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

 

Jobs01 e1489352304814
An Unconventional Approach to Gun Control

An Unconventional Approach to Gun Control

Brief #13—Gun Control

Policy Summary
While virtually all focus in the gun control debate revolves around the use, distribution, and availability of guns, California is now taking an unconventional approach to reduce gun violence. Instead of focusing on guns and their accessories, gun control advocates are looking to more closely regulate ammunition in hopes of chipping away at the growing gun epidemic in the United States.

Analysis
Although guns are the central narrative in the conversation to control gun violence, ammunition is widely available and faces virtually no regulation. Gun control advocates argue that without ammunition, guns are harmless.  In some states, they can even be sold in vending machines, at pharmacies, and in jewelry stores, according to The New York Times.

This lack of regulation is part of the problem and gives gun owners free range once a gun is obtained. Technically, federal law prohibits individuals who are banned from buying guns also from buying ammunition, but there are no efficient systems in place to uphold the regulations. Controlling access to ammunition is not a new idea, but one that has not been heavily enforced, giving lawmakers a chance to tighten regulation in hopes of reducing gun violence.

California is trying to change these lax practices by exploring the prohibition of online sales that allow unlicensed dealers to  ship bullets directly to the buyer and instead requiring that all ammunition  be shipped by licensed gun dealers. In addition, starting next July, California will require all ammunition sales to include purchaser point-of-purchase background checks.

Politicians in California hope that the tightened regulations on obtaining bullets will make guns less harmful and keep ammunition out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have access to a firearm. Critics of the policies say that these new regulations will make it more difficult and expensive for hunters, shooters, and lawful gun owners to obtain bullets. However, no set penalty  laws have been put in place, so burdens on these individuals are still hypothetical.

Engagement Resources

  • March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the  Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
  • Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
  • Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.


Contact This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org

Photo by DxL

Can’t Take the Heat?

Can’t Take the Heat?

Brief #40—Environment


Policy Summary
Summer in the northern hemisphere was brutal this year, and the indian summer continues to be so. Deadly heat waves struck Quebec, Sacramento and Tokyo between June to August of this year, all of which combined killed nearly 80 people and hospitalized thousands. More still, heat waves of unprecedented proportion were seen nearly globally. Climate experts say it is indisputable that the uptick in summer temperatures correlate with climate change, as temperatures this high haven’t been seen globally since the early 20th century, and before that the early 18th. And the fires that raged in Northern California this summer, which destroyed over half a million acres of land, is just another consequence of amped-up heat, too. The effects also devastate many disenfranchised communities in the United States, specifically, as elderly people–homeless and housed–struggle to combat elevated temperatures. Yet, the heat increase is just beginning, research suggests. A study released in Nature Communications anticipates that the planet will be at its “peak warm” over the next four years (at least), based on new evidence collected.

Analysis
It seems that stopping the escalating rise in heat is a nearly impossible task at this point, so the real analysis can be found in how societies will mitigate the change. Already, the effects are wide-sweeping. Schools in the Northeastern United States have started having “heat days,” an alternative to “snow days” in a climate-changed world. Many school districts throughout the Northeast are sad to have “inadequate cooling” or no air conditioning whatsoever, prompting classroom temperatures to be as high as 100 degrees. The unmanageable heat has made for impossible working conditions for both teachers and students, which has led to school closures. This, too, gives rise to the greater issue that millions of people worldwide still need air conditioning, and other cooling products, but that the use of these very tools can (and probably will) create huge problems for the planet. Because these products rely on electricity to be generated, and that energy often comes from fossil fuel, there is significant concern that the short term use of commodities like, air conditioning, will only perpetuate climate-addled issues further.

Still, civilians are imagining, and working hard to envision a less burdened future. Some are envisioning a “heat-proof city” which would be filled with vertical gardens, reflective roofs, water (misters) and architecture that utilizes dynamic shades. This sort of visionary thinking is also what has generated so much social justice activism. Last week, San Francisco hosted a Global Climate Action Summit, to raise awareness and generate change with regard to how climate change is affecting communities worldwide. And within that same week, tens of thousands of people in over 90 countries protested over the weekend, demanding an equitable transition to 100% clean energy. All movements were heavily focused in advocating for racial and economic justice. Nonetheless, Maeve Boeman of 350.org elucidated that, “We are up against huge obstacles and Donald Trump is a massive one. This is about being clear what we are asking for when the opportunity presents itself.”

