to receive a 1.9% pay raise and the US Census spending will increase by $1 billion (including $17 billion to improve infrastructure likes bridges, roads and airports). The spending package of the bill will also fund 8 other departments: commerce, housing and urban development, agriculture, interior, justice, state, transportation, and treasury.
Analysis
The declaration of a national emergency at the same time frame as the signing of the Congressional spending bill can be seen as a double-edged sword. This bill was essentially curated and promoted as a compromise to avoid a second shutdown – in the interest of not harming many lives and jobs. However Trump was not happy with said compromise. Despite Congressional efforts to move past the funding for the wall, Trump has had his eye set on obtaining the funds for the wall even if that meant signing the Congressional border security spending bill – his down payment – with the full intention of declaring a national emergency anyway. By seeking to draw down on government funding for his “national emergency” Trump also is usurping the power to appropriate funds that the Constitution states is reserved for Congress.
In violating the Constitution, Trump sent a message to America (and the world) that he will dodge and disregard various laws and regulations to get his way. Even if that means shutting down the government and declaring a national emergency for something that is not an imminent threat. Addressing this ‘humanitarian crisis’ in the way Trump intends wwill take possibly years of construction, agreements, and implementation. Thus, a national emergency that requires a time costly solution, is not a national emergency in its most basic definition at all.
Resistance Resources
- Opposition – No Border Walls: a resource that provides cities, states and coalitions of organizations that have taken a stance against Trump’s wall.
- Stop Trump’s Wall: a non-profit that opposes Trump’s wall that utilizes video submissions explaining why his wall is ineffective, not a good idea, bad for the environment, etc.
- Sierra Club: a grassroots environmental organization that has sued the US government in opposition of the wall.
Photo by Aleksandar Popovski
EPA Finally Vows to Regulate Cancer Causing Toxins
Policy Summary
After persistent national outcry, the EPA has announced it will regulate a group of long-lasting chemicals, called polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been linked to reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects. The action plan creates a “maximum contaminate level” for PFAS, therefore lowering the ratio between drinking water and the substances that have also been found to contribute to low birth weights, thyroid problems and some cancers. The widespread contamination of these compounds has been felt across America, as they are used in nonstick cookware, water-repellant fabrics, grease-resistant paper products, and firefighting foams. The acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated in a news conference in Philadelphia that the EPA would set a limit for the chemicals under the Safe Drinking Act by the end of this year. This action plan’s key components are: nationwide drinking water monitoring of PFAS, expand research on managing the risks and effects of PFAS, and continue and develop groundwater cleanup strategies.
Analysis
The unregulated contamination of drinking water has left communities and military bases fearful and scrambling upon the revelation of high PFAS in drinking water. Military bases and areas around them are exponentially affected due to the use of fire fighting foams that are knowingly riddled with PFAS during training exercises. The presence of PFAS are not new and the implementation of this act is coming at a time when lives have already been affected. Critics finds that the EPA and administration are making grandiose claims implying stark changes, but recalling past approaches and responses to such outcry, little optimism exists. Last year, the Trump administration also tried to block the publication of a health study(cite) by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that suggested the current regulations were inadequate and urged a much lower threshold of exposure to these compounds. In response to the EPA’s ineptitude, many states have already taken steps in limiting or banning such PFAS and addressing their threat to public safety*.
While this is a step in the right direction, the process of getting a handle on such toxins will take months, if not years, due to their widespread use and presence. Additionally, there is reasonable concern about this action plan being successfully executed due to Trump’s recent proposal to reduce the EPA’s funding by 31% ; Reduced spending reduces resources, which reduces the efficacy of this plan in cleaning up communities saturated with PFAS. Finally, this plan of action is exactly what the name suggests, a plan, but not definitive policy or mandates that are enforced and causing concrete change.
*States that took action are Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont.
- Resistance Resources:
- Comment directly on EPA proposed regulations, make your voice heard – Note: Commenting privileges are available for 60-90 days after a proposed regulation is announced.
- Clean water for all campaign : An organization promoting water access as a human right.
- National Drinking Water Alliance : A network of organizations and individuals across America working to ensure all children have access to safe drinking water.
Contact: This brief was authored by Taylor J Smith Contact: Taylor@usresistnews.org
- Learn More
- EPA official statement announcing plan
- EPA Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan – Full
- EPA Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan – Fact sheet
- Community in Michigan drastically impacted by PFAS.
- Additional criticism of “action” plan.
- Announcement by Andrew Wheeler and America’s history with PFAS:
- Proposed budget cuts, EPA is severely impacted.
- Additional article on regulation of PFAS