JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Controversial Texas Voting Access Bill: Its Effects on the Coming Mid-Terms
Brief #36 – Elections & Politics
By Inijah Quadri
The Republican-dominated Texas Legislature on August 19th passed an election bill that Democrats and advocates say will restrict voting rights for minorities.
Republicans inflicted a crushing defeat on Democrats, who fought for months against what they saw as a brazen attempt to disenfranchise minorities, including African-Americans, and other voters who are more likely to vote Democrat.
Explaining Alaska’s Election Reforms: Ranked Choice Voting
Brief #37 – Elections & Politics
By Ian Milden
In the recent special election to replace the late Congressman Don Young (R-AK), Mary Peltola (D-AK) defeated former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Nick Begich (R-AK). This brief will examine the recent election reforms in Alaska that led to the upset and how they may affect the U.S. House and Senate races this year. The brief will also briefly discuss the implications of ranked choice voting.
The U.S. Must Assure Voting Access for All and Free and Fair Elections
U.S. RESIST NEWS OP ED – September 2022
By Abigail Hunt, Inijah Quadri, Steve Piazza, Rod Maggay and Ron Israel
At the core of the American republic is the principle of consent of the governed, or as Alexander Hamilton put it, “Here, sir, the people govern” (Alexander Hamilton “Remarks on the U.S. House of Representatives, at the New York state convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution,” July 27, 1788
Is Saudi Arabia a Gulf State … or a Golf State?
Brief #149 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
This summer has seen the ongoing disagreement and to some degree ‘war’ between LIV Golf and the PGA Tour. The traditional American viewing experience for generations has been the PGA Tour. Millions of viewers tune into individual tournaments throughout the season to see the worlds’ top golf professionals compete on American television. Now, a Saudi-backed challenger has stepped into the arena and has started to offer a significant challenge to the traditional golf watching, and competing, experience around the world.
Mikhail Gorbachev – a Knight of Lightness or Dark?
Brief #148 – Foreign Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most controversial figures in world politics. The Former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) President died at the age of 92 in Moscow on Tuesday, August 30, after a severe and prolonged illness. The last, fifth general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, Gorbachev was also the the last president of the USSR. He is not popular in today’s Russia, while his actions are often appreciated in the Western world.
Location Tracking Under Scrutiny
Brief #68 – Technology
By Mindy Spatt
All day, every day, our phones are tracking our locations, collecting minute by minute data on our whereabouts that phone companies, apps can use or sell.
Customers may agree to location tracking in order to use a GPS or a fitness monitor, but be less aware of how many others are getting in on the act; Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft are just a few examples of the many apps and services that are continuously keeping track of where we go and what we do. I can’t remember whether I ever gave any of them permission, can you?
California Shows What it Means to Protect Children on Social Media
Brief #67 – Technology Policy
By Steve Piazza
In late August, 2022 the California State Legislature passed AB-2273, The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. Built upon existing California laws. AB-2273 is aimed at protecting anyone under 18 from possible harmful effects of social media.
Mar – a – Lago Search Takes Disappointing Turn After Court Rulings
Brief #194 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
One year after leaving office in January 2022, former President Donald J. Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) entered into discussions for the return of fifteen boxes of presidential records that were being kept at the former President’s home in Mar – a – Lago, Florida.
It’s Time to Codify Marriage Equality in the US
Brief #144 – Health & Gender Policy
By Emily Scanlon
After the overturn of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the GOP Supreme Court Justices made it clear: Marriage equality is next. In the Court’s decision, Justice Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Justice Alito included Loving v. Virginia in his draft opinion, though Justice Thomas left it out. In response, the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) was introduced to the House on July 18th, 2022.
Wombsday
Wombsday
Health & Gender Policy Brief #149 | By: Anora Morton, J.D. | May 18, 2022
Header photo taken from: The Washington Post
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gener policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Press Democrat
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On December 1, 2021, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the bombshell abortion case originating in Mississippi, was argued in front of the highest court of the land. On May 2, 2022, a legitimate draft of the Supreme Court opinion indicating the Court’s intent to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press. Today we await Wombsday – the day the Court officially repeals all abortion right precedent.
Policy Analysis
Remember pictures of that malnourished tree in elementary school? With only three little branches? The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government with The United States Supreme Court championing over the Judicial branch. Basically, when a case gets no resolve over and over again, it can, on a rare occurrence, end up in the Supreme Court to be judged by all nine of the Supreme Court justices. Whatever these justices decide is law for all of us. In short, this Mississippi case you keep hearing about only matters because the outcome of it could soon determine what can you do, or perhaps more accurately, what you cannot do with your uterus.
Now, if we’re on the same page, you too are scratching your head pondering how in the world women’s autonomy over their own uteruses is still a hot button issue in 2022. This issue was handled back in the seventies when bell bottom pants and platform shoes were popular the first time with the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision! Roe permitted women to abort in their first trimester (first 13 weeks or 3 months) of pregnancy yet prohibited abortions in the third and final trimester of pregnancy (last 27 to 40 weeks) because the Court in 1973 held that during that third trimester, a fetus was viable – capable of surviving outside the womb. 410 US 113 (1973).
Essentially, Roe prohibited states from interfering with a woman’s right to abort pre-viability. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminated the trimester scheme in Roe while adding that states were prohibited from imposing undue burdens on women legally seeking abortions – such as requiring women to notify their husbands before aborting. 505 US 833.