Engagement Resources

  • Sustainable Energy for All: A nonprofit launched by a former United Nations secretary general in 2011, which aims to provide information about global access to energy.
  • 350.org: A global grassroots organization that is trying to hold government leaders accountable for climate change.

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org

Photo by Andrew Stutesman

Trump Administration Cuts Aid to Palestinian Refugees

Trump Administration Cuts Aid to Palestinian Refugees

Brief #49—Foreign Policy

Policy Summary
On August 24th, the Trump administration announced that over $200 million in aid intended for Palestinian refugees would be cut from the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Rather than directing funds through the Palestinian Authority, the UNRWA provides food subsidies, medical services, and youth programs directly to poor Palestinians. While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly opposed the cuts, Jared Kushner pushed for them as a way of “strengthening his negotiating hand when he introduces his long-awaited Middle East peace plan”. Trump agreed that the cuts were a way of forcing Palestinian leadership to come to the table and tweeted that Palestinians show “no appreciation or respect”. A State Department Spokesperson explained that while the US is “the most generous country in the world”, this aid spending “does not benefit the taxpayer”.

Analysis
The US is not the most generous country in the world. The majority of our taxpayer funded foreign aid goes towards controlling the destruction caused by our imperialistic foreign policy, and even then it is often, as in this scenario, then used as a leveraging tool for controlling opposition to US hegemony. Palestinians are crowded into a steadily vanishing territory within West Bank and the small open air prison that is the Gaza Strip. Surrounded by a US supported embargo, where even fishing too far off the coast triggers a military response, Palestinians have been forced to depend on the aid such as that previously provided by UNRWA. Starving them even thinner, as Trump and Kushner hope to do, will not lead to an amicable conclusion to the Israel-Palestinian crisis. It leaves Palestinians with few good options.  They can sell what little rights they still hold for a secure if impoverished future – one where the dream of self determination and sovereignty is compromised for an end to Israeli bombings, a lightening of the embargo, and a weakened position at a negotiation table dominated by Trump and the Israelies. Or they will be further driven to the conclusion that violent revolution is the only escape from a permanent apartheid state – possible ending any possibility of peace and justice in the region.

Resistant Resources

  • UN Relief and Works Agency – The UNRWA was founded in 1949 to support those Palestinians displaced by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights: The USCPR is an organization founded in 2001 with the mission of shifting US policy towards recognizing the human rights of Palestinians. You can donate on their website.

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Col,in Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org

Child Prisoners: An Update

Child Prisoners: An Update

Brief #52—Immigration

Policy Summary
After a chaotic year of many heartbreaking migration stories and tragedies, the Trump Administration seeks to continue such practices that have disturbed much of the general American public. The Administration is proposing to lift the court-imposed limit on how long it can hold children in immigration detention from 20 days to the duration of their immigration case. Federal Judge Gee who oversees the Flores Settlement had to recently reject a similar attempt by the administration to detain children in jail-like settings for more than 20 days.

The Flores Settlement is an agreement from 1997 that limits the length of time and conditions under which any US officials can detain immigrant children. Under the agreement, US officials are required to give children food, water, medical assistance in emergencies, toilets, sinks, temperature control, supervision and separation from unrelated adults (as much as possible). The decree was meant to be temporary until it could be codified into law, but has remained until present day. The Administration has argued that this settlement encouraged northern migration and for immigrants to bring children along in order to shield themselves from the threat of lengthy detention. Thus, Trump and officials have asked to pull out from the Flores Settlement entirely and replace it with regulations that would ‘honor’ its spirit and treat children with “dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.”

If the government is successful US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can run more family detention centers without the need for state licenses and more children will be kept in prison-like facilities while their immigration proceedings go on (can last up to a year). They also have plans to oversee new detention centers that could hold more than 12,000 immigrants and to hold children with their parents in ICE residential facilities rather than state licensed facilities.

Analysis
In regards to the Administration’s claims of the Flores Settlement encouraging northern migration with children as a buffer, there have actually been no records of this being an upward trend. Unauthorized crossings along the border with Mexico have actually sharply declined in the past 20 years. Many immigrant advocates are preaching that most migrants bring their children with them to escape poverty and/or violence, not as “bargaining chips to avoid detention.” Any logical member of civil society would assume parents would bring their children along wherever they are going, especially young children.

