Scot Wilson, Author at Close Up Foundation

Conflict in Israel and the U.S. Response

Posted on May 24, 2021March 20, 2023 by Scot Wilson

A ceasefire has brought an end to weeks of increasing violence between Israel and the Palestinian communities in the territory it controls, particularly the Palestinian Islamic-nationalist group Hamas. This latest outbreak of conflict ended a period of relative calm that had persisted for the better part of a decade. Adding to the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the role of the United States and emerging disagreements over what the nature of that role should be.

Israel’s history has been fraught with struggle and violence between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, even before the state of Israel was founded in 1948. Numerous wars with neighboring Arab countries and the lingering consequences of those wars also inform this issue.

If you’re looking for more information on the broader history of Israel and its Palestinian population, check out “Israel-Gaza Violence: The Conflict Explained” from BBC News.

Timeline of the Current Conflict

While the full history between Israelis and Palestinians is beyond the scope of this blog post, the current conflict does have an immediate timeline of events that can help shed light on the situation.

APRIL 13: The first night of Ramadan (Islam’s most sacred month) in 2021 coincides with Israel’s Memorial Day commemorations. The president of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, is set to make a speech at the Western Wall near the Al-Asqa Mosque. The Western Wall and the site of the Al-Asqa Mosque are sacred sites to Jews. However, Al-Asqa itself is currently open only to Muslims, as it is among the most sacred sites in Islam as well.¹ The president’s team requests that the loudspeakers that are used to call Muslims to prayer be turned off during his address, claiming that they could drown out the speech. The mosque refuses the request but Israeli police enter the complex and allegedly disconnect the loudspeakers, sparking backlash from Muslims in Israel, most of whom are Palestinian.²

APRIL 13 – MAY: The Al-Asqa controversy occurs in the midst of growing unrest surrounding the attempted eviction of several Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood of East Jerusalem. Protest and unrest continue to escalate throughout April, with direct fighting taking place between pro-Palestinian protesters and Israeli police and pro-Israeli counterprotesters. Forming a backdrop to all of this are political crises in both the Israeli and Palestinian governments, adding to the instability of the situation.³

MAY 4: Hamas, which the United States has officially labeled as a foreign terrorist organization, presents itself in the midst of this crisis as the bold, revolutionary leadership that the Palestinian people need to assert their rights and independence. It announces a “final warning” on May 4, declaring that Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah must be allowed to remain and, more broadly, that the Israeli police and military must stop clashing with Palestinian demonstrators.⁴

MAY 7: On the last Friday of Ramadan, Israeli police raid the Al-Asqa Mosque. Police claim that the action is in anticipation of the site being used as a gathering and supply storage space for violent Palestinian demonstrators. The Arab-Palestinian community responds with even more demonstrations, and violent clashes between Jewish and Arab groups spread throughout the country.⁵

MAY 10: Coinciding with the final hearing in the Sheikh Jarrah case and celebrations and demonstrations for Jerusalem Day (a holiday celebrating East Jerusalem coming under Israeli control following the Six Day War in 1967), another raid takes place at Al-Asqa. At 6 pm, Hamas launches 150 rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system intercepts many of the rockets. Ultimately, no one is killed in the attack but the rockets injure some people and damage property.⁶

MAY 10– MAY 20: Immediately following the rocket attack, which in part targeted the capital, Jerusalem, the Israeli military begins an airstrike campaign killing 20 people, including nine children. Hamas rocket fire, street clashes, Israeli airstrikes, and military and police actions continue. Thus far, the conflict has resulted in deaths of more than 200 Palestinians and 12 people in Israel, with thousands more injured and hospitalized on all sides. Adding to the tensions are rocket attacks that are suspected of originating in Syria and Lebanon, as well as growing anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian demonstrations in neighboring Lebanon and Jordan. Across the world, demonstrations are also taking place with various groups demanding support or condemnation for the actions of Israel and Hamas.⁷

MAY 20: Israel and Hamas agree to a ceasefire to be monitored by Egypt.⁸

The U.S. Response

Historically, the United States has been a strong supporter of Israel and it remains among Israel’s closest allies. Public support for Israel, and specifically for the Israeli people, has remained fairly widespread in the United States, with roughly 70 to 75 percent of Americans expressing a favorable view of Israel in Gallup polls between 2018 and 2021. Sentiment toward the Palestinian Authority has gradually warmed over time, with favorability increasing from 21 percent in 2018 to 30 percent in 2021.⁹

A possible result of this shifting sentiment is an increasing number of lawmakers, particularly liberal Democrats, speaking out against U.S. policy toward Israel. Representative Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., the nation’s first Palestinian American elected to Congress, has been vocal in her opposition to the Biden administration’s statements of support for Israel in this conflict and has spoken frequently about crimes she alleges Israel has carried out against its Palestinian population.¹⁰Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also made headlines when she recently drafted a resolution to block a $735 million arms sale to Israel, a resolution which has gained the support of other prominent officials such as Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.¹¹Most Democratic leaders have yet to publicly make such criticisms, but the willingness of any national politician to be so openly critical represents a significant development and a likely shift in Democratic voters’ opinions.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have remained steadfast in their support for Israel, choosing either to not comment beyond voicing their support for Israel’s right to defend itself or to outright condemn Democratic colleagues who have voiced opposition. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, accused Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats of “regularly engaging in hateful antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric,” while Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has criticized the Biden administration and suggested that President Joe Biden will yield to the “far-left” and block the upcoming arms sale.¹²

For its part, the Biden administration has been relatively cautious in its public statements on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Initially, the administration made little commentary beyond President Biden affirming Israel’s right to protect its interests.¹³However, on May 19, it was reported that President Biden held a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urging a de-escalation of the conflict. Despite this, Netanyahu recommitted to the offensive against Hamas as necessary for any ceasefire to occur.¹⁴Although a ceasefire has now been agreed to, this seeming divide between the two leaders has fueled speculation about how the U.S.-Israeli alliance will evolve moving forward.