While questioning the viability of a fetus, it is essential to note that no birthing person’s pregnancy journey is as cut and dry as six men in black robes on the Supreme Court would have you to believe. Each woman starts their period at different ages, each woman ovulates for different amounts of time – point being the variability of pregnancy from one woman to another is too distinct to ever be dictated by law.
Photo taken from: Findlaw
(click or tap to enlargen)
In fact, most women do not realize they are pregnant until they are about 5-8 weeks pregnant. At no fault of their own, of course, it’s just that nature trumps logic and law. In sum, this Mississippi Dobbs case is a big deal. If the Supreme Court sides with Mississippi law that viability begins after the 15-week mark of pregnancy, then women’s autonomy over their bodies will be confined drastically as they will have less time to make that crucial decision. Equally as discriminatory, birthing persons’ fundamental right to privacy would be completely obliterated as if it was never constitutionally guaranteed.
While we wait in angst for an official unleaked decision on this Mississippi case, the reality is that the topic of abortion has been litigated in state courts, in federal courts, and in the U.S. Supreme Court more times than we can count. This is not new. Dobbs v. Jackson essentially forces the Supreme Court to decide whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
For the Supreme Court to make this decision, it must first reconsider Roe and Casey and decide whether they should be overruled to hand the issue of abortion back to the states. Like abortion litigation, leaking of Supreme Court rulings is not new. The Roe ruling was leaked to the press before it was officially publicized. However, never before has a legitimate draft of a Supreme Court opinion been leaked to the public.
The opinion draft outwardly states: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled… It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” Meaning that the Court is planning to eliminate the abortion precedent and let the laws of abortion be dictated on a state-by-state basis instead of a federal blanket rule! What that means for you is that you need to expect your state’s laws to have final say on the issue of abortion.
No longer will there be a federal precedent to challenge your state law’s authority over your uterus. The culprit has yet to be identified. Whether it was a conservative hoping to put state lawmakers on notice to draft new challenging abortion laws or if it was an outraged liberal law clerk compelled to put the nation on notice, the result is the same. Wombsday is coming. Vote for your state legislators wisely.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Planned Parenthood has always been my choice of health provider for my gynecological needs. They’ve stayed after hours for me, they’ve held my hand during biopsies, they’ve always cared for me. Planned Parenthood will always advocate for women’s rights:
NARAL Pro Choice America can educate you on leaders in your community running for office that will support reproductive rights once elected.
Qatar, Human Right, and the World Cup
Qatar, Human Right, and the World Cup
Foreign Policy Brief #136 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | May 16, 2022
Header photo taken from: Middle East Eye
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: InsideTheGames
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The intersection of sports and politics have largely focused on this winter’s Olympic Games in China, and also the banning of Russian athletes globally. However, one gargantuan sport competition is set to take place this fall, and the controversy surrounding it has been to a large degree overshadowed by other parts of the world. The FIFA Men’s World Cup is set to take place at the end of November and into December in Qatar, and the sport of football’s largest competition has been mired in controversy since it was selected in December of 2010.
The world of international sports has always been intertwined with politics. The Olympics have been and always will be more about political prestige and international reputation than it is about a single sport, or athlete. The World Cup is the largest football tournament in the world, and hosting it is a privilege bestowed upon a country every four years. It is an opportunity, like the Olympics, to showcase the best parts of your country. However, just like the Olympics, this can lead to oppressing people and violating their human rights if they are in the path of trying to showcase your culture and people.
Just like the Olympics there has been an increasingly concerning pathway of selecting countries with dismal records regarding human rights. Qatar is the most recent country that will host the World Cup; however, this is not the first time that a country with a questionable human rights record has hosted the World Cup; the likes of Russia and Brazil have hosted in recent years.
Policy Analysis
Qatar’s hosting of the FIFA World Cup came as a shock to much of the world as the Middle East has been a region impacted heavily by climate change, war, and human rights violations by many countries. Qatar has spent billions of dollars to build and prepare for the tournament and the media and tourism frenzy that accompanies it, according to Sky News. This process has, reportedly, been fraught with human rights abuses and scandals. According to The Guardian, as of February 2021, over 6,500 workers have died as a direct result of the preparations being made by the Qatari government for the World Cup. As of March 2022, Human Rights Watch reported that many workers in Qatar had been unpaid for the previous five months as well.
The controversy does not end there either. The Qatari government also has laws that strictly prohibits LGBTQ activities and relationships, according to Human Rights Watch. The government surveils and arrests LGBTQ citizens, and they censor media regarding the LGBTQ community. The government has made assurances that they will allow visitors to express themselves, but locals will continue to be unable to do so under the Qatari penal code.
The behavior of the Qatari government for their treatment of LGBTQ people has been criticized since they were selected to host the World Cup tournament. Concerns were raised early on as to whether or not LGBTQ athletes should participate in the tournament as a means of protesting the Qatari policies – currently, the only openly gay participant is Australia’s Josh Cavallo.
Photo taken from: The Creative Ham
(click or tap to enlargen)
Furthermore, the selection of Qatar is posing challenges for corporate sponsors of the event. Various companies are pulling their sponsorships of several national teams to make way for humanitarian messaging on gearto take place instead. Danske Spil, the Danish lottery, is planning to give away their sponsorship locations on the Danish National Team gear to make way for humanitarian messages – a direct affront to the Qatari government and their governance. ING Group is a sponsor for both the Dutch National Team and the Belgian National Team and is planning to not use any of their allocated sponsorship tickets for the tournament to protest the World Cup; it has has decided to focus its time and resources on the Women’s European Championship being played in England instead.
