JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Hate-Motivated Behavior: Impacts, Risk Factors, and Interventions
Brief #35 – Social Justice
By Inijah Quadri
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.
Support for the Separation of Church and State Should be Part of the Democrats Platform in the 2022 Mid-terms
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.
Therapeutic Effect of Classical Music After a Pandemic
Brief #150 – Health & Gender Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
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.
Wombsday
Brief #149 – Health & Gender
By Anora Morton, J.D.
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.
Qatar, Human Right, and the World Cup
Brief #136 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
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.
Why Overruling Roe v. Wade is a Democratic Party Failure
Brief #35 – Elections and Politics
By Roarke Cullenbine
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.
Why Hasn’t the DOJ Launched an Investigation into Trump’s Efforts to Overturn the Election?
Brief #34 – Social Justice
By Maureen Darby-Serson
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?
Goodbye Inefficient Light Bulbs, You Are No Longer Needed
Brief #143 – Environmental Policy
By Jacob Morton
The Biden administration replaces corrupt policy and outdated technology to save consumers money and help fight climate change. Reintroducing new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs previously initiated in 2007, but shot down by the Trump administration in 2019, Biden’s Department of Energy says goodbye to the inefficient and outdated incandescent light bulb.
What Does It Mean to be Held in Contempt of Congress?
Brief #33 – Social Justice
By Maureen Darby-Serson
Several subpoenas sent out by the January 6th committee 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?
Dams Versus Salmon on the Snake River
Dams Versus Salmon on the Snake River
Environment Policy Brief #130 | By: Timothy T. Loftus, Ph.D. | December 20, 2021
Header photo taken from: KMVT
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Cross Cut
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
This past October, the Northwest News Network reported that a coalition of conservation groups, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the State of Oregon reached an agreement with the Biden Administration and federal agencies to pause, until next summer, long-running litigation over the operations of Snake River dams within the Columbia River Basin. With a growing chorus of elected officials willing to either support or consider dam removal, and new leadership in our nation’s capital, a fresh round of negotiations over the ongoing impact of dam operations on salmon populations are now getting underway. The expectation is for a new plan to be crafted that will help prevent salmon from disappearing in a river basin where they’ve existed for millennia.
The dams at issue, four of them, are situated on the lower Snake River in the state of Washington: Lower Granite Dam, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor. The multi-purpose dams are located just above the Snake’s confluence with the upper Columbia River and are operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The hydropower generated is managed by the Bonneville Power Administration. The Snake River is the largest tributary to the Columbia River and the former’s watershed includes Nex Perce tribal lands.
Like many dams, these four enable several benefits to be had by people in the region: water supply for agricultural irrigation, transportation for agricultural (mainly) commodities, and hydropower generation that has made for affordable electricity. The emissions-free power generated is now especially beneficial given national and international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Decades of dams situated throughout the Columbia and Snake River Basins, however, have had a severe impact on salmon and steelhead trout to the point that these anadromous fishes are relatively scarce where once they were very abundant.
The National Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups are fighting for the fish to simply survive as an integral part of an aquatic ecosystem where salmon, steelhead, and other impacted species play a significant role. The Nez Perce Tribe aims to maintain healthy populations and an abundance of salmon and steelhead as a longstanding element of their culture and means of subsistence living. The Tribe also possesses a treaty right, an agreement with the federal government, that guarantees access to salmon. That treaty right has been compromised since dam operations commenced in the mid-20th Century and the collection of dams have proven to be largely responsible for decimating seasonal salmon runs and population numbers.
Critically, many key elected officials are now onboard with taking a fresh approach to saving the salmon from extinction. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), for example, is now on record stating, “My staff and I approached this challenge with the idea that there must be a way to restore Idaho salmon and keep the four lower Snake River dams. But after exhausting dozens of possible solutions, we weren’t able to find one that could control poor ocean conditions, warming rivers, and the four lower Snake dams. In the end, we realized there is no viable path that can allow us to keep the dams in place.”
On October 22, 2021, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Washington state Governor Jay Inslee issued a joint statement in support of a federal-state process for exploring the means to replace the benefits provided by the lower Snake River dams, sufficient to support dam removal (i.e., breach) as part of salmon recovery. The process will yield recommendations by July 31, 2022. Their joint statement was immediately followed by another statement of support for the joint process on Snake River salmon recovery by U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
Policy Analysis
It’s well documented that dams fragment river systems, interfere with fish migrations, and have other consequences for nature. This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest and California where historic salmonid abundance and diversity has been in consistent decline for decades.
To be sure, there are other factors that contribute to diminished salmon populations including historic logging practices, agricultural activities, and urban development to name a few, but dams present formidable obstacles for fish to overcome despite efforts to accommodate them with fish ladders and other strategies. Climate change is an additional stressor for salmon when taking their anadromous life cycle into account.