Discussion Questions

What are questions you have about the current and historical Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What do you know for certain about the region and its people? What are areas you need to learn more about?
What do you believe the role of the United States should be in conflicts outside of the country? What role could the United States play if it is not already doing so?
For decades, the typical response of U.S. politicians regarding conflict in Israel has been that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Do you agree with that sentiment? To what extent? Is that sentiment alone sufficient to address the issue? Why or why not?

President Trump Seeks to Further Reduce U.S. Military Presence in Syria

Calm or Chaos: The Role of the Media During a Crisis

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: GETTY IMAGES

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/12/6/al-aqsa-mosque-five-things-you-need-to-know

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-gaza-war.html

[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-palestinians-sheikh-jarrah-eviction-east-jerusalem-explained/

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-gaza-war.html

[5] Ibid.

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-iron-dome-rockets-gaza-hamas/

[7] https://www.dw.com/en/timeline-how-the-current-israel-hamas-conflict-has-expanded/a-57573511

[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-official-predicts-ceasefire-soon-israel-gaza-fight-goes-2021-05-19/

[9] https://news.gallup.com/poll/340331/americans-favor-israel-warming-palestinians.aspx

[10] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/05/18/us/joe-biden-news-today/tlaib-biden-palestine-israel#tlaib-biden-palestine-israel

[11] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/20/sanders-follows-aoc-tlaib-objecting-us-arms-sale-israel/5179770001/

[12] https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-republicans-seek-to-use-israel-hamas-fighting-to-divide-democrats/

[13] https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/biden-calls-netanyahu-says-israel-has-right-to-defend-itself-121051600045_1.html

[14] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/19/biden-says-he-expects-significant-de-escalation-today-gaza/5162735001/

Reshaping the Economy

Posted on May 18, 2021October 21, 2024 by Scot Wilson

President Joe Biden is currently promoting his plan to transform the U.S. economy.¹ In a previous blog post, we explored one element of that plan: infrastructure. In this post, we will examine some details of the Biden administration’s American Families Plan. What is in the Plan? According to the White House, the American Families Plan is “an investment in our kids, our families, and our economic future.”² The White House argues, “It is not enough to restore where we were prior to the pandemic. We need to build a stronger economy that does not leave anyone behind—we need to build back better.”³ The American Families Plan focuses on education, medical leave, and the costs of raising children. Some of the most significant elements of the plan include:

Making College More Affordable: The plan would invest roughly $160 billion to make two years of community college free and increase Pell Grants for low-income students who are admitted to universities. The plan would also create a program to subsidize tuition for low-income students who attend historically Black and other minority-serving institutions.
Universal Preschool: The plan calls for a $200 billion investment to create universal preschool for three- and four-year-old children. The plan would call for state governments to pay half of the cost with the federal government paying the rest.
Child Care and Child Nutrition: The plan would subsidize child care for low- and middle-income families and expand current programs to include roughly ten million more children in free and reduced-price meal programs.
Paid Family Medical Leave: Under the plan, the federal government would subsidize sick leave for all workers who do not have sick leave from their jobs. The White House estimates that this would cost $225 billion over ten years.⁴

The Biden administration argues that it would be able to pay for the plan by raising taxes on the top one percent of earners to pre-2017 levels, raising the tax on investment income for anyone earning over $1 million through investment, eliminating a tax break for real estate investors, and enhancing Internal Revenue Service enforcement on the very wealthy.⁵ The Debate Congressional Republicans have raised many concerns about the American Families Plan. They argue that the tax increases would hurt the U.S. economy, slow job growth, and harm the very people that the plan is intended to help.⁶ They note that the plan throws astronomical sums of money—which the government simply does not have—at new entitlements, such as universal preschool, that some Americans do not need. Kelsey Bolar, a senior policy analyst at the conservative-leaning Independent Women’s Forum, argues that the plan is not what women, and especially working moms, need. She contends that the one-size-fits-all approach would further limit people’s flexibility and choice.⁷ A recent poll showed that nearly 60 percent of voters support the American Families Plan and 30 percent oppose it, with the rest having no opinion.⁸ Kevin Shafer, a health and social policy expert at Brigham Young University, argues that the plan is necessary to bring about equity in the economy and to protect children from poverty.⁹ Bernard Yaros of Moody’s Analytics said that the plan has “meaningful longer-term economic benefits by increasing labor force participation and the educational attainment of the population.”¹⁰ This is a large bill that would impact many aspects of the U.S. economy and it is made all the more complicated because it is part of the president’s broader economic plan for recovery and infrastructure. As Congress debates the future of the U.S. economy, this is a good time for voters to make their voices heard on these issues. Discussion Questions

How has your community’s economy been affected by the pandemic?
Do you think there are people in your community who struggle with the cost of child care? What about higher education?
Do you think that it is the government’s responsibility to address economic inequality? Is that an appropriate power of the federal government?
How would passage of the American Families Plan impact the community in which you live?
Do you support the ideas in the American Families Plan? Why or why not?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below! Sources

Featured Image Credit: Evan Vucci/AP

[1] Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/28/biden-child-care-plan-484883

[2] WhiteHouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/

[3] Ibid.

[4] CNN.com: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/politics/american-families-plan/index.html, WhiteHouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/, NPR News: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/991357190/white-house-proposes-massive-spending-on-children-and-families

[5] CNN.com: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/politics/american-families-plan/index.html

[6] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/04/24/biden-families-plan-tax/

[7] The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/551279-bidens-american-families-plan-is-not-what-women-need?rl=1

[8] Morning Consult: https://morningconsult.com/2021/05/05/biden-american-families-plan-support-poll/

[9] Deseret News: https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/5/17/22436823/president-joe-biden-american-families-plan-childcare-paid-family-leave-child-tax-credits-education

[10] FactCheck.org: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/two-views-of-american-families-plan/

Build It and They Will Come: The Biden Infrastructure Plan

Posted on May 10, 2021September 11, 2024 by Scot Wilson

President Joe Biden is currently campaigning to promote his administration’s infrastructure plan. The plan is intended to address three main areas of concern: crumbling or inadequate infrastructure, job creation and economic growth, and environmental issues. In this post, we will focus on the infrastructure goals of the plan.

What is Infrastructure?