Finally, the Ukrainian National Team has been training in exile in Slovenia. They have played club teams in charity matches to prepare for their upcoming World Cup qualifying matches, which were postponed due to the Russian invasion, against Scotland. A win against Scotland would put Ukraine into Group B in the tournament with England, the United States, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Meanwhile, Russia has already been banned from taking part in the tournament.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Human Rights Watch – 10 Questions Journalists Should Ask FIFA and Qatari Officials About Rights Abuses ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/29/10-questions-journalists-should-ask-fifa-and-qatari-authorities-about-rights-abuses#Nine )
2022 FIFA World Cup ( https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022 )
Why Overruling Roe v. Wade is a Democratic Party Failure
Why Overruling Roe v. Wade is a Democratic Party Failure
Elections and Politics Policy Brief #35 | By: Roarke Cullenbine | May 16, 2022
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: MR Online / C-Span
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
With the leak of the Justice Alito’s draft opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the court’s clear disregard for respecting prior precedent sets aside any concerns for the institution’s legitimacy. The real issue, of course, is the loss of the right to have bodily autonomy.
Conservatives did not work alone to achieve this infamous chapter in American history as this is undoubtedly also a Democratic Party failure. The party has known for years that a decision such as Dobbs was only a matter of time and continuously promised to support the right to abortion as a means to receive votes every election season without any actions to support their promises. Most notably, the party was put on notice in 1992 by the drafting of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, the majority of the court planned to overturn Roe if it was not for Justice Kennedy who joined in an opinion to not overrule but modify Roe to establish the right to access an abortion up to viability and prohibit undue burdens on women who seek them.
Since then, the most notable failure of the party was former President Barack Obama’s 2007 promise to codify Roe as a statutory protected right. Within his first hundred days, he admitted that it was not a pressing issue and did not follow through on his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. While celebrated for many good reasons, he was still championed by the Party and was reelected in 2012, setting the foundation for Roe’s demise in 2022. Further, Nancy Pelosi’s ongoing support for Representative Henry Cuellar for Texas after his seventeen years of anti-choice leadership provides him with a stamp of approval from the Democratic Party. This is why voting is no longer enough. The Democratic Party needs a clear platform with a commitment to keeping each other accountable for their promises.
The Party fails to take stronger stands on issues such as abortion for fear of a loss of party congressional control. When appeasing Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, in an attempt to keep a Congressional majority, it weakens the party’s uniformity for unrealistic concerns that they would switch parties given that the only unique thing they triumph is acting as Republicans with a Democratic Party label.
Policy Analysis
On May 2, Justice Alito’s drafted majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health was leaked, and the contents were of no surprise. Being the modern Pentagon Papers for the Supreme Court, many conservatives are proclaiming how unprecedented and unlawful such a leak was, risking the loss of legitimacy within the institution, while simultaneously championing the news that women across the US will lose their right to bodily autonomy.
This “leak issue” should be of no concern. The Court has known that an overruling of Roe would challenge its legitimacy and it has avoided such a ruling until today. One principle that bars Court review is stare decisis, conceptually meaning “let the decision stand”, and is hailed as an absolute bar from case review by many conservatives, unless of course the issue is abortion. Real concerns for Court legitimacy ceased when its own majority threw them away; instead, there are real, material consequences to the proposed ruling and the Dobbs decision will be infamously remembered as a direct consequence of the Democratic Party’s failure to take stronger action on abortion rights.
Predictions of Court outcomes has become, and has long been, a numbers game. If you can count five conservative heads that make up the Court, a conservative ruling is almost certain.
Roe was considered a “super-precedent”, clearly demonstrated by the ongoing public outrage and historical deference as federal law since 1973, yet its impending demise has been long known to the Democratic Party. When discussing Roe, many also implicitly include Planned Parenthood v. Casey from 1992.
Photo taken from: Issues, Etc.
(click or tap to enlargen)
In Casey, Pennsylvania challenged the inherent right to self bodily autonomy by requiring approval from others when a woman decided to have an abortion, such as an approval from her husband.
In 1992, the Court was going to overrule Roe, but Justice Kennedy changed his mind after a draft opinion was created by Justice Rehnquist, resulting in a joint opinion that upheld but modified Roe, permitting abortion up to viability but prohibiting undue burdens on those who seek them. Since then, the Democratic Party has long stated that it would codify Roe as US law. However, when viewed in hindsight, this has been mere puffery for political support. This is why simply voting is not going to be enough.
So, what result? If Justice Alito’s opinion is published, it is likely that about half of the states will essentially prohibit abortion in its entirety, with many others having great restrictions placed without the protections of Roe and Casey. Further, Democratic states such as Michigan and Wisconsin may be forced to revert to old laws banning abortion that were never changed after Roe, regardless of whether the state governors agree.
Additionally, many states are likely to create new laws that either punish abortion or support women who seek them. Justice Alito’s opinion attempts to limit itself to abortion but if contraceptives were placed where abortion is cited, the opinion would read just the same. This may not end at abortion as Justice Alito suggests. This is why it is vital that as many people as possible go beyond the call to vote and get politically active. These are American rights that are at stake, with real lives at risk with over half a million US women receiving abortions yearly.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Frontera Fund
Center for Reproductive Rights
Planned Parenthood
NARAL Pro-Choice America
Texas Equal Access Fund
The AFIYA Center
Gender Justice
Bold Futures
Why Hasn’t the DOJ Launched an Investigation into Trump’s Efforts to Overturn the Election?