For this current round of negotiations to succeed in producing a new solution, one that might involve dam breaching or removal, plans for replacing the primary benefits of dams with other means must be proffered. For example, can the electrical power generation be replaced without causing undue hardship on ratepayers?
The not-for-profit organization, Dam Sense, reports that power production on the lower Snake River dams is a fraction of total capacity and is particularly limited during peak summer and wintertime demand periods.
It’s contribution to the regional power grid, therefore, can theoretically at least be replaced. With other forms of renewable energy production increasingly coming online, it’s possible that the power generated by these dams will be the benefit that is most tractable to replace.
River navigation, made possible or at least enhanced by dams, has historically been an economical form of transport for bulk commodities and containerized cargo. The Port of Lewiston (POL) Idaho, located on the lower Snake River, is the most inland port on the west coast.
The POL is a multimodal port with good access to the primary railway in the region and nearby highways. Shipping report data from the POL indicate a downward trend (1991-2018) in wheat shipment tonnage, a total loss/suspension of container shipments during the same period, and a dramatic increase since 2016 in break bulk cargo. Grain shipments are the number one export leaving the Lower Granite Pool with ten percent of all US wheat exports going by barge through the Snake River dams according to the POL.
Photo taken from: Oregon Business / Data from U.S. Forest Service (click or tap to enlargen)
Ice Harbor Lock and Dam, completed in 1962, holds back Lake Sacajawea that is the source of irrigation water for approximately 47,000 acres of farmland as tabulated by the US Bureau of Reclamation. Diversion quantities associated with these private irrigation projects are not publicly available but can potentially be replaced with a combination of intakes on the river itself, alternate sources of water such as reclaimed wastewater, and modifications to cropping patterns and practices.
Lake-based recreation enabled by dams in the Columbia River Basin will also be impacted, but this activity was not the primary reason for which Congress authorized the construction of these dams. Local recreation-based economies are important, nonetheless, and would have to evolve to become river-based if possible and/or relocate to other lakes in the region. The report due next July might reveal how the recreation benefit of artificial lakes compares to other benefits studied in terms of both economic value and potential for replacement if recreational activities are deemed to warrant this level of consideration.
Another key component of this issue is the matter of treaty rights that the US Government signed with the indigenous peoples in the Pacific Northwest nearly 170 years ago. In exchange for the land that was amassed for newly arriving settlers, the US Government gave tribes the right to natural resources including fresh water and salmon. The Nez Perce Tribe is among the plaintiffs in the current agreement for short-term operations of the Columbia River System and related stay of the litigation.
While dam removal, should that recommendation be made and implemented, doesn’t guarantee that salmon and other fish populations will rebound and thrive (see, for example the Washington Policy Center’s take on the matter), leaving the four dams in place will almost certainly guarantee a continuation of both litigation and a depleted state of Snake River salmon runs.
The situation demands fresh thinking and a new approach. Dam removal elsewhere (e.g., Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams on the Olympic Peninsula, two dams on the Penobscot River in Maine) has proven to be beneficial for both fisheries and riparian ecosystems and provides proponents of dam removal with ample reason for hope should the lower Snake River dams be scheduled for removal.
Lastly, any cost/benefit analysis of dam removal will be incomplete without accounting for the ongoing social costs associated with diminished biodiversity related to lower Snake River dam operations.
Determining the value of ecosystem services that salmon generate and determining the full cost associated with their diminishment are essential components for a comprehensive accounting of the matter at hand. Ecosystem-service valuation for a full-cost accounting of the loss of those services will help inform decision makers in this case and is part of the toolbox for stemming the tide of the extinction crisis that is underway globally.
Engagement Resources
Washington Water Trust. Washington Water Trust (accessed December 14, 2021)
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’ – United Nations Sustainable Development (accessed December 14, 2021)
Nez Perce Tribe. Cultural Resource Program. Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Resource Program (nezpercecultural.org) (accessed December 14, 2021)
US Army Corps of Engineers. Lower Snake River Dams. Walla Walla District > Missions > Lower Snake River Dams (army.mil) (accessed December 14, 2021)
“Totem Salmon: Life Lessons From Another Species.” 1999 by Freeman House. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
China: Genocide and the Olympics
China: Genocide and the Olympics
Foreign Policy Brief #137 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | December 16, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Economist
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: MPR News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
China has had a long history of human rights abuses ranging from the time of Mao’s Cultural Revolution to today’s modern issue regarding the Uyghurs in western China. The Uyghurs are a Turkic people living in the western Xinjiang region of China. They are a Muslim, and an ethnic minority in China. The Chinese government has long refused to treat these people on equal terms as other Chinese citizens. The goal of the Chinese governmen is to reduce the number of minority status groups in China. The majority group in China is Han Chinese, which is estimated at over 90% of the population of the country; making it the majority population by far.