Infrastructure refers to the basic facilities and structures that allow a community or nation to function. It can include transportation, energy and power, basic resources such as water, telecommunications (phones and internet access), and waste removal and management. While talking about infrastructure often conjures images of rebuilding old bridges and adding new highways, it also includes other less “tangible” structures such as broadband access.

What is in the Biden infrastructure plan?

The plan, formally named the American Rescue Plan, would invest two trillion dollars over a fifteen-year period to rebuild or build new infrastructure, make the economy more equitable, combat climate change, and boost economic growth.¹ Major infrastructure-related portions of the proposal include²:

621 billion dollars for transportation, with a focus on roads, bridges, and railways.
300 billion dollars towards reinvesting in U.S. manufacturing, with a focus on green energy, high tech, and medical manufacturing.
213 billion dollars on affordable and energy efficient housing.
111 billion dollars for water infrastructure, including replacing old pipes and removing any pipes containing lead, and upgrading sewage and water runoff systems.
100 billion dollars to build or upgrade public school buildings.
100 billion dollars in digital infrastructure, including providing nation-wide affordable broadband access, with a focus on rural and urban areas.

The plan also calls for raising corporate taxes to pre-2017 levels and changing tax codes to encourage large global companies to invest and produce more in the U.S.³

Hear from Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and David Rouzer (R-NC) as they discuss President Biden’s 2 trillion dollar infrastructure plan.

The Debate

Most of the debate over the infrastructure spending outlined above revolves around how much the U.S. can afford to spend and whether it is a good idea to raise taxes. Steve Scalise, a Republican member of Congress from Louisiana, called the plan a “budget-busting tax hike spending boondoggle masquerading as an infrastructure bill,” and said it would send more jobs overseas and hurt the middle class.⁴ Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) the Republican leader in the House, said the plan is too big and too expensive. He also cautioned that “the real challenge is in these great big bills there’s just waste, fraud, abuse, but more importantly corruption.”⁵While critics of the plan have focused on cost, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg argued that “doing nothing is what’s truly unaffordable.” He went on to say that, as infrastructure fails and the U.S. continues to fall behind other nations, the cost for addressing these issues will only grow. “We’re either going to pay now or we’re going to pay a lot more later.”⁶

While Congress is largely divided along party lines, the plan is finding some Republican support among governors and mayors. Nic Hunter, the Republican mayor of Lake Charles, Louisiana said, “I do believe we can agree on the dire need here in Lake Charles for an infrastructure plan that can build us a new bridge and I do believe we can agree on the dire need to support disaster relief in Southwest Louisiana…Any member of Congress out there listening: Lake Charles needs help right now. And we are asking for it.”⁷

This is a large and complicated plan. In this post, we’ve only examined some of the largest elements of the proposal. As the proposal takes shape in Congress, the debate may become even more contentious, or there may be places where the two parties can negotiate.

Discussion Questions

How would you describe the infrastructure of your community? Think of road quality, traffic, access to rail and public transportation, the state of public school buildings, and internet access, among other things.
How would you prioritize infrastructure spending? Think of the specific goals outlined above.
How would you advise your member of Congress to vote on this proposal? Which elements of the proposal are most important to your community? Which elements are the least important?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Alex Brandon/AP Images

[1] WhiteHouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/

[2] CNN.com: https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/politics/infrastructure-proposal-biden-explainer/index.html

[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/business/economy/biden-infrastructure-plan.html

[4] AP News: https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-business-government-and-politics-462e89744cc73d2d953e1c332e36ddb9

[5] New York Post: https://nypost.com/2021/05/09/rep-mccarthy-says-no-need-to-spend-trillions-on-biden-plan/

[6] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transportation-secretary-pete-buttigieg-23-trillion-infrastructure-plan/story?id=77539522

[7] AP News: https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-business-government-and-politics-462e89744cc73d2d953e1c332e36ddb9

The Georgia Election Law—Election Security or Voter Suppression?

Posted on April 23, 2021July 25, 2023 by Scot Wilson

On April 3, 2021, the Georgia General Assembly passed the Election Integrity Act of 2021. This new voting law enacts sweeping changes to Georgia’s election system which could have significant implications for the outcome of future elections. Republicans in Georgia and across the United States have hailed the law as a vital and necessary reform to enhance the security of elections, with similar measures coming before legislatures in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, and Texas.¹ Democrats, including President Joe Biden and Georgia voting activist Stacey Abrams, have described the law as modern day Jim Crow, invoking the obstacles put in place prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prevent people of color from voting throughout the American South.²^,3

So, what exactly does the Election Integrity Act do?

Provisions of the Law

The Election Integrity Act of 2021 creates numerous changes, but some the most significant include:

Instead of a signature, absentee ballots will require a voter’s driver’s license number or state ID number, the last four digits of a social security number, or a photocopy of an approved alternate form of ID.
Ballot drop boxes will now be available in all elections but are limited to one per 100,000 voters or one per voting location (whichever is the lower number). Drop boxes will no longer be available 24/7; they must be placed inside voting locations and be accessible during operating hours only.
Early in-person voting has been expanded to three weeks before an election.
Absentee ballot request forms can no longer be sent out without being requested by individual voters.
The time to request an absentee ballot has been reduced from six months to three months before an election. The deadline to submit an absentee ballot has been changed from four days to 11 days before an election.
It is now a misdemeanor for any non-poll worker to provide food or water to anyone within 150 feet of a polling location. Poll workers may only make water available to people in line to vote if the water is not attended by a person.
The Georgia General Assembly will now appoint three out of five of all county election boards and have the ability to replace that board with a special administrator if they judge the board to have “poor performance.” The law revokes the ability of the secretary of state to vote on the State Board of Elections.
Runoff elections will now occur four weeks after the general election instead of nine weeks after the general election (which makes it impossible to register to vote between the general election and the runoff, according to current state registration deadlines).
The Election Integrity Act prohibits private donations to fund local elections.⁴

