JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Americans Find Toxic Water at The Bottom of Their Well
Brief #149 – Environment Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
Worldwide, 1 in 10 people cannot access clean water within a 30-minute walk from their home and by 2030 this situation is projected to grow and displace up to 700 million. Closer to home, as the water treatment infrastructure in the U.S. continues to deteriorate, many Americans are facing a similar plight.
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #14
Brief #151 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
Russia’s President Vladamir Putin on September 30, 2022 signed accession treaties formalizing the annexation of four occupied regions that make up 15% (at least 40,000 square miles ) of Ukraine’s territory.
Reducing the Separation of Religious Schools and Public Money
Brief #56 – Education Policy
By Steve Piazza
In line with a recent string of United States Supreme Court (USSC) decisions lauded by many as protecting religious freedoms, the USSC overturned a lower court decision that prevented state money from being used for religious school tuition. The June 21, 2022 6-3 decision in Carson v. Makin was arrived at by an ideologically divided court.
The Radicalization of the Anti-Abortion Movement
Brief #146 – Health & Gender
By Emily Scanlon
For years, the anti-abortion movement has been focused on one main goal: the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Because of this unifying goal, the movement has not had to grapple with fringe beliefs. Now that their main goal has been accomplished, anti-abortion groups are considering next steps and facing more radical ideas within the movement.
The Healthcare Industry is Reeling from COVID-19
Brief #145 – Health & Gender Policy
By Geoffrey Small
President Joe Biden has declared that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. Many experts in the scientific community may agree or disagree with Biden’s assessment, but the prospect of herd immunity, public awareness, and methods of prevention have undoubtedly come a long way since the coronavirus first made its global impact.
Protest Against “Partial Mobilization” in Russia
Brief #150 – Foreign Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
On September 21, Russia’s president Putin announced the start of “partial mobilization” in Russia. He signed a law amending the Criminal Code, according to which the Russian Federation introduces punishment for voluntary surrender and desertion during the period of mobilization and refusal to participate in hostilities.
Violators face punishment of up to 10 years in prison for voluntary surrender and up to 15 years in prison for desertion.
The Troubling Influence of Corporate Money
Brief #38 – Elections & Politics
By Abigail Hunt
Lobbying is as necessary as it is corruptive. The origin of the word lies in the earliest version of lobbyists – men who stood in the lobby of a legislative building to catch government representatives in order to plea their cause.
Mar-a-Lago Search Takes Disappointing Turn After Court Rulings
Brief #195 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
In a September 16, 2022 entry on this news site, we recounted the facts of the classified documents saga that culminated in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) search of former President Donald J. Trump’s office at his home in Mar – a – Lago, Florida. However, since then, a dispute arose as to whether the documents in question could be used by the government in its criminal investigation.
Nice Democracy You’ve Got Here. Shame If Something Happened To It.
Brief #36 – Elections & Politics
By David A. Graham
The line between imagination and delusion is thin, as Donald Trump’s initial reaction to an FBI search at Mar-a-Lago in August demonstrated. In the first days afterward, the former president saw the search as a political gift, not a blow: a chance to rally his base, put would-be challengers like Ron DeSantis in their place, and reconsolidate his eroding position as the leader of the Republican Party.
The Center Lane is Wide Open
The Center Lane is Wide Open
U.S. Resist News Op Ed | By: John Halpin |
June 7, 2022
Header photo taken from: Mike Blake / Reuters
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more U.S. Resist News Op Eds from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Mod DB
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After the Democratic primaries in 2020, Joe Biden’s comeback victory over more left-leaning opponents was hailed as a triumph for his traditional brand of pragmatic centrism and bipartisan cooperation that later enabled him to win a decisive popular vote majority over Donald Trump in the general election. Biden swooped into office promising to “end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.”
A year and half later, this center ground appears all but abandoned and out of reach—for both President Biden and former President Trump.
According to fresh new polling from Global Progress and YouGov, conducted among more than 10,000 respondents in 9 leading democracies, an eye-catching 44 percent of Americans today place President Biden on either the very left-wing (30 percent) or somewhat left-wing (14 percent) side of the ideological scale. Only 12 percent of Americans place Biden directly in the center of the political spectrum, with another 14 percent placing him on the center-left.
Perceptions of former President Trump are even more extreme: nearly 4 in 10 Americans place Trump on the very right-wing side of the political scale and another 17 percent see him as somewhat right-wing. A mere 7 percent of Americans place Trump in the ideological center and another 8 percent on the center right.
Likewise, about one third of Americans overall view the Democratic Party as very left-wing and an equal percentage view the Republican Party as very right-wing. Only around 10 percent of Americans place either Democrats or Republicans in the center of the ideological spectrum, respectively.
In stark contrast to perceptions of their national leaders and the two parties, one quarter of Americans place themselves directly in the center of the ideological spectrum, with another 18 percent placing themselves either on the center-left or center-right in equal percentages. Only 1 in 10 Americans place themselves on either the far left or the far right, respectively. There’s clearly a wide gulf between how Americans conceive of their own politics versus those represented by their national leaders and the two political parties.
Part of the explanation for this divergence lies in partisan interpretations of opposition leaders and parties in the United States.
For example, more than 7 in 10 Trump voters place President Biden on the very left-wing side of the ideological scale compared to less than 10 percent of Biden voters who think similarly. In turn, 6 in 10 Biden voters place former President Trump on the very right-wing extreme of the spectrum—nearly double the percentage of Trump voters who label their own guy as far right.
These patterns are repeated on views of the two parties: 73 percent of Trump voters place the Democratic Party on the very left-wing side of the ideological spectrum while 62 percent of Biden voters place the Republican Party on the very right-wing side. In comparison, only 12 percent of Biden voters place the Democratic Party on the far left and only 15 percent of Trump voters place the Republican Party on the far right.