The Chinese government has detained over one million Uyghurs in internment camps. The government has officially denied the presence of internment camps in China, and prefers to refer to them as either “vocational centers” or “re-education” centers. According to The Uyghur Tribunal, which is a group of academics and lawyers from outside of China, the Chinese government has conducted genocide against the Uyghurs through methods of forced sterilization and forced birth control/contraceptives. The Uyghur Tribunal’s Sir Geoffrey Nice said that the Chinese have a “deliberate systematic and continued policy … to bring about the long term reduction of other ethnic minority populations”. He also stated that there was “no evidence of mass killings”; however, forced sterilization could be looked at as potentially killing off the future of an entire ethnic group. The evidence is piling up against the Chinese government.
The detention (or internment) camps that are housing the Uyghurs (and several other ethnic minority groups) are essentially prisons. According to NBC News, they reported that a high-level Communist Party official in Xinjiang described, in leaked documents, the security measures of the camps and they more closely align with a prison than a “vocational center”. The leaked documents mention video surveillance in/around classrooms, dormitories, and even watch towers. The Chinese government has cited worries about extremism and even terrorism from within the Uyghur population as a main driver of these policies.
As stated above, China has officially denied any wrongdoing regarding their treatment of the Uyghur people. In the eyes of the government, there is no genocide going on in Xinjiang. The Chinese government has been a key spreader of misinformation regarding the Uyghur situation and more recently in an appeal to Westerners they have used social media to spread their message. According to the New York Times, the Chinese government is paying Westerners to spread misinformation about China and their policies on the social media accounts of non-Chinese people. One example of this from the New York Times, showed a YouTube clip created by a non-Chinese citizen saying “all the West are hoping to do is destabilize the area of Xinjian to stop the rise of China”. The Chinese government has found a way to utilize Western social media content for the benefit of their misinformation campaigns.
Policy Analysis
The United States’ position on the situation regarding the Uyghurs is that it is genocide. The United States has officially put in place a diplomatic boycott against the 2022 Winter Olympics that are set to take place in Beijing in February. Jen Psake, the White House Press Secretary, stated “genocide and crimes against humanity” against the Uyghurs as the main reason for the boycott. The United States has, as recently as this week, introduced new sanctions against China as well as North Korea.
The sanctions imposed on China target companies like SenseTime, which, according to Al Jazeera, created facial recognition software that is being used against ethnic minorities in China, including the Uyghurs. The sanctions are also targeting individuals and other groups and organizations that are both directly and indirectly responsible for the policies of human rights abuses in China, and other countries like Myanmar and North Korea.
Photo taken from: China Daily
The Olympics as an organization claim to share three Olympic values – excellence, friendship, and respect. China’s treatment of the Uyghurs has been anything but those three words. So far, there are not any athletes who are planning to boycott the games; though some athletes have spoken out against China and their genocidal policies. According to an NPR article from Dec. 6, 2021, the Chinese government has spoken against the diplomatic boycott and stated that the United States should “refrain from politicizing sports”.
It is unlikely that the United States will be able to affect a real policy change in China with the soft-power tactics of economic sanctions and diplomatic boycotts. However, it is encouraging that the United States is bringing greater attention to the genocide in Xinjiang. It will be interesting to see if other countries follow suit.
Engagement Resources
Uyghur Human Rights Project ( https://uhrp.org/ )
Minority Rights Group International ( https://minorityrights.org/minorities/uyghurs/ )
World Uyghur Congress ( https://www.uyghurcongress.org/en/ )
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 6
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 6
Social Justice Policy Brief #30 | By: Erika Shannon | December 17, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Washington Post
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Newsweek
The investigation into the January 6 attack on our nation’s capitol is currently well underway; there have been numerous subpoenas issued, thousands of tips collected, and many depositions and interviews conducted. However, in their efforts to get to the bottom of what exactly happened leading up to and on January 6, 2021, the House Select Committee has been facing a few hurdles. From Trump’s former staffers attempting to stonewall the investigation to throngs of information to sort through, the Committee is working hard to map out the day’s events and ensure that something like this does not happen again. Any threat to our democratic processes is a threat to our freedom, and the Committee is trying to preserve American democracy through their investigation.
In recent House Select Committee news, a new batch of subpoenas was issued to individuals who are thought to be involved in the organization and planning of rallies on January 5 and 6 of this year. This includes individuals who may have worked directly with the former President to plan the Ellipse rally that directly preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol. The six newest individuals to be subpoenaed are Robert Peede Jr, Max Miller, Brian Jack, Bryan Lewis, Ed Martin, and Kimberly Fletcher. The Committee believes these individuals may be able to better help piece together the events leading up to the Capitol breech. There is hope they will cooperate since hundreds of others have already come forth with information and testimony.
