Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

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.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Recent News From JP Morgan Chase Could Mean Changes for Private Prison Industry

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”

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

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

Donate

Trump and Kim Fail to Reach Agreement in Hanoi

Trump and Kim Fail to Reach Agreement in Hanoi

Brief #58—Foreign Policy

Summary
President Trump and Chairman Kim’s departures from Hanoi last week, Trump by plane and Kim by way of an over 60-hour train ride, signaled the disappointing conclusion to the second in-person meeting between the two leaders. The first, held last June in Singapore, prioritized the achievement of symbolic cooperation over the arrangement of concrete policy agreements. One major question left unanswered was whether nuclear production or sanctions would be suspended first. The Trump administration hoped to settle these uncertainties and plan the specificities of the peace process during this second summit, which was held from February 27-28th.

Stating the week before that  “I’m in no rush for speed. We just don’t want testing”, Trump arrived in Vietnam with an outlined proposition for the codification of the goals outlined last June: the Korean War would be formally ended, North Korea would return the remains of US troops killed during the conflict, both countries would establish liaison offices as quasi-embassies in each other’s countries, and North Korea would stop producing nuclear materials at the Yongbyon facility in return for the lifting of some sanctions.

This last objective proved to be too great a point of contention, with both parties leaving with different versions of the dividing issue. According to Trump and Pompeo, Kim wanted the erasure of all sanctions in return for the suspension of nuclear production in the Yongbyon facility, said to be the heart of North Korea’s nuclear program. According to North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho, Kim only asked for the lifting of the most recent five of the eleven UN Security Council sanctions levied against the country. Ultimately, no deal was reached and a planned lunch and signing ceremony were canceled.

 

Analysis
This lack of accomplishment can come off as a major defeat in the context of such a drawn-out peace process. The fact that almost a year after Trump and Kim declared to the world their willingness to work towards peace and denuclearization neither could gain any concessions from each other is disheartening. If Trump and Pompeo’s  account of the issue is correct, and Kim expected the complete eradication of the greatest leverage the US holds besides military action in return for the closing of a facility which doesn’t even constitute the entirety of North Korea’s nuclear production, it doesn’t bode well for North Korea’s actual willingness to compromise.

However, there are a number of peripheral signifiers which allow for more optimism than this recent failure suggests. For one, the quality of the rhetoric between American and North Korean leadership has progressed significantly from the threats and hostility of years before. While this has sometimes gone too far (take for instance Trump’s willingness to deny Kim’s complicity in the murder of American student Otto Warmbier), the fact that the immediate threat of nuclear war is no longer at the front of every conversation regarding US-North Korean relations is a welcome relief. Perhaps it’s simply Trump’s dream of winning a Nobel Peace Prize, but our typically impetuous President has continued to refrain from criticism of North Korean leadership after the failed summit, and scrapped two joint military exercises previously planned to be held on the DMZ alongside South Korea. While the mood of North Korean officials is far more opaque, their state media continued to voice support for peace with the United States. North Korea has also avoided any missile testing since late 2017.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in responded to the summit with confidence, stating that “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and permanent peace will definitely come”, and South Korean Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon announced that “South Korea will talk to the United States about preparatory work for the future resumption of two key inter-Korean economic projects and about waiving sanctions on North Korea if necessary”.

However it is worth noting that two days after completion of the Summit satellite images reveal that North Koreas has started rebuilding key missile test-facilities at its Yongbyon nuclear complex north of Pyongyang, according to the New York Times

Resistance Resources

  • United for Peace and Justice: The UFPJ is a network of hundreds of peace and justice organizations with the shared goal of promoting a culture of demilitarization and cooperation.
  • Veterans for Peace: VFP is a global organization of military veterans and allies working to shift the rhetoric regarding war. One of their projects, the Korea Peace Campaign, has stood in opposition to American hawkishness regarding Korea since 2002.