Why Hasn’t the DOJ Launched an Investigation into Trump’s Efforts to Overturn the Election?
Social Justice Policy Brief #34 | By: Maureen Darby-Serson | May 16, 2022
Header photo taken from: ABC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Forbes
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
While the January 6th committee filed in federal court claiming that former President Donald Trump corruptly obstructed an official proceeding and conspired to defraud the United Stated on the day of the Capital riot, the US Department of Justice has yet to file charges or do a thorough investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. Why is that?
It appears that Attorney General Merrick Garland is waiting for the Committee to do their investigation and call their witnesses before the DOJ starts an investigation, if there will even be one.
He also may be waiting for this to wrap up to avoid the appearance of the investigation being politically motivated. In addition, there are several potential legal questions that need to be answered before proceeding with charges against Donald Trump. One major question is related to the concept that a sitting President cannot be criminally charged. The US Constitution does not, and US Supreme Court have not said anything on this matter. This is why the answer to the question is so unclear.
Policy Analysis
Something like this has never happened before. A sitting President has never tried to question the results of an election and tried to get the Vice President to not certify the election results. That is what makes the questions of criminal charges for Trump so difficult to answer in this situation.
The closest example we have to a sitting President being charged is former President Richard Nixon. Nixon was threatened with impeachment, not a DOJ criminal investigation.
When Watergate happened, the DOJ adopted a policy of not indicting a sitting president. This policy has stood since that time, even with the DOJ stating that Special Counsel Ken Starr could indict former President Bill Clinton during the investigation into his relationship with then Intern Monica Lewinsky.
Photo taken from: The Denver Post
(click or tap to enlargen)
We will most likely have to wait for the January 6th Committee to complete their process before we have a definite answer to the question of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
January 6th Committee Brief:
US President and criminal charges: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-u-s-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3
Goodbye Inefficient Light Bulbs, You Are No Longer Needed
Goodbye Inefficient Light Bulbs, You Are No Longer Needed
Environmental Policy Brief #143 | By: Jacob Morton | May 9, 2022
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Hill
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For more than a century, incandescent light bulbs have illuminated our homes, offices, factories, and businesses. Their proliferation changed the way we design buildings and even led to the lengthening of the average workday. Their legacy, however, is coming to an end. On April 26th, the Biden administration announced two new rules setting stricter energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that will effectively phase out incandescent bulbs beginning on January 1, 2023.
The new regulations announced by the Department of Energy (DOE) will require manufacturers to produce bulbs that create at least 45 lumens per watt, the metric used to determine how much visible light is emitted vs. the amount of electricity used. LED lights are much more efficient, estimated to last as much as 50 times longer than incandescent bulbs while using a fraction of the electricity. A typical 60-watt incandescent bulb uses as much as 12 times the electricity as a 5-watt LED that provides the same amount of light. And, at 3 hours of use per day, an incandescent bulb would be good for 1 to 3 years, while a typical LED would last at least 10 years. Further, the DOE reports that the average cost of LED bulbs has dropped by 90 percent since 2008.
According to the DOE, when these rules come into effect next year, “Americans will collectively save $3 billion a year on their utility bills.” Additionally, the new standards are estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 222 million metric tons over the next 30 years. The DOE says, “that is an amount equivalent to the emissions generated by 28 million homes in one year.”
The new rules set forth by the Biden administration are not original and would have actually gone into effect back on January 1, 2019, as required under a law passed in 2007 during the George W. Bush administration. However, the Trump administration halted that effort, appealing to requests from some of the world’s largest incandescent light bulb manufacturers. Then secretary of energy, Dan Brouillette, who was a former auto lobbyist, said the Trump administration had chosen “to protect consumer choice by ensuring that the American people do not pay the price for unnecessary overregulation from the federal government.”
Brouillette said the rule was unnecessary because innovation and technology were already “increasing the efficiency and affordability of light bulbs without federal government intervention.” Similarly, back in 2019, The National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the trade group for manufacturers of light bulbs, had said that government requirements for greater bulb efficiency were unnecessary because Americans were already buying more efficient bulbs and that the regulations “[would] not impact the market’s continuing, rapid adoption of energy-saving lighting.”
Despite those previous claims, research shows that lower-end retailers like dollar stores or convenience shops serving primarily low-income communities continue to sell traditional or halogen incandescent bulbs, whereas stores in more affluent communities have shifted to exclusively selling LEDs. A 2018 study by the University of Michigan found that LED bulbs are not only less available in poorer areas, “they also tended to cost on average $2.50 more per bulb than in wealthier communities.”
Today, some light bulb manufacturers still argue that moving away from incandescent bulbs too quickly would damage their bottom line and create a glut of incandescent bulbs that have already been manufactured but can no longer be sold, leading to more waste in our landfills.
For the world’s largest manufacturers, such as Signify, the Dutch multinational company that makes Philips light bulbs, profit margins for incandescent lights are significantly higher than for LEDs, partly because their investments in manufacturing equipment for incandescent bulbs have already been paid off and there is little competition among manufacturers. Meanwhile the LED market has seen the rise of new manufacturers and significantly more competition.
Continuing to produce and market incandescent bulbs is thus a lucrative strategy that manufacturers, like Signify, do not want to see disappear. A closer look at Signify’s financial reports reveals that profit margins for its incandescent lights are significantly higher than for its LED’s. According to reporting by the New York Times, “in its corporate reports, Signify has called extracting value from its conventional lighting a “cash engine” for the company.”