However time is running out for former Trump aide Mark Meadows. The House Select Committee subpoenaed Meadows to sit for a deposition and turn over a slew of relevant records. However, Meadows has repeatedly refused to comply and is now facing contempt of Congress charges just like Steve Bannon. When faced with the idea of possible criminal charges, Meadows actually attempted to sue House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and all nine members of the House Select Committee. Meadows lawsuit was an attempt to invalidate two subpoenas that the Committee had issued to him and to Verizon. The House Select Committee recently released text messages sent to Meadows in the days leading up to the insurrection; these texts were read on the House floor during a debate of whether or not a criminal contempt of Congress charge should be brought up against Meadows.
It is important to note, Meadows will be the third Trump ally to face contempt proceedings; just a couple of weeks ago, former US Attorney General Jeffrey Clark was also voted in contempt. However, the panel was allowing him another chance to testify before moving forth with proceedings.
Subpoenas and lack of cooperation are not the only big news related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. It has recently been revealed that the 72-year-old daughter of the founder of Publix grocery stores was the largest publicly known donor to the rally preceding the riot at the US Capitol. Julie Fancelli donated $300,000 to Women for America First, a nonprofit group that helped organize the January 6 rally.
Fancelli also donated $150,000 to the nonprofit arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association; that money paid for a robocall touting a march to “call on Congress to stop the steal.” Fancelli then donated $200,000 to State Tea Party Express, a conservative group that allegedly used the money for radio ads and social media ads urging supporters of Trump to attend the rally and the subsequent march on the Capitol.
Photo taken from: Palm Beach Post
With the Committee trying to follow the money, they finally believe they have found the biggest financier of the attack on the US Capitol. Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Committee, believes Fancelli played a strong role in helping finance the rally leading up to the Capitol riots. It is thought that the Committee will reach out to her at some point in the future.
Although it seems there will always be hurdles to overcome in an investigation of this magnitude, there are also some positives to focus on. Kash Patel, former chief of staff to then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, met with the House Select Committee and with a team of lawyers to give his deposition. The leader of the group “Stop the Steal,” Ali Alexander, also recently appeared before the House Select Committee to cooperate with the investigation.
As more information and facts are revealed, it is thought that the House Select Committee will continue to issue subpoenas in an attempt to get the whole picture of January 6, 2021 and the days leading up to it. It is clear that some of Trump’s closest ally’s intend on doing whatever they can to keep their lips sealed, but it is unclear how long it will last.
This brief is part of an ongoing series in the Select Committee’s investigation; further updates will be provided as the investigation continues.
Engagement Resources
- To read the committee’s latest subpoenas and press releases, visit the January 6th Committee webpage.
Inflationary Trends Cut Into Rise in Wages
Inflationary Trends Cut Into Rise in Wages
Economic Policy Brief #131 | By: Rosalind Gottfried | December 15, 2021
Header photo taken from: Center for American Progress
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Bridge Michigan
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Wages are increasing significantly in all sectors. As workers have gradually rejoined the labor force, taking their time even as federal subsidies to unemployment benefits ended, starting wages and service work especially have seen large increases. Wages increased 4.9% between October 2020 and October 2021. Increases in restaurant and bar wages reached 12% and transportation and warehousing wages rose by 8%. Private companies have increased their wages and project payroll increases of 3.9% in 2022.
Raises in the private sector extend to managers, hourly workers, and regular employees. Average wages in private companies climbed to $30.85 an hour in September. The biggest wage jumps have been among newer workers under the age of 25 and among job switchers. Job changers average an increase of 5.1% while stable employees saw only 3.7% gains. Nonunion jobs increased at a faster rate than union jobs. Even with these increases, the worker shortage is expected to continue through 2022.
Good news? Not as good as it sounds since inflation has cut into the impact of the raises so that they actually amount to only about .5-1%. Inflation is at its highest since 1982 and the consumer price index, the measure indicating the cost of goods and services, has increased by 7.8% between February and October. Wages will need to continue to increase if people are to sustain their usual food and heating budgets. Inflation is not predicted to subside in the near future.
Policy Analysis
Photo taken from: CNBC
The current wage situation points to some interesting trends. Manufacturers have significantly increased wages, as have other low wage hourly industries, such as food service and warehousing but these relatively low paid sectors have workers who tend to be most vulnerable to the consequences of inflation. Some observers have suggested that the country might see a return to wages being tied to the cost of living, as they were in the 1970s and 1980s.