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org

Photo by unsplash-logoJonathan Simcoe

Donate

Movement To Give Presidential Candidates All of a State’s Electoral College Votes Based on Nationwide Popular Vote Gaining Steam

Movement To Give Presidential Candidates All of a State’s Electoral College Votes Based on Nationwide Popular Vote Gaining Steam

Brief #79—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an affiliation of U.S. states that has put together an agreement that has the potential to enact sweeping changes in future elections of the U.S. President.

The current system in place as put forth by the U.S. Constitution dictates that the President and Vice – President, who run on the same ticket, will be elected if they receive a majority of the votes from the Electoral College. With 538 members in the Electoral College 270 votes is the minimum number needed to win. Members of the Electoral College are selected by the states according to the total number of a state’s congressional delegation (number of senators (2) plus number of representatives). By custom, states have permitted the political party of the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in their state to select the electors for that state. If the Republican nominee for President wins the popular vote in the state, then the Republican list of electors is chosen to vote for the state in the Electoral College. And, if the Democratic nominee for President wins the popular vote in the state, then the Democratic list of electors is instead sent to the Electoral College to cast the state’s votes.

What the NPVIC aims to do is to change the way electors are selected. National Popular Vote bills have been introduced in a number of states and will now commit a state to award its slate of electoral voters to the presidential and vice – presidential ticket who wins the popular vote nationwide regardless of the results in their individual state. As of March 2019, eleven states and the District of Columbia have passed National Popular Vote bills accounting for 172 electoral college votes, 63.7% of the total needed to win the presidency. LEARN MORE

Analysis
The National Popular Vote movement has been around for more than a decade but it has begun to pick up steam recently. The immense unpopularity of President Donald J. Trump and his administration and his stunning elevation to the presidency despite losing the popular vote to opponent Hillary Clinton has called into question the usefulness of the Electoral College and whether citizen votes for President really matter. The sense was that if changes to the Electoral College and the process in electing the president were going to be undertaken it would be an unlikely endeavor given the difficulties in marshaling support for a constitutional amendment.

However, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifically states that state legislatures have the power to select the electors for the Electoral College. Eleven states and the District of Columbia have now gone ahead and have passed National Popular Vote legislation that has been signed by each state’s respective governors. Once more states approve legislation and reach the 270 electoral votes threshold, the agreement to award each state’s electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in a presidential election will go into effect. While there has been some pushback, notably from Republicans, it is interesting to note that this movement is gaining wide support. The total number of electoral votes from states that have approved these bills is 172 which is already more than half of what is needed to win the presidency. And, support has come from both small and large states and from across the country. D.C. and Vermont with 3 electoral college votes have signed on. Washington with 12, New Jersey with 14 and Illinois with 20 have also come on board. And two of the largest states in terms of electoral college votes, New York with 29 and California with 55, have signed laws granting their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner.

This week, Colorado’s governor Jared Polis has stated he will sign the bill passed by the Colorado Legislature to join the compact and become the 12th state to award its electoral votes in this manner. This is a significant addition to the compact and will bump up the electoral votes under the compact to 181, only 89 electoral college votes short of 270. Additionally, another 16 states introduced National Popular Vote bills in their legislative houses this year. While there is no guarantee that all those states will pass those bills this year, it does appear that the movement for the election of the U.S. President align with the results of the nationwide popular vote is making significant headway and could become the determining and dominant factor affecting the 2020 and 2024 presidential election. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org

Photo by Arnaud Jaegers

Donate

Judge Rules HIV Status is Not an Exclusionary Factor in the Ability to Serve

Judge Rules HIV Status is Not an Exclusionary Factor in the Ability to Serve

Brief #51—Health

Policy
A federal judge put a stop to the recent attacks on military members, referred to as  the “Deploy or Get Out” ;policy. This policy , sponsored by the former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, effectively mandated that any military personnel who were not deployable worldwide be cut. This policy affects personnel deemed non-deployable due to medical reasons, directly affected two HIV positive airmen, who recently sued the Department of Defense. In this case, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of Alexandria, Virginia, ordered that the US Air Force stop discharging service members who are HIV positive. The Judge found the policy to be “irrational” and “outdated”, and noted that because of the advances in treatment and medicine, the disease “does not impose unreasonable burdens on the military when compared with similar conditions” nor does HIV “seriously jeopardize the health or safety of the service members or his companions in service. “These justifications were central in the judge’s ruling that the military cannot claim HIV status to be an exclusionary factor in ability to serve.