By contrast, Signify and other companies that continue to produce and sell incandescent bulbs in the US, have already adhered to a phaseout of incandescent bulbs in the European Union, beginning back in 2017. According to recent data, “about 30 percent of standard bulbs sold in the United States in 2020 — excluding California, which phased out most halogen and incandescent light bulbs in 2020 — were still incandescent or halogen bulbs.” In the European Union, that percentage has been close to zero since 2018. With President Biden’s climate agenda stalled in Congress, new regulations, such as these, are intended to restore many of the environmental rules rolled back by Donald Trump, as the Biden administration continues to push for bolder action to limit climate change.
Policy Analysis
In a statement regarding the new rules, Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, says, “The lighting industry is already embracing more energy efficient products, and this measure will accelerate progress.” Similarly, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), the trade group for manufacturers of light bulbs, has said the shift to LED lighting that is already underway has been “an unqualified success.” NEMA’s vice president of public affairs, Spencer Pederson, says the group “appreciates the administration’s recognition of the challenges industry faces in complying with the rule and the adoption of a more manageable compliance time frame.”
However, while environmental and sustainable energy groups praised the new rules, many argue that the regulatory timeline gives manufacturers too much time to move away from an outdated technology when a suitable and affordable replacement is already widely available. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, argues, “LEDs have become so inexpensive that there’s no good reason for manufacturers to keep selling 19th-century technology that just isn’t very good at turning electrical energy into light.”
Photo taken from: CNBC
(click or tap to enlargen)
Most traditional incandescent bulbs have already largely disappeared from the market, but the halogen-filled types, which are not much more efficient, yet are often marketed as environmentally friendly, are still easy to find in most stores. Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, says, “Many of the energy-guzzling bulbs have labels claiming they save energy, and it’s infuriating. Responsible chains ought to get them off their shelves as soon as possible and certainly by the end of this year.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE.org) – Through research, education, and advocacy, ACEEE advances the efficient use of energy to rapidly and equitably spur economic well-being and combat climate change.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (appliance-standards.org) – ASAP organizes and leads a broad-based coalition effort that works to advance, win, and defend new appliance, equipment, and lighting standards that cut emissions that contribute to climate change and other environmental and public health harms, save water, and reduce economic and environmental burdens for low- and moderate-income households.
Writer’s Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Erickson, J. (2019, May 28). Energy injustice? cost, availability of energy-efficient lightbulbs vary with poverty levels. University of Michigan News. Retrieved May 8, 2022, from https://news.umich.edu/energy-injustice-cost-availability-of-energy-efficient-lightbulbs-vary-with-poverty-levels/
Schwartz, J. (2019, December 20). Trump administration blocks energy efficiency rule for light bulbs. The New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/climate/trump-light-bulb-rollback.html
Tabuchi, H. (2022, April 26). New rules will end the century-long run of classic light bulbs. The New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/climate/biden-incandescent-led-light-bulb.html
Touchberry, R. (2022, April 27). Biden to ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs, reversing trump-era rule. The Washington Times. Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/27/biden-ban-inefficient-incandescent-light-bulbs-rev/?msclkid=70337127cfa311ec926dd395b02d7789
U.S. Department of Energy. (2022). General Service Lamps. Appliance Standards Rulemakings and Notices. Retrieved May 8, 2022, from https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4
What Does It Mean to be Held in Contempt of Congress?
What Does It Mean to be Held in Contempt of Congress?
Social Justice Policy Brief #33 | By: Maureen Darby-Serson | May 11, 2022
Header photo taken from: FindLaw
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Time
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Several subpoenas sent out by the January 6thcommittee have gone unanswered, holding certain individuals in contempt of congress for not appearing to speak to Former President Donald Trump’s participation in the insurrection at the US Capital. What does this mean?
In summary, not much. Not answering subpoenas could turn into a criminal charge – a misdemeanor, which if convicted, could include up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Around 24 people have been held in contempt of congress since the 1970s but only one person has seen any jail time, and this was for lying to congress, not a conviction for being held in contempt. There have been several individuals who were referred for criminal charges over the years, but the US Justice Department did not process these referrals.
This list has not been updated to include unanswered subpoenas that have been sent by the January 6th committee, specifically to Mark Meadows and Steve Bannon. The two have been considered in contempt of congress for unanswered subpoenas sent to them by the January 6th committee late last year. The US Justice Department would have to bring formal charges against the two for a criminal conviction. It is unclear if this will occur..
As with most individuals who are held in contempt of congress, the two still can appear in front of Congress and/or produce the required documents for the committee. This is what most people end up doing and contempt charges eventually get dropped.
Policy Analysis
With the criminal charge having minimal penalties, why would someone who has something to hide appear before the January 6th committee?
Former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, found it was easier to resign from office than face Congress. Since most of the individuals subpoenaed by the January 6th committee are already out of office, resigning as a strategy does not exist.
This tradition of not appearing before Congress has blown up in the Trump Era, with Trump himself refusing to appear in front of multiple offices investigating his misconduct and his businesses. For example, Trump is currently being considered in contempt of court order for failing to comply with a subpoena from New York state’s Attorney General. He is being fined $10,000 a day until he complies.