The sluggish response of unions may also have an impact on the future success of unionization efforts. Finally, the prediction of sustained inflation might make for an anxious stock market, though that remains to be seen since so far it has held pretty steady, with some temporary fluctuations in response to pandemic news and inflation reports.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
In 2022, companies plan to give biggest raises in more than a decade
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/12/08/wages-2022-raises-inflation/
US wages are going up, and those who don’t adapt to the new reality will fail
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/10/us-small-businesses-wages-gene-marks
Good news in the latest jobs report: Wages are up, especially in low-paying sectors
DOI Will Not Stop the Drilling in the Face of Climate Commitments
DOI Will Not Stop the Drilling in the Face of Climate Commitments
Environmental Policy Brief #129 | By: Todd J. Broadman | December 10, 2021
Header photo taken from: USC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more enivornmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Pulse
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
With President Biden’s COP26 climate pledge as backdrop, his administration has been issuing oil leases at a record pace. Biden said that climate change is “the challenge of our collective lifetimes, an existential threat to human existence as we know it. And every day we delay the cost of inaction increases.” His pledge is to cut U.S. emissions by up to 51% over the next nine years. At the end of October, the administration had approved 3,091 new drilling permits on public lands at a rate of 332 per month, outpacing the Trump administration’s 300 permits per month in fiscal years 2018-2020.
Just last month, the Department of the Interior (DOI) resumed offshore oil leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, putting up for auction 80 million acres. The plan for 2022 begins with more than 700,000 acres of public land up for drilling lease. The mixed messages have drawn sharp criticisms from both sides of the aisle; while Democrats prefer stronger action to limit oil and gas production, the Republicans insist that limiting domestic production would only increase global emissions from overseas suppliers.
A recently issued DOI report on oil leases crossed Biden’s desk; he had requested that agencies review all rules and policies that impact climate change. The DOI has the authority to make most changes through regulation. Some of the report’s recommended changes include an increase in oil lease royalty rates paid by the companies to the DOI. Royalty rates generally range from 16.67% to up to 25%. An exception is the North Slope of Alaska with a 12.5% rate. If royalty rates do increase, there will likely be smaller and fewer lease bids.
Higher rates are being positioned as a benefit for taxpayers and as a way of discouraging speculation in leasing federal acreage. Another report recommendation is to implement stricter controls on oil drilling site remediation. Currently in place is a $2-per-acre minimum bid for most federal leases, a minimum established in 1987. Per the report, “such low prices for leases, coupled with generous 10-year lease initial terms that are frequently extended, encourage speculators to purchase leases with the intent of waiting for increases in resource prices, adding assets to their balance sheets, or even reselling leases at a profit rather than attempting to produce oil or gas.”
The administration has received hundreds of requests from environmental groups and Native tribes in support of a blanket ban on new fossil fuel leasing and permitting. Citing the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Lands Policy Management Act, Endangered Species Act and other laws, these groups claim that the continued issuance of oil leases breach legislated environmental protections. “I cannot help but feel misled, disheartened and disappointed when I witness actions such as the Department of Interior taking steps to lease more public lands to oil and gas,” said Jade Begay, the climate justice campaign director with the Native American advocacy group NDN Collective.
Policy Analysis
The DOI report and its recommendations do little to change the rate of carbon exploration and drilling on federal public lands. While Anne Hedges, director of policy for the Montana Environmental Information Center, went as far to say, “It’s a betrayal to his commitment to the world to decrease methane emissions and then immediately ignore these emissions for oil and gas development on public lands,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, walked a finer line in defending the lackluster report: “The DOI has an obligation to responsibly manage our public lands and waters — providing a fair return to the taxpayer and mitigating worsening climate impacts — while staying steadfast in the pursuit of environmental justice.”
There was widespread criticism that the conclusions lacked “meaningful analysis” and amounted to “misrepresenting” how oil development actually works. The intended impact on tax rolls will be minimal, as will be its effect on overall petroleum stocks. Vague references to climate commitments such as making an effort “to monetarily account for the costs of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide,” left many disappointed.
Interior Secretary, Deb Haaland – Photo taken from: Native News Online
If nothing else, the DOI report provides clarity on economic policy: the necessity of short-term economic gains outweighs the longer-term environmental impacts of seeking out and using new sources of carbon energy. This should come as no surprise given that there is no clear plan to coordinate with oil conglomerates a move to renewables.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
https://earthjustice.org/ the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization.
https://www.politico.com/ dedicated to providing accurate, nonpartisan impactful information to the right people at the right time.
https://www.federalregister.gov/ daily journal of the U.S. government.
https://biologicaldiversity.org/ works to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction.