Analysis
According to the “Deploy or Get Out” policy. the HIV status of these airmen meant that they could not be deployed around the world and therefore must be discharged from military service, Not only is this a direct attack on those with medical conditions that do not impair their ability to serve but this also reduces the readiness of the Airforce and other military branches by reducing their enlistment numbers. This policy additionally affects those most effected by HIV, gay males, continuing the administration’s attack on the LGBTQ community, like the transgender ban.

The original policy, according to Mattis, was put in place to ensure fairness in deployment rates. Specific articles within this policy state that military members who have been non-deployable for the past twelve months or more will be separated from the military, with the expectation of having only deployable personnel and reducing individuals from avoiding deployments. However, service members in the Air Force claim they are being discharged despite the recommendations and influence of their doctors and commanding officers who claim they are fit to serve and are being removed due to their HIV status. While this policy looks to “trim the fat”, it simply reduces the number of available military personnel by arbitrarily choosing individuals to remove from service.

By focusing on the nonexistent impact that HIV has on military abilities and acknowledging that the military cannot make the decision to remove individuals according to outdated biases, the court ruling protects the liberties of U.S. military personnel globally.

  • Resistance Resources:
  • Outserve SLDN : Organization providing legal defense for LGBTQ service members.
  • Human Rights Campaign : LGBT civil rights advocacy group who works toward equal rights.
  • Lambda Legal : A  nonprofit, national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and everyone living with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

Contact: This Brief was authored by Taylor J Smith Contact: Taylor@usresistnews.org 

Learn More:

Donate

Photo by rawpixel

The Trump Administration Tries to Further Limit Women’s Reproductive Rights

The Trump Administration Tries to Further Limit Women’s Reproductive Rights

Brief #52—Health

Policy
The Trump administration made another calculated move in the war on Planned Parenthood and women’s reproductive rights late last month. Under this new policy provided by Trump and Pence, massive changes to Title X, the federal program that provides birth control and other reproductive health services to an estimated four million low-income Americans, have been finalized. This rule effectively changes what kinds of family planning clinics can receive federal funding, specifically stating that any organizations that provide or refer patients for abortions are ineligible for Title X funding ( covering STD prevention, cancer screenings and contraception). Additionally, the rule says any group or clinician receiving Title X funding must be physically and financially separate from any group that provides abortions, specifically targeting Planned Parenthood and its clinicians where that separation is practically not possible.

Analysis
Singling out providers like Planned Parenthood would then put the communities and individuals that they serve at risk, due to the lack of replacement services and providers to fill in should this order nullify their effective aid to the 2.4 million patients provided for just last year. This policy states “a Title X project may not perform, promote, refer or support abortion as a method of family planning”, actively targeting more liberal organizations and promoting conservative services like abstinence counseling. While this rule does not prevent providers from discussing abortions all together, clinicians are essentially bound by a gag order when discussing anything leaning towards a patient opting for an abortion. Health care providers are forced to either provide patients with cumulative and accurate information, or forgo Title X funding, which will likely result in a sacrifice to the detriment of the patient.

Essentially, this rule requires Planned Parenthood to drastically change its operations or relinquish an estimated $60 million in annual funding, in an attempt to reduce access to abortions nationwide. While Title X changes specifically focus on ensuring clinics do not use the funding to provide abortion care, no federal funds from Title X havde ever been used to pay for abortions, as mandated in Title X’s creation. In support of analysis like this, a coalition of twenty states* and California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced multiple lawsuits earlier this week to prevent the changes from going into effect in 60 days. This policy by the Trump Administration pushes conservative views and limits access to comprehensive healthcare for vulnerable populations at risk by reinforcing the power of the purse.

