JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump’s Impeachment Investigation Gets Off to a Fast Start
The Corruption Blog: A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration
Historic Decision Handed Down on Digital Bias From The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); Discrimination
Brief #100—Economics
By Rod Maggay
Asylum Cooperation Agreement: What it Entails in Practice
Brief #81—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Purdue Pharmaceuticals Turbulent Dealings with the Opioid Crisis
Brief #62—Health
By Taylor J Smith
The Administration Joins Others in Concern Regarding E-Cigarettes and Vaping
Brief #63—Healthcare
By Taylor J Smith
Income Inequality at Highest Since Records Kept
Brief #52—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Proposes Six Anti-Poverty Bills for a “A Just Society” Program
Brief #51—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Trump’s Impeachment has Kicked Off. Here’s What You Can Expect
The Corruption Blog: A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Trump’s Middle East Fiasco: Enter Iran
Brief #70—Foreign Policy
By Erin Mayer
Federal Judge Upholds For Profit Colleges Student Loan Forgiveness Program
Brief #28—Education
Summary
This past Tuesday, students rejoiced, nationwide, as the courts cleared the way for an Obama-era policy making it easier for individuals who have been scammed by for-profit universities and colleges to have student loans forgiven. The parameter, known as borrower defense, was designed to help student-loan debtors. It has been subject to numerous delays by the Trump Administration and conservatives, through years of litigation.
Now, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is required to implement a regulation, which she has fought to rescind, as she believes it unnecessarily allows students to free themselves of what have become insurmountable educational loans. She has gone on to say, the regulation was unfair to taxpayers as it made releasing loans too forgiving for the borrower.
The statute was originally expected to come into effect on July 2017, but DeVos suspended the deadline, while she attempted to develop an opposing regulation. However, last month, US District Judge Randolph Moss declared that DeVos’ postponement was unlawful. Judge Moss also turned down an appeal submitted by an organization representing for-profit colleges in California, to continue to delay the rule, therefore allowing student borrower defenses to come into play. On Friday, the Department of Education said it would not pursue further delays.
Analysis
With the Obama-era regulation at hand, a more obtainable path has been laid whereby defrauded students can have their federal student loans annulled. Students who feel they have been duped by false advertisements, such as employment rates following graduation statistics will have a legal voice. Furthermore students whose educational institutions have shut their doors while still enrolled will be entitled to an immediate release of their debt. Additionally, higher colleges and universities that accept federal funding can no longer force students to waive class actions lawsuits or manipulate them into arbitration.
DeVos has been rightfully criticized far and wide by both consumer organizations and democrats for choosing to put students in the back seat over for-profit universities. The ruling also symbolizes a noteworthy stumble for DeVos, who has made decontrolling for-profit colleges a weighty precedence. This is alarming, considering the federal government nearly has a monopoly over the annual $100 billion student loan market. The future regulations and rules in regards to how the Trump administration will handle fraud and other debacles, for example, hang in the balance now. Particularly since thus far over 160,000 individuals have petitioned that their college defrauded them. A large majority of these complaints originated from the nearly 7,000 for-profit institutions found coast-to-coast. As many have contended, this issue hits close to home since it was just this past April a judge finalized a $25 million settlement for students who claimed they were defrauded by Trump University, issuing an overall 90% tuition refund.
US District Judge Randolph Moss’ recent decision means that the borrower defense rule would come into effect around July of 2020, leaving many liberals and pro-higher education organizations with a feeling of accomplishment for now but whether the current administration will retaliate or implement this ruling continues to leave us with a feeling of unrest.
Resistance Resources
- Student Debt Crisis is a people-powered advocacy organization committed to making education free and saving families from the crushing burden of student debt: https://www.studentdebtcrisis.org/
- RISE is a group of student advocates fighting for free college in California. Public colleges and universities were free in California for more than 100 years. Join us in working to restore that promise. https://www.carise.org/
- The Project on Predatory Student Lending was formed in 2012 to combat the massive fraud that was being perpetrated against students and taxpayers by for-profit colleges. They represent thousands of former students across the country and litigate landmark cases against the predatory for-profit college industry. http://www.legalservicescenter.org
- Higher Ed, Not Debt is a multiyear campaign of dozens of organizations dedicated to tackling the crippling and ever-growing issue of student loan debt in America. Higher Ed, Not Debt provides support to borrowers currently paying off the existing $1.4 trillion of debt. They also address the causes of declining affordability and quality, including changes to state funding and financial aid policies. https://www.higherednotdebt.org/
- The U.S. PIRG Higher Education Project is working to keep loans affordable, increase grant aid to students, such as the Pell Grants, and to make textbooks more affordable. You can donate to the project here: https://www.uspirg.org/issues/usp/make-higher-education-affordable
This Brief was posted by USRRESIST NEWS Analyst Erin Mayer: Contact: erin@usresistnews.org
Photo by Good Free Photos
What is Happening to the Environmental Protection Agency?