These data suggest that regardless of what national leaders do or say in politics these days, most voters from the opposition party are likely to view them as ideologically extreme.
Policy Analysis
This does not happen to the same degree in other countries according to the new Global Progress/YouGov data.
In the United Kingdom, for example, most British citizens view Labour Party leader Keir Starmer as slightly left-of-center (26 percent) and another 1 in 10 place him directly in the center. Only 8 percent of British people view Starmer as very left-wing—more than three times lower than the percentage of Americans who label Biden as very left-wing.
Even among Conservative voters from 2019, only 15 percent place Starmer on the far left with most seeing him as fairly left-wing or slightly left-of-center. In turn, most British citizens label Prime Minister Boris Johnson as fairly right-wing (28 percent), above the 16 percent who place him on the far right of the ideological scale. Labour voters from 2019 are more likely to view Johnson’s ideology as fairly right-wing rather than as very right-wing.
The pattern is repeated in Germany, Sweden, and Norway where current Social Democratic and Labour party leaders are all seen as more center-left than far left by citizens of their respective countries. Only 4 percent of Germans place Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the far-left side of the ideological spectrum, with most locating him in the center. Only 7 percent of Swedes place Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson on the far left with nearly one third seeing her as slightly left-of-center. Only 6 percent of Norwegians place Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on the very left-wing side of the scale with a plurality seeing him as center-left.
Interestingly, in France nearly 4 in 10 citizens place President Emmanuel Macron on the slightly right-of-center or fairly right-wing side of the ideological scale.
Charts taken from: The Liberal Patriot
(click or tap to enlargen)
So, what’s going on? Why do Americans seem to view their leaders in such extreme ways compared to those in other democracies?
Perhaps citizens in European countries with multi-party systems have a keener understanding of the gradations of political ideology than do Americans with their two-party system. Perhaps citizens in these countries assess their leaders and parties more fairly than do Americans who appear to think most of their leaders are extremists. Perhaps the leaders in these European countries are more centrist in temperament and in practice than those in American politics.
More likely than not, American citizens are not any worse or better than others at understanding political ideology, and a leader like President Biden is not any more left-wing than his social democratic peers in Europe.
The difference in evaluations probably lies in the sorry state of national political discourse in the United States today. Americans operate under a daily barrage of culture war battles in the media along with constant partisan accusations of national treachery and radicalism hurled at opponents. In a context where all politics is presented as a zero-sum ideological fight for moral supremacy, many Americans are primed by media elites, social media trolls, and the billion dollar campaign industrial complex to view their leaders, particularly those from another party, as extremists. Sane Americans respond by tuning out the nonsense and turning away from politics altogether.
Chart taken from: Gallup / Knight Foundation
(click or tap to enlargen)
Yet, for America to flourish and overcome its biggest economic and security challenges, we all need to ratchet down the actual crazy politics—as well as the nonstop accusations of extremism for otherwise normal behavior and policy positions. Americans need to get out of the doom cycle of anger and mistrust that fuels partisan polarization. Those running our media and political institutions also need to relearn the art of measured political coverage and reasonable debate.
Although our politics seems hopelessly divided between the extremes, the center lane is still open to any political leader, party, or citizen willing to move over and occupy the space. To do this, Donald Trump needs an entirely different mode of politics to earn a legitimate second chance from a majority of American voters. In turn, Joe Biden needs to permanently shift back to the center lane where he started out—and be perceived as doing so by more Americans—if he wants to be reelected in 2024. And Americans themselves need to take a break from political combat and start rewarding those leaders who genuinely occupy the political center and stand up for the well-being of the entire nation.
What to Expect During the First January 6th Committee Open Hearings
What to Expect During the First January 6th Committee Open Hearings
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #37 | By: Maureen Darby-Serson | June 6nd, 2022
Header photo taken from: NBC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Yahoo
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On Thursday June 2nd, the January 6th committee announced when it would hold its first round of public hearings. The first open hearing will be Thursday, June 9th at 8pm. Primetime. No other details were released, but more information would be made available next week. For example, no witness list was published.
This announcement was made a day after former Republican Congressman Denver Riggleman called text messages on Mark Meadow’s phone scary. He then went on to described Meadows as the “MVP” for the committee and that the texts showed a “roadmap” to the January 6th riots, starting as early as November 3rd.
In addition to the public hearing announcement, the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against Former Trump White House Official Peter Navarro for failing to comply with a subpoena the January 6th committee sent to him months ago. He has spent his time since he was served with the subpoena fighting in court representing himself unsuccessfully. Normally, the DOJ allows an individual to self-surrender, but they considered Navarro a flight risk, so they arrested him at an airport in Nashville. He faces up to one year in prison.
Policy Analysis
So, what should you expect on the first days of the hearings? Assuming it is like most committee hearings, each member will get time to make an opening statement. This will set the stage for the future public hearings and will likely give the first look into the overarching findings of the committee.
They have spent months combing through thousands of emails and text messages, looking through intelligence data, and speaking with witnesses present on that day. These smaller details will likely be presented in later public hearings.
Mark Meadow’s text messages and information from him seem to be a big player in the committee’s investigations and will likely be a large part of these public hearings.
Photo taken from: CNN
(click or tap to enlargen)
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
January 6th Committee Hearings – https://january6th.house.gov/committee_activity
Anderson Cooper Interview with Denver Riggleman
Is Your Drinking Water Safe?
Is Your Drinking Water Safe?