Biden Administration Reinstates Remain in Mexico, Under Federal Court Order
Biden Administration Reinstates Remain in Mexico, Under Federal Court Order
Immigration Policy Brief #132 | By: Kathryn Baron | December 13, 2021
Header photo taken from: Wall Street Journal
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more immigration policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Border Report
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Nearly a year ago, the Biden Administration suspended the Trump era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), aka Remain in Mexico. The policy consisted of a set of rules requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexican border towns while their cases were processed in the US. In April 2021, the Attorney-Generals of Texas and Missouri sued the Biden Administration for suspending MPP and called for an injunction to pause the policy’s termination. In August, the injunction was granted, claiming Biden’s suspension of the program was not executed in the appropriate procedural manner and therefore, fell extrajudicially, from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Though Department of Homeland Security repealed the decision instantaneously, the Biden Administration is still required to reinstate the policy while an official decision is underway. Ideally, as the courts deliberate and go through the proper protocol and bureaucratic systems, the Biden Administration will be allowed to permanently terminate the program. As of December 6, MPP has been relaunched at the El Paso, TX port of entry and could spread to others as well.
The current limit of migrants enrolled per day in El Paso is 30 but expected to increase as the policy expands to other locations (such as San Diego and Calexico). Biden’s version allegedly has more humanitarian-minded revisions, namely access to COVID-19 vaccines and improving access to legal counsel, but in essence is the same. Both renditions technically promise quick immigration proceedings, work permits as applicable, access to secure shelters and Mexican health care. However, migrants are still exposed to kidnapping, extortion, and rape while they await their case and the numbers are only expected to increase.
Policy Analysis
Early on, President Biden pledged to end the program and began the lengthy process of admitting migrants. All these efforts are quickly being reversed as the recent ruling demanded a reinstallation of the policy and has left thousands of migrants in stagnation, with the high likelihood of further backlogging an already congested immigration system. Director of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center stated that when the US government relies “so much on NGOs to make things happen, they try to justify programs that are inhumane and don’t restore asylum.” Human rights and immigration-oriented organizations such as the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center have borne the brunt of the burden during the Trump Administration to ensure migrants had access to legal counsel, basic human needs, health services, etc. This set a sort of unspoken precedent for civil society and organizations to fill the humanitarian gaps where the executive branch fell short.
Photo taken from: San Francisco Chronicle
Throughout the Trump Administration and in the wake of its tumultuous legacy, it is easy for civil society and NGOs to be left responsible for filling the gaps and bandaging the effects of a broken immigration system, but it is pivotal for the US to regain its status as a sovereign nation and beacon of asylum to hold its policymakers and all branches of government accountable in order to move forward.
Engagement Resources
The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low-income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties of the Constitution and US laws guaranteed to all its citizens.
Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
Last Minute Agreement to Raise Debt Ceiling
Last Minute Agreement to Raise Debt Ceiling
Economic Policy Brief #130 | By: Rosalind Gottfried | December 12, 2021
Header photo taken from: Komo News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Washington Post
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After persistent bickering Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer reached a procedural agreement allowing the Senate to pass an increase in the debt ceiling with a simple majority. This bill passed Thursday and is likely to quickly lead to an increase in the debt ceiling of 2-2.5 trillion dollars, which will cover the government’s debt payments through next year’s election.
A vote on the increase will be accomplished in the early part of this week in order to accommodate December 15th payments that would otherwise be defaulted on. The bill allowing the increase was attached to another bill postponing automatic decreases in Medicare, Farm aid, and other mandatory spending programs. The passage of this bill does not authorize any new spending. Congress will have to work quickly to pass Biden’s safety net program before Christmas. Biden is negotiating an amount of between 1.75 and 2.5 trillion dollars.
Policy Analysis
Photo taken from: Brennan Center for Justice
The Republicans refusal to condone raising the debt ceiling is temporarily suspended by this last-minute agreement and does not indicate a change of heart even among the ten Republicans who voted for the passage of the bill.
Likely it was an emergency mission to side step default and avoid a global crisis in response to any failure to pay our debts.
Engagement Resources
Senate clears the way for Congress to raise the debt ceiling before Dec. 15 deadline
Senate Clears Last Major Hurdle to Raising Debt Ceiling
The Future of Abortion Rights In The United States
The Future of Abortion Rights In The United States
Civil Rights Policy Brief #178 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | December 4, 2021
Header photo taken from: Ford Foundation
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The New York times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case Roe v. Wade. That case ruled that a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The basis of the ruling by the Court was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a “right to privacy” which includes the choice to have an abortion. The case then laid out a balancing test that focused on each of the three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy.