Another point of concern is the quality of these family detention centers even before the idea of extended stays were on the table. A toddler recently died of a respiratory infection after being released from a family center in Texas. Thus the mother filed a claim alleging negligent medical care within the facility. She is not a solo case, there have been many claims of children being returned to their parents in sub-par conditions, which makes one question the legitimacy and validity of Trump’s proposal that will further punish children and make prisoners out of toddlers.

Resistance Resources

  • The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
  • Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
  • 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.

This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.

Photo by Matteo Paganelli

As Chinese Import Tariffs Threaten Technology Sector, Trump Offers Manufacturing Proposal

As Chinese Import Tariffs Threaten Technology Sector, Trump Offers Manufacturing Proposal

Brief #24—Economics

Policy Summary
The Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese imported goods have been problematic for both U.S. manufacturers and consumers. These policies have been numerous, adding up to billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese manufactured goods that U.S. companies depend on being severely affected. They’ve also prompted China to implement retaliatory tariffs of their own. When President Trump threatened to add an additional $200 billion in tariffs on other Chinese imports, one of the U. S’s largest companies panicked.

On September 5th, Apple penned a letter to United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer voicing its concerns regarding the proposed tariffs. According to them, these further tariffs on imported Chinese goods will cause a significant increase in prices of products such as the Apple Watch, the Apple Pencil, and the Airpod headphones. Computing devices would also be affected, as would various chargers, cables, and adapters. Apple provided a detailed list of the goods and company operations that would be affected by these tariffs, going so far as to provide the exact tariff codes that accompany each category.

“Our concern with these tariffs is that the U.S. will be hardest hit, and that will result in lower U.S. growth and competitiveness and higher prices for U.S. consumers” the letter stated.

President Trump was quick to respond to Apple’s concerns with a proposed solution. He tweeted “Apple prices may increase because of the massive tariffs we may be imposing on China – but there is an easy solution where there would be ZERO tax, and indeed a tax incentive. Make your products in the United States instead of China. Start building new plants now. Exciting!”

As of now, Apple has issued no direct response to Trump’s statements.

It should also be noted Apple is not the only American company to express their discomfort with the Trump administration’s tariffs on goods imported from China. Automobile manufacturing giant Ford recently announced that it would be abandoning previous plans to ship their Focus Active, a hatchback-style vehicle, to the U.S. from China. The reason for this change in operation was attributed to the Trump administration’s tariffs.

Trump tweeted a response to Ford’s announcement that echoed the same sentiment he had expressed to Apple –” Ford has abruptly killed a plan to sell a Chinese-made small vehicle in the U.S. because of the prospect of higher U.S. Tariffs. CNBC.  This is just the beginning. This car can now be BUILT IN THE U.S.A. and Ford will pay no tariffs!”

Ford did not agree with this, though. They responded that manufacturing the Focus Active in the U.S. would not make economic sense, as it would not be profitable.

Analysis
In their letter, Apple also brought up the subject of economic benefit, arguing that these impending tariffs could “ultimately reduce the economic benefit” that they generate for the U.S.

Their concern is certainly valid, and applies to other companies as well. Apple is not the only technology company that would feel the effects of such policy shifts. The hearings conducted on the subject this past August on Capitol Hill saw over 300 companies testify that these tariffs would likely be dangerous not just for them, but for their entire industry. Were they to be implemented, many prominent companies within the technology sector would be forced to raise the costs of their products when the parts that they imported from China became more expensive.

When the tariffs on aluminum and steel that sparked the trade war were first implemented, Trump made the claim that they would generate further manufacturing jobs. The opposite quickly proved to be true, however, as many American companies either shifted their operations overseas, such as Harley Davidson, or were forced to lay off numerous workers, such as the Mid Continent Nail Corporation. If we have learned anything from the early stages of the trade war, it is that tariffs do not create American jobs.

As the trade war has progressed, it has become increasingly clear that Donald Trump either does not understand the continuously negative effects his tariff policies have had on his country’s jobs or simply does not care. They have also crushed innovation which stands to happen again if these further tariffs on Chinese imports are implemented.  The early tariff policies that wreaked havoc on the solar panel industry spelled the end of many startups that could no longer afford to import parts that they depended on. The looming further tariffs on Chinese imported goods is poised to produce the same effect on the many startups in the technology sector, one of the fastest growing and most innovative industries in the U.S.

While switching manufacturing operations to the U.S. would also mean a significant increase in labor costs, companies seem considerably more concerned about the prospect of rising production costs. Analysts have indicated that were all iPhones to be built in the U.S, each individual phone could cost as much as $1,000. While it may be the best-selling consumer device in the country, it seems a safe assumption that significantly fewer Americans would be able to spend that much money on a mobile phone alone, ultimately leading to declines in profit, which as we have seen throughout the trade war, often ends in workers being laid off.