*States include : Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin, in addition to the District of Columbia, California AG and civil liberties unions.

Resistance Resources

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist : An organization dedicated to the improvement of women’s health. Click here to help #SaveTitleX and click here for additional resources.
  • Planned Parenthood: A nonprofit organization that provides reproductive healthcare. Click here to take a stand against Title X.
  • Contact your representatives here : call, email or send a letter to your local representative stating you oppose the changes to Title X.
  • Contact: This Brief was authored by Taylor J Smith Contact: Taylor@usresistnews.org

Learn More:

unsplash-logoAndrej Lišakov

Whose New Deal? Unpacking the Green Plans of AOC and Senate Democrats

Whose New Deal? Unpacking the Green Plans of AOC and Senate Democrats

Brief #56 – Environmental Policy

Policy Summary
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced her plans for a Green New Deal in February. Senate Democrats responded with their own, highly abridged version of a Green New Deal proposal at the end of the month, signifying the divide between new progressives in the house and more center-leaning party veterans in the Senate on how, exactly, the party’s thrust for green legislation should be aimed.

Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution, which has come under fire by lawmakers and pundits on both sides of the aisle, goes far past envisioning a future with a smaller carbon footprint and includes calls to:

  • Create millions of high-wage jobs
  • Provide economic security for all citizens
  • Reverse anti-labor policies
  • Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
  • Invest public funds in resilient infrastructure
  • Secure healthy food, clean air and water, and access to natural spaces for all citizens
  • Actively promote justice programs for “frontline and vulnerable communities”
  • Meet 100 percent of US power demand through zero-emissions sources
  • Promote globalized exchange of technologies and products
  • Provide resources and higher education to minority groups
  • Invest public funds in research and development of new energy technologies
  • Ensure that all new jobs created are unionized
  • Offer universal healthcare and affordable housing to all citizens

The resolution unanimously offered by Senate Democrats, by contrast, seeks to:

  • Acknowledge the scientific consensus concerning role of human beings in affecting climate change over the last 100 years
  • Lay out a path for Congress to immediately address the role of humans in affecting climate change


Policy Analysis
The policy proposals offered up by the new and old guards of the Democratic Party could not be more different. One seeking to wholly overturn the current US economic and social system, the other seeking to promise to address, at least, that climate change exists in the near future. Such a stark contrast has led many outlets to float the idea that the party is bitterly divided. The different proposals, however, could well be a coordinated effort by the party to establish the base minimum and maximum starting points on climate policy negotiations, as they prepare to challenge Trump’s presidency in 2020.

In its current form, Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution would be sure to fail in the Senate, if not the Congress, as its primary objectives wander far from the domain of climate science. Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution is equally aimed at addressing grievances about the state of “frontline and vulnerable communities” as it is at addressing climate change. Hence, the “New Deal” in Green New Deal. The list of who, exactly, makes up frontline and vulnerable communities is long: “Indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.”

Such a list, so broad as to be nearly untenable as a category, is certainly one reason for the criticism being raised against the resolution. And it is likely that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez will continue to be accused of pandering to her constituents by padding the resolution with an openly diversity-driven agenda by her critics, as well as lauded for it by her supporters. Regardless of which side opinions fall on the matter, its ambiguity is likely to ensure its characterization as a fugue dream of the radical left.

The terse plan of Senate Democrats led by Sen. Tom Carper, on the other hand, which would only commit efforts to acknowledging the role of human activity in climate change and committing the nation to action on the issue would likely be an easy win. The resolution, which is still a work-in-progress, carries none of the baggage of including frontline and vulnerable communities, and does not bog the goals of clean energy down in what many might view as identity politics, and is likely to be seen as the choice of moderate realists.