The Controversy

Proponents of the new law argue that its provisions are vital to maintaining election security, particularly in the wake of the 2020 election, which saw numerous emergency changes made to Georgia voting procedures due to social distancing requirements amid the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵ Supporters insist that the changes the law makes are commonsense measures, such as improving security for ballots left in drop boxes. For example, by asking voters to provide an ID number on an absentee ballot instead of signing it, supporters note that the law removes the need for the sometimes confusing process of signature verification. Supporters of the law in Georgia state government (most of whom are Republicans) also cite public mistrust of election integrity following unfounded accusations of voter fraud made by former President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, and Georgia legislators.⁶

Opponents of the Election Integrity Act argue that these changes have little to do with election integrity, since thorough auditing of the Georgia elections and elections throughout the country have revealed virtually no voter fraud or significant errors.⁷ Instead, critics suggest that the law is a response to the record voter turnout in the 2020 election, particularly among minority populations, which played a role in President Biden’s win in Georgia as well as the upset victories of Senators Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.⁸ These 2020 victories for Democrats marked the first time since 1992 that Georgia went to a Democratic presidential candidate and had two Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Opponents of the law suggest that the majority Republican legislature is taking steps to ensure that fewer poor, urban, and minority voters (who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats) can easily cast ballots going forward and guarantee Republican victories at both the state and national levels.⁹

WATCH: Learn more about the competing arguments surrounding the Georgia voting law and other voting laws around the country by watching Georgia state Representatives Jasmine Clark (D) and Robert Dickey (R) discuss their views on ASP Explores

Discussion Questions

What provisions of the law, if any, do you find reasonable? What provisions, if any, do you object to?
What do you think the criteria should be for an individual to cast a vote?
Do you believe that states should continue to maintain control of the elections they hold? Should there be different standards for local, state, and national elections? Should national elections be administered or regulated by the federal government instead?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Related Blog Posts:

Restoring Confidence or Destroying Democracy?

The 50th Anniversary of the 26th Amendment

Political Violence and the 2020 Election

Sources

Featured Image Credit: JESSICA MCGOWAN/GETTY IMAGES

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html?

[2] https://twitter.com/staceyabrams/status/1375226723239886857?lang=en

[3] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/545135-biden-georgia-law-is-jim-crow-for-21st-century

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html

[5] https://apnews.com/article/what-does-new-georgia-gop-election-law-do-87665a200f6442e28ef43cbc60c88653

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html?

[7] https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/3rd_strike_against_voter_fraud_claims_means_theyre_out_after_signature_audit_finds_no_fraud

[8] https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/georgia_breaks_all-time_voting_record

[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html?

Record Numbers of Unaccompanied Minors Are Seeking Asylum in U.S.

Posted on April 13, 2021July 9, 2021 by Scot Wilson

Last month, nearly 19,000 unaccompanied migrant children were stopped at the U.S.-Mexican border, a record since documentation began in 2010, beating a previous record set in May of 2019.¹ Currently, the Biden administration is allowing only children traveling alone to stay in the U.S. while their asylum claims are being evaluated, a process that can take up to five years due to the large backlog of cases.² Apprehended adults, even those claiming asylum, are being turned away under Title 42, a Centers for Disease Control policy that was implemented last year in order to reduce the spread of COVID-19.³

When children are found by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), they are placed in a detention center awaiting transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which will then place them in foster care, usually close relatives living in the U.S.⁴ CBP must turn over children to HHS within 72 hours, but because of the large number of children arriving and the shortage of HHS facilities, children are staying in CBP custody an average of 117 hours.⁵ Currently, HHS is opening several Emergency Intake Sites (EIS) along the border, in some cases taking over performance and convention centers in order to avoid crowding and adhere to COVID-19 protocols.⁶

The reasons for the surge of unaccompanied migrant minors attempting to cross the border are complex and debated. Eve Meade, professor at the University of San Diego states that “most immediately we have a sequence of natural disasters in Central America. And in a little bit of broader context, we have the coronavirus pandemic which has hit Central America and Mexico much worse. And then third you have this long-term security crisis in the region.”⁷ Critics of Biden’s administration point to his loosening of the Title 42 restrictions; under the Trump administration even unaccompanied children were sent back to Mexico.⁸ President Biden has responded to criticism denying that more migrants were arriving because he is “a nice guy,” reasoning that “they come because their circumstance is so bad.”⁹ In a March 25 press conference, Biden maintained that the high number of migrants was cyclical with increasing numbers of people finding the situation in their home nations untenable.¹⁰

In order to address the growing numbers of children, in addition to opening more HHS facilitates, the Biden administration is deploying the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order to help shelter and transport children. President Biden is collaborating with the Mexican government in order to start talks with several Central American governments.¹¹ He is asking for $4 billion dollars in aid to be sent to these countries in order to address crime, poverty, and other factors driving migration, and is restarting “a program that allows certain Central American children with parents lawfully living in the United States to apply for a refugee resettlement from their home countries.”¹² On March 24, he appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the task force assembled to address the issue.¹³

Some critics of Biden’s plans have pointed to a broken immigration system that is in need of a complete overhaul. Immigration attorney, Andy J. Semotiuk, writes in Forbes, “In the end, however, what is happening at the border is part of a larger broken immigration system that is in need of reform…What is needed to address the southern border problem is a displaced persons policy similar to what America had at the end of World War II where U.S. sponsors help relieve the burden of bringing refugees into the country.”¹⁴

Although critical of Biden’s response to the record number of migrants arriving at the border, Republicans are not currently pushing for complete immigration reform because what has been seen as previous failures to address illegal immigration.¹⁵ Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn has proposed a different plan that would eliminate the “catch and release” policy that allowed children and adults in CBP custody to be released to their families in the United States while waiting for their immigration cases to be heard. He is instead advocating that immigrants and asylum seekers be processed while their cases are being heard.¹⁶ With a backlog of cases that numbers in the millions, it is unclear how that kind of speed in proceedings would be achieved.¹⁷

Discussion Questions

Do you agree with President Biden’s change in the Trump administration’s policy that now allows unaccompanied minors to stay in the U.S. while awaiting their court hearings? Why or why not?
Which policies presented above seem the most reasonable to enact? Why?
Immigration reform is a complex policy issue that includes humanitarian, political, social, and international concerns among others. What values do you think policy makers should consider when making decisions regarding problems in our immigration system? Explain your reasoning.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Dario Lopez-Mills – Pool/Getty Images

[1] NBC Los Angeles. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/pomona-fairplex-unaccompanied-minors-us-mexico-border-immigration/2569490/

[2] NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/record-number-unaccompanied-children-crossed-border-march-n1262901

[3] Ibid.