Brief #44—Environment
Policy Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is changing shape. In the last week, the EPA has decided to change its rules on how it uses scientific studies, effectively deregulating public exposure to harmful toxins. Meanwhile, the Agency has announced that it will liquidate a key scientific review panel of 20 experts, in order to make room for a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). The panel of experts previously advised on particulate matter in the atmosphere, and out of the five new nominees to the CASAC, only one is a scientist. And the rest of the nominees are reported to have fairly anti-science perspectives. More still, the EPA’s director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection was suspended last month for reasons that have yet to be disclosed to her. The director views her suspension as an attack on children’s health, saying, “my sense is that the government has absolutely no intention of taking any action toward seriously changing lead in children’s environments…It basically means that our kids will continue to be poisoned. It basically means that kids are disposable, they don’t matter.”
Analysis
In the wake of Hurricane Michael, one of the most devastating hurricanes to have pummeled the Florida coastline thus far, President Trump went on 60 Minutes to discuss climate change. In the interview the president said that he no longer thinks of climate change as a “hoax” but is unsure if it is manmade and alleged that scientists “have a very big political agenda.” The magnitude of such allegations is large, given the disarray and anti-science bureaucratic changes taking place within the EPA. And the GOP is now positioning itself as aggressively anti-environment, recently coming down on an EPA provision that protects water, arguing that it makes it too easy to “stop fossil fuel production in some states.” The warning signs are now blaring louder for many Americans, as the GOP dismissed the recent IPCC report regarding the fate of the planet, with Trunp even going so far as to say that the climate is currently “fabulous.” It is unclear how much restructuring the EPA will face under the supervision of former coal-lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, but given the GOP’s environmental record, the fate of the EPA looks grim.
Engagement Resources
- Save the US EPA: National campaign that was started by the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238 in order to stop the dissolution of the EPA.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Photo by <a style=”background-color:black;color:white;text-decoration:none;padding:4px 6px;font-family:-apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "San Francisco", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Ubuntu, Roboto, Noto, "Segoe UI", Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.2;display:inline-block;border-radius:3px” href=”https://unsplash.com/@tchompalov?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=photographer-credit&utm_content=creditBadge” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer” title=”Download free do whatever you want high-resolution photos from Vlad Tchompalov”><span style=”display:inline-block;padding:2px 3px”><svg xmlns=”http://www.w3.org/2000/svg” style=”height:12px;width:auto;position:relative;vertical-align:middle;top:-1px;fill:white” viewBox=”0 0 32 32″><title>unsplash-logo</title><path d=”M20.8 18.1c0 2.7-2.2 4.8-4.8 4.8s-4.8-2.1-4.8-4.8c0-2.7 2.2-4.8 4.8-4.8 2.7.1 4.8 2.2 4.8 4.8zm11.2-7.4v14.9c0 2.3-1.9 4.3-4.3 4.3h-23.4c-2.4 0-4.3-1.9-4.3-4.3v-15c0-2.3 1.9-4.3 4.3-4.3h3.7l.8-2.3c.4-1.1 1.7-2 2.9-2h8.6c1.2 0 2.5.9 2.9 2l.8 2.4h3.7c2.4 0 4.3 1.9 4.3 4.3zm-8.6 7.5c0-4.1-3.3-7.5-7.5-7.5-4.1 0-7.5 3.4-7.5 7.5s3.3 7.5 7.5 7.5c4.2-.1 7.5-3.4 7.5-7.5z”></path></svg></span><span style=”display:inline-block;padding:2px 3px”>Vlad Tchompalov</span></a>
Voter Suppression Accusations Takes Center Stage In 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial Race
Brief #67—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On October 11, 2018, a federal lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in Georgia to prevent the “exact match” protocol used by the Elections Division of the Georgia Secretary of State Office, which organizes and oversees all election activity in the state. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of civil rights organizations including the NAACP and a number of Asian – American and Latino groups. The lawsuit was prompted by a report from the Associated Press that approximately 53,000 voting registrations in the state were “pending” because of the “exact match” policy. That policy can deny an eligible voter’s voter registration application if any personal information in the application does not match exactly the voter’s personal information when cross – checked with information in motor vehicle and Social Security databases. An analysis by the Associated Press found that nearly 70% of those pending registrations were from Black voters while 80.15% of the registrations were from Black, Latino and Asian – American voters. The Georgia Secretary of State overseeing the Elections Division is Mr. Brian Kemp who is a white man currently running for Governor of Georgia in the upcoming 2018 election. His opponent is Ms. Stacey Abrams, an African – American woman looking to become the first African – American female governor in United States history. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: The “exact match” protocol is a controversial voter verification technique but with the upcoming 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia the flaws of the policy has been magnified even more because of the racial background of the election. The potential to bar nearly 53,000 eligible voters from casting a vote in the upcoming elections is disturbing enough on its face. But when the Associated Press’s analysis of the 53,000 “pending” voter registrations revealed that 80.15% of the applications were from people of color, the discussion took on a racial element and raised questions of voter suppression of minority voters especially considering that minority voters traditionally vote Democratic. (Stacey Abrams is a Democrat while Brian Kemp is a Republican).
