JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Wide Bipartisan Support For FIRST STEP Act, A Criminal Justice Reform Bill
Brief #73—Civil Rights Policy Summary: On May 7, 2018, Representative Doug Collins (R-GA) introduced the FIRST STEP Act bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The FIRST STEP Act is a bill that contains numerous reforms to help improve the criminal justice system...
Coal and the NCA
Brief #52—Environment Policy Summary Representatives from nearly 200 different countries have gathered in Katowice, Poland to discuss the parameters of the Paris Agreement, known as the COP24. The United States, however, are in a challenging position with regard to...
Communities Most Affected by Trade War Remain Behind Trump, Ignoring Economic Policies They Need
Brief #30—Economic Policy This past week saw automotive giant General Motors (GM) announce it would be closing its Lordstown Ohio plant, as well as four others, in an effort to reduce costs. The effects of this decision will include the loss of 15% of the company’s...
State Voter Suppression Tactics Continue Even After The Elections
Brief #72—Civil Rights Policy Summary In the aftermath of the 2018 midterm elections which saw the Democratic Party make significant gains with additional seats in the House of Representatives and the number of state governorships, state legislators in four swing...
Analysis: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act
Brief #50—Environment Policy Summary Last week U.S. lawmakers sponsored the first bipartisan attempt at climate legislation in nearly a decade. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act would impose a progressively increasing tax on carbon emissions, topping out...
Trump is a Liar. So is Most of His Orbit. Will This Ever Disturb His Supporters?
In 1996 William Safire, in a column based largely on the right-wing conspiracy theories of the time, famously called Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.” One can only guess what Safire would have written about Donald Trump. The president of the United States is liar....
Senate Passes BUILD Act
Brief #52—Foreign Policy Policy Summary In a show of bipartisan support, the “Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018”, or the BUILD act, was passed on October 5th and later signed by President Trump.. First introduced in February by...
North Carolina Election Highlights Need To Prioritize Election Integrity; State Elections
Brief #71—Civil Rights Policy Summary On November 6, 2018, the United States held its biennial federal elections. As dictated by the U.S. Constitution, every seat in the House of Representatives was up for election as well as the required 1/3 of the total Senate seats...
What is Robert Mueller’s Endgame?
Speaking to CNN a few months back, the legendary journalist Carl Bernstein insisted that Robert Mueller’s team of investigators were building a “vast narrative” of what transpired during the 2016 election between the Trump campaign and a variety of anti-American actors, including Russian intelligence and Wikileaks.
Scientists Sue EPA and DOI Advisory Board Members Quit
EPA Lawsuit filed on January 24, 2018
DOI Advisory Board Members resigned on January 16, 2018
Summary
Earlier this month, The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Protect Democracy sued EPA Secretary Pruitt for blocking scientists who receive EPA funding from being on advisory boards within the agency. Pruitt announced this unprecedented shift back in October 2017 without any window for public comment, citing a potential conflict of interest as the reason for the change. No further explanation has been given for why leaders in the scientific community cannot contribute their expertise to the EPA and its policies. The UCS says that this violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which sets guidelines for balanced government advisories that are untainted by the viewpoint of the appointing authority. Pruitt has filled these advisory board openings with industry-funded scientists instead, causing further alarm within the academic community.
Meanwhile, in the Department of the Interior, nine of the twelve National Parks System Advisory Board members resigned their posts as a means of protesting Secretary Zinke and the acts of the DOI. A tenth member submitted her resignation the following day. In the resignation letter, former board chair and former Governor of Alaska Tony Knowles said that Zinke had disregarded the legal partnership between the board and the department. In a later interview he said that Zinke had “stonewalled” their efforts to address pressing issues of climate change and environmental protections by refusing to meet with them. A recent report by the UCS reviewed the 73 advisory boards within six federal agencies and found that these boards met less in 2017 than any other year since 1997, when the government starting keeping records. Almost two-thirds of those boards have met less than their charter recommends.
Analysis
In their press release regarding the legal action, Protect Democracy called Pruitt’s move “an attack on science itself,” as well as an abuse of power. Since the EPA is one of the largest funders of environmental and public health research, scientists face a choice between public service and continuing important scientific research with this board overhaul, which could lead to some of the brightest scientific minds stepping down from EPA advising. One member called the advisory boards “one of the most effective ways for me to use my scientific expertise to promote public health,” but goes on to say that this directive necessitates a decision between his own work and serving the public. One plaintiff says the order goes further by “caus[ing] significant harm to the public interest” by replacing these scientists with those who work for the industries and companies that the EPA is designed to regulate. As a self-designated champion of national parks, Zinke has also shone a lack of desire for scientific input, largely relying on industry leaders for advice on national monument size and offshore oil regulation. Neither the EPA or the DOI responded immediately to the respective lawsuit and resignations. DOI Spokeswoman Heather Swift has since stated that the “boards have restarted” without any further explanation and Pruitt has maintained that he is committed the EPA’s scientific integrity.