[4] Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/video-border-smugglers-drop-children-over-wall-55a52a72eb78c95600bdb33323dd7d28

[5] NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/16/977853878/young-migrants-held-by-border-patrol-far-longer-than-allowed-document-shows

[6] The Grunion. https://www.gazettes.com/news/government/council-clears-use-of-long-beach-convention-center-to-house-unaccompanied-minors/article_6d0a00b2-97ab-11eb-8f34-23e6494e21cc.html

[7] NBC San Diego. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/number-of-unaccompanied-minors-crossing-border-up-64/2570830/

[8] Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-explainer/explainer-why-more-migrant-children-are-arriving-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-idUSKBN2BA11B

[9] Ibid.

[10] USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/25/joe-biden-defends-white-house-migrant-policy-first-press-briefing/7000476002/

[11] Time. https://time.com/5950832/unaccompanied-minors-border/

[12] Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-explainer/explainer-why-more-migrant-children-are-arriving-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-idUSKBN2BA11B

[13] Time. https://time.com/5950832/unaccompanied-minors-border/

[14] Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2021/03/31/woeful-border-youth-detentions-stir-immigration-debate/

[15] Houston Chronical. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/immigration/article/Cornyn-to-introduce-bill-to-fix-surge-of-16065269.php

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

Women: A Majority in the United States, A Minority in U.S. Government

Posted on March 29, 2021August 18, 2023 by Scot Wilson

The year 2021 has already been a ground-breaking one for women in national politics. Vice President Kamala Harris became the first woman and person of color to hold the office, the 117th Congress includes the largest number of female members in U.S. history, and President Joe Biden’s cabinet will ultimately include 11 women, setting a new record. The number of women in the cabinet is particularly noteworthy; with 13 men making up the rest of the cabinet, the positions are almost evenly split (although among the heads of the executive departments, there are five women and ten men).¹ During this Women’s History Month, just over 100 years since women had their right to vote ratified in the Constitution, the continued expansion of the role of women in government is worth celebrating.

However, despite a trend that has seen more women occupying elected offices around the country each year, the overall representation of women in American politics remains disproportionately low. Women make up just under 51 percent of the U.S. population—or to put it plainly, more Americans identify as women than do not.² Yet women occupy only 26.4 percent of congressional seats (House and Senate), 30.3 percent of state-level executive offices, and 30.9 percent of state-level legislative seats.³

VIEW: “Women in Elective Office 2021,” from Rutgers University

The numbers are even more disproportionate when one looks at women of color in political office. Women of color make up 18.7 percent of the U.S. population, yet they occupy only 9.2 percent of congressional seats, 5.8 percent of state-level executive offices, and 7.5 percent of state-level legislative seats.⁴ For national and state governments to be genuinely representative of the population by sex and race, we should expect there to be nearly twice as many women in office and nearly three times as many women of color.

VIEW: “Women of Color in Elective Office 2021,” from Rutgers University

There are a litany of factors to account for this discrepancy, from issues as esoteric as gerrymandering and the prolonged incumbency of men to problems as fundamental as systemic racism and barriers to entry for women in careers which lend themselves to running for elected office (such as lawyers, judges, and CEOs).⁵ However, the discrepancy between the female population and female representation has not gone unnoticed. Dozens of grassroots organizations, nonprofits, and political action committees have emerged and dedicated themselves to supporting women who are interested in running for office at all levels of government. Many of the organizations have seen tremendous success and count dozens of women currently serving in government among their alumnae.

You can learn more about these organizations, ways to get involved, and how to prepare to run for office yourself using these links:

IGNITE (nonpartisan)

VoteRunLead (nonpartisan)

Emily’s List (liberal-progressive)

Maggie’s List (conservative)

Higher Heights for America (liberal-progressive/women of color)

Republican Women for Progress (conservative)

Run for Something (liberal-progressive)

Discussion Questions:

What particular challenges might women face when running for office in your town, in your state, or nationwide?
What other groups do you imagine are underrepresented or overrepresented in government? What reasons might there be to explain this?
As mentioned before, President Biden’s cabinet now consists of 11 women and 13 men, making it closer to being representative of the female share of the population than any other cabinet. Should government bodies make more of an effort to have their membership reflect the demographics of their constituency? If so, how? If not, why not?
Within the political parties themselves, there is a discrepancy in female representation, with far more women running and being elected as Democrats than as Republicans. Currently in Congress, of the 141 women serving, 103 are Democrats (38.3 percent of the party’s seats) and 38 are Republicans (14.6 percent of the party’s seats). Both of these totals fall below the female proportion of the overall population, but why do you believe there is such a discrepancy between the parties?

Related Posts:

New Congress New Ideas

Gender Identity and Official IDs

ERA Won’t Go Away

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: ANDREW HARNIK/PRESS POOL

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/15/biden-will-have-more-women-his-cabinet-than-any-president-ever-other-countries-still-do-better/

[2] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/LFE046219

[3] https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-elective-office-2021

[4] https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-color-elective-office-2021

[5] https://www.ilo.org/infostories/en-GB/Stories/Employment/barriers-women#unemployed-vulnerable

The 50th Anniversary of the 26th Amendment

Posted on March 22, 2021December 19, 2022 by Scot Wilson

Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971; it was ratified by the states and signed by President Richard Nixon by July of that same year.¹ The amendment lowered the voting age to 18. It reads:

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.²

WATCH: President Nixon Certifies the 26th Amendment

The movement to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was the product of several decades. In 1942, Representative Jennings Randolph, D-W.Va., introduced the first federal legislation to lower the voting age to 18, arguing, “They possess a great social conscience, are perplexed by the injustices in the world and are anxious to rectify those ills.”³ During World War II, advocates used the slogan, “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”⁴ This slogan became a rallying cry during the Vietnam War because of that war’s unpopularity.⁵

Primary Source: Letter from the Youth Franchise Coalition to Senator Birch Bayh, D-Ind., Chairman of the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee (Judiciary)

Image Credit: Scot Wilson; Birch Bayh Senatorial Papers, Indiana University

Debates over access to the ballot remain a central feature of U.S. democracy. Recently, Republicans have proposed at least 250 state laws that would make voting requirements stricter in various ways, while Democrats in Congress are promoting federal legislation to increase voter registration, soften voter ID laws, and require states to make voting more convenient.⁶ For more on this, see our March 8 post on competing election reform proposals.