Photo taken from: OPB
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Congressional Research Service: https://crsreports.congress.gov/
Jan 6th: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10649
U.S. Justice Department: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-279-subpoenas
ACLU Podcast on Former President Trump’s subpoenas: https://www.aclu.org/podcast/all-presidents-subpoenas-ep-106
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update # 8
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update # 8
Foreign Policy Brief #125 | By: Abran C | May 10, 2022
Header photo taken from: PBS
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: NPR
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On May 8, 2022, it was reported by the governor of the Luhansk region in Ukraine that a Russian missile killed 60 people sheltering inside a school. The Luhansk region has seen fierce combat as Russian troops and separatist fighters seek to surround government forces in their eastward offensive. Thus far the UN estimates 3,280 civilians have been killed in the war, though this is likely a large underestimate. After the recent implementation of a humanitarian corridor Ukrainian President Zelensky has announced that all civilians have evacuated from the besieged steel plant in Mariupol. Yet as civilians make their way out Ukrainian fighters at the steelwork plant have said they would not surrender to Russian forces which have issued them an ultimatum “Surrender or die”.
Russian forces control large swathes of the south and have caused a humanitarian catastrophe due to their long siege of the port city of Mariupol located in Ukraine’s Donbas region. The mayor of the city has said that more than 10,000 civilians were killed in the Russian siege, but ongoing fighting has meant there has yet to be a confirmation of the true number. Seizing Mariupol would give Russia the opportunity to create a landbridge between Mariupol and Crimea. If Mariupol is completely seized, Russia would also end up with full control of more than 80% of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline essentially cutting off maritime trade and further isolating it from the world.
Policy Analysis
Just before he launched the war, Putin recognized all of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul commented on May 3, 2022, on Twitter, saying “Putin has given up on his more ambitious goals completely and it is very striking how they have changed the name of their war to ‘special military operation in defense of Donbas”. Once Russia’s military invasion failed to capture Kyiv it diverted its attention to “achieving a new main goal, the “liberation” of Donbas to secure both regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The objective now is a face-saving measure for Putin, to capture these areas to use as leverage in any peace negotiations and remove the possibility of Ukraine ever regaining control of the territories. The shift is an effort to make gains in the war appear worth it to a Russian public hit by sanctions and travel restrictions that will affect them for years to come.
The geo-economic war between the West and Russia continues to be waged. On May 4, the European Union proposed plans to phase out the purchase of Russian oil. From the launch of its invasion on February 24 and the time of this writing, Russia has earned $21 billion from oil sales to the EU. The Kremlin is likely to cut off other EU countries and companies from energy sales as it already has with Poland and Bulgaria. Germany, which has been reluctant for some time to agree to ban energy imports from Russia, now wants to reduce and eventually cut off Russian energy imports. Last week Germany’s finance Minister Christian Linder, in an interview with CNN said, “I can assure you that Germany is ready to reduce oil imports, we know others are considering this question carefully”
Photo taken from: CNN
(click or tap to enlargen)
In addition to Western states, other countries have backed moves to punish Russia economically. A $300 million superyacht owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Suleiman Kerimov was recently seized by Fijian authorities. The move was part of a partnership between Fijian officials and US authorities under the Biden administration’s new task force, dubbed KleptoCapture, to enforce sweeping sanctions imposed on Russian elites who have helped to finance the war in Ukraine. In addition, legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on April 27 that would allow the U.S. to sell seized Russian properties worth more than $2 million in order to help fund the Ukrainian war effort. “We’re going to seize their yachts, their luxury homes, and other ill-begotten gains,” Biden said on April 28 at the White House.
Two countries near Russia that have yet to join NATO, Finland, and Sweden have begun discussing applying for membership into the military alliance. Their membership would mark a major policy shift for the Nordic region. The Swedish parliament is conducting a security policy review of the pros and cons of joining the alliance, with the results due in on May 13. There is already a majority in the Swedish parliament that support NATO membership. Still, ratification can take a year as parliaments of all 30 NATO countries need to approve new members. The US and UK have promised Sweden “increased military presence, more in-depth military exercises and ‘strong political’ support from NATO countries”. These developments indicate that one of Putin’s main objectives in decreasing NATO’s relevance and influence in the region has already failed miserably.
Justice Department Announces Environmental Justice Strategy
Justice Department Announces Environmental Justice Strategy
Environmental Policy Brief #142 | By: Stephen Thomas | May 8, 2022
Header photo taken from: Grist
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: NPR
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced in Washington May 5, 2022, a multifaceted program in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency to protect and improve the environment and address climate change.
The effort is consistent with an executive order that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued Jan. 27, 2021.
Policy Analysis
The first step in the Biden administration’s approach to environmental protection is the implementation of an “environmental justice” strategy, which, according to Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, entails “meaningful involvement of affected communities in making the decisions that impact them,” to include reducing “environmental harms on overburdened and underserved communities, including communities of color, tribal populations and low-income rural and urban communities.”
The second step is the creation of the “Justice Department’s first-ever Office of Environmental Justice to oversee and help guide the Justice Department’s wide-ranging environmental justice efforts,” Garland said in his prepared remarks at the kickoff announcement.
Step three is a proposed interim final rule published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, May 10, 2022, intended to restore “supplemental environmental projects” as a tool to mitigate environmental impacts as a part of settlement agreements between the federal government and polluters that are caught red-handed. Under administrative rule making, Congress gives federal agencies authority, by statute, to write rules that will become part of the Code of Federal Regulations.