Engagement Resources
- Read the full UCS Report, “Abandoning Science Advice”
- Read the full press releases from both plaintiffs (Protect Democracy and UCS) suing Pruitt
This brief was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact megan@usresistnews.org.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau De-emphasizes Racial Discrimination Investigations
Federal Agency Action
January 30, 2018
Summary
On January 30, 2018, Acting Director Mick Mulvaney of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced to staff that he would transfer the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) from the Division of Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending (SEFL) to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness (OEOF) which is under the direct control of the Director’s Office in the CFPB. The CFPB was created in 2010 with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act with specific instructions as to the structure and duties of each office within the bureau. Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican Congressman from South Carolina, had previously opposed the creation of the agency and has been critical of it ever since. President Donald J. Trump later appointed him Acting Director of the CFPB in November 2017. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
This decision by Acting Director Mick Mulvaney is a curious one. The Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) – the office that the Director is transferring – was a highly successful unit. The agency was established in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007 – 2008 and is tasked with consumer protection in the financial sector with mortgages, credit cards, student loans, debt collection and payday loans given priority for investigation and enforcement. In 2014, CFPB ordered GE Capital to pay $225 million to consumers because of racially discriminatory credit card practices. There were also other incidents of racial discrimination in mortgage pricing and lending practices. The move of this active unit raises eyebrows because it is being placed in an office of the director that handles personnel initiatives for people who work at the CFPB. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness (OEOF) does no enforcement work at all and is focused only on initiatives that arise inside the bureau. It does not make sense to move a unit that aggressively pursued third-party banks, credit unions, lenders and other financial firms and reorganize the unit into the agency’s personnel section. The obvious answer is that Mr. Mulvaney is moving to minimize the importance of fair lending for the benefit of these financial institutions. That leaves an obvious hole and raises the question as to who will continue to investigate and correct racial discrimination abuses that the OFLEO had discovered in the past. The Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB mandated the creation of the OFLEO and that it “provide oversight and enforcement of Federal laws…to ensure fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory access to credit.” It will be difficult to see how this will occur when the unit charged with that task is unable to continue because of Mr. Mulvaney’s questionable actions. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Consumer Federation of America – info page supporting the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – info page on race and economic justice (issuance of predatory loans and abusive mortgage practices).
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.
Tariffs on Solar Components, Washing Machines Part of Trump’s Protectionist Agenda
February 5, 2018
Summary
New tariffs on imported solar panels and modules and on washing machines, announced by the Trump administration on January 22, will come into effect on February 7. The tariffs are among the first unilateral trade restrictions imposed by the administration as part of a broader protectionist strategy that treats “unfair trade practices” as a threat to national security. LEARN MORE.
Trump imposed a 30% tariff on crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels and modules, which will step down incrementally over four years to 15%. For finished washing machines, a tariff beginning at 20% on the first 1.2 million imported units and raised on subsequent imports to 50% — the maximum allowed by law — will step down incrementally to a maximum of 40% over three years. Both of these import safeguards include options to continue beyond their specified timeframes. The tariffs will affect all but General System of Preference (GSP) nations as per World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, allowing GPS nations up to 3% of imports or a combined total of 9%.
Action against solar imports began when two financially-embattled US-based solar equipment manufacturers, Suniva and SolarWorld, petitioned the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in May of last year for protection against imports using Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act. This action was followed by a Section 201 petition from Whirlpool seeking import relief for washers, specifically targeting two Korean companies, Samsung and LG.
Under Section 201, the ITC is charged with investigating whether domestic industries are “seriously injured or threatened with serious injury” that is substantially caused by import competition. If the ITC concludes no such injury exists, the case is thrown out, as recently occurred in a dispute between Boeing and Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier over jets imported by Delta Air Lines. If the ITC concurs that serious injury does in fact exist, that gives the president authority to implement a policy response. Section 201 is rarely employed: the last affirmative investigation occurred in 2001, resulting in a disastrous, short-lived steel tariff imposed by the Bush administration. Since the Trade Law came into effect, previous presidents have erected trade barriers in only 19 of the 40 cases given an affirmative or tie vote by the ITC, as import safeguards may negatively impact US industrial development and jobs, raise consumer prices, result in trade diversion, and/or bring about retaliation in the form of trade barriers and restrictions or formal WTO complaints against the US. LEARN MORE.