While the prospect of more manufacturing jobs in the U.S is certainly appealing and a prospect our government should focus on, attempting to strong arm companies into moving entire operations to American soil out of fear does not seem to be the way of bringing back the jobs that Donald Trump has boasted about since before taking office. If he wants to bring jobs back to the U.S., he should start by lifting the tariffs implemented by his administration and letting American corporations expand their operations through increased production, research and development. When industry experts speak out on such an important subject, he should listen.

Resistance Resources:

This brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact  sam@usresistnews.org

Photo By chuttersnap

President Trump Puts Hurdles in Place for Legal Immigrants to Gain Citizenship & Work

President Trump Puts Hurdles in Place for Legal Immigrants to Gain Citizenship & Work

Policy
President Trump has made it increasingly difficult to obtain American citizenship even for individuals who have legally immigrated to the United States. In April 2017, Trump created a Buy American and Hire American Executive Order that was intended to limit the amount of foreign specialists and professionals from taking American’s jobs and opportunities.

Such a visa – an H-1B – is specifically for skilled foreign workers, like computer engineers and other professionals (medicine, law, etc.) On August 28, 2018, the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it would suspend the processing until approximately February 2019 (originally until September 2018). Thus, in line with the Executive Order, it has become increasingly hard to acquire and renew H-1B visas.

Additionally, the Trump Administration has made it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used public welfare programs – and this covers not only a broad spectrum of programs but individuals. Essentially, if any foreigner provided labor or work at the expense of the US Government, they are not deemed worthy of citizenship or a green card because they still contribute to the “theft of American prosperity.”

Analysis

In delaying and denying work visas, due to lack of information or a cap on the number of issued H-1B visas is harming local companies and businesses. Employees who remain must pick up the slack in the short-term, but the long-term effects could prove dire. Corporate executives worry that talented engineers and programmers will go to Canadian corporations instead since they are more willing to accept foreigners. This would lead to a prolonged reduction in immigration that could then hinder economic growth overtime as baby boomers retire and leave a gap in the job market. Aside from Administrative claims, there is no research that cutting immigration is actually good for the economy.

Resistance Resources

  • The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
  • Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
  • 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.

This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.

Photo by John Bakator

Will California’s New Data Protection Privacy Law Become A Model For The Rest of the Country?

Will California’s New Data Protection Privacy Law Become A Model For The Rest of the Country?

Policy Summary
At the end of June 2018, California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 375, which is known as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. In May 2018 California voters filed the California Consumer Personal Information Disclosure and Sale Initiative (the “Initiative”) that sought to prevent businesses that do business in California from selling or disclosing a consumer’s personal info. The ballot initiative was signed by 600,000 residents and was scheduled to be on the ballot in California’s November 2018 election.

However, California state government officials decided to try and pass their own version of a data privacy law. The organizers of the Initiative agreed to remove their initiative from the ballot if California enacted a data privacy law. To ensure that the bill introduced by the legislators would not be superseded by the ballot initiative AB 375 would have had to be approved before June 28, 2018, which is the deadline to have the Initiative removed off the November 2018 ballot. The California Legislature approved the initiative which was then signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. The ballot initiative was subsequently withdrawn. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The data privacy law passed by California is modeled on the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). What this new law does is that it (1) requires notice be given  to consumers on data companies collect and what they use it for (2) a “right to be forgotten” (3) new notice and opt – out provisions if personal data is sold to third parties and (4) protection for consumers from being excluded from services if they exercise any of these new privacy rights.

The notice required to be provided to users is unique because it narrows down how a company can use a consumer’s personal data. A company must inform consumers how their personal data will be used. If a company wants to use the same personal data for another business purpose, it must then give notice to the consumer again for the different use of the personal data. This should help restrain companies from acquiring a consumer’s personal data once and then using it for multiple purposes for years afterward.

The “right to be forgotten” requires that a business must delete the personal data of the person if the person requests it. This requirement has a similar component to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and is one of the most popular features of the new law because it affirmatively gives a consumer direct control over their personal data.

The notice and opt out provision is another provision that gives the consumer more direct control over their personal data. Most companies sell personal data to third parties but with this provision a company is prohibited from reselling personal data to a third company unless they give notice to the consumer and give her an opportunity to opt – out of the sale. Additionally, there are more restrictive requirements when the personal data is of minors under the age of 16.

