JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
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
Impeachment Trial Preview
The Corruption Blog is a series of blog posts by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Trump Questionable “Victory “in Achieving Phase One Tariff Agreement with China
Brief #64—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
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
Recent News From JP Morgan Chase Could Mean Changes for Private Prison Industry
Brief #36—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
Policy Summary
Private prisons have existed in the U.S. for years but under Trump, the stocks of two publicly traded companies, CoreCivic (NYSE: CXW) and GEO Group (NYSE: GEO) that make up the industry have surged. It isn’t hard to see why. The Trump Administration’s mass incarceration of immigrants and migrants has created the need for more prisons and immigration detainment centers, leading to the award of lucrative government contracts to the two companies that build prisons for a profit. It was estimated last year by S&P Global Ratings that of all immigrants currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, roughly two thirds are held in private detention facilities.
The private prison market braced for turbulence on March 5th when JP Morgan Chase, the world’s largest bank by assets, publicly announced that they would cease all financing of companies that operate within the private prison and detention center industry. The news raised plenty of eyebrows for people with ties to the private prison industry and for good reason. Despite the government contracts they receive, private prison corporations depend on Wall Street banks to finance their overall operations. Private prisons represent a small fraction of the bank’s overall dealings, but the past year saw the two aforementioned companies borrow roughly $1.8 billion from several banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America
Both CoreCivic and GEO Group are considered Real Estate Investment Trusts by the Internal Revenue Service. While this means comes with significant tax breaks, it also means that they are required to pass off the majority of their income derived from real estate to shareholders.
Analysis
How much trouble does JP Morgan’s decision mean for the private prison industry? As of now, it’s difficult to say but there can be little doubt that this new development will certainly shake things up.
While there are plenty of other banks who’ve made a habit of bankrolling private prisons, including Bank of America and SunTrust Banks, it seems likely that JP Morgan’s decision may spark a chain reaction. In January, when Wells Fargo released their Business Standards Report, they indicated that they planned on scaling back their involvement with the private prison industry for reasons involving “environmental and social risk management.” For a bank as embroiled in scandal as Wells Fargo, following JP Morgan Chase’s example might prove a worthwhile maneuver.
Aside from being an effective public relations strategy, divesting from the private prison industry seems to be well received by bank shareholders. Investors, both individual and institutional, have long been doing their part to strike back at the private prison industry by making sure that none of their capital goes towards funds with any ties to the industry. A significant involvement with the private prison industry could easily alienate investors with a focus on social responsibility, a growing trend through the financial sector. Organizations such as Real Money Moves have been created for the sole purpose of keeping money out of the hands of private prison companies, as have campaigns such as Corporate Backers of Hate and the National Prison Divestment Campaign launched by the NNIRR (National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. JP Morgan Chase’s decision came after protestors confronted CEO Jamie Dimon at the company’s shareholder meeting and later rallied outside his Manhattan apartment. The driving forces behind these events included the Backers of Hate Campaign and the immigrant rights organization #FamiliesBelongTogether.
A recent report from Javier H. Valdés of Make the Road New York and Ana María Archila of the Center for Popular Democracy stated that the campaign will now shift its focus to banks such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America. Given everything we’ve recently seen from JP Morgan Chase, it seems entirely possible that other banks could follow suit. Targeting the private sector sources that private prison rely on has the potential to have dire consequences for the industry.
The months to come will be quite telling as to the fate and strength of the private prison industry. Many eyes will likely be turned toward Wells Fargo, a bank that would certainly be well served by an announcement that would please both shareholders and human rights activists.
Photo by Fabian Blank
Gen. Waldhauser:” Climate Change Is Threat to Global Stability”
Brief #57—Enviroment
Policy Summary
Climate change poses an immediate risk to international stability, General Waldhauser (Commander, AFRICOM) told the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday. He cited research done by the Red Cross, which found that the effects of climate change directly worsen violent conflicts and lead to more poverty and weaker public services. Gen. Waldhauser also highlighted his personal observations of grasslands in the Sahel, the bioregion between the Sahara and the Sudanian Savanna, where temperatures are rising at a rate of more than 1.5 times faster than the global average. The grasslands there, he recounted, are receding by as much a “a mile a year,” significantly contributing to food scarcity and armed conflict.
The general’s testimony to congress comes after a flurry of reports documenting the threat of climate change to national security. A January report by the Pentagon, entitled “Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense,” found that 53 of 79 mission-critical US bases are at immediate risk of being damaged or destroyed by rising sea levels. Many of the bases in question are integral to the maintenance of American nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. In February, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar cautioned that, should the current administration fail to act to reverse this trend, the next POTUS should declare a national emergency over the issue.
Policy Analysis
The threat that climate change poses to the national security of the US has been well documented for years. In 2014, the Pentagon released a report classifying climate change as a “threat multiplier” that posed “immediate risks” to the safety and security of the nation. It is unsurprising then that General Waldhauser used the exact same words to describe climate change before the committee on Thursday, underscoring the fact that the military has not changed its mind on the issue regardless of what the current administration may say.
Indeed, it is important to note that the military will feel the brunt of climate change’s worst effects both sooner, and more harshly than the general public. President Trump’s push to declare a national emergency directly threatens funds that the Navy requires to maintain its two aged icebreaker ships. Ships that are being used more frequently than ever before due to increased competition with Russia and China in the arctic, where melting ice caps have opened new waterways for commercial and military vessels.