Within thirty days of the new tariff proclamations (by February 22), the US Trade Representative (USTR) is required to publish procedures in the Federal Register for companies wishing to request exclusion. For now, it is unclear what the terms of exclusion will be or how quickly exclusion requests will be reviewed. This leaves some companies, like California-based SunPower Corp., which has already said it will request exclusion and has put plans to invest and expand on hold after the tariffs were announced, with a great level of uncertainty as to what the future will bring.
Analysis
The unusual employment of Section 201 under the Trump administration is highly politicized, if somewhat misaimed. The US Trade Representative (USTR) makes it clear that these actions prove Trump will “defend American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.” Farmers and ranchers? Clearly, the intention is to set the stage for imposition of more trade barriers in unrelated, hoped-for future cases. The USTR also ruminates on how these actions will curb Chinese imports, though in the relevant cases here the ITC found “serious injury” — in both the solar and washer petitions — from imports out of South Korea and Mexico. One cannot miss the irony in the fact that two of the petitioning companies — Suniva and Whirlpool — are Chinese-owned, while SolarWorld is also foreign-owned as the US subsidiary of a German company, SolarWorld AG.
The obvious intent of these “safeguards” against solar and washer imports is clear: rattle a saber at China; cripple the solar industry; and serve crony capitalism.
It’s no secret that Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy. That combined with a mandate to cut 72% of the budget for DOE renewable energy research makes his move to provide “relief” for the domestic solar industry seem dubious at best. Given the negative consequences of Bush’s steel tariff, Trump the deal-maker had to have gauged what the outcome of solar tariffs would likely be. It seems no coincidence that a week after announcing the tariffs, Trump proclaimed in his State of the Union address that he has ended “the war on beautiful, clean coal.”
As for the tariff on washers, it seems little more than crony capitalism that supports a pattern of anti-competitive behavior by Whirlpool. Samsung and LG, the targets of Whirlpool’s complaints, are both currently investing hundreds of millions of dollars in plants on US soil which would provide some 1,600 accompanying American jobs. Samsung is converting a Caterpillar Inc. factory in South Carolina, while LG is building a new plant in Tennessee: Foreign-owned, yes, but so is Whirlpool. When Whirlpool merged with Maytag ten years ago, it argued that imports from Samsung and LG would provide sufficient competition to protect consumers in the market for washers. Now it’s using those same imports to claim unfair competition. The new tariff seems more a windfall for Whirlpool than it is relief to the domestic industry at large. Perhaps Whirlpool gained Trump’s favor over two other foreign-owned American manufacturers when Jeff Fettig, Chairman and former CEO at Whirlpool, served on Trump’s business advisory council, which disbanded after many executives quit in response to Trump’s comments on a Neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, where counter-protester Heather Heyer was killed.
Response to the tariffs has been for the most part uncertain and disapproving. China, the world’s largest solar panel producer, called it an “overreaction” and “an abuse of trade remedy measures,” while Korea has already filed a dispute with the WTO. This is not the first time Korea has appealed to the WTO in trade disputes with the US over washing machines. Morgan Stanley suggests that these protectionist moves leave investors unsure that the US will adhere to free trade agreements and may chill investment in US business generally. Goldman Sachs has estimated a 3% increase in solar utility costs and a 7% rise in residential costs. While residential installations tend to serve clients deliberately choosing renewable energy even if it costs a bit more, the biggest impact is expected in utility-scale solar, which could lose half its projected installations in a worst-case scenario. Many fear that in addition to increased consumer prices, Trump’s move could trigger massive layoffs in an industry that employs roughly 260,000 American workers.
We can expect more protectionist moves from the Trump administration in the weeks and months ahead — along with more uncertainty and retaliation against the United States.
Engagement Resources
- The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) is a private, nonpartisan nonprofit institution for rigorous, intellectually open, and in depth study and discussion of international economic policy.
- The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI has helped change the nature of public debates over international trade agreements by underscoring their effects on workers and the importance of putting enforceable labor standards in trade agreements.
- The Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) works with member companies to promote pro-solar policies and advocate for the growth of solar nationwide.
This brief was compiled by Jennifer Chesworth. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jennifer@usresistnews.org.
A History of the Trump Administration’s Sanctions
Foreign Policy Brief #32: A History of the Trump Administration’s Sanctions
Update – April 3rd, 2018
On March 15th, the White House finally followed through on demands to sanction Russian individuals and entities, mostly for their involvement in the 2016 US election. Other factors leading to tensions between the two countries have included the recent nerve gas attack in the UK as well as a newly disclosed alleged cyberattack against the US power grid. In August 2017, Trump signed a bill passed nearly unanimously passed by the Senate authorizing him to sanction Russia. In January, Trump shocked many by missing the deadline to enforce those sanctions, instead arguing that by naming Russian offenders the intent of the bill had been fulfilled due to lost revenue.