The problem with the “exact match” protocol is that any small or minor error can prevent the voter from successfully registering to vote. A missing hyphen, a couple of transposed numbers in an address or phone number or a data entry error by a voting official can bar a registration application. This system is not reliable because of errors that can be made that are not under the control of the voter – data entry errors from the official, errors in a third – party database (DMV or Social Security offices) or name, phone number or address changes (marriage/maiden names, new cell phone, students with numerous addresses in college). It is a system that Georgia had implemented once before they were sued and agreed to make changes in a settlement agreement. However, Georgia went ahead and re-enacted a different version of the same law with the only major change being how many months a voter has to correct their application.
Due to the Georgia governor’s race being between a white male and an African – American female and the “pending” voter registrations affecting mostly people of color, it is hard to ignore the accusations that the Georgia GOP are trying to suppress minority votes and gain an unfair advantage. Those accusations seem to gain more traction with Republican candidate Brian Kemp in charge of the elections as Secretary of State while simultaneously running for governor, which raises a serious conflict of interest issue. There was also the bizarre incident where Georgia Republican Senator David Perdue grabbed a college student’s cell phone when asked a question about voter identification policies which goes on to contribute to the image of the GOP being hostile to efforts to encourage everyone to vote. With the re-enactment of the controversial “exact match” policy, conflict of interest issue with one of the candidates and the racial elements of the election, it is becoming more difficult to see if the GOP has any real interest in tearing down barriers that permits every eligible voter to cast his or her ballot without regard to race or partisan politics. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s infopage on voter suppression issues.
- Brennan Center for Justice – infopage on voting suppression issues in Georgia.
- Congressional Voting Rights Caucus – group comprised of Members of Congress that seek to inform and educate citizens on voter suppression tactics and to advance legislation to prevent those tactics.
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
Saudi Dissident Journalist Murdered in Istanbul
Brief #51—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
Last February, Senators Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Mike Lee introduced legislation to invoke the 1973 War Powers act in order to withdraw the United States from Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen – a war which has led to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with three quarters of its 28 million citizens in need of humanitarian aid, 8 million in starvation, and the worst cholera outbreak in modern history. The measure, which hoped to end American provision of arms and intelligence to the Saudi war effort, was defeated in a bipartisan show of support for one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East. Now, eight months later, that support has finally begun to erode with what seems to be the shocking assassination of a world renowned Saudi journalist.
Jamal Khashoggi built a reputation for himself covering Afghanistan, Algeria, and Kuwait in the 1980’s and 90’s for the Al-Hayat newspaper. He formed a relationship with Osama Bin Laden while covering the jihad against the Soviets, and attempted to convince him to pursue peace during the 90’s before cutting ties after September 11th. While often seen as a sort of de facto spokesperson for the Saudi Arabian royal family, and a useful source for Western insight into the relatively closed political society of Saudi Arabia, he periodically ran into trouble for his reformist views. In 2003 he was fired from his editorial position at the Al-Watan newspaper, which some blamed on his editorial policy. Later reinstated, he was fired again in 2010 for “pushing the boundaries of debate within Saudi society” according to his website. His dissent grew stronger during the rise of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) in 2017, when he criticized the hypocrisy of those who “vigorously applaud social reforms and heap praise on the crown prince” but ignore the continued authoritarian policies as well as the history of those who have fought them for years. The 33 year old MBS has received lavish praise for his modest reforms, including allowing women to drive, all the while cracking down on women’s rights activists. His sudden rise to power included the arrests of hundreds of clerics, business leaders, and royal family members who stood in his way.