If the opposing resolutions are an effort to plot out the boundaries of future climate talks, then the Democrats will certainly be aiming for a middle-of-the-road resolution before the 2020 elections. What form that resolution will take remains to be seen, but it is important to recognize that neither Ocasio-Cortez’ resolution, nor that of the Senate, include a single mention of how such a deal would protect workers currently in dirty industries such as coal, or offer re-training for them.

Engagement Resources

This brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST environmental policy analyst Andrew Thornebrooke. Contact: contact@thornebrooke.com

Supreme Court Greatly Limits Controversial Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws

Supreme Court Greatly Limits Controversial Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws

Brief #78—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
Tyson Timbs of Indiana was arrested for selling drugs to an undercover officer. The value of the drugs sold was just under $400. Mr. Timbs eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to house arrest, five years of probation and fined $1,200. Mr. Timbs paid the fine. However, the State of Indiana, relying on the state forfeiture law, confiscated Mr. Timbs $42,000 Land Rover vehicle saying that the car was used to transport the drugs which subjected it to confiscation by the state. Mr. Timbs filed suit against the state arguing that the confiscation was a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. Mr. Timbs won at the trial court and Indiana Court of Appeals level. However, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed and the case was eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court heard the case and decided unanimously that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to state actions and sent the case back down to be heard again; thereby letting states continue to use civil asset forfeiture laws but likely with different motivations after this case. LEARN MORE

Analysis
While the case decided at the Supreme Court is focused on the constitutional issues of the Eighth Amendment, the bigger question is the future of civil asset forfeiture laws in the United States. Civil asset forfeiture is controversial because the basic framework of the law permits law enforcement officers to take property if they suspect the property was used to commit a crime. Property owners do not have to be charged or convicted of a crime for the officers to take the property. There is a great danger in having this kind of scheme because it allows persons to be deprived of property without any legal safeguards to ensure that the taking is warranted. Yet, many states have civil asset forfeiture laws on the books because they want to use the proceeds of a crime and turn it around and maybe do something positive with the property. However, this rationale has been skewed because some states now permit the assets to be given to law enforcement agencies to help fund their departments. This creates a warped incentive for law enforcement departments who can simply decide to take what they “suspect” is property used in a crime and have it used as funding for their departments. This in turn leads to increasingly excessive takings of property of defendants.

Defendants are in a tough spot here because some states have required that defendants prove they have not committed a crime in order to get their property back. This is contrary to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Not only that but because defendants have to prove that they did not commit a crime they are deprived of the use of their property, such as a car in Mr. Timbs case, for the time it takes to prove in a court of law that they are not guilty of the crime, for sometimes months and even years. In the context of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines, this shows that under civil asset forfeiture laws defendants are being punished far out of proportion of what routine punishments would have been had the defendants even been convicted of a crime. Some defendants are never even charged let alone convicted and they still have to go to court to prove their innocence. If a defendant is ordered to pay a fine in accordance with the state law governing their crime, then the loss of their property seized is simply additional punishment added on top of what the state law requires. There is simply no regard to having punishments meted out in proportion to the crime committed. Taking Mr. Timbs $42,000 Land Rover in addition to a $1,200 fine for a $400 drug sale is clearly excessive. While civil asset forfeiture laws were not outright banned by the Supreme Court case it is clear that if these state programs are to have any usefulness going forward it is going to have to abide by the constitutional limits and limit the takings and keeping of defendants property to a reasonable and proportional limit. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.