With pressure finally building due to the UK attack and a letter penned by 140 House Democrats, Trump applied sanctions to a multitude of Russian government officials, the Internet Research Agency – an alleged internet troll farm, the Federal Security Service, and the Main Intelligence Directorate – both intelligence agencies. The sanctions would bar individuals from traveling to the US and freeze their assets. On March 26th, Trump also joined with over 20 other countries in expelling 60 Russian diplomats, to which Putin responded with the planned expulsion of an equal number of US diplomats and the closing of the St. Petersburg American Consulate.
Iran
- February 3rd, 2017: The Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and companies allegedly connected to either Iran’s ballistic missile program or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quods Force. This move was in response to recent ballistic missile testing.
- January 4th, 2018: The Trump administration announced sanctions on five subsidies of the already sanctioned Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group. The group’s logo appeared on missiles used by Yemeni rebels opposing the US-Saudi coalition, suggesting involvement by the Iranian company.
- January 12th, 2018: The Trump administration issued sanctions on 14 Iranian entities and people while issuing a last chance for European leaders to fix the Iran deal. The most prominent target was Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, the leader of the Iranian Judiciary. Larijani, a close ally of Ayatollah Khamenei, is accused of committing “torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners in Iran”
- February 2nd, 2018: 6 individuals and 7 businesses across Lebanon, Iraq, and Western Africa suspected of aiding Hezbollah were the target of the most recent set of sanctions. The Lebanese militant group has been accused of being used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to destabilize conflict zones in Iran, Yemen, and Syria. The targets are presumed to be connected to the prominent Hezbollah financier Adham Tabaja.
Syria
- April 24th, 2017: The Trump administration announced sanctions on 271 employees of Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center, allegedly the source of the government’s chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Assad’s government was accused of using sarin gas on civilians earlier that month. This follows the sanctioning of 18 Syrians, including 6 others from the Research Center, who were sanctioned by the Obama administration that January in response to chlorine gas attacks.
- May 16th, 2017: The treasury department imposed sanctions on 5 individuals and 5 companies in response to the Syrian government’s “relentless attacks on civilians”. The Trump administration accused the Assad regime of cremating the remains of thousands of hanged prisoners in an effort to “cover up the extent of mass murder”. Amnesty International previously reported that between 5,000 and 13,000 people were hanged at the prison from 2011 to 2015.
North Korea
- September 21st, 2017: Trump announced sanctions targeting any company or person doing business with North Korea by cutting off their access to the US financial system.
- December 24th, 2017: Lead by the US, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2397, which cuts exports of refined oil products by 89%, bans exports of industrial equipment, resources, and vehicles to North Korea, limits use of North Korean laborers, and requires countries to stop ships from illegally providing oil to North Korea.
- December 26th, 2017: The US sanctioned Kim Jong Sik and Ri Pyong Chol, 2 top North Korean officials in the ballistic missile program, in response to last November’s ballistic missile testing.
- January 24th, 2018: The US issued sanctions on 9 entities, 16 people, and 6 ships accused of “working on behalf of North Korean financial networks”
Analysis
Sanctions are a tool frequently reached for by the administration to backup Trump’s aggressive rhetoric. We haven’t seen much for positive diplomatic effects of these sanctions and they have lead to some tense exchanges. The Iranian State Media stated that recent sanctions “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic,”. North Korea called last December’s sanctions an “act of war”. With supply lines to China largely cut off, Kim has turned to business fronts in Mozambique to fund his Nuclear slush fund. What is conspicuously missing from Trump’s sanction crosshairs is Russia. In fact, Trump has gone so far as to trigger a constitutional crisis to protect Putin, neglecting to impose Russia sanctions overwhelmingly supported Congress last year. This hypocrisy is evidence of the Trump administrations motivation for sanctions, using them as a display of authority rather than a tool to enforce human rights.
Engagement Resources:
- Read a Previous U.S. RESIST Brief on the Iran Deal: Here is a brief assessing the implications of Trump’s attitude towards the Iran Deal, which reduces sanctions in return for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.
- Read an Assessment of All Sanctions Remaining on Iran: This article summarizes the many sanctions which remain on Iran, going back to those initially imposed after the 1979 revolution.
This Brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this Brief please contact Colin@usresistnews.org.
Update – April 3rd, 2018
On March 15th, the White House finally followed through on demands to sanction Russian individuals and entities, mostly for their involvement in the 2016 US election. Other factors leading to tensions between the two countries have included the recent nerve gas attack in the UK as well as a newly disclosed alleged cyberattack against the US power grid. In August 2017, Trump signed a bill passed nearly unanimously passed by the Senate authorizing him to sanction Russia. In January, Trump shocked many by missing the deadline to enforce those sanctions, instead arguing that by naming Russian offenders the intent of the bill had been fulfilled due to lost revenue
With pressure finally building due to the UK attack and a letter penned by 140 House Democrats, Trump applied sanctions to a multitude of Russian government officials, the Internet Research Agency – an alleged internet troll farm, the Federal Security Service, and the Main Intelligence Directorate – both intelligence agencies. The sanctions would bar individuals from traveling to the US and freeze their assets. On March 26th, Trump also joined with over 20 other countries in expelling 60 Russian diplomats, to which Putin responded with the planned expulsion of an equal number of US diplomats and the closing of the St. Petersburg American Consulate.
A Review of Trump’s 2018 State of the Union Speech
February 2, 2018
President Trump recently delivered his first State of the Union to the American people. During this speech, he made a plethora of future plans and boasted about his administration’s accomplishments.
List 1 – Trumps’ Plans
There were a plethora of talking points President Trump had during his State of the Union, including lowering the cost of prescription drugs and revitalizing our nuclear weapons program to deter rogue actors such as North Korea. Although these two issues may seem very important the Trump administration prioritized two other plans: immigration and infrastructure.
One of the largest themes of the State of the Union was the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States and the devastating impact of illegal immigration to our people. His plan had four pillars. First, it would offer a pathway to citizenship for nearly 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the United States by their parents at a young age. Second, it would completely secure the border via a border wall. Third, it would end the visa lottery (a program that randomly hands out green cards which according to the Trump administration is handed out without any regard for skill, merit, or safety of America’s people. Finally, it would bring an end to chain migration. According to the Trump administration, a single immigrant can essentially bring an unlimited number of distant relatives.
There are many issues with this bill. First, the Trump administration claims that the visa lottery program blindly gives out visa lotteries but that is not true. Immigrants do not automatically get a visa but have to be eligible to even apply for it. According to the U.S. State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the individual must have at least a high school education or two years of work experience. In addition, the visa lottery is not randomly chosen. Applicants must pass a vetting process which includes passport, police/medical records, and photographs. The agency claims that “National security is our top priority when adjudicating visa applications.”
Secondly, the Trump administration claimed that once an immigrant enters this country they can bring an endless amount of relatives to this country. According to The Hill “The administration’s claims are demonstrably false.” Current law does not allow for you to bring an infinite amount of family members but only the closest family members (spouse, children, parents, and siblings). The Trump proposal would only spouses and children leaving parents and siblings out. There are currently no reunification paths for more distant family members.
In addition to the immigration plan, Trump promised a plethora of other things. One other one is updating and renewing our crumbling infrastructure. As with immigration, this plan lacks a clear plan on how the infrastructure will be built or even funded. The recent tax reform may also add to more problems as many companies may struggle to find new revenue sources. According to Patrick Sisson, “There also weren’t any specific calls to create new funding sources for the plan.”
List 2 – Accomplishments
There was a countless amount of accomplishments the Trump administration was boasting about. The biggest accomplishment that Trump spoke about was the economy. He claimed that black unemployment is the lowest it ever has been, he has added a total of 2.4 million jobs (200,000 of them in manufacturing), and claimed that the tax overhaul that passed Congress gave 3 million workers a tax bonus and was the largest tax cut in history.
It is true that black unemployment is the lowest it ever has been true but the Trump administration is conveniently leaving out other necessary facts. When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment was already at 7.8% (the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Under Trump, that number has fallen to 6.8% continuing its downward trajectory. Although Trump takes credit for accomplishing this, it is important to know that black unemployment was going down long before he took office (started falling from 16% in 2010 under the Obama Administration).
The Trump administration has also claimed that they have added nearly 2.4 million jobs and 200,00 manufacturing jobs. Although these numbers may be true, the pace of job growth has slowed twelve percent during Trump’s first eleven months in office. Even though there are jobs being added to the market it is at a slower rate than other past presidents. Finally, the Trump administration has claimed that they have given 3 million workers a tax bonus. While this may be true, according to the Labor Department the workers that got a tax bonus were only 3 million workers out of 154 million (only about 2%). Furthermore, Trump claimed that it was the largest tax cut in American history which is a false statement. Trump gave a tax cut of around 1.7% while Obama had a 1.8% cut in 2013 and Reagan had a 2.9% cut in 1981.
This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.
Reversing Obama-Era Regulation That Combats Housing Segregation
Congressional Bill
January 2018
Summary
The Trump administration is trying to eliminate the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule started by President Obama. The AFFH is a legal requirement that federal agencies and federal grantees further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, this means asking communities that receive Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The rule requires jurisdictions that receive federal housing funding to not only document barriers to integration and opportunity, but to detail—and prioritize—policies to eradicate them.
Still, sadly, key components of this bill did not make it through the required Office of Management and Budget review by the time Trump was sworn in. As a result, this means that Trump does not even have to undo the rule as it was never put into effect. “He can just let it languish, unfinished, and direct his HUD secretary to return to business as usual.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
The AFFH regulation passed under the Obama Administration made it so when communities applied for federal HUD money they had to turn in an Analysis of Impediments (AI) form. This form would show how residents of color faced segregation and what actions local officials were using to combat this issue. Sadly, the AIs have been a joke for years for many reasons. First, local leaders don’t take them seriously (they rely on realtors/developers instead of carrying out an actual analysis. Secondly, HUD never checks if the applications are telling the truth. This can be done by either sharing intelligence federal agencies have with state/local officials or simply hiring more personnel to increase accountability. As a result, segregation continues to exist even after multiple decades of the Fair Housing Act. The 2015 AFFH rule would have combatted this by making it easier to prepare accurate AIs by sharing federal data on segregation with local governments. In addition, it would also make it easier for HUD to hold back money from communities that are not actively fighting against segregated housing. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Town Hall Project– This project compiles the open-to-the-public events held by state and local representatives. This provides a great opportunity to tell them that this executive order will do more bad than good. You can also dial 1-844-6-RESIST to be redirected to the office of your local member of Congress.
- National Housing Law Project – The National Housing Law Project’s mission is to advance housing justice for poor people and communities. – https://www.nhlp.org/
- The Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) – A civil rights policy organization convened by major civil rights, civil liberties, and anti-poverty groups. PRRAC’s primary mission is to help connect advocates with social scientists working on race and poverty issues, and to promote a research-based advocacy strategy on structural inequality issues. – http://prrac.org/about.php
- US Senate – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation. – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
- US House of Representatives – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation – http://www.house.gov/representatives/
This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.
Department of Defense Issues National Defense Strategy
January 19, 2018
Summary
Last Friday, January 19th, the US Department of Defense published a summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The full document, which is classified, was written in conjunction with the National Security Strategy Report of last December. This is a result of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act which required the Secretary of Defense to present a new national defense strategy in the year following a presidential election. The NDS showed a further divergence from the national security rhetoric of the Obama era. While Afghanistan and North Korea were discussed, the document was more focused on the perceived danger of our geopolitical rivals China and Russia. Defense Secretary Mattis introduced the document stating that “Great-power competition — not terrorism — is now the primary focus of U.S. national security”.
The document asserts that “China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea… It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model — gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions” and that Russia and China are a “central challenge to US prosperity and security.” China was quick to respond to the provocation, with Ren Guoqiang of the Chinese Ministry of National Defense contending that the NDS was “full of unreal assertions of ‘zero-sum’ games and confrontations”. Ren defended China’s “sovereign rights to carry out peaceful construction activities and deploy necessary defense facilities on islands and reefs of the South China Sea”, further suggesting that it “seems that certain countries do not want to see peace and stability in the South China Sea region and insist on intensifying their own military deployment and presence there…they are the backstage manipulator for militarizing the region.”
Defense Secretary Mattis also stated that the NDS is based on the “fundamental precept” that we need to increase defense spending because our survival is in question. Describing our military as “overstretched and under-resourced”, Mattis asked Congress to ensure a stable flow of funding towards the interest of national defense.
Analysis
With over 500,000 US military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region, it is understandable that China is offended by the Trump administration’s accusations of imperialism. As much as Mattis wants to portray the US as the crumbling guardian of democracy, we already take up 36% of global defense spending, more than three times what China spends. With Mattis’ explanation that “history makes clear that America has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield”, one must question whether the problem with the last 50 years of US foreign policy is really a lack of funding or merely a reckless sense of adventurism among Washington war-hawks.
Engagement Resources
- Read an Analysis of US Presence in the South China Sea: Here is an opinion piece published in Forbes on the subject.
- Read the Full National Security Strategy Summary: Here is the full summary
- Read a Previous USResist brief on the National Security Strategy: Here is our brief from last December.
This brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact colin@usresistnews.org.
White House Proposal for Dreamer Path to Citizenship Comes with Some Caveats
January 25, 2018
Summary
On Thursday, January 25, The Washington Post reported that the White House is proposing a path to citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million Dreamers (DACA recipients). In exchange for sparing young undocumented immigrants the hardships of deportation, the proposal calls for a $25 billion trust fund for a border wall and additional security measures to curtail illegal border crossing. The proposal also seeks to crack down on legal immigration systems and processes. While the plan would enable more than twice the number of young people previously enrolled in DACA to become citizens of the United States over a 10-12-year period, it dually seeks to terminate the Diversity Visa Lottery program by replacing it with a merit-based program, and would make it illegal for American citizens of immigrant families to sponsor a parent, adult child, or sibling should they seek citizenship in the US. Under this proposal, only spouses and minor-aged children would be eligible for visa sponsorship. The proposal was created by domestic policy advisor to the President Stephen Miller and White House chief of staff John Kelly.