Fearing being targeted himself, Khashoggi moved to Washington D.C. in 2017 and entered a role as an opinions editor at the Washington Post. He wrote disparagingly of MBS’s regime, beginning with an article titled “Saudi Arabia Wasn’t Always This Repressive. Now it’s unbearable”. Last month Khashoggi published an article entitled “Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Must Restore Dignity to His Country – by Ending Yemen’s Cruel War”. By this time he had become estranged from his Saudi wife and had become engaged to a Turkish researcher. On October 2nd, he flew to Istanbul to obtain documents from the Saudi consulate which would verify his divorce and allow him to proceed with his wedding which was planned for the next day. His fiancee waited outside the consulate but he never left it. Four days later, the Turkish security announced that they believed he had been killed
Khashoggi’s disappearance and presumptive murder have led to a rift between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US political establishment, and Trump. The Turkish government has reported that they possess tapes proving that Khashoggi was interrogated, tortured, and killed by a team of 15 Saudis who stayed in Turkey for a brief period and then left. While Turkish President Erdogan has refused to explicitly call for the help of the US, in a country which was economically destabilized by Trump’s recent tariffs, he has refused to take action himself and a Turkish official anonymously conceded that “At the end of the day, the U.S. has to take action.”
Republican lawmakers have begun criticizing the Saudi Regime, with Mitch McConnell calling US-Saudi relations “not great” and Lindsey Graham stating that MBS has “got to go”. Trump has appeared far less concerned with Khashoggi’s death, telling reporters after speaking to Saudi King Salman “it sounded to me like maybe these could have been rogue killers – who knows.” He later said “They’re spending $110 billion purchasing military equipment and other things. If we don’t sell it to them, they’ll say, ‘Well, thank you very much. We’ll buy it from Russia.’ ” Trump also took to Twitter to lie that he did not have any personal financial interests in Saudi Arabia. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with MBS on Tuesday to “reiterate the President’s concern”, where they “agreed on the importance of a thorough, transparent, and timely investigation”. Some American CEO’s have backed out of next week’s Future Investment Initiative conference, a major part of MBS’ plan to diversify the Saudi economy away from oil. At this time, US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reportedly still plants to attend. Saudi Arabia is reportedly working on a report which will conclude that Khashoggi was killed in a botched interrogation, without clearance from MBS.
Analysis
Saudi Arabia has long been a strong ally of the United States, only ever receiving minor admonishments for its horrific human rights record. The country serves as a powerful opponent of Iran, a military outpost, and a crucial source of oil. In the past, Saudi Arabia also helped suppress Communist influence in Afghanistan and fought alongside the US in the Gulf War. The fact that MBS has presumably overstepped so far as to murder a high profile journalist on foreign soil suggests that he has overestimated the blank check for terror the US has given him. Khashoggi was not a vital political enemy. His colleagues described him as a moderate reformer rather than revolutionary, a “loyal Saudi” who still hoped to return to his homeland. His editorials mostly fell on deaf ears in a country spoiled by Saudi military spending. MBS’ recklessness may doom him here, as some in Washington seem eager to replace him with a more cautious leader, one willing to continue to support US interests in the region without stirring up this sort of attention.
Engagement Resources
- Yemen Peace Project – An organization dedicated to promoting self determination for the people of Yemen
- International Federation for Human Rights – Is a federation of 184 organizations working to defend human rights as outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Colin Shanley; Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
Paul Manafort Cooperates and Trump Reverses Decision to Declassify Documents
Earlier this month, Paul Manafort agreed to cooperate fully with the Mueller investigation. As part of a plea agreement following his trial on numerous charges, Manafort has forfeited over 46 million dollars in assets, including several homes in New York City and the Hamptons, as well as several bank accounts. As part of this agreement, Manafort will not appeal the charges from his previous trial which stemmed from allegations of tax fraud and other charges. Only a few days prior, Manafort’s legal team had met with members of Trump’s legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, leading to speculation that Manafort would remain close-lipped about any information he had related to the ongoing investigation.