Environment Policy Brief #143 | By: Roarke Cullenbine | May 31, 2022
Header photo taken from: Environmental Law Monitor
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: PBS
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Water pollution is a serious epidemic in the US, impacting hundreds of thousands. With the US ranking twenty-third in the world for tap water safety, great progress is necessary to keep citizens out of the hospital from consuming either lead, diesel, or pathogens in their water supplies. With few additions to the dated 1972 Clean Water Act, impurity of America’s drinking water is not improving. With 50 percent of US water being so polluted that it is unusable, water pollution threatens the health of many Americans, especially minority populations. 75% of African-Americans are more likely to live near facilities that create hazardous waste and communities with 25% or more of Latinx residents live in communities that have double the water purity violation rates. It is essential that both federal and local governments be kept accountable for regulating the water that its citizens rely on for survival.
Some hope may be on the way with the recent passing of President Biden’s $55 billion allocation to improve water treatment systems through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. However, this is set to target the replacement of lead water systems and not to resolve other threats.
Policy Analysis
When your faucet is turned on, how confident are you that the clear, dispensed liquid is truly pure drinking water? If you live in, for example, Austria, Finland, Malta, Switzerland, or the United Kingdom, chances are that your faith was placed in the right hands. However, if you live in Israel, Cyprus, Canada, or the United States, the odds aren’t so favorable.
Why is the United States on this list? With the U.S, being the richest country in the world, why is the quality of its drinking water so disappointing? Why do our water emergencies continue, threatening innocent lives, such as the 1 million citizens having to boil their water in Austin, Texas, or the tap water in Oahu being contaminated with over 350 times the safe amount of diesel fuel for human consumption; or the infamous water crisis in Flint, Michigan, that today still is having adverse effects on its citizens. This is all not to mention the serious adverse impacts water pollution is having on US wildlife such as the ongoing threat to Florida’s manatees or, local to my home, Maryland’s famous blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay.
Photo taken from: The New York Times
With the passing of Biden’s Infrastructure Law, $55 billion was allocated to implement better drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. Despite great historical resistance from the Republican Party, the Infrastructure Law’s passing shows that legitimate access to clean water can be a non-partisan issue.
Those that support clean water accessibility should contact their state representatives, regardless of party, and advocate for this issue to remain on the Congress floor. For those areas currently impacted by polluted waters, direct change can be promoted within the state level through citizen participation in grassroot organizations and speaking when local government is in session. While some organizations to get involved can be found below, a simple Google search for organizations in your area can be all the change necessary to create a better nation for tomorrow.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The NDRC is a legal advocacy group, dedicated to combat issues of climate change and all negative consequences it brings. Founded in 1970, the NDRC has over 700 staff with over 2 million members.
https://naacp.org/know-issues/environmental-climate-justice
Formed in 1909, the NAACP is a legal advocacy group primarily concerned with the elimination of race-based discrimination. As a mission for climate justice, a part of this discrimination includes advocating for the many minority communities that receive the greater weight of adverse climate change effects.
https://environmentamerica.org/
A political lobbying organization, Environment America advocates for new legislation to address the climate crisis within US communities. Founded in 2007, Environment America lobbies as a national network of 30 state environmental groups to better bolster change across the US.
https://bluewaterbaltimore.org/
An example of a local organization, Blue Water Baltimore is a grassroots organization that advocates for the restoration of clean water within the City of Baltimore’s rivers, streams, and famous harbor. With ongoing challenges to the purity of the Chesapeake Bay, local organizations such as Blue Water Baltimore make it possible to combat big problems at the local level.
Guns Now Leading Cause of Death for Children
Guns Now Leading Cause of Death for Children
Health & Gender Policy Brief #152 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | June 2, 2022
Header photo taken from: The New York Post
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Brandon Bell / Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
It’s a shocking statistic that should make every American pause and reflect: guns are now the leading cause of death for children in the United States.
Let that sink in. According to the CDC, firearms became the leading cause of death for kids one and older in 2020, marking the first time that motor vehicle crashes have not been the number one cause of death.
Nearly two-thirds of the 4,368 U.S. children up to age 19 who were killed by guns in 2020 were homicide victims, according to CDC data. Another 30 percent of firearm-related child fatalities were suicides, 3 percent were accidental and 2 percent were of undetermined intent. Motor vehicle crashes, formerly the leading cause of death for kids one and older, killed nearly 4,000 children.
Last month’s school massacre of 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas was the 27th school shooting in the U.S. this year. The tragedy came just 10 days after a mass shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., that took the lives of 10 people.
About 500 children and teens have lost their lives to gun violence in the U.S. so far in 2022, according to the Gun Violence Archive, an independent data collection organization. The Gun Violence Archive has also counted 212 mass shootings that have occurred so far this year, and 2022 is not even half over. It defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people were shot or killed, excluding the shooter.
Policy Analysis
Among other stark finding in the CDC data are gender and racial realities: Male youths are significantly more likely to be killed by guns, while vehicle crashes claim more females. In addition, the firearm death rate for Black children is more than four times that of white children, and white children are still more likely to be killed by motor vehicles than guns.
Because the National Rifle Association (NRA) continues to maintain a stranglehold on the Republican Party, many Americans, despite voicing increasing outrage, are not optimistic about the likelihood of Congress passing gun control laws any time soon. Members of the medical and educational communities say a more realistic approach may lie in treating the gun catastrophe facing children as a public health crisis, rather than a political battle.
“As the progress made in reducing deaths from motor vehicle crashes shows, we don’t have to accept the high rate of firearm-related deaths among U.S. children and adolescents,” researchers recently wrote in a New England Journal of Medicine article that focuses on the trend.