READ: From the Current Issues Blog, “Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?”

As debates about elections and voting continue, it is important to pause and reflect on the turning points like the 26th amendment that expanded suffrage in U.S. elections.

Discussion Questions

Do you think that the rallying cry, “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote,” makes a good argument? Why or why not?
Were there other good arguments for lowering the voting age to 18?
Turnout among 18-20-year-old voters lags behind that of other age groups. Why do you think that is the case?
How could schools and other community organizations support the engagement of young people with the political process?
How could political candidates better engage young voters?

This year marks 50 years since the passage and ratification of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 in all 50 states. Join us for a conversation this Thursday, March 25, on the importance of this amendment, how young voters have grown over time, and how to engage young people in our democracy.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Tom Barlet; Seattle Post-Intelligencer Collection

[1]. History.com: https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/the-26th-amendment

[2] Congress.gov: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-26/

[3] History.com: https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/the-26th-amendment

[4] National World War II Museum: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/voting-age-26th-amendment

[5] National Archives: https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2013/11/13/records-of-rights-vote-old-enough-to-fight-old-enough-to-vote/

[6] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/voting-restrictions-republicans-states/

How Can We Overcome Vaccine Skepticism?

Posted on March 16, 2021June 22, 2022 by Scot Wilson

There’s been a lot of good news in the fight against COVID-19. The United States has authorized three vaccines for emergency use and drastically ramped up the distribution to states while increasing the administration of doses.¹ More than 107 million shots have already been given, with an average of 2.3 million per day.² President Joe Biden announced that with this increased supply, any adult who wants a vaccine will be able to sign up by May 1, months ahead of previous estimates.³

For all of the progress made with the vaccines—and the demand for them—there are still challenges in getting every American vaccinated. One third of troops have turned down the opportunity to receive a vaccine.⁴ Nearly 60 percent of nursing home staff have done the same.⁵ Forty percent of Republicans do not plan on receiving shots.⁶ Overall, one in four Americans are skeptical of the vaccines, saying they would rather wait to receive one or outright refuse it.⁷ Some people are wary of the effectiveness or dosage requirements, preferring one vaccine over the others. Some are concerned about safety, as the vaccines were developed and approved in a short period of time compared to the usual process, which can take years.⁸ Disinformation about vaccines, coupled with political polarization, has caused mistrust of drug manufacturers, government institutions, and authority figures. Others may not see the urgency to receive a vaccine if their community has few COVID-19 cases, or they may prioritize their freedom of choice above all else.

In order to reach herd immunity, prevent infections, and bring an end to the pandemic, everyone must play their part. So, what should be done to encourage Americans to receive the COVID-19 vaccine? Here are three ideas:

Promote Scientists and Medical Experts

Professionals in the scientific and medical fields are the premier experts when it comes to the pandemic. They’ve spent their lives studying, researching, and working with infectious diseases. By making themselves known and accessible to the public, just as Dr. Anthony Fauci did when he appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” they help Americans get a better understanding of the importance of vaccines.⁹ For his part, Dr. Fauci remains a trusted figure with a 72 percent approval rating.¹⁰

Advocates of this approach believe that notable experts should be the leading voices in communicating the need to get vaccinated. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines for fully vaccinated people in early March, it provided a preview of a return to normal life—something people could look forward to, get excited about, and be encouraged by.¹¹ Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, even appeared in a brief, engaging video on YouTube to answer common questions about the vaccines so people could get the information they need.¹²

However, general confidence in these medical experts has decreased, especially among Republicans.¹³ The language and terminology that the medical community uses is not always the easiest for the general public to understand, and some people still fault medical experts’ evolving guidelines, based on emerging information, as untrustworthy.

Showcase Celebrity Endorsements

Public figures can greatly influence the behavior of the people who look up to them. Just recently, a bipartisan group of former presidents and first ladies—from the Carters to the Obamas—released a video in which they urged every American to get vaccinated, just as they had done.¹⁴ President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris also received their vaccines publicly, live on television. But influence is not limited to those in politics; celebrities are just as influential, if not more so.

Arnold Schwarzenegger “had a cool zinger after getting his shot. He squinted at the camera and growled a catchphrase from Terminator 2: Judgment Day: ‘Come with me if you want to live.’”¹⁵ Dolly Parton sang her song “Jolene” before she received hers, substituting the word “vaccine” and encouraging her fans to follow her example.¹⁶ This strategy is nothing new. In fact, Elvis Presley received his polio vaccination on television, as part of a sweeping vaccination campaign that helped increase the public’s trust in the science.¹⁷ Famed NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has proposed letting NBA players “jump the vaccine queue” for this very reason, noting that “health policy professionals suggest that public health campaigns using celebrities should focus on celebrities who are influential in particular communities in order to build trust.”¹⁸

However, this strategy runs the risk of perpetuating the idea that celebrities and the well-connected get preferential treatment solely because of their wealth or status. It could further create distrust in the distribution of vaccines if the process seems inequitable.

Empower Community Leaders

Local community leaders know their residents better than anyone else. They have existing relationships and strong ties with the people around them. In turn, people look to their local leaders for guidance and support. In San Jose, California, local activists have been going door-to-door in Black and Hispanic communities to combat vaccine misinformation.¹⁹ As one activist explained, “They’ve read all this stuff online, from different news sources, which is confusing. But then they meet me, as someone who has had the shot, and I can give them some real answers.”²⁰ These conversations show that if the vaccine is good enough for someone they know, then it must be good enough for them too.