In response to the announcement that Manafort would cooperate, Giuliana released a statement saying “Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign. The reason: the president did nothing wrong and Paul Manafort will tell the truth.” Interestingly, this statement was soon after revised to remove the phrase “the president did nothing wrong.” While it certainly does not mean anything on its own, it is interesting to consider why the Trump team would take the time to edit this statement so carefully when the president himself is often fast and reckless in his own tweets. It would seem that as the investigation gains speed and midterms draw near, even the suggestion that the president is capable of doing something wrong may further erode both the president’s approval numbers and the slim majority that his party currently enjoys in congress.
Perhaps in retaliation, or perhaps in a desperate attempt to derail the investigation, president Trump ordered documents related to the investigation declassified in a move that riled politicians on both sides of the spectrum. Immediately following this announcement, Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and outspoken advocate for the Mueller investigation, tweeted: “The President shouldn’t be declassifying documents in order to undermine an investigation into his campaign or pursue vendettas against political enemies. He especially shouldn’t be releasing documents with the potential to reveal intelligence sources.” A few days later, on September 21st, Tump backed-off of the order, tweeting that “I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release.” Trump had received criticism from numerous intelligence officials requesting that he not move forward with the declassification of the documents, “warning that sources and methods could be revealed”. Britain also voiced serious objections to the declassification of investigation documents, concerned that “The material includes direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled a dossier alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
This Entry into USRN’s Russia Investigation blog was submitted by Thomas Wellesley: contact Tom@usresistnews.org
Where are America’s Child Prisoners Now?
Brief #55—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
Nearly 13,000 children are currently being held across the US; more than 200 children in detention are deemed ineligible for reunification or release and children as young as 2 years old are appearing in court for their immigration hearings. In case that was not jarring enough, there have been reports of physical, psychological and sexual abuse accusations in the very facilities meant to house and protect these children.
The large number of migrant children being held in detention has increased the amount of young children appearing in court to determine whether they will be (1) deported (2) reunited with their parents or (3) granted asylum. As extensive background checks (on any adult claiming a detained child) ensue, many children are appearing in court by themselves. Unfortunately, some children have to show up to court multiple times before they can be reunited with a relative. Shelters are filling up, unable to house the growing number of detained children who were only supposed to be held for the short term.
But what of the children that remain ununited? They are moved to a government created tent city in Tornillo, Texas – a tiny, farming town near the Texas-Mexico border – where an anticipated 3,800 children will be housed. Under Obama, children were temporarily housed in tent camps during the height of the unaccompanied migrant minors crisis in 2014; this is not the predicament the Trump Administration is facing. Trump is making this a consistent practice and steadily increasing the number of children detained over the past year, despite decreased illegal border crossings. Through the consistent crackdowns on all types of immigration, the world has watched in horror as the US has displayed a visibly broken immigration system.
Analysis
For many of the children deemed ineligible for reunification or release, it is due to complications with the family member or relative they would be released to. The Trump Administration had enforced extensive and lengthy measures to assure proper background checks, explicitly to weed out adults with criminal and/or abusive pasts from being reunited/claiming vulnerable detained children. Yet ironically, in facilities intended to keep such children safe and away from harm, caretakers are in fact inflicting the assault that is sure to stick with them for years beyond their release and immigration cases.
For example In the case of abuse accusations, 3 children were physically abused in a shelter in Arizona that led to the closure of that shelter. In a different Phoenix area shelter for immigrant children a youth care worker was convicted of sexually abusing 7 teenage boys; and at another facility accusations of a 14 year old girl being molested. Not only are these children traumatically separated from their families, but in a place that is supposed to keep them safe during limbo, they are violated, disrespected and dehumanized.
If the US continues to treat children like prisoners, their health – mental, physical and emotional – will be at stake. Children traumatically separated from their parents are more likely to have emotional problems throughout their lives and damaged memories. The question is when will these vulnerable children begin to fall severely ill or die due to these conditions, before the Trump Administration finds their humanity?
Resistance 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.