“Preventable deaths among young people not only are associated with tremendous medical costs, but take a great personal toll on families and communities. To reverse the trend of increasing firearm-related deaths among U.S. children, experts and policymakers should be intentional in their efforts to develop and implement a multipronged scientific strategy centered on continuous improvement.”
Twenty years ago, the CDC proclaimed the reduction in deaths attributable to motor vehicle crashes to be one of the most substantial public health achievements of the 20th century. But while the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) could take the lead addressing road-traffic fatalities, the researchers point out that firearms are one of the few products whose safety isn’t regulated by a designated federal agency.
The auto industry has introduced numerous safety improvements over the past two decades, including: automatic emergency braking, electronic stability controls, lane-departure warnings, blind-spot detection, front and side airbags, and rear-facing cameras. By contrast, guns sold to civilians are becoming more lethal as gun manufacturers are selling weapons designed for military use.
Photo taken from: Daniel Borris / The New York Times
(click or tap to enlargen)
The New England Journal of Medicine article also notes that the firearms industry has made little effort to develop or market personalized “smart” guns. Because such weapons can be only be fired by the authorized user only, so-called smart guns should reduce the risk of children unintentionally shooting themselves or others and of adolescents using guns for homicide or suicide.
Traffic safety has also benefitted from universal state-level requirements for the licensing of drivers and the registration of vehicles. States created graduated-licensing programs for new drivers in the late 1990s, which reduced fatal crashes among teenagers. States also introduced booster-seat laws, and guidance for parents on age-appropriate child car seats, which further reduced deaths from motor vehicle crashes among children.
Meanwhile, many states have made it easier for children and young adults, as well as adults with criminal records, to gain access to firearms. Some states don’t require background checks when firearms are purchased from private sellers, such as at gun shows.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine article, “in recent years, many of the same states have passed legislation allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. At the federal level, the government has given the firearm industry partial protection against certain tort-liability suits (i.e., against negligence claims contending that they could have foreseen their product being diverted for criminal use), which has reduced the industry’s incentive to help prevent firearm-related deaths.”
The researchers say it’s time for treating gun safety the way motor vehicle safety has successfully been improved: Begin with a system that tracks firearm-related injuries and promotes the type of continuous reduction in injury rates that has been seen for motor vehicle crashes, especially among children. They advocate establishing a federal agency whose mission is to prevent harm caused by firearms.
Among other things, they also recommend federal and state laws, such as strong child-access prevention laws, which hold firearm owners liable if a child gains or could gain access to a firearm. Using evidence-based research to make incremental improvements has proven to be the key to the science of injury prevention.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Mortality from Motor Vehicle Crashes and Firearms among Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults, United States, 2000–2020:
CDC full report on current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the US:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
The New England Journal of Medicine: Crossing Lines — A Change in the Leading Cause of Death among U.S. Children:
Gun violence archive 2022:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Firearm mortality by state:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
FTC initiates Crackdown on Deceptive Earnings Claims
FTC initiates Crackdown on Deceptive Earnings Claims
Economic Policy Brief #137 | By: Stephen Thomas | May 22, 2022
Header photo taken from: TDS Business Blog
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Information Technology & Innovation Founation
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There is an adage which, simply put, means that if a deal appears too good to be true, then it probably is. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has seen so many consumers misled by so-called deceptive earnings claims that the agency is developing a regulation to crackdown on the practice. The solution is composed of two phases.
First, the FTC from March 11 through May 10 received public comments via the Federal Register on how it should approach its proposed rulemaking; there were compliments and criticisms. Second, with the public comment period closed, the agency is now turning its attention to crafting a rule that ideally will become a sweeping prohibition on unfair and deceptive earnings statements that will be contained in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The FTC cannot pull a regulation out of thin air of its own volition. That is not the way the administrative rulemaking process works. Congress must grant an agency rulemaking authority. In this case, the FTC has the authority to draft a rule under the Federal Trade Commission Act. A regulation is a part of the playbook for how to enforce a congressionally passed and presidentially signed statute.
Policy Analysis
The FTC specified its purpose in its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register.
“The Commission anticipates that a rule prohibiting the use of misleading earnings claims would enhance deterrence and help the Commission move quickly to stop illegal conduct,” the agency wrote in the Register.
“Such a rule also may further clarify for businesses what constitutes a deceptive earnings claim and what it means to have substantiation for an earnings claim. In addition, a rule would enable the Commission to seek monetary relief for consumers harmed by deceptive earnings claims, as well as civil penalties against those who make the deceptive claims.”
Under the FTC Act, the agency can seek, as it reads in the Register, ‘‘rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money or return of property, [and] the payment of damages.” Further, the notice reads, “section 5 of the [statute] allows the Commission to recover civil penalties against those who violate such a rule.”
A deceptive earnings statement, in a nutshell, can lead a consumer to believe that an investment is likely to be more profitable than it usually is. The FTC’s notice points out from the outset that certain deceptive earnings claims incorporate marketing materials. Indeed, the notice begins, “The Federal Trade Commission is considering proposing a rule to address deceptive or unfair marketing using earnings claims.”
Additionally, in a footnote to the notice that refers to the nature of a deceptive earnings statement, the FTC explains, “For example, the Business Opportunity Rule bars business opportunity sellers from disseminating industry financial information to prospective purchasers unless they have substantiation that the information reflects, or does not exceed, the typical or ordinary experience of purchasers.” The notice goes a step further in its practical definition of a deceptive earnings statement and explains that “earnings claims that reflect gross income and omit material expenses are misleading.”
There was a range of public comments on the FTC’s notice of proposed rulemaking. (The reason this process is called “rulemaking” is that the FTC’s result will not be an “act” passed by Congress. It will be a “regulation” implemented by an agency through the rulemaking process. Acts and regulations are two different aspects of the law.)
Some of the comments applauded the FTC.
Two organizations that defend consumer rights submitted comments in response to the invitation contained in the Federal Register. In support of the FTC’s rulemaking, the National Consumers League and the Consumer Federation of America wrote, “… we urge the Commission to adopt a broad earnings claims rule, including a prohibition on false, misleading, and deceptive lifestyle claims and imagery. The rule should also prohibit false, misleading, and deceptive earnings claims related to wages and salary.”
Photo taken from: Twitter / Justin Brookman
(click or tap to enlargen)
While income disclosures are no substitute for strong prohibitions on unfair or deceptive earning claims, they can be useful tools for consumers, anti-fraud researchers, and law enforcement agencies like the FTC. The Commission should therefore require operators of multi-level marketing and gig economy businesses to provide verifiable, easy-to-understand income disclosures to potential recruits.”
There is, of course, another side of the regulatory coin. For instance, Kevin Thompson, managing partner at the law firm Thompson Burton PLLC, warns against making this rulemaking process political rather than legal.
“The implication that earnings claims that promote the earnings of an individual inherently labels those individuals as bad actors, absent malintent, is what truly hinders the growth of small businesses and what has raised and continues to raise our concerns,” Thompson wrote in his public comment on the proposed rulemaking.
“From our extensive experience with startups and the difficulties that small businesses face, specifically within the network marketing industry, we find that a substantive rule should go beyond the facial issue of misleading and/or deceptive earnings claims and attempt to balance what constitutes consumer harm that would warrant appropriate redress.”
The attorney continued by writing, “It is our belief that the rule should not be a political tool but rather a substantive test to apply for small and large businesses alike to be provided with appropriate goalposts by which to gauge conduct. Bad actors will remain bad actors, regardless of the rules, so instead of providing a framework that punishes the majority due to the actions of the few, provide an accurate assessment that focuses on consumer harm and what that actually means as opposed to the incidental failing to follow technicalities across the board.”
The FTC and the states have pulled no punches on alleged false-earnings claims, even without a new regulation on the books. The FTC announced in February that the agency, working alongside the Utah Department of Commerce Division of Consumer Protection, reached a settlement with Zurixx LLC, its owners and its corporate associates in which the real estate investment-coaching operators would pay roughly $12 million for “consumer redress.”
The operators of the real estate program, according to the FTC’s Feb. 16 statement, “sold live seminars and telephone coaching using false earnings claims that convinced tens of thousands of consumers to pay them thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
FTC’s Federal Register Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Statement of Consumer Groups
Statement of Kevin Thompson of the law firm Thompson Burton PLLC
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0020-1545
FTC’s Settlement in a False Earnings Case
A Draft Leaked Opinion Puts the Supreme Court’s Impartiality into Question
A Draft Leaked Opinion Puts the Supreme Court’s Impartiality into Question
Elections and Politics Policy Brief #36 | By: Maureen Darby-Serson | May 22, 2022
Header photo taken from: AP Photo / Anna Johnson
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Reuters
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Late on Monday May 2nd, 2022, a draft of an opinion written in February 2022, in the upcoming US Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked to the press. This is one of a handful of leaks, in general, since the US Supreme Court established itself in 1789. The Dobbs case is having the Court revisit the right to an abortion.
This court opinion, which was written by Justice Alito, would essentially overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey, which gave Women the right to access to abortions on the federal level. This leaked majority opinion pushes off the decision to make abortion legal or illegal to the states.
Policy Analysis
Why is this such a big deal and what does it mean for the court moving forward?
When the Supreme Court was first established, the court justices used to board together to avoid leaks and encourage bonding. This set up the court to be impartial and work together to come to opinions on cases that were generally agreed upon by all justices. This leak signals a new era of the court where this collegial atmosphere may no longer be the case.
The point of the Supreme Court is to be impartial, not political, and for the justices to follow the letter of law instead of following their own beliefs. While Justice Alito tries to argue that abortion is a moral issue and should not be determined by the government or politics, pushing the legality of such off to the states allows for the possibility of states banning abortion on religious grounds. The separation of church and state will then further be put into question.
Photo taken from: Slate
(click or tap to enlargen)
Usually, the Supreme Court does not revisit court decisions that it has previously decided, let alone, a decision it has revisited twice, like this one. This is to ensure that a decision is not revisited every time a court political opinion majority changes.
This is a question that people currently ask. Is the court revisiting decisions on abortion because the balance of the Supreme Court is currently leaning towards the right?
It is unclear if this leaked draft opinion is the final opinion of the court, and we won’t know if Roe v. Wade will be overturned until that final opinion is ordered in late June. It is a waiting game until then, but this leak does show that things are changing at the US Supreme Court.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
US Supreme Court website https://www.supremecourt.gov/
US Supreme Court leaked opinion https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf
Who’s in Charge When it Comes to Making COVID 19 Regulations?
Who’s in Charge When it Comes to Making COVID 19 Regulations?
Health and Gender Policy Brief #151 | By: Alexandra Ellis | May 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: United States Department of Labor
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Evan Vucci / Associated Press
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On April 19, 2022, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle in Tampa, overturned the mask mandate for interstate travel. The CDC’s interstate mask mandate for plane, trains, and buses, was first issued in May 2021, and was extended to May 2022. Before the mask mandate was set to expire this May, a U.S. District Court declared it unconstitutional. The Biden administration has been relatively quiet on COVID concerns since March of 2022, when the Center for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) released the community guidance standards.
The question becomes, why then is the Justice Department appealing. In other words, why is the Justice Department trying to defend the interstate travel mask mandate when the rest of the Executive branch seems currently indifferent to COVID and recent surge in cases across the country. The answer to this is rooted in preserving CDC’s rulemaking authority and therefore executive and congressional power.
Policy Analysis
By a U.S. District Court declaring that the CDC exceeded its authority in creating the federal mask-mandate for interstate travel, it challenges the CDC’s authority to promulgate rules for future surges and pandemics. While the rest of the executive branch seems to have moved on from COVID, asking communities and individuals to step up and protect themselves, the Justice Department is defending the CDC’s authority to create rules relating to the health and safety of the nation.
The CDC is a federal agency, granted power through Congress, to monitor and carry out the federal regulations relating to public health of the nation. See Title 42 of the CFR.
Through Congress, the CDC has the power to make and promulgate rules. All federal agencies usually have this power; it is called judicatory rule-making authority. In this authority, the federal agency has delegated authority from Congress to make rules relating to their respective agencies. In turn this frees up time for Congress to work on legislating new laws and dealing with other important matters than day to day implantation of federal regulations
Federal agencies, like the CDC, have rule making authority granted to them through Congress to implement Congress’s original legislation. They can make law that must be followed. In this instance, the CDC promulgated a rule that masks have to be worn during interstate travel: where travel occurs across state boundaries.
It is without a doubt that Congress has the ability to enact laws that relate to regulation of interstate travel, because it affects the whole of the nation. The idea is rooted in federalism, that even though the United States is fifty separate states, with its own unique sets of laws and culture, as a nation we are united, and free movement between states should be protected at all costs.
Photo taken from: Greg Nash / Getty Images
The mask mandate on planes, buses, and trains helped stop the spread of COVID-19 and related directly to the authority of the CDC. The CDC with the interstate mask mandate hoped to protect public health. With a District Court in Florida striking this down, people have started to unmask during interstate travel. As soon it occurred, a popular video showed an airlines stewardess directing individuals on a flight that they no longer had to wear the masks. You can hear on the video people cheering and clapping.
See video, https://youtu.be/dbd0PQyfTMc.
So, if the idea of unmasking for interstate travel is so popular what is the problem with the District Court’s ruling? The issue becomes CDC’s authority to protect and promulgate rules for future COVID surges and other potential pandemics in the future. Under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), judicial deference should be given to administrative actions that are reasonably related to their purpose.
A mask mandate to promote the health and safety of the country from a repository illness is reasonably related to the purpose of the CDC. The District Court’s decision ignores judicial deference and states that the CDC’s mandate is over- reaching. Effectively the court found that the mask mandate was unconstitutional because the CDC did not have the power to promulgate such a rule.
However, without a doubt Congress can make legislation relating to interstate travel. Because Congress delegates it powers to agencies, like CDC, to promulgate and carry out legislative goals, the CDC should be able to make rules relating to interstate travel such as a mask mandate on planes, trains, and buses. So, even though the Biden administrative says now that COVID should be a community and individual approach instead of a federal, it is in their interest to protect the travel ban in court. This is because the ruling challenges agency power. The Justice Department will challenge the ban to protect the CDC’s power from future assaults.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Listen to NPR’s take on why the Justice Department is appealing the Tampa District Court ruling: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/04/22/1094170593/why-the-governments-slow-move-to-appeal-the-mask-decision-may-be-a-legal-strategty.
To read more about why you should still wear a mask during interstate travel: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/04/22/1094183597/travel-mask-mandate-risk#:~:text=The%20Biden%20administration%20is%20appealing,risky%20travel%20is%20for%20themselves.
To keep informed about COVID – 19 guidance check CDC guidelines regularly. COVID- 19 Community guidance and tool can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/guidance.html. The map tool on this website will lead you to your local government page to check emergency COVID mandates, and other suggestions from local governments.
Hate-Motivated Behavior: Impacts, Risk Factors, and Interventions
Hate-Motivated Behavior: Impacts, Risk Factors, and Interventions
Social Justice Policy Brief #35 | By: Inijah Quadri | May 20, 2022
Header photo taken from: MTV News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: DC (.gov)
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Hate-motivated behavior, or hate crimes, refers to any act of violence or intimidation motivated by prejudice or hatred against any individual or group. This type of behavior can have a serious impact on the victim’s well-being, as well as that of their loved ones.
However, there is still much that the average person does not know about the impacts, risk factors, and interventions that are most effective in addressing this problem. This educational brief explores some of the recent cases of hate-motivated behavior and its impact on individuals and communities.
Policy Analysis
Recent Cases of Hate-Motivated Behavior
There has been an increase in hate crimes in the United States in recent years. This can be attributed to a number of factors, such as the political and social climate, the increasing diversity of the population, and the ease with which people can find hateful content online. Hate crimes can take many forms, from verbal abuse and intimidation to violence and murder. They are often directed against marginalized groups, such as people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and religious minorities.
Some cases of such hate-motivated behaviors include the recent mass shooting in Buffalo, New York State, a recent gay attack on the New York subway, and the infamous hate crimes against Asians during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This xenophobic trend is disturbing, and it must be addressed head-on.
The Connection Between Hate Crimes and Guns
Since the early days of our country, hate crimes and guns have been linked. The first gun laws in the United States were put into place to prevent freed slaves from owning firearms. These racist gun laws prevented newly freed slaves from defending themselves against the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups.
Decades later, the link between hate crimes and guns is still strong. How?
While the rates of hate crimes remain alarming, in many states, people who have been convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes are still able to buy and own guns. This is due to a loophole in the law that allows those with misdemeanor convictions to still purchase firearms.
Sure, hate crimes are often motivated by fear or hatred of a particular group, which can lead to violence. Well, easy access to firearms, even to some hate crime convicts, makes it easy for someone who wants to commit a hate crime to get their hands on a weapon.
This is concerning not only because hate crimes are on the rise, but also because most criminals are repeat offenders.
The Impact of Hate-Motivated Behavior on Individuals
When an individual is the target of hate-motivated behavior, the experience can be extremely traumatizing. The sense of being devalued and unsafe can be overwhelming and may lead to a wide range of negative psychological outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicide. These individuals may also struggle with increased feelings of isolation and loneliness.
The Impact of Hate-Motivated Behavior on Communities
Hate-motivated behavior can also have a significant impact on communities. For example, hate crimes can create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, which leaves everyone in the community scared and worried. Additionally, as hate crimes can result in physical and emotional injuries to victims, these often translate to financial losses for the community. Furthermore, hate-motivated behavior can tarnish the image of a community, making it more difficult for residents to attract new businesses and residents.
Photos taken from: Getty Images, Harvard Politcal Review
(click or tap photos to enlargen)
Interventions for Hate-Motivated Behavior
There is no one answer to addressing hate-motivated behavior as it can take many different forms and may require different interventions depending on the situation. However, some general interventions that might be used in response to hate-motivated behavior include education and awareness programs about the history and impact of hate speech and bigotry, promoting positive social norms against hate-motivated behavior, providing support for victims of hate crimes or harassment, and implementing policies and procedures that discourage hate-motivated behavior.
Government Efforts
Government efforts to stop hate crimes are multifaceted and ongoing. The U.S has created laws and regulations to prohibit hate crimes, established programs to educate the public about hate crimes, and funded research on the topic. Law enforcement officials are also trained to identify and investigate hate crimes.
The Need for Further Prevention and Intervention
Prevention and intervention of hate-motivated behavior is important to maintain a safe and inclusive society. Hate-motivated behavior can lead to discrimination, violence, and even death. As such, it is crucial that we have working systems in place to identify and address hate-motivated behavior before it becomes an even bigger problem.
Future prevention and intervention programs should involve identifying potential hate crimes before they occur, providing support for victims, and educating every individual about the dangers of hate-motivated behavior; possibly starting with the school curriculum.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Brookings Institution
The United States Department of Justice
(https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/learn-about-hate-crimes, https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crimes-case-examples; https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-will-award-more-21-million-prevent-and-respond-hate-crimes)
USA Today
Voice of America
(https://www.voanews.com/a/us-big-city-hate-crimes-spiked-by-39-in-2021-report-finds-/6571116.html)
Support for the Separation of Church and State Should be Part of the Democrats Platform in the 2022 Mid-terms
Support for the Separation of Church and State Should be Part of the Democrats Platform in the 2022 Mid-terms
U.S. RESIST OP ED | May 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: Pew Research Center
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more US Renew op eds from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: South Bend Tribune
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In the upcoming Congressional elections Democrats should emphasize their commitment to supporting a democratic pluralistic society that respects individual rights, and the principle of separation of church and state, and how not showing support for these values opens the doors for outlawing abortions, banning books and other culture war issues. They need to highlight how many Republicans are backing laws that seek to impose a particular religious point of view on the lives of all Americans..
We are a nation of diverse peoples representing different religious, ethnic, and racial groups. Our Constitution recognizes and give us the ability to worship as we choose, freely express ourselves, and feel that our rights as individuals are protected
The First Amendment Bill of Rights reads “congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” and has been referred to as the establishment clause. Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the clause often has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and others to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.
Recently the separation clause has been threatened by right wing religious extremists whose views are working their way into the political platform and cultural assertions of the Republican party and the Supreme Court. Republican efforts to assert an Evangelical Christian point of view and way of life span many areas.
The most high profile of these is the anticipated forthcoming Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal, denying women the constitutional right to control their own bodies. Other religious right culture war offensives include efforts to have schools ban books and classroom discussions that focus on issues related to sex education, gay and transgender rights, and racial discrimination, and efforts to enforce religious school prayer.
Majorities in all major religions believe in human induced global warming. However, many evangelicals believe our current global warming and climate change are simply part of a natural cycle and not caused by humans.
Photo taken from: Politico
(click or tap to enlargen)
Democrats need to push back on this trend by defending the values of a pluralistic democracy and making a defense of separation of church and state a key part of their own platform in the upcoming Fall elections.
As the late Mario Cuomo said in a speech at Notre Dame University in 1984. “The Catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic democracy — who is elected to serve Jews and Muslims, atheists and Protestants, as well as Catholics — bears special responsibility,” Cuomo said. “He or she undertakes to help create conditions under which all can live with a maximum of dignity and with a reasonable degree of freedom; where everyone who chooses may hold beliefs different from specifically Catholic ones — sometimes contradictory to them; where the laws protect people’s right to divorce, to use birth control and even to choose abortion.”
Therapeutic Effect of Classical Music After a Pandemic
Therapeutic Effect of Classical Music After a Pandemic
Health & Gender Policy Brief #150 | By: Yelena Korshunov | May 17, 2022
Header photo taken from: PRS for Music
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Two years of the pandemic drastically affected our life. Although the COVID-19 curve recently increased, we are eager to make steps toward revival. Theaters opened doors for the public in the 2021/22 season, museums welcomed visitors, and indoor performances became more frequent. We want to have our pre-pandemic routine back. Some of us feel comfortable taking a seat at the stuffed theater, others still prefer to avoid crowded places, but we all acutely need to move away from the long-term stress and get back to our comfort zone.
It was a cold but nice sunny day. People were walking along Broadway in Manhattan when at the corner of 62nd Street they were stopped by sounds of beautiful music flowing over the busy streets. Piano and violin harmony from the Musical Storefront made people stop and enjoy it in front of the large window where the musicians played. They performed inside the venue with speakers outside, and everyone could see and listen to the concert. People applauded loudly, and no one left before the performance was over.
It was a free classical music concert of Julia Jones and Alex Ruvinstein, organized by Kaufman Music Center, and whoever wanted could listen to it outside of a crowded indoor place. People smiled enjoying the music, feeling that this is the life they used to have, and this life is coming back now. I asked Alex Ruvinstein, a New York piano performer, about his feeling of the renaissance of music performance today and how it affects the audience.
-Alex, what did you do during the long COVID quarantine when music venues were closed and concerts were canceled? How did you feel about it?
-Although I played a couple of online concerts during this time and had a number of recordings, it’s not the same as when you play for a live audience. You react to the energy coming from the listeners and perform differently.
-How has the audience reacted to resumed live concerts?
-Very enthusiastically. You could see how people missed live music and how happy they were to return to this harmony between them and a musician. Every single performance became a celebration. People come to you after the concert to talk, like old friends after being away for a long time.
– What is the therapeutic impact of live classical music on the audience?
– When people are so stressed out, music makes them feel safer and relaxed. They recall the sentimental moments of their lives and look forward with optimism and hope.
– You are used to playing in concert halls. What inspired you and your colleague Julia when you performed for passersby at the Musical Storefront today?
– It is a completely different feeling compared to performing at the music hall. Today’s experience was something dynamic, momentary, when people would come after the program had already started and could leave before it ended. It was especially rewarding when people stayed to listen to the entire concert. We had three performances in a row, and some people stayed to listen to the same program over and over.
Policy Analysis
According to the North Shore University of Health System, “music can improve mood, decrease pain and anxiety, and facilitate opportunities for emotional expression. “ Research has shown that blood flows more easily when music is played. It can also reduce heart rate, lower blood pressure, decrease cortisol (stress hormone) levels and increase serotonin and endorphin levels in the blood.” This research also found out that besides relieving symptoms of depression, music stimulates memories, and even eases pain.
It helps people eat less. “Playing soft music in the background (and dimming the lights) during a meal can help people slow down while eating and ultimately consume less food in one sitting.” Research also found that listening to workout tracks increases endurance during an exercise session. We need to choose music that brings us into harmony with ourselves. It may be different for relaxation and for exercising, but it will make us feel happier.
It is widely known that music brings us a more positive state of mind, helping to reduce anxiety and depression, and to elevate mood. It can help prevent or decrease stress, and keep creativity and makeoptimism levels higher. In the research “Mozart, Music and Medicine”, Ernest K.J. Pauwels and his colleagues found out that “music may modulate the immune response, among other things, evidenced by increasing the activity of natural killer cells, lymphocytes and interferon-γ, which is an interesting feature as many diseases are related to a misbalanced immune system.”
It is clear that the positive effect of classical music should be counted when funds are spent on people’s health needs. We will benefit from using today’s renaissance of music performances for therapeutic treatment of our pandemic stress and its side effects. Free outdoor concerts, and performances such as at the Musical Storefront, when indoor concerts are accessible for public audiences, should be added to the local and federal health improvement planning, especially during the long-lasting pandemic.
(click or tap to enlargen)
You may wonder whether classical music is especially beneficial for our health, more so than other genres? Research shows that classical music does our body good, and specifically, our heart. In a study published in the journal Deutsches Aerzteblatt International in 2016, researchers compared the effect of the music of Mozart and Strauss with that of ABBA on issues related to heart health. They found that “those who listened to Mozart and Strauss had markedly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as lower heart rates. ABBA’s tunes, on the other hand, didn’t produce the same effects.” Michael Schneck, MD, a neurologist with Loyola Medicine in Chicago explains that “it is the emphasis of listening to the harmonies and rhythms of classical music that may provide a calming effect for people, thus helping to lower their blood pressure. This could occur with classical music or jazz music.”
Classical music knowingly reveals our hidden emotions, helps us sleep, improves memory, and even makes us smarter. Catherine Jackson, a clinical psychologist and neurotherapist, has noticed a similar effect during neurotherapy sessions when she plays light or classical music while patients engage in deep breathing. “Music impacts how we feel, which in turn impacts how we perform on cognitive tasks” she says. “A happy brain is a healthy brain and music, especially music that evokes positive memories, can help to increase dopamine and neuroconnectivity, keeping the aging brain healthier.”
It is clear that the positive effect of classical music should be counted when funds are spent on people’s health needs. Open concerts, such as at the Musical Storefront, may expose new listeners to classical music, whose physical and mental health may become in some degree better when they have a chance to acquire a habit to enjoy this harmony.
We benefit from using today’s renaissance of music performances for therapeutic treatment of our pandemic stress and its side effects. Free outdoor concerts, and performances such as at the Musical Storefront, when indoor concerts are accessible for public audiences, should be added to the local and federal health improvement planning, especially during the long-lasting pandemic.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
USA Outdoor Classic Festival Guide
https://www.visittheusa.com/experience/festival-guide-where-classical-music-meets-epic-scenery
Top Outdoor 25 Music Venues in the US
https://beats.binauralrecords.com/music-lists/top-outdoor-music-concert-venues-amphitheaters-in-us/
Music Festival Search Wizard
https://www.musicfestivalwizard.com/festival-guide/us-festivals/
Writer’s References
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
9 Health Benefits of Music
https://www.northshore.org/healthy-you/9-health-benefits-of-music/
Mozart, Music and Medicine