“The Justice Department has three essential responsibilities: upholding the rule of law, keeping our country safe, and protecting civil rights,” Garland said in his opening speech. “Seeking and securing justice for communities that are disproportionately burdened by environmental harms is a task demanded by all three of those responsibilities. It is a task we gladly undertake.”
EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan reinforced the dual-agency commitment following Garland’s remarks.
“EPA and the Justice Department’s partnership to protect overburdened and underserved communities across America has never been stronger,” Regan said. “This environmental justice enforcement strategy epitomizes the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to holding polluters accountable as a means to deliver on our environmental justice priorities. Critical to that is the return of Supplemental Environmental Projects as a tool to secure tangible public health benefits for communities harmed by environmental violations.”
Photo taken from: Global Government Forum
(click or tap to enlargen)
Supplemental environmental Projects are methods by which polluters agree in their settlements with the Justice Department to undertake efforts to mitigate or prevent risks to public health that their environmental harm imposes. In his memorandum to the nation’s U.S. attorneys dated the same day as the announcement, Garland said the SEPs are a form of “redress to communities most directly affected by violations of federal environmental laws.”
The Biden Justice Department’s rule making on the SEP has been intended to reverse the process that the administration of President Donald Trump initiated Dec. 16, 2020. Trump-era rules state that “in no case shall any settlement agreement require defendants in environmental cases, in lieu of payment to the Federal Government, to expend funds to provide goods or services to third parties for Supplemental Environmental Projects,” according to a Trump administration Federal Register notice.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Justice Department Announcement-YouTube
Justice Department Launches Comprehensive Environmental Justice Strategy – YouTube
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s Speech
Attorney General Garland’s Memorandum to U.S. Attorneys
Actions to Advance Environmental Justice, AG Memo May 5, 2022
Attorney General Photo
President Joseph R. Biden’s Executive Order on Environmental Justice
Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad | The White House
Interim Final Rule Published Tuesday, May 10, 2022 (Pre-Published Version)
2022-10036.pdf (federalregister.gov)
Trump Administration Rule Against Supplemental Environmental Projects
Leasing Federal Land to Big Oil is a Slippery Political Tightrope
Leasing Federal Land to Big Oil is a Slippery Political Tightrope
Environment Policy Brief #141 | By: Todd J. Broadman | May 5, 2022
Header photo taken from: The Washington Examiner
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Conversation
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The Interior Department will put up for auction 144,000 acres of federal land to oil and gas companies. The Department says that this lease sale is actually scaled back by 80 percent of the original acreage slated for potential drilling. 90 percent of the land to be leased is located in Wyoming. In tandem with the sale, royalties paid to the federal government on any revenue that result from new drilling will go up from 12.5 percent to 18.75 percent.
Russia accounts for about 10 to 12 percent of global oil production. After Russia invaded Ukraine, a series of increasing economic sanctions were placed upon Russia. Less than 4 percent of U.S. oil comes from Russia, and therefore the Russian oil ban that Biden imposed at the beginning of March is of little consequence. The global price of oil though has spiked and has placed pressure on the administration to take action. The citizens are feeling it at the pump.
The action to open up more federal land to oil exploration is in direct variance to Biden’s 2020 campaign pledge: “no new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.” By the end of Biden’s first year in office, the total number of onshore oil and gas leases was 35,871, with 23,803 actively extracting oil. The bulk of them are located in the states of New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages these leases and royalties, which in are in excess of $4 billion annually.
Meanwhile, the EU is far more dependent upon Russian oil. Approximately 40 percent of Germany’s demand is met by Russian production. In spite of their pledge to reduce imports by two-thirds by the end of 2022, the EU as a whole nearly doubled the value of their oil imports from Russia during March and April.
Many are questioning the sincerity of Biden’s commitment. “We urge the Biden administration to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make good on campaign promises, fulfill a global commitment to acting on climate, and serve American communities,” says Dan Ritzman, Lands Water Wildlife director at the Sierra Club, “by phasing out oil and gas production on public lands and oceans.” Although a moratorium on new fossil fuel leases is a nod in the right direction, researchers point more towards a sizable reduction on the demand side if CO2 reduction targets are to be met.
While consumer groups are complaining about prices at the pump, big oil lobbyists along the beltway have been more active in recent months. Koch Industries was the biggest influence peddler last quarter: spending nearly $3.3 million. They also said that they would be maintaining their operations in Ukraine. Occidental Petroleum and Exxon Mobil are also more active. The intensity of industry pressure led Jeremy Nichols, of WildEarth Guardians, to comment that “While the Biden administration talks a good talk on climate action, the reality is, they’re in bed with the oil and gas industry.”
Policy Analysis
A look at overall oil drilling and production locations in the U.S. reveal that 93 percent of fossil fuels are extracted from private rather than public federal land. This too puts the Biden commitment regarding federal lands in perspective. Even so, after Biden ordered the distribution of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Randi Spivak, of the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Administration’s actions “a reckless failure of climate leadership.”
This latest move, while viewed as a betrayal to environmentalists who voted for Biden, is also viewed as ineffective and weak by the petroleum industry. There is a gas price tipping point that will effectively stall the economy and increase unemployment.
Photo taken from: The Kansas Reflector
(click or tap to enlargen)
But given that active oil well production on a newly acquired land lease can take up to three years, there are effectively no real economic gains during Biden’s initial term to opening up federal lands. Given this reality, it is disappointing that the administration is not making much effort to decrease demand and alert the public that continued use of fossil fuel is a threat.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
https://wildearthguardians.org/ protects and restores the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West.
https://www.sierraclub.org/ is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ works to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction.