The same tactics are being utilized by Black churches, which have strong ties to civic action in their communities. Just as initiatives such as “souls to the polls” drive Black voter turnout during election season, churches are looking to increase the vaccination rate of their congregations. One hesitant church-goer in Chicago explained why he decided to get the vaccine. “So, because it’s coming from the church, I decided I would take it—and take my mother to get hers. I am trusting the people I trust. That’s what it came down to. And it was impactful that I heard it from many pastors.”²¹

However, this strategy is dependent on organizations and leaders that are already established in a community, which drastically vary from place to place. Different demographics of people may require different resources, as there is not a universal model that applies to every community.

Discussion Questions:

Do you have friends or family members who are skeptical about the vaccine?
What is being done in your community to promote vaccination?
Of these three ideas that aim to overcome COVID-19 vaccine fears and skepticism, which do you think would be most effective?
Are there any ideas not listed that you think would encourage people to get vaccinated?
Should people have to get the vaccine before resuming certain activities, such as working in an office or going to school in person? Why or why not?
On a scale of 1 to 5, how high a priority do you think this should be for the government?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: WHYY

[1] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/28/960901166/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-going-in-your-state

[2] Ibid.

[3] White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/11/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-anniversary-of-the-covid-19-shutdown/

[4] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/us/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-refusal-military.html?smid=url-share

[5] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/covid-vaccine-60percent-of-nursing-home-staff-refused-shots-walgreens-exec-says.html

[6] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/sweeping-ad-campaign-will-encourage-vaccinations-rcna309

[7] The Hill: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/542507-1-in-4-americans-refuse-to-get-covid-19-vaccine

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/us/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-refusal-military.html?smid=url-share

[9] The Late Show with Stephen Colbert via YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iurgxEmPlnI

[10] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/2020-election-polls-voters-approve-more-of-fauci-than-trump-on-coronavirus.html

[11] CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0308-vaccinated-guidelines.html

[12] White House via YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf8uuTtd-eo

[13] Stat News: https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/10/trust-cdc-fauci-evaporating/

[14] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/11/politics/former-presidents-vaccine-psa/index.html

[15] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/opinion/nba-covid-vaccine-kareem-abdul-jabbar.html

[16] Dolly Parton via Twitter: https://twitter.com/DollyParton/status/1366866210852323328?s=20

[17] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/opinion/nba-covid-vaccine-kareem-abdul-jabbar.html

[18] Ibid.

[19] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/technology/vaccine-misinformation.html

[20] Ibid.

[21] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-churches-become-indispensable-covid-19-vaccination-effort-rcna364

Restoring Confidence or Destroying Democracy? The Fight Over Access to the Ballot

Posted on March 8, 2021June 2, 2021 by Scot Wilson

The past several election cycles have seen high-stakes fights over access to the ballot and the rules that govern elections. In 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of the Voting Rights Act, thus making it easier for states to change their voting laws.¹ In the years since, conservatives in Congress and in state legislatures have argued in favor of policies that tighten voter ID requirements and voting processes.

Since the 2020 election, lawmakers in state legislatures have introduced at least 165 proposals that would in some way restrict access to the ballot.² In Georgia, for example, Republican lawmakers passed a bill that would “require a photo ID for absentee voting, limit the amount of time voters have to request an absentee ballot, restrict where ballot drop boxes could be located and when they could be accessed, and limit early voting hours on weekends, among many other changes.”³

FIND OUT: Are there new voting-related bills in your state? See the Brennan Center’s tracker.

The Georgia legislation does not state that it is intended to help Republicans, but critics of the bill point to data from the state’s 2020 Senate elections, showing that a disproportionate amount of Democratic voters used absentee ballots and that many Black voters cast their ballots on Sunday as part of “souls to the polls” campaigns.⁴ Critics also argue that voter ID laws discriminate against the poor, college students, the elderly, and people of color.⁵Supporters, on the other hand, argue that voter ID provisions are a commonsense measure to ensure the integrity of voting and to prevent fraud.

What is Congress Doing?

While many states are considering new voting laws, there is also action taking place in Congress. The House of Representatives just passed HR 1, the For the People Act. If enacted, this bill would:

Require states to establish automatic voter registration systems and guarantee same-day voter registration, allowing individuals to register and vote on the day of an election.
Require at least 15 days of early voting for federal elections in every state, including weekend and evening voting.
Replace paperless voting machines and better track data and network breaches in an effort to improve election security.
Soften voter ID laws by allowing voters to sign a sworn affidavit instead of showing an ID.
Require states to offer no-excuse mail-in voting for all federal elections, including online ballot tracking, prepaid postage, and the option for voters to return their ballots at drop boxes or designate someone else to return their ballot (as long as the person is not being compensated).
Restore voting rights for all incarcerated people convicted of a crime once they’ve completed their sentence and been released from jail (37 states already automatically reinstate felons’ voting rights after release, parole, or probation; two states allow felons to keep the right to vote while in jail).

The bill also includes provisions governing gerrymandering, campaign finance, and ethics.⁶

WATCH: Rep. Colin Allred, D-Texas, argues for HR 1 – For the People Act

Although popular among Democrats in Congress, HR 1 is unlikely to pass the Senate without significant changes to address Republicans’ concerns. To address those concerns, Senator Rick Scott, R-Fla., introduced the Save Democracy Act at the end of February. That bill would:

Mandate that voters show official ID whether voting in person or absentee.
Prohibit automatic voter registration in most cases.
Require a social security number and proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Require judges to inform election officials about any residents who recuse themselves from jury service on the basis of citizenship.
Put an end to universal mail-in voting, as practiced in states such as Oregon.⁷

“We have a crisis of faith in our electoral process, and maybe Congress’s most important job in 2021 is to restore that trust,” said Representative Jim Banks, R-Ind., arguing in favor of the Republican bill. “The Save Democracy Act is a way for Congress to go beyond reassurance and prove that our elections are secure. Americans know common-sense reforms like citizenship verification and poll-watchers will make our elections safer. Democrats’ election bill, H.R. 1, would do the opposite by banning things like signature verification for absentee ballots. The contrast between each party’s agenda has never been clearer.”⁸

The issue is complicated, and this is a particularly challenging time to work to address it. A February Associated Press poll showed that 65 percent of Republican voters do not believe the 2020 election was legitimate.⁹ Some elected Republican officials, including members of Congress, do not accept President Joe Biden’s victory as legitimate.¹⁰

Furthermore, many Democrats do not believe that Republicans are arguing in good faith. They point to past comments made by Republicans who acknowledged that their main goal was to suppress minority and youth turnout so they could win elections. For example, Mike Turzai, a Republican state legislator in Pennsylvania, said that the goal of a 2012 voter ID bill was to help “Governor Romney win the state of Pennsylvania.” Former Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer said, “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates. It’s done for one reason and one reason only.” Consultants told him “we’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us. [This is not] a fraud issue. It’s all a marketing ploy.”¹¹

In this atmosphere, where the two parties are accusing each other of making voting reforms that improve their own political fortunes, it is not clear that they will be able to reach an agreement on significant legislation—even though both parties agree that reform is needed.