In 1992 the Supreme Court decided the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, another landmark abortion case. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that abortion is still a protected constitutional right as was established in Roe but decided to change the legal standard to use when analyzing statutes that dealt with abortion. Instead of the balancing test based on the trimester framework, the Court replaced that test with the “undue burden” standard. This new legal standard would now test abortion restrictions and hold them invalid if the restrictions “plac[ed] a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
On December 1, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In 2018 the State of Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act which prohibited abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. Viability for a fetus outside the womb is generally considered to start at 23 – 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Mississippi law would thus ban abortions prior to fetus viability which would be in direct contradiction to the holding in Roe v. Wade which permits a woman the right to choose to have an abortion prior to the period of viability. The Court has not issued a decision in the case which is expected at the end of the Supreme Court’s 2021 – 2022 term. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
There is no more contentious issue in the United States than abortion rights. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 there have been numerous attempts to have the case overruled while abortion rights supporters have done all they can to prevent that from happening. With three abortion cases before the Supreme Court for the 2021 – 2022 term it appears that the Court will be tasked again to decide whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled or upheld. The appellants in the Dobbs case even went so far as to ask specifically for the Court to overrule Roe.
Is there a chance that Roe v. Wade (and, the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood) could be overruled? While the political question of abortion easily places anti – abortion activists on the right and abortion rights proponents on the left it is the legal arguments and the legal standards used in the earlier abortion cases that gives hope to those on the right for the case to be overruled. Their point of contention is the grounding of the constitutional right to abortion in the “right to privacy.” However, there is no “right to privacy” specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. In the dissenting opinions of Roe Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist elaborate that the Constitution makes no mention of the “right to privacy.”
It stands to reason then that if there is no constitutional right to privacy then there can be no right to abortion based on that constitutional right. And, this is what the appellants in the Dobbs case are hoping the current Court will see and rectify. Constitutional law often begins with the text of a clause or amendment (the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clauses, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures) but there is none that can be relied on in the case of abortion. Many legal scholars and opponents of abortion rights have understood this weakness in Roe’s legal reasoning for decades and now sense that the time has come for them to ask the Supreme Court to eliminate the ungrounded legal reasoning and overrule the case once and for all.
Photo taken from: The BBC
But even if the prospects to save Roe v. Wade look slim is there a chance that abortion rights can be saved even if the case cannot? After oral arguments in the Dobbs case it appeared that Chief Justice Roberts was open to upholding Roe v. Wade while also upholding the abortion restrictions that are at the heart of the abortion case out of Mississippi. But with at least five right leaning justices on the Court that might not matter if all of the five decide to vote to overrule Roe.
But there is a misconception that overruling Roe will outlaw abortion when that will not be the case at all. If Roe were overruled, then the issue of abortion rights would fall back to each individual state to decide for themselves. If Mississippi, Texas and other states decide to ban abortion completely in the wake of an overruled Roe v. Wade other states could very well decide that abortion would be permitted in their own states. More left leaning states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado and Washington could bolster their laws that already permit abortion.
The likely outcome if the case is overruled would be some states that allow abortion and some states that would outright ban it. Abortion would no longer be constitutionally permissible but it would still be available depending on the state. A woman in Texas could still travel to Colorado for an abortion if she chooses. This might not please everyone but abortion would not be banned outright all across the U.S. and would still be available in some states if not all states. The country will simply have to wait until next year to find out how the Supreme Court will rule in this highly anticipated and closely watched case. LEARN MORE
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Center for Reproductive Rights – abortion rights group’s infopage on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund – group’s infopage on abortion access in the U.S.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Wants His Own Paramilitary Force
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Wants His Own Paramilitary Force
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #32 | By: Abran C | December 8, 2021
Header photo taken from: Yahoo
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Florida National Guard
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is looking to create the state’s own private civilian military force that would operate outside of federal control. The announcement came during a broader plan to increase funding to Florida’s National Guard. This additional $3.5 million tax payer funded plan calls for a new state-run force that would be added in addition to the already existing Florida National Guard and state police.
Florida had previously created a state guard during the second world war to fill in for national guardsmen who were fighting abroad but disbanded the unit in 1947. DeSantis recently proposed bringing back the unit with a force of 200 civilians that he claims would “not be encumbered by the federal government”. He has claimed that the force would allow him the flexibility to respond to events in the state, such as hurricanes and other emergencies, more effectively. Florida Democrats have expressed concern at the governor’s latest proposal. US Rep. Charlie Crist, who is running as a Democrat to challenge the governor in 2022, responded to the news saying, “No Governor should have his own handpicked secret police”.
Policy Analysis
Photo taken from: Wikimedia Commons
Were Florida to enact the governor’s plan, it would become the 23rd state with an active state guard joining other states like California and Texas. There is historical precedent for the creation of state guard forces in Florida but that was done during times of distress such as the second world war. Additionally there are also already guards, disaster response agencies, and state law enforcement, such as the Florida National Guard and state police to respond to emergencies that might hit the penninsula. Unlike the Florida National Guard, the new paramilitary force would answer solely to the Governor. The plan has come amid growing tension between the federal government and the Florida Governor. DeSantis has recently taken several actions attempting to antagonize the Biden administration over issues ranging from mask wearing, vaccinations, and immigration.