Biden Administration Promotes New Changes in Student Loan Policies
Biden Administration Promotes New Changes in Student Loan Policies
Education Policy Brief #52 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | April 25, 2022
Header photo taken from: Politico
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Being debt-free will soon be a dream come true for tens of thousands of borrowers, now that the Dept. of Education has announced it is taking steps to overhaul the federal student loan system. In addition, millions of borrowers will move one step closer to reaching that same dream.
Too many choices, complicated terms, misinformation from servicers – these are just some of the problems that have plagued federal student loan borrowers for years.
“Student loans were never meant to be a life sentence, but it’s certainly felt that way for borrowers locked out of debt relief they’re eligible for,” U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said this month. “The Dept. of Education will begin to remedy years of administrative failures that effectively denied the promise of loan forgiveness to certain borrowers enrolled in IDR (Income-Driven Repayment) plans. These actions once again demonstrate the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to delivering meaningful debt relief and ensuring federal student loan programs are administered fairly and effectively.”
The Education Dept. has previously taken action to cancel the debts of borrowers working in public service jobs, borrowers who become permanently disabled, and those who were defrauded by their college. In total, the Biden administration says it canceled $17 billion of debt for 725,000 borrowers.
Federal Student Aid (FSA) estimates the new administrative changes will result in immediate debt cancellation for at least 40,000 borrowers under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. Several thousand borrowers with older loans will also receive forgiveness through IDR. And more than 3.6 million borrowers will receive at least three years of additional credit toward IDR forgiveness.
Policy Analysis
Forget credit card debt or car loans. Student loan debt is the second largest form of debt in the United States behind home mortgages, with the total exceeding $1.7 trillion. More than 40 million Americans are in debt for their education, and up to a quarter are in delinquency or default. The average balance is more than $30,000.
President Biden recently extended the payment pause on federal student loans again until September. During the pandemic, the pause has been prolonged six times over 24 months and spanned two presidencies. The Biden administration is facing great pressure regarding student loan forgiveness from members of his own party. During the 2020 campaign, Biden backed the forgiveness of $10,000 in student loan debt. Forgiving $10,000 for all borrowers with federally-backed loans would cost roughly $371 billion and erase the loans of about a third of all borrowers.
But several prominent Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are urging him to enact broad-based cancellation of up to $50,000 via executive action, as opposed to legislation passed by Congress. In a recent letter sent to Biden and signed by Warren and other Dems, the argument made is that student loan forgiveness would boost the economy.
“Canceling a meaningful amount of student debt will provide long-term benefits to individuals and the economy, helping families buy their first homes, open a small business, or invest in their retirement,” the letter states.
In fact, according to a report released this month by Bankrate.com, 74 percent of Gen Z borrowers and 68 percent of millennials who took on student loan debt for their higher education delayed a major financial decision as a result of their debt. That’s significantly higher than it has been for older generations: About 54 percent of Gen X and 42 percent of baby boomer borrowers said they have delayed a major financial decision due to their student loan debt. Yet despite the financial burden of student loan debt, the new report shows that 59 percent of those say that higher education has improved their career opportunities or earning potential.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), another Democrat who signed the letter to Biden, argues that student loan forgiveness is “a matter of racial and economic justice” because of the disproportionate burden on borrowers of color.
But interpreting the data is complicated and controversial. According to the Brookings Institution, for example, nearly one-third of all student debt is owed by the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while the lowest 20 percent of income groups hold only 8 percent. It’s important to not only look at the amount borrowed however, but lifetime earning potential. Borrowers with advanced degrees, for example, stand to earn more wealth over time. Thus, borrowing for the exorbitant costs of medical or law school is more than made up for by the six-figure salaries that one can expect down the road.
Photo taken from: Yahoo
New research from the New York Fed concludes that tying student loan forgiveness to income requirements would help the largest number of debtors. The Fed researchers estimated the cost of two federal loan forgiveness proposals, one for $10,000 and another for $50,000. They found that limited forgiveness and placing income caps on who would be eligible would “distribute a larger share of benefits” to low-income borrowers while also reducing the cost of forgiveness overall.
“In general, we find that smaller student loan forgiveness policies distribute a larger share of benefits to lower credit score borrowers and to those that live in less wealthy and majority minority neighborhoods (relative to the share of balances they hold),” the report says. Increasing the forgiveness amount, “increases the share of total forgiven debt for higher credit score borrowers and those living in richer neighborhoods with a majority of white residents.”
In a recent interview, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that canceling federal student loan debt is “still on the table”. However, some wonder, is it fair to offer student loan forgiveness when many people have paid off their student loans in good faith? Critics of canceling student loan debt make a compelling argument of fairness. And, it can be argued that simply canceling student loan debt does not get at the root of the problem itself — that the cost of higher education continues to go up.
For the most recent school year, the average cost of tuition and fees for a full-time undergraduate student at a four-year public in-state school was $10,740, according to the College Board. For out-of-state students, the cost was more than $27,000 while the average cost of a private nonprofit education was more than $38,000.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
U.S. Dept. of Education announcement to fix failures in student loan programs:
StudentAid.gov:
Letter to President Biden from prominent Dems re payment pause and cancellation of student loan debt:
New York Fed/Equifax Consumer Credit Panel research on student loan forgiveness:
Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2021:
https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-college-pricing-student-aid-2021.pdf