Analysis
While the White House views this proposal as a compromise, congressional Democrats and Republicans in support of progressive immigration reform see it as a demand to concede, which resulted in great pushback following the legislative announcement on Thursday. Likewise, certain provisions of the plan are likely to upset conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill, specifically the creation of a path to citizenship for Dreamers.
This proposal not only demonstrates the President’s (and his administration’s) unwillingness to compromise with Democrats, but also the disconnect between himself and members of his own party. Furthermore, Trump’s insistence on letting Dreamers stay in the U.S. not only contradicts his administration’s move to end DACA in the first place, but is counterintuitive to his plan of splitting up Dreamers’ families, going against a central tenant of the “American Dream” (providing a better life for one’s family) that he so vigorously champions. This makes the basis of logic for this proposal difficult to follow, coming from a place where motives and reasoning should be transparent and easy to understand.
Engagement Resources
- Act with America’s Voice: America’s Voice is a progressive immigration reform nonprofit that advocates for full and equal rights of all immigrants. The organization runs numerous campaigns, maps incidents of hate against people of color, and assists with voter registration, amongst other activities essential to promoting equity for immigrant lives in the United States. You can make a contribution to America’s Voice here.
- Support the New Americans Campaign: The New Americans Campaign is a national, nonpartisan network of immigrant organizations, legal service providers, faith-based organizations, faith-based organizations, immigrant rights groups, foundations, and community leaders. A project by the Immigration Legal Resource Center, the campaign is committed to connecting lawful permanent residents to trusted legal assistance. Click here to support the campaign.
- Show Your Solidarity with Here to Stay: Here to Stay is a campaign run by United We Dream aimed at defending DACA. The organization hosts local Defend DACA rallies and other events, holds community calls, and provides resources for understanding DACA, as well as mental health resources for anyone who is affected by the administration’s decision to end DACA.
This brief was compiled by Allie Blum. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact allie@usresistnews.org.
Budget Process Gets Politicized and Government Shuts Down
January 25, 2018
Summary
A 69-hour US government shutdown ended early this week with passage of a short-term spending bill that funds federal operations through February 8. This is the fourth temporary funding measure Congress has passed since it failed to meet an October 1 deadline last year for the FY2018 budget.
On January 20, the one year anniversary of Donald Trump’s inauguration, the shutdown began when Republicans failed to garner the 60 votes needed to approve a stopgap bill that would have kept the government funded through February 16. With few exceptions, all but essential government service agencies came to a halt at midnight, January 19, putting hundreds of thousands of federal employees on furlough without pay. It’s the first time in modern history that the federal government has shut down with the House of Representatives, Senate, and the White House all controlled by the same party.
Called by many “The Schumer Shutdown” and dubbed “The Trump Shutdown” by others, the Senate’s deadlock resulted over Democrats’ demands to find a permanent fix for the DACA program. A majority of Americans would like to see the DACA program continued, but disapprove of government shutdown as a political tactic.
Trump first introduced his “America First” budget blueprint on March 16 of last year. The proposal covers only discretionary spending, not “entitlements” or mandatory spending. To pay for increased funding for defense and a proposed border wall Trump famously promised to build during his campaign, the document calls for broad cuts in programs related to science and research, climate change, the environment, professional training, community development, international aid and peacekeeping, arts and humanities, and more. It also proposes eliminating 66 federal programs altogether, cutting funding entirely for Public Broadcasting, the Interagency Council on Homelessness, Legal Services, NEA, NEH, US Trade and Development, African Development Foundation, and a dozen other agencies.
By law, Congress has until April 15 each year for final adoption of the full budget resolution — or, it can write itself deadline extensions in the form of short-term spending bills, also called Continuing Resolutions or CRs. The Trump Administration operated on one stopgap measure after another until well into October, when the budget narrowly passed. LEARN MORE.
Since then, more stop-gap bills are keeping the federal government running as Congress battles over appropriations. Republicans pushed a massive spending package through in September, the only legally required budget deadline Congress managed to meet, and then used “reconciliation,” a tactic meant to resolve partisan gridlock but used now to force the party line, to pass sweeping tax reform in December. Republicans also attempted to use reconciliation in repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare, another issue which has bogged down the FY2018 budget process.
Though not common, government shutdowns in the US are nothing new. Since passage of the Congressional Budget Act in 1974, the US federal government has shut down nineteen times over disagreements tying fiscal year budgetary votes to ultimatums on a wide range of issues, from abortion to education to defense spending and more. This time, budget talks for FY2018 have stumbled over immigration and border security issues, forcing the January 20 shutdown. Congress now has until February 8 before the threat of another shutdown looms.