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
- Families Belong Together: an organization that has dedicated its mission to ensuring families are together, especially reuniting children with their families. This organization contributes all its efforts to counter Trump’s separation of children from their families.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by Charlein Gracia
When Sexual Assault Survivors Demanded To Be Heard The U.S. Senate Deliberately Chose To Ignore
Brief #66—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
President Donald J. Trump, on July 9, 2018, nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy had announced his intention to retire after thirty years on the court. The Senate Judiciary Committee commenced hearings on September 3, 2018. The hearings later took a dramatic turn when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward to testify that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when both students were in high school in the early 1980’s. Dr. Ford stated that she was 100% certain her assailant was Judge Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusations and stated, “I swear to God” that he did not assault Dr. Ford or anyone else. Prior to the scheduled end of the hearings, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked the White House to ask the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation into the allegations made by Dr. Ford and other women who came forward with similar stories of sexual assault at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh. (The FBI had already conducted a standard background check of Judge Kavanaugh after he was nominated). President Trump then ordered an additional investigation that would focus only on the sexual assault allegations. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
When Senator Flake asked the White House to direct the FBI to conduct an investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh there was a sense that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court was in peril and might ultimately be defeated. However, the parameters and limited scope of the supplemental investigation have instead raised the issue of whether the Senate Judiciary Committee and other members of the Senate were truly interested in discovering the facts of the allegations. When Dr. Ford came forward with her allegations many of her supporters rallied to her side with variations of the phrase “I Believe Her.” This phrase is significant because in the context of a sexual assault allegation, victims were often portrayed as fabricating their story, exaggerating what happened and of being crazy and/or mentally unstable. It was a technique used to minimize or diminish what happened with the result that the perpetrator would get away with doing what they did to the victim. Listening and believing a sexual assault survivor or victim has become a central point in the national discussion on sexual assault today.
But when the supplemental investigation undertaken by the FBI was limited it illustrated that lawmakers at the highest levels of government may have been willing to put aside the concerns of those sexual assault survivors and their supporters for political purposes. If a central concern of these groups is in having victims of sexual assault be heard and believed and not be dismissed so easily, then the decision to limit the supplemental investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh was an unfortunate decision. The investigation did not interview Dr. Ford or look into her list of witnesses that she claimed could have corroborated her story. The FBI did not interview Julie Swetnick, another accuser who alleged she was assaulted in a sworn affidavit. Nor were other classmates of Judge Kavanaugh in high school and at Yale were allowed to testify to Judge Kavanaugh’s heavy drinking habits and tendency to black out from too much alcohol. This testimony could have gone far in establishing that Judge Kavanaugh may have been untruthful in his Senate committee testimony and could have helped to establish the truth of the allegations of the accusers. Instead, the Senators of the committee blatantly ignored the demands of sexual assault survivors to be heard and allowed an investigation probe in a way that appeared that the result was pre-determined. The investigation lent the impression that the Senators did not want to find anything against Judge Kavanaugh. It was not a thorough investigation but was instead a sham and did a great disservice to sexual assault survivors across America who are still struggling to have their stories heard. If lawmakers at the highest level showed that they did not want to listen to sexual assault survivors for a confirmation hearing, then how can these survivors believe that the government will help them change the culture and start believing women in these types of incidents? LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Start By Believing – website of global campaign to transform way to respond to sexual assaults.
- Break The Cycle – blogpost from non – profit group on the issues with reporting sexual assault incidents.
- National Task Force To End Sexual And Domestic Violence (NTF) – task force focused on developing and implementing public policies that address sexual assault 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 rawpixel
Rapidly Climbing National Debt Poised to Hinder Growth of an Already Vulnerable Economy
Brief #26—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump frequently touted the importance of balancing the national budget, promising to do exactly that.
The rally cry of “fix the debt” is hardly a new campaign bedrock for Republican party members. In the years since the National Debt Clock was placed on a New York City building in 1989 by real estate mogul Seymour Durst, GOP leaders have often used it as a tool in their campaigns. During the 2012 Presidential Election, Republican candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan made use of a fake national debt clock to rouse voters. Donald Trump seemed be prioritizing the national debt problem during his campaign, promising to eliminate the budget deficit.
Like so many of the promises he made before being elected, though, no progress has been made in the area of reducing the debt or balancing the budget. Rather, we have seen the opposite outcome take shape. In the past fiscal year, the Trump administration has added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. A budget deficit is created when revenue is outpaced by government spending, a trend that has proven consistent for the U.S. Ultimately, such a trend will often lead to an increase in a country’s national debt, which occurs when a government borrows considerable funds to cover this deficit. Total gross debt today totals more than $21 trillion, coming out to roughly $65,000 for every citizen. When the National Debt Clock was erected, it was just below $3 trillion, which came out to $12,000 per person. It has been reported that by the end of 2018, the debt held by the public will have exceeded $127,000 per household.
All this adds up to an economic milestone. If things continue to progress in this way, the end of 2018 will see the U.S.’ debt held by individuals, financial, institutions, foreign countries and others reach a number greater than the debt held by all American households. This includes all debt from student loans, credit cards and mortgages. Analysts at J.P. Morgan have reported that such a phenomenon would be the first in modern history.
Analysis
When it comes to the national debt, it is common for economists to focus on the debt held by the public.
This makes sense, as in the short-term, it is often easier to be concerned with the money that is owed to creditors by the U.S. government than the intergovernmental debt, which consists of funds owed to one government agency by another. While both parts of the national debt are important, the former effects the public more. In past times of sufficient economic growth, the government has found ways to reduce the national debt, as President Trump promised. His inability to do so, though, indicates that the economic growth he has touted so highly and claimed responsibility for is superficial and far from sustainable.
Many economists indicated the tax breaks that President Trump has given to those in the highest income bracket would give way to further fiscal problems. As recent events have showed us, all such predictions were correct. Despite the GOP claim that these tax breaks would increase spending by the private sector, that has not proven to be the case. Even before the tax breaks, though, most of the problems regarding the U.S. economy had more to do with revenue than spending, which holds true to this day. It should also be noted that this is not the first time tax cuts have proven problematic for the U.S. in matters regarding the national debt. During George W. Bush’s years in office, the tax cuts he implemented gave way to a spike in debt, as did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When further poor fiscal policies sent the U.S. into the Great Recession of 2009, the national debt increased even more.
All of this, combined with the Trump administration’s increased military spending has led the U.S. to a place of extreme economic vulnerability. Recent years have seen the U.S. government continue its cycle of borrowing money but no system of borrowing can be sustainable in the longer-term. When it comes to fiscal matters, borrowed money tends to amount to borrowed time. Ultimately, this will likely force the U.S government to consider scaling back safety-net programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While this approach is often favored by the Republicans, Democrats often seek to resolve monetary and budget related matters by increasing taxes on America’s wealthiest citizens and corporations. The people who will pay the price for the poorly designed fiscal policies of the Trump administration will likely depend on who holds office when the current debt bubble bursts.
The last time economists became concerned with a debt bubble, the U.S. saw the stock market crash and the Great Recession begin. The cost of debt is high for both investors and consumers and as a nation, we cannot to ignore it.
Resistance Resources:
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a progressive research organization dedicated to providing research on budget related matters and helping restore fiscal responsibility.
- The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is a public policy think tank that conducts research and analysis on economic policy related matters.
- The Center for American Progress is an independent research organization that provides research and analysis on economy related matters.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient. Contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by Ruth Enyedi
Bad News
Policy Summary
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) met this past week in order to discuss the global effects of climate change. According to the new reports, gathered from over 6,000 scientific papers with almost 100 authors from 40 different countries, new evidence suggests that the impacts of climate change at a 2 degree Celcius temperature change will be far worse than previously expected. As of now, climate change has warmed the planet at about 1 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels, and according to the IPCC, the climate cannot increase any more than 1.5 degree Celsius if we want to avoid catastrophe. The IPCC has made it specifically clear that the real challenge put forward by the report is to hold politicians, political systems and corporations accountable for their efforts to address climate change.
Analysis
Experts say that as of now, without drastic changes in corporate and political management, the climate will warm to 2 degrees Celcius, which would be far worse than what was previously predicted. With a 2 degree increase, scientists predicted that 99% of the world’s corals could wane, the Arctic could have ice-free summers at least once per decade (as opposed to once per century). Should it be possible to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the numbers of those at risk would still remain at several hundred million by 2050, but is a far better scenario than how many would be affected at a 2 degree rate of change. As a result, the IPCC, which is overseen by the UN, called for a $2.4 trillion fossil fuel shift, and requested putting high prices on carbon via high taxes or cap-and-trade programs. At the same time, US Economist William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research on the link between the economy and climate change, and his estimates of the costs and benefits of cutting emissions. Nordhaus has been outspoken about how the Trump administration has impaired the process to fight climate change, saying that, “It’s hard to be optimistic. And we’re actually going backward in the United States with the disastrous policies of the Trump administration.” This comes as deadly hurricanes like the ones that have just hit North Carolina and Florida have gotten extensive media attention, and the subject of climate change been overwhelmingly absent from its coverage.
Engagement Resources
- Climate Defense Project: Helps assign lawyers and legal aid to communities and campaigns fighting against climate change.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Trump Administration Reaches Compromise with Canada as NAFTA is Rebranded USMCA
Brief #25—Economy
Policy Summary
Almost one week ago, the events of an emerging US instigated trade war took an interesting turn as it was announced that the U.S. and Canada had settled on a compromise in their long-standing and complicated negotiations regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As previously reported, the U.S. reached an agreement with Mexico over a month ago. Canada made no immediate move to pander to President Trump’s proposed threats regarding auto manufacturing tariffs that could affect their economy. The negotiations on the part of the Trump administration, though, finally reached a breakthrough when Canadian officials accepted a counteroffer from the U.S. government to a detailed proposal that they had previously submitted.
This new trade pact that all three nations have reached will be called the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). As of now, the result seems to be that President Trump’s aggressive means of negotiating, by way of imposing tariffs and making threats aimed at scaring other nations into compromising, has worked to a small degree. One of the primary things that President Trump sought to gain from his attempts to strong-arm the Canadian government was access to their dairy market. This new trade pact grants him a modest opening, similar to the one his negotiations granted the U.S. in the Mexican auto manufacturing market. All this leads us to the glaring notion that as far as policy goes, all that he has truly accomplished is gaining what Brookings Institute’s Geoffrey Gertz describes as “modest concessions.” It should not be forgotten that all three nations have enjoyed the substantial economic benefits that stemmed from NAFTA. As of now, it cannot be determined whether all such benefits will continue USMCA, a trade pact that has so far swung in the direction that the U.S. wanted and away from the directions that Mexico and Canada initially hoped it would.
Analysis
Apart from its new name, how will this new trade pact differ from NAFTA? Analysts have indicated that for the most part, the primary changes are on the surface. While the concessions on the parts of Mexico and Canada have resulted in rule-of-origin changes for the auto manufacturing industry and an increase in U.S. access to Canada’s dairy market, there aren’t likely to be any dramatic changes for the typical American consumer in their everyday life.
That is not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned about the possible long term effects of this deal. From a macro perspective, it is easy to see that there could easily be problems ahead that President Trump has not considered. While it is true that Canada and Mexico did take steps to cater to the demands of the U.S, it should be noted that both their economies depend considerably more upon the U.S. than the latter’s does on theirs. Mexican officials were likely to appease President Trump’s demands because they knew that being further alienated from U.S. markets could have significant effects on their nation’s economic system.
We should absolutely not take these instances as an indication that President Trump has been justified in his negotiation tactics and use of tariff policies. Through it all, he has been continuously running the risk of undermining his nation’s long-term interests and influence on a global scale. The U.S’s technique of exerting ‘soft power’ to convince other countries that their interests run parallel with America’s has worked well for the purpose of growing a global order based on open markets and mutual respect. Canada and Mexico could easily interpret the recent process of renegotiating and rebranding NAFTA as a sign it would be in their best interests to be less inviting of U.S. power as all three nations move forward. Other nations who have been watching these events play out will likely take heed of the same lesson–a nation that has treated two of its closest allies and trading partners badly will not hesitate to do the same to others. It will be significantly difficult for these policies not to undermine U.S. global influence, possibly throughout the years after President Trump has left office.
On the whole, it would appear as though the renegotiations that have led to the drafting of the USMCA can be classified partially as an exercise in rebranding and partially as a power grab on the part of President Trump. Despite his clear condemnations of NAFTA both on the campaign trail and after taking office, he has ended up with a deal that looks remarkably similar to what he once called “the worst trade deal in history.” While he has done everything in his power to rebrand the new deal as his own, most of changes do not differ that greatly from the NAFTA agreement, and according to many analysts, the means by which he went about it do not justify the end product.
The new trade pact has yet to be ratified, though, and will need congressional approval before being signed into law. The midterm elections are swiftly approaching and their results will likely have a significant effect on the signing of the USMCA. Congressional Democrats are unlikely to endorse such a deal and if more are elected, the result could easily swing in the direction against President Trump’s new trade deal..
Resistance Resources:
- The Institute for Policy Studies is a progressive think tank that conducts research on matters that include economic policy and economic justice.
- The Center for Economic and Policy Research is a non-profit research association that works to promote democratic debate on important economic and social matters.
- The World Economic Forum is a research foundation dedicated to engaging business and political leaders to help shape regional agendas, both reginal and global.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sam O’Brient: Contact sam@usresustnews.org
Photo by Hermes Rivera