Some of the Governor’s recent inflammatory actions have included an attempt to sue the Biden administration over its immigration policies, a self-appointed state “public safety czar” to help keep Floridians safe from what in his view are dangerous illegal immigrants arriving at the U.S. border, the signing of an anti-protest bill (HB1) that allows for detention of demonstrators, and even withholding og funding from Florida schools that required students to wear masks to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is likely that the new force will be used to carry out more of the draconian policies that will win him the favor of a far-right base. The paramilitary force would be accountable only to the Florida Governor and have no oversight federally.
It could be used in a similar way to the way that Texan governor Greg Abbott used the Texan state guard in 2015 to monitor federal military exercises to protect Texans against baseless claims that the federal government under the Obama administration was attempting to implement military control of the state. The Florida Governor has made headlines numerous times for his inflammatory words, policies, and actions. The new force will likely further embolden DeSantis and cause increased clashes with the federal government.
Actions such as these come on the heels of a trend of Republican-led states taking steps to show their displeasure with the federal government and enacting extreme policies have stoked enhanced divisions and encouraged vigilantism. DeSantis’ endeavors have not happened in a vacuum. They are similar to the broader measures taken by other Republican-led states in banning abortions, restricting voting rights, and enacting harsh anti-immigration policies. DeSantis has continued trying to position himself as the most authoritarian of U.S. politicians and is taking more striking actions to prove it. These increasingly confrontational steps, taken by DeSantis signal trouble for our eemocratic institutions, and our unity.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
ACLU Florida– The mission of the ACLU of Florida is to protect, defend, strengthen, and promote the constitutional rights and liberties of all people in Florida. We envision a fair and just Florida, where all people are free, equal under the law, and live with dignity.
Office of Governor Desantis- Official website of Governor Ron DeSantis.
Variant of Concern – Omicron
Variant of Concern – Omicron
Health & Gender Policy Brief #125 | By: S Bhimji | December 2, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Scientist Magazine
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Financial Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Over the weekend, the world learned about another heavily mutated coronavirus variant named Omicron. First detected in South Africa, Omicron has now been detected in many nations. While not much is known about it, experts suggest that it could be more infectious than the delta variant.
Named after the 15th letter of the Greek alphabet, Omicron produces the same symptoms as the original coronavirus. The few cases first detected in South Africa were associated with a mild infection but the concern is that this particular variant may be more infectious and more likely to cause death or severe illness in vulnerable populations.
Many nations have already restricted flights from South Africa to prevent the spread of this variant. But whether Omicron will be as serious as the delta variant won’t be known for a few more weeks.
Policy Analysis
There is not much known about Omicron but it has generated global hysteria. Besides South Africa, Omicron has been reported in the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, Belgium, and Botswana- in each of these nations the virus has been linked to international travelers.
While sporadic cases of Omicron have been reported in Europe, the first case of this variant was just confirmed in California several days ago. That individual had just returned from a South African trip and tested positive on Nov 29. President Joe Biden will announce a strategic plan to combat Omicron on Dec 2, but he has indicated that there is no reason for any panic, as yet.
So far it is not known if Omicron can induce more severe disease compared to other variants but preliminary data from South Africa suggest that the rates of hospitalization have increased. Even though little is known about omicron, experts warn that this variant should be taken seriously. Many hospitals in the USA are still struggling with Covid infections in the unvaccinated and there is little room for complacency.
Luckily no deaths have been reported from omicron
What makes omicron unique from other variants?
Preliminary studies reveal that Omicron has nearly 30 mutations of which 26 are unique to this variant. In comparison, the delta variant has 7 and the gamma variant has 8. Scientists reveal that they are not worried about the number of mutations but are more concerned with the fact that not much is known about what these defects may cause in humans.
Photo taken from: New York Post
A few similar mutations in other variants have been known to increase susceptibility to infection, enhance transmissibility, and in other cases help the organism evade immunity. Fortunately, the majority of mutations are congregated at locations that are also targeted by the Covid vaccines.
Whether Omicron is a mild winter malady or a deadly infection remains to be seen; President Biden and his team of public health officials have increased their pleas for all Americans to get vaccinated or those who have been vaccinated to get the booster shots- to maximize the protection against the virus. Plus Americans should continue to wear masks, regardless of the vaccination status.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
COVID Variants: What You Should Know. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know
SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html
The coronavirus is mutating—but what determines how quickly?https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-coronavirus-is-mutating-but-what-determines-how-quickly