Analysis
If the above summary of the FY2018 budget process sounds too complicated and dysfunctional for words, you’re right. American political ideology has become increasingly divided along party lines over the past two decades, especially during the Obama administration, when Republicans were instructed to work against anything the administration tried to accomplish, explicitly to guarantee the failure of American government.
Under the Trump administration, Democrats and Republicans are even more sharply divided on just about everything, including immigration and racial issues, aid to the poor and human rights, climate change, taxation and the role of government, defense spending, foreign policy, religion, and education. In fact, while the Democratic party attracts more Americans with higher education degrees, Republicans are working to abolish the Department of Education, while during his campaign Trump declared, “I love the poorly educated” because they are “more loyal.”
Now, as Republicans manipulate and bend legislative rules to their own partisan ends, they blame Democrats for failures of the past which were for the most part caused by Republican obstructionism. Although Democrats are not entirely spotless, the GOP has truly become the “party of dirty tricks.” The recent shutdown is a case in point; Republicans managed to make Democrats look bad for disrupting process and taking a strong partisan stand, while Republicans themselves have done nothing but obstruct process and draw partisan lines in the sand for years.
Speaking of doing nothing, even Trump’s “America First” budget plan has been called “a ruse” in Washington. Frustrated with months of haggling, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said the budget “has no impact on anything whatsoever affecting the American people,” calling the entire budget process “the biggest hoax passed upon the American people ever.” Trump’s budget manifesto was a required gesture to initiate a strategy using the budget process to fast-track tax reform. The budget process was put in place near the end of Republican president Nixon’s ill-fated term to keep the president from blocking appropriations without any input from Congress. But Republicans like Corker want this to change — not to make the system more fair, but to allow Congress to make sweeping changes to mandatory spending; those entitlements that Democrats tend to hold dear. Mandatory spending, which makes up roughly 70% of government spending, is not addressed in the fiscal year budget but rather, is determined by individual pieces of legislation for each entitlement program.
Dependence on stopgap measures means the threat of government shutdown is conjured again and again, lending a sense of urgency and crisis to issues that Congress should be addressing by judicious, rational, and timely legislative process. While a government shutdown can have short-term effects on the economy, especially inside the beltway, Congressional dysfunction is far more damaging to the US economy and by extension, to the US dollar and its role in the global economy. Economists have long operated on the maxim that “business doesn’t like uncertainty.” But in the face of an increasingly dysfunctional Congress, many are starting to ask, is uncertainty the new normal?
Engagement Resources
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan research and policy institute. We pursue federal and state policies designed both to reduce poverty and inequality and to restore fiscal responsibility in equitable and effective ways.
- Convergence Center for Policy Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to helping promote dialogue and solve problems across the political divide on issues of national consequence.
This brief was compiled by Jennifer Chesworth. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jennifer@usresistnews.org.
The Three Approaches To Saving Net Neutrality
Proposed Remedies To Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Agency Regulations
January 17, 2018
Note: This brief updates a prior civil rights brief on the net neutrality issue. For more information please see the original April 26, 2017 brief and November and December 2017 updates here.
Summary
On January 16, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by attorney generals of twenty-one states and the District of Columbia. The petition will seek to prevent the enforcement of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) “Restoring Internet Freedom” order that overturned Obama-era regulations. In the Senate, Democratic members announced that they had fifty votes of support and were one vote shy to vote to reject the FCC order. And finally, numerous states in the last two months have introduced bills in their state legislatures that would preserve net neutrality within their states regardless of the fate of the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” order. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
After the FCC’s 3 – 2 vote to rollback Obama-era regulations in its “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal, many were up in arms and sought ways to prevent implementation of the order. As of January 2018, three options had emerged. In December 2017, numerous states began to consider state laws that would preserve net neutrality regulations in their state. The proposal in California, which mirrors net neutrality bills in other states, would require businesses to adopt net neutrality practices if their business is dependent on California funding or infrastructure. However, this does not guarantee that the law would reach every resident of California. The second option comes from the Senate. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has proclaimed that he has a majority of votes to disapprove of the order in that chamber. But even if that resolution passes, there would still be opposition in the House of Representatives and would not likely be signed by President Trump. The final option is the petition filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday. This option is the most substantial because it shows that there is widespread support (21 states and the District of Columbia) to oppose Chairman Pai’s intent to do away with net neutrality. However, cases are not decided overnight. It may take months for the case to get a full hearing on the merits in addition to a few other legal obstacles that need to be addressed first. None of these options guarantee a total or an immediate success at the moment but it does demonstrate the widespread opposition to Chairman Pai’s efforts to do away with net neutrality. The fight continues. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – database of state efforts related to Internet service providers.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – research center dedicated to online privacy and civil liberty issues.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – local community efforts at digital privacy and net neutrality.
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.