And finally, the new California law prohibits a company from refusing to provide goods or services if a consumer chooses to exercise their privacy rights. A company can provide incentives for a consumer to provide their personal data but again the California law requires that the consumer must opt in and must have the option to opt out at anytime afterwards.

This new privacy law is easily the most stringent privacy law passed in the United States. There are still some flaws that have been discussed (if a person wants to sue a company for violation of the law, it must be done with a confusing process that might instead end up limiting an individual person’s options in court) but it appears that California has taken a huge step forward in protecting data privacy for their residents. It remains to be seen if these new regulations are what American citizens want and if other states and the Federal Government will follow suit by updating their own laws and regulations or by passing new and more relevant laws. 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 unsplash-logofreestocks.org

Trump Progresses with NAFTA Re-Negotiations–Could Leave Canada Out of New Deal

Trump Progresses with NAFTA Re-Negotiations–Could Leave Canada Out of New Deal

Brief #23—Economic Policy

Policy Summary
Donald Trump has made no secret of his feelings regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He’s described it as the “worst trade deal in history” despite the numerous benefits that the U.S. has enjoyed since the trilateral trade agreement was signed in 1994, such as a consistent annual increase in economic output.

Recently, Congress was notified that Trump’s administration plans to enter a new trade agreement that includes Mexico. This proposed deal has been described by the administration as a “preliminary agreement in principle.” Since the impending agreement was announced, there has been no official confirmation as to Canada’s plans to enter into the deal. As it stands now, though, Trump’s renegotiated deal poses several changes to the trade policies of the current NAFTA.

One area that would be significantly affected would be auto manufacturing. If this new deal passes, the amount of car components manufactured in either the U.S. or Mexico would be increased from 62.5 percent to 75%, although sources indicate that most manufacturing would take place in the U.S. This new deal also dictates that more of these auto parts must be made in factories where workers are paid at least $16 per hour.

Manufacturing isn’t the only area that will feel these effects, though. The current NAFTA was created before the rise of the modern digital age and as such, it contains little literature on how copyright violations should be dealt, primarily in regards to digital matters. Under this new deal, protections for U.S. copyright holders would be strengthened. In addition, this new pact with Mexico means that producers of certain drugs would be given ten years of data copyright protection.

Crystia Freeland, Canada’s foreign minister, initially implied that Canada was intentionally removing itself from early trade discussions between the U.S. and Canada in order to let the two nations resolve some crucial trade disagreements. President Trump, though, threatened to implement auto tariffs aimed at Canada if they did not negotiate in a way that he considers fair. He also told reporters that if Canada were to be involved in any trade deal with the U.S it would be completely on the terms of the U.S. Before these comments, it was expected that Canada would join the trade deal but little has been said on the matter since then. Freeland’s secretary stated, though, that Canada would not sign any deal that would not benefit its middle class.

Analysis
President Trump has displayed a clear willingness to move forward in the signing of this trade deal, even if Canada is not part of it. This notion is concerning, as such a maneuver could have severe repercussions for all three nations. The trade markets between all three are crucial to each nation’s economy as they contribute to the competitive manufacturing that drives many companies and keeps many workers employed.  International trade systems, such as NAFTA, allow many goods to be moved between the three nations, helping keep each economy healthy. It is not hard to see why a trilateral trade agreement between the U.S, Canada, and Mexico was needed in the first place, especially when we look at the clear economic growth and increased trade revenues that directly resulted from NAFTA being signed.

While Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto made it clear that his nation wanted Canada to be included in this new trade deal, it was later indicated that they might be willing to compromise.

It is not surprising that Mexico would not want to risk alienating the U.S. on a matter such as this, particularly given President Trump’s reputation for lashing out at  leaders who do not go along with what he wants. Not having a deal with the U.S. on trade related matters could put the Mexican economy at considerable risk, as millions of its job are dependent on access to U.S. markets.

The prospect of a new trade deal that does not include Canada has proven concerning for both lawmakers and industry groups alike. Congress granted the Trump administration clearance to renegotiate NAFTA as a trilateral agreement and his failure to do so will likely result in considerable opposition, as well as complicated legal challenges.