The international implications of the current administration’s rebuttal of climate science are immense. During the committee hearing on Thursday, General Waldhauser’s colleague, General Joseph Votel (Commander, CENTCOM), stated that the US had entered “New era of great power competition,” and highlighted the international influence currently being cultivated by China, who is developing and building resilient infrastructure across the globe.
In the existential crisis that is climate change, it can be quite easy to forget about this last issue. Regardless of whether the US succeeds in limiting emissions, creating new green technologies, or protecting its food supply, the simple fact is that a lack of commitment to developing climate resiliency in partner nations is already leading to a decrease in US influence abroad. The current administration’s inaction in seriously combating climate change is contributing directly to global instability and a weakened national defense, a sentiment made clear by the top commanders of the US military. When asked by the committee whether there was sufficient data to declare climate change a significant threat to national security, Generals Votel and Waldhauser said simply, “Yes.”
Engagement Resources
- Climate Centre: The climate reference wing of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent.
- Climate Deregulation Tracker: Columbia Law School tool for tracing legal attempts to roll back or eliminate climate legislation
- The Climate Mobilization: Volunteer organization seeking to curb the effects of climate change
- The Consensus Project: Organization dedicated to educating the public about scientific consensus and the scientific community’s stance on climate change
- Data for Progress: Research organization dedicated to highlighting voter attitudes
- UN Environment: United Nations program designed to map pathways toward sustainable development
- Union of Concerned Scientists: A US non-profit dedicating to applying scientific solutions to global problems.
This brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST environmental policy analyst Andrew Thornebrooke. Contact: contact@thornebrooke.com
Teacher’s Strikes March On: Success in Oakland
Brief #33—Education
Policy Summary
Oakland teachers are returning to their classrooms, this week, after a week-long strike. After a year of contract negotiations, this Sunday school officials and teacher’s unions were finally able to come to an agreement. Although Oakland teachers were not able to obtain all of their demands from the strike, they did get much more than the county wanted to offer initially. Most notably, teachers returned to schools with nearly $38 million in pay raises. This number was based on a 3 percent bonus and an 11 percent pay raise, over four years. These numbers are almost double the pay increase that district officials offered teachers before their 7-day walk out.
These increases are especially important when considering Oakland teachers are the lowest-paid in the Bay Area. Many have become extremely strained with the cost of living increases occurring in Silicon Valley. It is estimated that monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment would require up to 60% of a teacher’s salary.
In Oakland, educators and school employees were also effective at demanding smaller class sizes. The district plans to drop the class size by one student a year beginning in 2020. Counselors will also see a significant drop in student numbers as their caseloads will be reduced from the average 600 to 500 cases. School speech therapists, psychologists and resource specialists will also see reduced caseloads, while school nurses will be receiving the teachers’ raise plus another 9%, and $10,000 bonuses by 2020.
Analysis
Their successful strike has not slowed down Oakland educators. Teachers will continue to push onward for classroom funding, a cease to school closings in African America and Latino communities, and a ban on charter schools, which the teachers union says divert millions from the school district. Soon after the final vote on Sunday, Oakland Education Association President Keith Brown said the victory “sends the message that educators will no longer let this school district starve our neighborhood schools of resources. Oakland educators spoke clearly today at our ratification vote that this agreement will not be the end of our struggle, and we will continue to fight in Oakland and Sacramento.”
The issues facing public schools in Oakland are plaguing public schools around the nation, causing a 30-year high in strikes for 2018 and continuing on into 2019. Teacher’s salaries continue to fall behind the wages of other college-educated employees. The American Federation of Teachers claim schools have been under-funded for years now. In 2015, public school teacher wages were 17 percent lower than those of comparable employees, and the number has continued to grow. In 2017, a report found that 29 states were offering less school funding in 2015 than in 2008. It is unsurprising that states, with very low educational funding have become locations of some of the larger teacher strikes. Last year approximately 375,000 educators and staff participated in strikes.
However, not everyone is happy for the advancements made and stands taken by teachers nationwide. Donald Trump Jr., seemed to ridicule protesting educators and school officials. Last month in El Paso, Texas, during a recent speech, the President’s son, exclaimed, “these loser teachers that are trying to sell you on socialism from birth.” With leadership mocking and misunderstanding their plight, it is understandable why America’s teachers continue to push for better working conditions and better schools.
Resistance Resources:
- Teach to Lead recognizes the many school principals, state and district systems leaders, and organizations who work collaboratively with teachers to make leadership and innovation a regular part of school culture and the profession of teaching.
- Donors Choose is an online charity that allows individuals to give directly to teachers and students. Donors can browse classroom causes by location, materials requested or greatest need.
- The United Federation of Teachers is a labor organization with over 200,000 members. Although the UFT represents teachers, nurses and other professionals in New York City, educators from across the country can benefit from its resources, particularly its website.
- SEIU Local 99 is comprised of education employees from all sectors working in schools, colleges, family/childcare centers, and administrative offices. They represent the wellbeing and standards of 35,000 public and private sector education workers throughout Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Erin Mayer, Policy Analyst Contact ErinMayer@usresistnews.org
Photo by Josh Barwick