Discussion Questions

What have you heard about voter ID laws and election security?
Do you believe that the U.S. election system should be reformed? If so, what changes do you think are needed?
Which party’s vision of election reform do you most support?
Is there a compromise you think the parties should reach?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Getty Images

[1] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html

[2] Axios: https://www.axios.com/state-voter-suppression-proposals-5ee31df3-8e98-4bf5-8910-7bc6db704f15.html

[3] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/senate-elections-bills-legislation-elections-georgia-842d9ad16a78901322f4b952f6c0d8dd

[4] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/24/new-georgia-legislation-would-curb-souls-polls/

[5] American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

[6] League of Women Voters: https://my.lwv.org/california/diablo-valley/article/summary-hr-1-people-act; Brennan Center for Justice: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-people-act-2021#t1-si; Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-house-passes-hr-1-democracy-reform-voting-rights-package-2021-3

[7] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-led-save-democracy-act-aims-eliminate-security-concerns-plagued-2020-election

[8] Senator Rick Scott’s Official Website: https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/sen-rick-scott-colleagues-introduce-save-democracy-act-restore-confidence-our-elections

[9] MarketWatch: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-finds-65-of-republicans-say-they-dont-believe-bidens-election-was-legitimate-01612570478

[10] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/congress-republicans-trump-election-claims/

[11] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html

Addressing Economic Inequality: Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Proposal

Posted on March 4, 2021February 28, 2023 by Scot Wilson

During her 2020 presidential bid, Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., put forward a tax on the wealthiest Americans—a so-called ultra-millionaire tax—as one of her central proposals.¹ And on March 1, 2021, Warren introduced the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, which would “create an annual tax of 2 percent on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion and a tax of 3 percent on net worth above $1 billion. The rate for net worth above $1 billion would increase to 6 percent if a ‘Medicare for All’ health care plan is enacted.”²

WATCH: Warren Argues for a Wealth Tax during a Democratic Primary Debate

A wealth tax would be a new form of taxation in the United States. The federal government currently taxes income, which is the money that people earn each year from their jobs and investments. Many states tax the value of a person’s real estate, which is a form of a wealth tax, but there is no current tax on wealth. Other countries have implemented wealth taxes in the past,³ and the state of California is currently considering a wealth tax as well.⁴ Warren’s wealth tax proposal targets the riches Americans, likely impacting roughly 100,000 families, meaning that 99.9992 percent of Americans would not be taxed.

READ: “The Wealth Tax is Going Global,” from Bloomberg News

Arguments for the Wealth Tax

Projections suggest that the wealth tax could raise significant government revenue, as much as $3 trillion over ten years, allowing the government to fund programs aimed at reducing poverty.
“A wealth tax is popular among voters on both sides for good reason: because they understand the system is rigged to benefit the wealthy and large corporations,” said Warren. “As Congress develops additional plans to help our economy, the wealth tax should be at the top of the list to help pay for these plans because of the huge amounts of revenue it would generate.”⁶
“The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act will help level the playing field, narrow the racial wealth gap, ensure the wealthiest finally begin to pay their fair share, and invest trillions of dollars into our communities so we can make a real difference in the lives of people across America,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who introduced the same bill in the House of Representatives.⁷
“As working families struggle to put food on the table, keep the heat on, and pay the rent during this devastating economic crisis that has caused the poverty rate to jump by the largest amount in at least 60 years, the rich have only gotten richer and the wealth of billionaires has jumped by 40%,” said Jayapal.⁸

Arguments Against the Wealth Tax

The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, argues in an issue brief that wealth taxes are inefficient and ineffective, as wealth is difficult to measure and can be effectively hidden through accounting strategies.⁹
Over the past several decades, 12 European nations have experimented with wealth taxes. But nine of those countries abandoned the tax because it was expensive to enforce, it encouraged wealthy people (who invest in businesses and help create jobs) to leave the country or move their money, and it did not raise much revenue.¹⁰
Some economists argue that a wealth tax is harmful to the economy because it slows economic growth, it changes the investment and purchasing patterns of the wealthy, and it discourages saving. This leads to less investment in new business ventures and innovation, thus slowing job creation and harming everyday Americans.¹¹
Other opponents believe that a wealth tax does little more than punish success and stoke class warfare. They argue that the government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem that it must rein in.

Discussion Questions

Do you believe wealth inequality is a problem in the United States? Why or why not?
Do you think the federal government should take steps to reduce wealth inequality? Why or why not?
Do you think a wealth tax is a good or bad proposal?
If you were writing a letter to your representative or one of your senators, how would you urge them to vote? What would you say to convince them?

For a more detailed discussion of a wealth tax, read our Controversial Issue in the News on the proposal.

Learn More

READ: The Ultra-Millionaire Tax, from Warren’s campaign website
LISTEN: “Could a Wealth Tax Work?” from NPR’s Planet Money
READ: “Estimating the Economic Impact of a Wealth Tax,” from the Brookings Institution
WATCH: Larry Kudlow, the former top economic adviser to President Donald Trump, weighs in on Warren’s proposed tax, from Fox Business
LISTEN: “The Wealth Tax Debate,” from Forbes
READ: “Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax on the Super-Rich is the Wrong Solution to the Right Problem,” from Time

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

Sources