Resistance Resources:

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient; Contact Sam@usresistnews.org

Photo by Guillaume Jaillet

NRA Propaganda: Sentry Program Using Federal Funds to Arm Teachers with Guns

NRA Propaganda: Sentry Program Using Federal Funds to Arm Teachers with Guns

Brief #27—Education

Policy Summary
Oklahoma, Texas, and other states have proposed using federal funds for states to train and arm school marshals. The proposal is called the “Sentry Program.” More than 90% of House Democrats endorsed a letter to Education Secretary Betsy Devos calling on her to reject the program. Democrat on the House Education Committee, Bobby Scott, stated that the plan “runs counter to Congressional intent, precedent, and common sense” as it would use federal Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (SSAEG) under Title IV Part A to pay for firearms and train educators, reversing the federal policy prohibiting federal funds from arming teachers. The program also likely violates guidelines about the use of Title IV funding, which does allow funding to be used to quell violence but only for schools free of weapons. LEARN MORE

In May of this year, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey introduced the Sentry Program, claiming that school administrators will be trained by school safety training and compliance programs using the lead of design training program. Under the program, teachers are certified as “sentries” with an annual recertification process, undergoing mental and physical health evaluations. They must also have an updated concealed carry permit issued by their local sheriff. LEARN MORE

Analysis
Today, 25 states spend less on education, and 41 states spend less on higher education than before the 2008 recession. Diverting federal funds to arm schools rather than spending funds on educational materials is unlawful and likely violates federal law. Originally, the funds were used for low-income schools to support summer and after school programs, restorative justice programs, and mental health support. Now, Education Secretary Devos is attempting to use these funds as subsidies for the gun industry. Although in a statement released by Devos, she claimed of having “no intention of taking any action” regarding using funds to subsidize arming teachers, both the Trump administration and Devos have previously made comments on the benefit of having firearms in schools. President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, argued that the proposal not only leads to more serious mental health issues in children but also leads to a dangerous, false sense of security. Guns can easily be lost or accidently discharged under stressful circumstances in schools, leading to a higher likelihood of gun violence as well as fear among the student body and staff. The only parties benefiting from the program are NRA and gun manufacturers.

Resources

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee and Sarah Barton. Contact: Tina@usresistnews.org 

Photo by Heather Mount

The “Coordinated Response” To President Trump’s War On The Press; Free Speech Concerns

The “Coordinated Response” To President Trump’s War On The Press; Free Speech Concerns

Brief #59—Civil Rights

Policy Summary: Since the day President Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States he has become a vocal critic of various news groups. Over the following twelve months CNN calculated that the President used the word fake more than 400 times in connection with news, polls, stories and media to imply that all of those things could not be trusted as valid. Due to the President’s ongoing attacks, the editorial board of the Boston Globe proposed an editorial initiative where newspaper editorial boards around the country would publish a “coordinated response” on August 16, 2018 to counter the President’s attacks on media outlets. On August 16, 2018 more than 300 newspaper outlets participated and published editorials that expressed differing levels of disappointment towards the President’s rhetoric against the media. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis: The President’s attacks on the media are another low point in a presidency that has had a number of low points. It is understandable that not everybody, including this President, will agree with any number of stories that are written about his administration. The use of “fake news” as a slur or insult to throw at a story or journalist helps illustrate the President’s mindset – that he should not be criticized in any way.

This is a very dangerous approach and a direct threat to American democracy. The media and newspapers that report the news act as an unofficial watchdog on the activities of the government bureaucracy in order to hold them accountable for what they are doing. It is also so that government actors stay within the accepted limits of their official job duties. But President Trump does not see it that way and instead is using the tactic of labeling everything “fake news” in the hopes of discrediting specific journalists and stories even if they may be truthful. But discrediting a story should be made on the merits of the story and not because of a personal animus toward a journalist or because President Trump simply does not like what is being reported. And as of August 2018, the President has never offered a reasoned argument as to why any story he does not like is “fake news.” He merely labels it as such and leaves it at that. And that doesn’t include many of the President’s tweets and factual statements that have proven to be false.

The American people deserve good factual reporting in order to make informed decisions. Having an independent and free press that is willing to contradict and criticize the current presidential administration contributes to an informed electorate. Knowing President Trump’s struggles with being truthful, the concerted response and effort by more than 300 newspaper editorial boards illustrates the wide disapproval of the President’s “fake news” tactics. This move by newspaper editorial boards across the nation helps to clarify that reliable news and info can come from other sources than just the President and that the best approach to confronting critical stories is with reasoned and merit based arguments instead of dismissing them out of hand with an insulting label. 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 DESIGNECOLOGIST

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