Trumpian Economic Policies Likely a Factor in Growing Bipartisan Support for ‘Tax-the-rich’ Policies

Trumpian Economic Policies Likely a Factor in Growing Bipartisan Support for ‘Tax-the-rich’ Policies

Brief #34—Economics


Policy Summary
As  President Trump continues his focus on securing funding for his border wall by any means necessary, some of the most influential democrats are working around the clock to help curb the damage caused by his policies by way of imposing new tax policies targeted at  the nation’s economic elite.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has discussed the prospect of returning to a marginal income tax of 70-percent while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wants to impose an increased wealth tax of 2-percent on households whose net worth exceeds $50 million which would be raised to 3-percent for those with a net worth over $1 billion. Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a plan would lower the estate tax exemption that American millionaires enjoy to the level it was at in 2007, a policy GOP members have dubbed the “death tax.” In addition, Sander’s plan includes an increase in the tax rate to a maximum of 65 percent for estates with a worth exceeding $1 billion. The estate tax has long been a focus for Sen. Sanders. His stance on taxing the estate’s of this country’s top 0.2 percent recently drew comparisons to Republican president Theodore Roosevelt’s iconic “New Nationalism” speech of August 31st, 1910.

The idea of taxing the wealthy is hardly a new concept. It has long been floated by democratic political leaders and talking heads, particularly in times of economic distress. In contrast conservatives have clung to the notion that increasing taxes on America’s wealthiest will hinder economic growth. The anti tax rhetoric that has become a staple of the modern Republican party’s economic agenda gained considerable momentum during the 1980’s when President Ronald Reagan began pushing the narrative that corporate tax cuts would spur economic growth. To his way of thinking, slashing taxes for corporations would allow them to expand and hire more workers, thereby creating wage growth for the middle and working classes and spurring organic economic growth that would allow these tax cuts to pay for themselves. Unfortunately, when this methodology proved faulty, Reagan was forced to raise taxes in other areas, ultimately a greater cost for the very people he and claimed that the tax cuts would benefit.

Analysis
One of the primary concerns regarding these policies built around taxing the economic elite so far has been the effect it will have on voters. According to Brookings Institution’s Vanessa Williamson, though, these policies have faired fairly well with voters on both sides fo the aisle. As she states “Recent surveys confirm that there is remarkably bipartisan public appetite for the Democrats’ new proposals.”

It is hardly surprising that such policies would quickly garner support among Democratic voters, particularly with the way that the party has moved since Trump rose to power. Candidates such as Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, whose rise in stature in the public eye has been helped by their steadfast focus on reducing economic inequality, have shaped the party and inspired a generation of voters who seem angry about the growing wealth divide that has only been aided by Trump’s economic policies. It should also be noted, though, that many conservative voters in rural areas have felt the effects of Trump’s flawed economic maneuvers, such as the farmers of the midwest  and the factory workers of the rustbelt region and deep south who either lost their jobs or suffered considerable economic setbacks as a result of Trump’s tariff policies. Those voters have perhaps even more cause to be angry and to at least be open to the possibility of new policies that can help bridge the wealth divide.

On the subject of young voters, though, we should also not forget the millennial and iGen voters who will be playing a key part in the next presidential election. They won’t be looking at tax policies through the same lense as the generations of their parents and grandparents. These voters, for the most part, were never exposed to the mentality of Cold War era America when Reaganomics reigned supreme, an ideology built on pillars of anti-tax policies. These voters were shaped by the ideologies of thinkers such as Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and  Warren who have advocated passionately for reform and regulation regarding the world of high finance.

Politicians and business leaders on the right will likely continue their strong pushback against any talk of raising taxes for the wealthy, claiming such policies would hinder economic growth. A However there is much evidence that so-called a study by the However, there is much evidence that so called “trickle-down” economics does not work, including a recent  a study from the Economic Policy Institute,

Democrats are not likely to stop pushing the narrative that corporations and our nation’s economic elite must be taxed and they aren’t likely to lose supporters over it. Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing to justify his tax cuts for the wealthy. If there were ever a truly opportune time to campaign for a tax on wealth in America this is it.

Resistance Resources:

  • The Economic Policy Institute is an economic policy think tank and conducts research and analysis on economic policies and proposals.
  • The Tax Policy Center is a nonpartisan think tank that conducts research and analysis on matters involving tax, budget and social policy.
  • The Brookings Institution is a a non-profit research organization dedicated to providing in-depth research on social policies.

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: contact Sam@usresistnews.org

Donate

Photo by NeONBRAND

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest