The Justice Movement Stands with the Majority of People in the United States, in Stark Contrast to Republican and Democratic Leaders Who Have Acted Contrary to the Desires of the Majority and Against the Public Interest
|
The gap between what people want from their government and what they get is substantial and growing, which may explain citizens’ increasing anger with the political establishment.
– Vicente Navarro, Johns Hopkins University |
|
[P]ublic policy does not reflect the preferences of the majority of Americans. If it did, the country would look radically different: Marijuana would be legal and campaign contributions more tightly regulated; paid parental leave would be the law of the land and public colleges free; the minimum wage would be higher and gun control much stricter; abortions would be more accessible in the early stages of pregnancy and illegal in the third trimester. . . .
Economic elites and narrow interest groups were very influential [in determining how Congress and the executive branch would act on policy issues]. They succeeded in getting their favored policies adopted about half of the time, and in stopping legislation to which they were opposed nearly all of the time. Mass-based interest groups, meanwhile, had little effect on public policy. As for the views of ordinary citizens, they had virtually no independent effect at all.[1] |
The Justice Movement stands with the majority of the people in the United States on almost every major issue. We demand that our government represents the public interest, not just the interests of corporate lobbyists and fat-cat donors.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
The Justice Movement supports universal health care, which will result in far less expense and substantially better medical outcomes.
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
The United States is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not ensure essential health care for everyone,[2] yet health care costs in the U.S. are approximately double per capita the costs throughout the rest of the industrialized world,[3] the costs are often financially ruinous for patients and their families,[4] and the medical outcomes in many areas, such as maternal and infant mortality, are worse than in almost every other industrialized nation.[5]
Both parties have had plenty of opportunities to provide, or at least push for, universal health care, but, instead, they repeatedly failed the people of our nation.
For instance, when John Kerry sought the presidency, the Democratic platform promised only to “help businesses cope with the skyrocketing cost of health care by reforming our health care system and cutting taxes to help small businesses pay for health insurance.”[6]
The Democratic platform when Barack Obama first sought the presidency avoided any intimation of a government-run structure, stating: “Health care should be a shared responsibility between employers, workers, insurers, providers and government.”[7]
President Obama offered his explanation as to why he would not consider replacing the current U.S. system that relies primarily on health coverage sold by for-profit insurance companies with a plan in which government pays the medical bills: “If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we’re not starting from scratch.” Representative Dennis Kucinich responded: “We’re starting in a ditch. And the ditch is that Americans are being driven into poverty by a health care system that is for-profit.”
Both parties have had plenty of opportunities to provide, or at least push for, universal health care, but, instead, they repeatedly failed the people of our nation.
For instance, when John Kerry sought the presidency, the Democratic platform promised only to “help businesses cope with the skyrocketing cost of health care by reforming our health care system and cutting taxes to help small businesses pay for health insurance.”[6]
The Democratic platform when Barack Obama first sought the presidency avoided any intimation of a government-run structure, stating: “Health care should be a shared responsibility between employers, workers, insurers, providers and government.”[7]
President Obama offered his explanation as to why he would not consider replacing the current U.S. system that relies primarily on health coverage sold by for-profit insurance companies with a plan in which government pays the medical bills: “If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we’re not starting from scratch.” Representative Dennis Kucinich responded: “We’re starting in a ditch. And the ditch is that Americans are being driven into poverty by a health care system that is for-profit.”
Majority Support for Universal Health Care
According to a 2020 survey, 64% of U.S. adults (88% of Democrats/Leaning Democrats; 34% of Republicans/Leaning Republicans) say the government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for all. Only 37% say this is not the responsibility of the federal government. Only 11% of Republicans say the government should not be involved at all in providing health insurance. Fifty-four percent of Republicans say the government “should continue to provide programs like Medicare and Medicaid for seniors and the very poor.”[8]
A 2021 poll reflects that 55% of voters support “Medicare for All,” while 32% oppose the single-payer plan.[9]
Sixty-eight percent of voters (80% of Democrats; 56% of Republicans) support, and only 18% (7% of Democrats; 32% of Republicans) oppose, a public option where people can choose from a government-run health program or private insurance.[10]
In another poll, 67% of voters (79% Biden voters; 54% Trump voters) ranked reducing health care costs as their top priority for the President and Congress.[11] In that same poll, 70% of voters (87% of Biden supporters; 51% of Trump voters) supported a public health insurance option with limits on the prices charged by providers.[12]
A 2021 poll reflects that 55% of voters support “Medicare for All,” while 32% oppose the single-payer plan.[9]
Sixty-eight percent of voters (80% of Democrats; 56% of Republicans) support, and only 18% (7% of Democrats; 32% of Republicans) oppose, a public option where people can choose from a government-run health program or private insurance.[10]
In another poll, 67% of voters (79% Biden voters; 54% Trump voters) ranked reducing health care costs as their top priority for the President and Congress.[11] In that same poll, 70% of voters (87% of Biden supporters; 51% of Trump voters) supported a public health insurance option with limits on the prices charged by providers.[12]
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
The Justice Movement supports (1) major sentencing reforms, including the elimination of minimum mandatory sentences; (2) the elimination of the death penalty; (3) a change in focus from punishment to rehabilitation and restorative justice; (4) alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders; (5) substance abuse treatment on demand; and (6) expanded access to mental health treatment.
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
The United States prison population in 1972 was 200,000; today more than 2.1 million people are imprisoned in U.S. jails and prisons.[13]
The United States has by far the world’s highest rate of incarceration. With only about 4.25% of the world’s population,[14] the U.S. has about 25% of the world’s prison population.[15] The U.S. imprisons more people per capita than any other nation––639 per 100,000 people. Compare that to Russia (341), Israel (234), New Zealand (188), Mexico (158), United Kingdom (114), France (87), Germany (69), and Norway (49).[16] In other words, the U.S. incarceration rate is four times higher than Mexico, more than five times higher than the U.K., seven times higher than France, nine times higher than Germany, and thirteen times higher than Norway.
The prison population is disproportionately comprised of people of color. As of 2016, Blacks made up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population but 37 percent of the nation’s prisoners.[17]
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are responsible for the continuing shame and gross injustice of record mass incarceration in the United States.
President Nixon, using fear and appeals to racism, started the trend toward mass incarceration declaring a “war on drugs.” When he took office in 1980, the U.S. prison population was 329,000; when he left office eight years later, the prison population had almost doubled, to 627,000, hitting communities of color the hardest.[18]
The fastest rise in incarceration was in the states. In Texas, the incarceration rate grew from 182 per 100,000 residents in 1978 to a rate of 710 by 2003.
The rapid increases in incarceration were spurred, in part, by the 1994 Crime Bill, promoted and signed by President Clinton and pushed by then-Senator Joe Biden, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[19] That federal legislation appropriated money to states, encouraging, among other things, more drug arrests and prosecutions, the building of more prisons, and imprisonment for longer terms.
Other tough-on-crime “drug war” federal legislation pushed by Democrats (particularly Joe Biden, who said punishments should “hold every drug user accountable”[20]) also contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S. and other civil rights abuses.
In the first analysis of its kind, in 2016 the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School determined that nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population are behind bars without a compelling public safety rationale.[22]
During his presidential campaign, Joe Biden repeatedly said he would reduce the country’s prison population and, at one point, he said his administration could cut the number of incarcerated people by more than half, with a new emphasis on alternatives to prison. After a year of the Biden administration, those promises have been betrayed, with the number of people in federal prisons continuing to grow.[23]
The United States has by far the world’s highest rate of incarceration. With only about 4.25% of the world’s population,[14] the U.S. has about 25% of the world’s prison population.[15] The U.S. imprisons more people per capita than any other nation––639 per 100,000 people. Compare that to Russia (341), Israel (234), New Zealand (188), Mexico (158), United Kingdom (114), France (87), Germany (69), and Norway (49).[16] In other words, the U.S. incarceration rate is four times higher than Mexico, more than five times higher than the U.K., seven times higher than France, nine times higher than Germany, and thirteen times higher than Norway.
The prison population is disproportionately comprised of people of color. As of 2016, Blacks made up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population but 37 percent of the nation’s prisoners.[17]
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are responsible for the continuing shame and gross injustice of record mass incarceration in the United States.
President Nixon, using fear and appeals to racism, started the trend toward mass incarceration declaring a “war on drugs.” When he took office in 1980, the U.S. prison population was 329,000; when he left office eight years later, the prison population had almost doubled, to 627,000, hitting communities of color the hardest.[18]
The fastest rise in incarceration was in the states. In Texas, the incarceration rate grew from 182 per 100,000 residents in 1978 to a rate of 710 by 2003.
The rapid increases in incarceration were spurred, in part, by the 1994 Crime Bill, promoted and signed by President Clinton and pushed by then-Senator Joe Biden, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[19] That federal legislation appropriated money to states, encouraging, among other things, more drug arrests and prosecutions, the building of more prisons, and imprisonment for longer terms.
Other tough-on-crime “drug war” federal legislation pushed by Democrats (particularly Joe Biden, who said punishments should “hold every drug user accountable”[20]) also contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S. and other civil rights abuses.
- The Comprehensive Crime Control Act, a 1984 law pushed by Senators Biden and Strom Thurmond, expanded drug trafficking penalties and provided for civil asset forfeiture, allowing police to seize a person’s property without proving the person is guilty of a crime.
- The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, sponsored by Biden, increased penalties for drug crimes and created a huge disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine, leading to an even greater racial disparity in incarceration since Blacks more commonly used crack.
- The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, co-sponsored by Biden, once again increased prison sentences for drug possession, among other things.[21]
In the first analysis of its kind, in 2016 the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School determined that nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population are behind bars without a compelling public safety rationale.[22]
During his presidential campaign, Joe Biden repeatedly said he would reduce the country’s prison population and, at one point, he said his administration could cut the number of incarcerated people by more than half, with a new emphasis on alternatives to prison. After a year of the Biden administration, those promises have been betrayed, with the number of people in federal prisons continuing to grow.[23]
Majority Support for Major Criminal Justice Reform
In a 2018 survey of 2000 U.S. adults in rural areas, small cities, and major metropolitan areas, 67% agreed that “building more jails and prisons to keep more people in jail does not reduce crime.” Also, 62% agreed building more prisons and jails is not an effective means to improve the quality of life, favoring investment in education, job training, roads, programs to reduce bias, and community-based services.[24]
In a 2017 poll conducted by the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, “60% of Americans believe that ‘rehabilitating or treating the person’ is the most appropriate response to non-violent offenses as opposed to ‘punishing the person for committing the crime’ or ‘keeping the person off the street so they can’t commit more crimes.’ Support for rehabilitation rises to 71% for non-violent offenses by those who suffer from mental illness.”[25]
“Except for the most serious crimes, 75% of Americans believe the most appropriate sentence for an offense by a person with a mental disorder should not involve jail time. People see alternatives to incarceration––such as treatment or rehabilitative services, probation, or community service––as the best option in these cases.” “84% agreed that local governments should devote more resources to substance abuse treatment.”[26]
In a 2017 poll reflected consensus support for reducing prison population in the U.S. by people who identified as conservative, liberal, and moderate. Seventy-one percent agreed it is important to reduce the prison population, including 87% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 57% of Republicans (including 52% of Trump voters).[27]
Eighty-four percent believe that people with mental health disabilities belong in mental health programs instead of prison. Seventy-one percent of Americans (including 68% of Republicans) agree that incarceration is often counterproductive to public safety, since “sending someone to prison for a long sentence increases the chances that he or she will commit another crime when they get out because prison doesn’t do a good job of rehabilitating problems like drug addiction and mental illness.”
“[A] large majority of Americans (72%) would be more likely to vote for a candidate who believes in eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing, and 73% would be more likely to vote for a candidate who commits to reducing sentences and reinvesting the cost savings into community programs.”[28]
Even going back to 2012 polling sponsored by the Pew Center on the States, 88% (94% of Democrats, 89% of Independents, and 81% of Republicans) agreed that “We have too many low-risk, non-violent offenders in prison. We need alternatives to incarceration that cost less and save our expensive prison space for violent and career criminals.” Eighty-seven percent (90% of Democrats, 89% of Independents, and 82% of Republicans) agreed that “If we are serious about public safety, we must increase access to treatment and job training programs so they can become productive citizens once they are back in the community.”[29]
In a 2017 poll, 78% of respondents (81% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 68% of Republicans) support shifting the youth justice system from a focus on incarceration and punishment to prevention and rehabilitation.[30]
In a 2017 poll conducted by the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, “60% of Americans believe that ‘rehabilitating or treating the person’ is the most appropriate response to non-violent offenses as opposed to ‘punishing the person for committing the crime’ or ‘keeping the person off the street so they can’t commit more crimes.’ Support for rehabilitation rises to 71% for non-violent offenses by those who suffer from mental illness.”[25]
“Except for the most serious crimes, 75% of Americans believe the most appropriate sentence for an offense by a person with a mental disorder should not involve jail time. People see alternatives to incarceration––such as treatment or rehabilitative services, probation, or community service––as the best option in these cases.” “84% agreed that local governments should devote more resources to substance abuse treatment.”[26]
In a 2017 poll reflected consensus support for reducing prison population in the U.S. by people who identified as conservative, liberal, and moderate. Seventy-one percent agreed it is important to reduce the prison population, including 87% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 57% of Republicans (including 52% of Trump voters).[27]
Eighty-four percent believe that people with mental health disabilities belong in mental health programs instead of prison. Seventy-one percent of Americans (including 68% of Republicans) agree that incarceration is often counterproductive to public safety, since “sending someone to prison for a long sentence increases the chances that he or she will commit another crime when they get out because prison doesn’t do a good job of rehabilitating problems like drug addiction and mental illness.”
“[A] large majority of Americans (72%) would be more likely to vote for a candidate who believes in eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing, and 73% would be more likely to vote for a candidate who commits to reducing sentences and reinvesting the cost savings into community programs.”[28]
Even going back to 2012 polling sponsored by the Pew Center on the States, 88% (94% of Democrats, 89% of Independents, and 81% of Republicans) agreed that “We have too many low-risk, non-violent offenders in prison. We need alternatives to incarceration that cost less and save our expensive prison space for violent and career criminals.” Eighty-seven percent (90% of Democrats, 89% of Independents, and 82% of Republicans) agreed that “If we are serious about public safety, we must increase access to treatment and job training programs so they can become productive citizens once they are back in the community.”[29]
In a 2017 poll, 78% of respondents (81% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 68% of Republicans) support shifting the youth justice system from a focus on incarceration and punishment to prevention and rehabilitation.[30]
WARRANTLESS GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
The Justice Movement supports the prohibition of warrantless electronic surveillance of citizens, aliens with permanent residence, or U.S. associations or corporations, and full legal accountability for all who authorize or engage in such surveillance.
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
During a time, decades ago, when Congress was not simply a battleground between people who put partisanship over principle, and when there were true statesmen and stateswomen in both of the major parties, congressional committees held hearings and investigated major crimes against our Constitution by U.S. intelligence agencies. After disclosures of blatantly unconstitutional misconduct, particularly by the FBI, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) in 1978.
That legislation made it a federal felony for anyone to engage in electronic surveillance of any “United States person” without a warrant, unless the surveillance was directed solely at communications or property controlled exclusively by a foreign power and there was no substantial likelihood that the government would acquire the contents of any communication to which a “United States person” was a party.
The National Security Agency (“NSA”) conscientiously abided by those legal limitations before September 11, 2001, but blatantly violated them thereafter at the behest of President George W. Bush.[31] No one has been held legally accountable for those violations of federal criminal law and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In recent years, in a “kill-the-messenger” strategy, Republican and Democratic administrations have vigorously persecuted whistleblowers who brought the truth to light about the illegal surveillance and other illegal governmental misconduct. (During the Obama administration there were four times as many prosecutions against whistleblowers under the Espionage Act as there were under every prior administration combined.)
Not only did many members of both major parties stand behind President Bush’s illegal order and the warrantless surveillance of communications by the NSA, but nearly all Republicans and Democrats in Congress were content with President Obama saying, essentially, that the rule of law would not be applied to those who ordered or engaged in prior illegal surveillance and that he would not seek to hold anyone to account for prior instances of illegal surveillance or torture (another federal felony and prohibited by international law).[32]
That legislation made it a federal felony for anyone to engage in electronic surveillance of any “United States person” without a warrant, unless the surveillance was directed solely at communications or property controlled exclusively by a foreign power and there was no substantial likelihood that the government would acquire the contents of any communication to which a “United States person” was a party.
The National Security Agency (“NSA”) conscientiously abided by those legal limitations before September 11, 2001, but blatantly violated them thereafter at the behest of President George W. Bush.[31] No one has been held legally accountable for those violations of federal criminal law and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In recent years, in a “kill-the-messenger” strategy, Republican and Democratic administrations have vigorously persecuted whistleblowers who brought the truth to light about the illegal surveillance and other illegal governmental misconduct. (During the Obama administration there were four times as many prosecutions against whistleblowers under the Espionage Act as there were under every prior administration combined.)
Not only did many members of both major parties stand behind President Bush’s illegal order and the warrantless surveillance of communications by the NSA, but nearly all Republicans and Democrats in Congress were content with President Obama saying, essentially, that the rule of law would not be applied to those who ordered or engaged in prior illegal surveillance and that he would not seek to hold anyone to account for prior instances of illegal surveillance or torture (another federal felony and prohibited by international law).[32]
Majority Opposition to Warrantless Surveillance
The majority of people in the U.S., including Republicans and Democrats, oppose the government engaging in warrantless surveillance of communications by people in the U.S.
Republicans are even more opposed than Democrats to the government monitoring domestic phone calls (74% vs 62%), internet searches (59% vs 46%), text messages (70% vs 59%), or emails sent within the United States (67% vs 60%).[33]
- 62% oppose, with only 17% favoring, the warrantless reading of emails sent in the U.S.
- 63% oppose, with only 16% favoring, the warrantless governmental monitoring of text messages and messaging apps.
- 66% oppose, with only 14% favoring, the warrantless listening to telephone calls made in the United States.
Republicans are even more opposed than Democrats to the government monitoring domestic phone calls (74% vs 62%), internet searches (59% vs 46%), text messages (70% vs 59%), or emails sent within the United States (67% vs 60%).[33]
PRESIDENTIAL WAR MAKING
The Justice Movement insists on compliance with the constitutional mandate that, unless our nation is under attack or under imminent threat of attack,[34] the decision to go to war or to engage in acts of war is the exclusive province of Congress and that the President has no authority—even if Congress endeavors to delegate its exclusive power to the President—to take our nation to war but only to act as Commander-in-Chief once Congress has determined that war is to be commenced.
The question of who has exclusive authority to make the final decision, based on contemporaneous facts, whether our nation should go to war or engage in acts of war is clearly answered by the War Power Clause of the Constitution. As James Madison stated, “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.”[35] In 1805, while Spanish military forces were threatening Louisiana, President Thomas Jefferson demonstrated his respect for the exclusive congressional war power by writing: “Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.”[36]
During the process of drafting the Constitution, the initial war power clause provided that Congress was to be given authority to “make” war. However, Madison and Elbridge Gerry successfully changed the word “make” to “declare,” “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.”[37]
Virginia’s George Mason wrote that he was “ag[ainst] giving the power of war to the Executive, because [that branch was] not safely to be trusted with it.” Madison considered war “the true nurse of executive aggrandizement” and stated: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Gov[ernmen]ts demonstrates, that the Ex[ecutive] Is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ative].”[38]
During the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, Madison and the other Founders had debated the quandaries of war. They sought to ensure that, unlike in the Old World societies governed by sovereigns, Americans would go to war only when it was absolutely necessary––and that the decision would be made not by the President but by the legislature.[39]
Abraham Lincoln argued against allowing the President to make the decision to go to war based on the President’s determination that it was necessary to prevent an invasion of the United States:
During the process of drafting the Constitution, the initial war power clause provided that Congress was to be given authority to “make” war. However, Madison and Elbridge Gerry successfully changed the word “make” to “declare,” “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.”[37]
Virginia’s George Mason wrote that he was “ag[ainst] giving the power of war to the Executive, because [that branch was] not safely to be trusted with it.” Madison considered war “the true nurse of executive aggrandizement” and stated: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Gov[ernmen]ts demonstrates, that the Ex[ecutive] Is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ative].”[38]
During the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, Madison and the other Founders had debated the quandaries of war. They sought to ensure that, unlike in the Old World societies governed by sovereigns, Americans would go to war only when it was absolutely necessary––and that the decision would be made not by the President but by the legislature.[39]
Abraham Lincoln argued against allowing the President to make the decision to go to war based on the President’s determination that it was necessary to prevent an invasion of the United States:
|
The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.[40] The Constitution gives the President, within certain bounds, the power, as Commander in Chief, to execute a war approved by Congress.
|
Congress declared war during five separate conflicts, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
Since the Korean War, during which President Truman made the decision to go to war, there has been no congressional declaration of war. Instead, as occurred in connection with the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, when presidents misrepresented material facts to Congress and to the public, several presidents have far exceeded their constitutional powers and, in the mode of dictators, unilaterally made the final decision to go to war. On some occasions, the decisions by presidents to take our country to war occurred after the unconstitutional delegation to the President of Congress’s exclusive power to make the final decision as to whether war should be commenced, as with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which opened the way for full-scale war in Vietnam, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002(“AUMF”). That AUMF aided the commission by the United States of the international crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva[41] and two former United Nations Secretaries-General.[42]
Majority Support for Prior Determination by Congress Before Commission of War or Engagement in Acts of War
The public recognizes that the decision as to whether the U.S. should go to war belongs exclusively to Congress. According to a Gallup poll in 1973, 80% favored congressional approval before the president could send U.S. armed forces into action outside the United States. In a 2008 poll, 79% agreed congressional approval should be required. In February 1999, although 54% of Americans approved of a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, 78% wanted President Clinton to seek approval from Congress. In 2002, 69% said congressional approval was necessary for an invasion of Iraq.[43]
In a 2008 poll, 76% said the president should get the approval of Congress before sending U.S. armed forces into action even if the president did not expect a long combat operation. Seventy percent (52% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, and 83% of Democrats) said such congressional approval should be obtained even if the president wanted to use Air Force or Navy planes to bomb suspected terrorists.[44]
In a 2008 poll, 76% said the president should get the approval of Congress before sending U.S. armed forces into action even if the president did not expect a long combat operation. Seventy percent (52% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, and 83% of Democrats) said such congressional approval should be obtained even if the president wanted to use Air Force or Navy planes to bomb suspected terrorists.[44]
The Justice Movement calls for the immediate refinancing of student debt to the lowest level of interest paid on current U.S. Treasury Bonds. Further, the Justice Movement advocates for (1) the repeal of the 2005 legislation depriving those with student loans of the protections of bankruptcy; (2) according to a needs-based formula, the repayment to student loan debtors of one-half the amounts they have paid in interest and penalties on their loans since 2005; (3) a cap on tuition costs at all colleges and universities receiving federal funds; (4) major reforms of for-profit colleges; and (5) a time limit for future student debt, with forgiveness of the debt to occur within ten years of the debtor paying 7% of his or her annual income (or 3 ½% of annual income if the debtor is employed by a designated public service entity) toward repayment of the loan.
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
When someone has debts he or she cannot pay off, bankruptcy is a solution provided for by law, giving the debtor a fresh start. There are exceptions. Someone who owes another money as a result of fraud cannot discharge that debt in bankruptcy. No one who owes alimony or child support can discharge that debt either.
Incredibly, in 2005, Congress voted to add another exception by denying those with student debt bankruptcy protection. The airlines could file for bankruptcy, which several have done, and wipe out hundreds of millions of debt. Investment banking firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in 2008, with almost $700 billion in debt. General Motors obtained bankruptcy protection in 2009, with over $82 billion in debt. Enron obtained bankruptcy protection, with $65.5 billion in debt. Even Texaco obtained bankruptcy protection in 1987, with almost $35 billion in debt. But a student with $150,000 in student debt, undertaken to obtain a higher education, may have the debt, with interest and penalties, hanging over his or her head for many years, perhaps an entire lifetime, without the protection of bankruptcy.
This is what the Republicans and many Democrats have done to students and their families, only to enrich financial institutions by making student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, tripling the amount of student debt over a decade and condemning millions of people in the U.S. to many years—perhaps lifetimes—of crushing debt. The burden of student debt has destroyed the dreams of millions who hoped one day to own their own homes, to help their children with college tuition, and to gain financial freedom from unprecedented debts.
The United States was once the world leader for producing college graduates with four-year degrees. Now, the U.S. is 12th in the world, lower even than Russia.[45] Tuitions have skyrocketed in the U.S., while student debt has reached record levels. Other nations that value equality of educational opportunities provide for free or subsidized education, cap the amount of tuition, or forgive loans after a relatively short time. In Canada, student loan debt for college graduates is forgiven after 15 years. England places caps on how much universities can charge per year. Education is free in Sweden. In France, students pay a very low tuition, as U.S. students did at state universities a few decades ago. There is little to no student debt among German college graduates, where the university system is entirely government-funded.
Until 2005, those who had private student loans could seek bankruptcy protections. However, that all changed dramatically. The 2005 bill to disallow the protections of bankruptcy for student debt in the U.S. was pushed by Republicans, but passed with the support of 18 Democratic senators, including Joe Biden.
Senator Ted Kennedy, who opposed the bill, stated that “This legislation breaks the bond that unites America, it sacrifices Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry.” Elizabeth Warren, then a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a scathing paper about Biden’s enthusiastic support for the 2005 bill, stating: “Senator Biden supports legislation that will fall hardest on women. Why? The answer will have to come from him . . . . He is a zealous advocate on behalf of one of his biggest contributors—the financial services industry.”[46]
While on the campaign trail in April 2020, Biden promised to “immediately cancel a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person.”[47] Yet, as of the writing of this document, Biden has not acted to follow through with that promise. His administration has been oblique about its intentions, or even its understanding of President Biden’s authority to forgive student debt, notwithstanding a provision of the Higher Education Act which provides the Secretary of Education the authority to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand.”
The run-around by the Biden administration on the question of student loan forgiveness has been dizzying. His Chief of Staff said on April 1, 2021, that the Department of Education was preparing “a memo on the president’s legal authority.” After several months, the president’s press secretary repeatedly responded to questions about student loan forgiveness by saying, “I don’t have an update on that.”
Meanwhile, about 42 million—one in eight—people in the U.S. owe oftentimes-crushing, unpayable student debt, totaling over $1.5 trillion. In the case of default, “graduates can get trapped in a vicious cycle of collection fees, long-term damaged credit, and even suspension of professional licenses that can threaten employment.”[48] “The effect student loan debt has on the economy is similar to that of a recession, reducing business growth and suppressing consumer spending. From 2019 to 2020, the average student loan debt grew 3.5%; meanwhile, the national economy shrank 3.5%.”[49]
Incredibly, in 2005, Congress voted to add another exception by denying those with student debt bankruptcy protection. The airlines could file for bankruptcy, which several have done, and wipe out hundreds of millions of debt. Investment banking firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in 2008, with almost $700 billion in debt. General Motors obtained bankruptcy protection in 2009, with over $82 billion in debt. Enron obtained bankruptcy protection, with $65.5 billion in debt. Even Texaco obtained bankruptcy protection in 1987, with almost $35 billion in debt. But a student with $150,000 in student debt, undertaken to obtain a higher education, may have the debt, with interest and penalties, hanging over his or her head for many years, perhaps an entire lifetime, without the protection of bankruptcy.
This is what the Republicans and many Democrats have done to students and their families, only to enrich financial institutions by making student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, tripling the amount of student debt over a decade and condemning millions of people in the U.S. to many years—perhaps lifetimes—of crushing debt. The burden of student debt has destroyed the dreams of millions who hoped one day to own their own homes, to help their children with college tuition, and to gain financial freedom from unprecedented debts.
The United States was once the world leader for producing college graduates with four-year degrees. Now, the U.S. is 12th in the world, lower even than Russia.[45] Tuitions have skyrocketed in the U.S., while student debt has reached record levels. Other nations that value equality of educational opportunities provide for free or subsidized education, cap the amount of tuition, or forgive loans after a relatively short time. In Canada, student loan debt for college graduates is forgiven after 15 years. England places caps on how much universities can charge per year. Education is free in Sweden. In France, students pay a very low tuition, as U.S. students did at state universities a few decades ago. There is little to no student debt among German college graduates, where the university system is entirely government-funded.
Until 2005, those who had private student loans could seek bankruptcy protections. However, that all changed dramatically. The 2005 bill to disallow the protections of bankruptcy for student debt in the U.S. was pushed by Republicans, but passed with the support of 18 Democratic senators, including Joe Biden.
Senator Ted Kennedy, who opposed the bill, stated that “This legislation breaks the bond that unites America, it sacrifices Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry.” Elizabeth Warren, then a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a scathing paper about Biden’s enthusiastic support for the 2005 bill, stating: “Senator Biden supports legislation that will fall hardest on women. Why? The answer will have to come from him . . . . He is a zealous advocate on behalf of one of his biggest contributors—the financial services industry.”[46]
While on the campaign trail in April 2020, Biden promised to “immediately cancel a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person.”[47] Yet, as of the writing of this document, Biden has not acted to follow through with that promise. His administration has been oblique about its intentions, or even its understanding of President Biden’s authority to forgive student debt, notwithstanding a provision of the Higher Education Act which provides the Secretary of Education the authority to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand.”
The run-around by the Biden administration on the question of student loan forgiveness has been dizzying. His Chief of Staff said on April 1, 2021, that the Department of Education was preparing “a memo on the president’s legal authority.” After several months, the president’s press secretary repeatedly responded to questions about student loan forgiveness by saying, “I don’t have an update on that.”
Meanwhile, about 42 million—one in eight—people in the U.S. owe oftentimes-crushing, unpayable student debt, totaling over $1.5 trillion. In the case of default, “graduates can get trapped in a vicious cycle of collection fees, long-term damaged credit, and even suspension of professional licenses that can threaten employment.”[48] “The effect student loan debt has on the economy is similar to that of a recession, reducing business growth and suppressing consumer spending. From 2019 to 2020, the average student loan debt grew 3.5%; meanwhile, the national economy shrank 3.5%.”[49]
Majority Support for Refinancing and at Least Partial or Conditional Forgiveness of Student Debt,
and For Repeal of Law Prohibiting the Discharge of Student Debt in Bankruptcy
and For Repeal of Law Prohibiting the Discharge of Student Debt in Bankruptcy
According to a recent Grinnell College National Poll, conducted by Selzer & Co., the vast majority of people in the United States—66%—support cancelling student loan debt under certain circumstances. Twenty-seven percent favor forgiveness of loans for everyone with student debt; 39% favor forgiving loans for those in need. There is no difference in support for loan forgiveness by educational attainment and majorities of people at every income level support some loan forgiveness.[50]
A December 2021 Morning Consult poll, only 3 in 10 respondents said no student debt should be forgiven.
Ninety-four percent of Democratic voters and 85% of Republican voters support federal student debt relief in the form of refinancing federal loans to current rates,[52] yet even that minimal relief has not been provided by the President or Congress to those with student debt.
A bipartisan majority (65% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans) support the allowance of the same bankruptcy protections for student loan debtors as most other debtors, permitting the discharge of student debts in bankruptcy.[53]
Seventy percent of poll respondents believed students should be able to go to college debt-free and 64% were in favor of providing free tuition for students whose household incomes are less than $125,000.[54]
A December 2021 Morning Consult poll, only 3 in 10 respondents said no student debt should be forgiven.
- 62% (85% of Democrats, 57% of Independents, and 43% of Republicans) support some level of forgiveness of student loans.
- 28% (8% of Democrats, 29% of Independents, and 48% of Republicans) believe that there should be no forgiveness of student loans.[51]
Ninety-four percent of Democratic voters and 85% of Republican voters support federal student debt relief in the form of refinancing federal loans to current rates,[52] yet even that minimal relief has not been provided by the President or Congress to those with student debt.
A bipartisan majority (65% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans) support the allowance of the same bankruptcy protections for student loan debtors as most other debtors, permitting the discharge of student debts in bankruptcy.[53]
Seventy percent of poll respondents believed students should be able to go to college debt-free and 64% were in favor of providing free tuition for students whose household incomes are less than $125,000.[54]
EFFECTIVE ACTION TO COMBAT THE CLIMATE CRISIS
Recognizing the severe threat of human-caused climate chaos to the earth’s atmosphere and to millions of people currently, and to later generations, the Justice Movement vigorously advocates urgent actions to mitigate the climate crisis, including:
- ending power production by coal-burning power plants and a shift to clean, renewable sources of power;
- support for preservation of forests worldwide;
- more sustainable agricultural practices;
- a tax on carbon emissions or a cap-and-dividend system for controlling the emission of greenhouse gases;
- an end to internal combustion-powered vehicles, with a convenient nationwide network of electric vehicle charging stations; and
- international leadership for nations that have emitted the most greenhouse gases to assist poorer nations in reducing emissions and adapting to the effects of the climate crisis.
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
Under Republican and Democratic political leadership, the U.S. record on greenhouse gas emissions has been catastrophic. Whether under Democratic or Republican leadership, the U.S. continues to be the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, following China, which has about 4 ½ times the population of the U.S. Among the eight largest emitters of carbon, the U.S. has, by far, the highest rate of emissions per capita. For instance, in 2015, U.S. carbon emissions were 15.53 per capita; China’s were 6.59.[55]
Although more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that the growing blanket of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and the resulting increase in the warmth of our atmosphere and the earth is caused by humans,[56] the U.S. has never committed to any binding international agreement that requires the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We know that voluntary “agreements” do not work. “Almost every country is falling woefully short” of the commitments under the Paris Agreement,[57] just as it appears that most nations signing the Kyoto Protocol (never ratified by the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate) also failed to cut emissions as they said they would do.[58]
Although 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and then-Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. had beat the Kyoto goals, the U.S. had committed to achieve a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012 and, instead, by 2011, emissions were 7.5 times higher than 1990 emissions.[59]
The extremely poor leadership in the U.S. has been allowed to continue, notwithstanding the knowledge for over 150 years of the warming effect of greenhouse gases, and the warning over 50 years ago by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology that building up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would “almost certainly cause significant changes” and “could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”[60] All the while, the warming blanket of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has been allowed to grow dramatically.
The absence of informed, courageous, honest leadership has led to increasingly severe dangers to our atmosphere, animal and human life, and all future inhabitants of the earth.[61]
Our forests are dying[62] and burning[63] at record levels; our oceans are rapidly rising[64] and acidifying,[65] killing and threatening reefs[66] and sea life;[67] heat waves are more frequent, last longer, and are more intense;[68] droughts are more intense and more common in many areas, including the Western United States;[69] and the world is heating up continually, at record rates.[70]
Although more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that the growing blanket of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and the resulting increase in the warmth of our atmosphere and the earth is caused by humans,[56] the U.S. has never committed to any binding international agreement that requires the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We know that voluntary “agreements” do not work. “Almost every country is falling woefully short” of the commitments under the Paris Agreement,[57] just as it appears that most nations signing the Kyoto Protocol (never ratified by the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate) also failed to cut emissions as they said they would do.[58]
Although 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and then-Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. had beat the Kyoto goals, the U.S. had committed to achieve a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012 and, instead, by 2011, emissions were 7.5 times higher than 1990 emissions.[59]
The extremely poor leadership in the U.S. has been allowed to continue, notwithstanding the knowledge for over 150 years of the warming effect of greenhouse gases, and the warning over 50 years ago by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology that building up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would “almost certainly cause significant changes” and “could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”[60] All the while, the warming blanket of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has been allowed to grow dramatically.
The absence of informed, courageous, honest leadership has led to increasingly severe dangers to our atmosphere, animal and human life, and all future inhabitants of the earth.[61]
Our forests are dying[62] and burning[63] at record levels; our oceans are rapidly rising[64] and acidifying,[65] killing and threatening reefs[66] and sea life;[67] heat waves are more frequent, last longer, and are more intense;[68] droughts are more intense and more common in many areas, including the Western United States;[69] and the world is heating up continually, at record rates.[70]
Public Support for Effective Action to Combat Climate Chaos
As noted in 2018 by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago:
|
The EPIC/AP-NORC polls reveal that a growing number of people believe climate change is a problem the government needs to address. Of those who believe climate change is happening, the most recent poll shows 76 percent of Republicans, 96 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Independents believe the government should do something about climate change.[71]
|
In a Pew Research poll conducted April–May 2020, 65% of U.S. adults polled said “the federal government is doing too little to reduce effects of climate change.”[72] Ninety percent favor planting about a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions; 80% favor tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions; 73% favor taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions; and 79% believe the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy sources.[73]
According to Resources for the Future’s 2020 Climate Insights report,[74] “75% of respondents said they thought global temperatures will probably increase over the next 100 years if nothing is done to stop it.” Eighty-two percent of respondents believe human action has been a cause of global warming. The same percentage of respondents believe global warming will be a serious problem for the US or the world. Eighty-two percent of respondents said the US government should do at least a moderate amount about global warming and only 35-45% of people think governments, businesses, and people are doing at least a moderate amount to deal with climate change. Most people (approximately 70%) want more action on climate change from governments, businesses, and average people.
According to a related report,[75] “the vast majority of Americans favor government effort to shift power generation away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources” and “most Americans think the government should encourage or require better energy efficiency.” “83% of Americans believe the government should offer tax breaks to utilities to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power.” “Two-thirds (66%) of Americans want future federal stimulus packages to include creating new jobs and new technologies to reduce future global warming.” Sixty-two percent of respondents were in favor of charging a tax to companies for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit. “Two-thirds (66%) of Americans want future federal stimulus packages to include creating new jobs and new technologies to reduce future global warming.”
In 2020, 81% of respondents favored efforts by the federal government to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 2005 levels by 2025. That was essentially the core of the Paris Climate Agreement, signed by President Obama but repudiated by President Trump. Likewise, more than three-quarters of Americans (77%) favored the U.S. government requiring power plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2025, a goal of the Clean Power Plan, promulgated by the Obama administration but reversed by President Trump.
According to an October 2021 PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll, nearly six in ten (59% total; 84% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and 29% of Republicans) said the world is doing “too little” and 50% of those polled (78% of Democrats, 49% of Independents, and 22% of Republicans) said that U.S. policies aimed at reducing the impact of climate change “don’t go far enough.”[76]
In another October 2021 poll conducted by Monmouth University, 66% of respondents supported the “U.S. government doing more to reduce the type of activities that cause climate change and sea level rise.”[77]
According to Resources for the Future’s 2020 Climate Insights report,[74] “75% of respondents said they thought global temperatures will probably increase over the next 100 years if nothing is done to stop it.” Eighty-two percent of respondents believe human action has been a cause of global warming. The same percentage of respondents believe global warming will be a serious problem for the US or the world. Eighty-two percent of respondents said the US government should do at least a moderate amount about global warming and only 35-45% of people think governments, businesses, and people are doing at least a moderate amount to deal with climate change. Most people (approximately 70%) want more action on climate change from governments, businesses, and average people.
According to a related report,[75] “the vast majority of Americans favor government effort to shift power generation away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources” and “most Americans think the government should encourage or require better energy efficiency.” “83% of Americans believe the government should offer tax breaks to utilities to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power.” “Two-thirds (66%) of Americans want future federal stimulus packages to include creating new jobs and new technologies to reduce future global warming.” Sixty-two percent of respondents were in favor of charging a tax to companies for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit. “Two-thirds (66%) of Americans want future federal stimulus packages to include creating new jobs and new technologies to reduce future global warming.”
In 2020, 81% of respondents favored efforts by the federal government to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 2005 levels by 2025. That was essentially the core of the Paris Climate Agreement, signed by President Obama but repudiated by President Trump. Likewise, more than three-quarters of Americans (77%) favored the U.S. government requiring power plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2025, a goal of the Clean Power Plan, promulgated by the Obama administration but reversed by President Trump.
According to an October 2021 PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll, nearly six in ten (59% total; 84% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and 29% of Republicans) said the world is doing “too little” and 50% of those polled (78% of Democrats, 49% of Independents, and 22% of Republicans) said that U.S. policies aimed at reducing the impact of climate change “don’t go far enough.”[76]
In another October 2021 poll conducted by Monmouth University, 66% of respondents supported the “U.S. government doing more to reduce the type of activities that cause climate change and sea level rise.”[77]
IMMIGRATION REFORM
The Justice Movement advocates for the passage of immigration laws that will be fair, compassionate, respected, and enforceable, including (1) residence permits and an eventual path to citizenship for all immigrants in the U.S. who have not committed serious criminal offenses and (2) work permits that allow immigrants to come to the U.S. to work at jobs according to the needs of employers.
Approximately eleven million people in the United States are undocumented immigrants. About two-thirds of them have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade and many are parents of U.S.-born children. Since 2010, about two-thirds of new undocumented immigrants entered the U.S. legally and have overstayed temporary visas. Only about one-third arrived by crossing the border illegally.[78]
“Most Americans have a respectful view of immigrants, and would support long-term measures to make legal residence possible.”[79] According to a 2012 Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll, “74 percent of Americans would back legal residence for illegal immigrants, provided they paid a fine, learned English, and had a job that would pay taxes.”[80] “Eight out of 10 Americans said they believed the U.S. could act to secure its borders while also respecting immigrants. The same proportion of respondents approved of immigrants’ hard work and family values.”[81]
The support of immigration has increased in recent years. A 2020 Gallup poll found that “77 percent of Americans surveyed considered immigration a good thing for the United States, the highest level in two decades.”[82]
In a 2021 poll, “69% of voters surveyed—including a majority of Republicans—supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they meet certain requirements. A greater share (72 percent) supported citizenship for immigrants brought to the United States when they were minors, who are often referred to as Dreamers.”[83]
“Most Americans have a respectful view of immigrants, and would support long-term measures to make legal residence possible.”[79] According to a 2012 Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll, “74 percent of Americans would back legal residence for illegal immigrants, provided they paid a fine, learned English, and had a job that would pay taxes.”[80] “Eight out of 10 Americans said they believed the U.S. could act to secure its borders while also respecting immigrants. The same proportion of respondents approved of immigrants’ hard work and family values.”[81]
The support of immigration has increased in recent years. A 2020 Gallup poll found that “77 percent of Americans surveyed considered immigration a good thing for the United States, the highest level in two decades.”[82]
In a 2021 poll, “69% of voters surveyed—including a majority of Republicans—supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they meet certain requirements. A greater share (72 percent) supported citizenship for immigrants brought to the United States when they were minors, who are often referred to as Dreamers.”[83]
INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE
The Justice Movement advocates for an immediate increase in the national minimum wage to at least $15 per hour, with periodic cost-of-living increases so that the minimum wage never falls behind as it has for decades under Democratic and Republican leadership.
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
The federal minimum wage (now $7.25 per hour) has not been increased for more than ten years, during Democratic and Republican administrations and during Republican- and Democratic-controlled Congresses.
A full-time minimum wage worker now earns a whopping 18% less than what such a worker earned in 2009, after adjusting for rising costs of living ($15,080 annually in 2021 compared with $18,458 in 2009). A minimum wage worker in 1968 earned, in inflation-adjusted terms, 46% more than today’s minimum wage![84]
The failure to sustain the value of the minimum wage paid to working people is particularly egregious when considering that, from 1979–2020, productivity has increased by 61.8%, yet hourly pay for workers has increased by only 17.5%, and, as noted, the minimum wage has lost significant value.[85]
At the same time, the disparity between pay for CEOs and pay for typical workers has skyrocketed. In 1965, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 21-to-1; in 1989, it was 61-to-1. In 2020, the disparity in pay between CEOs and typical workers was 351-to-1.[86]
The failure to raise the minimum wage by the ruling duopolist parties has been shameful.
Raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift 3.7 million people out of poverty and would raise the wages of 32 million people (21% of the workforce). “Minimum wage increases affect adults in their career-building years who are helping to support their families––with women disproportionately benefiting from a pay boost.”[87]
As Ralph Nader has noted, “the same corporate establishment who declared through the National Association of Manufacturers in 1937 that the minimum wage would be ‘a step in the direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism and Nazism’ has resorted to spewing out every broken-record argument in the book [in opposition to increasing the minimum wage].”[88] However, contrary to the arguments against an increase in the minimum wage, such increases do not lead to significant job losses[89] and they actually bolster consumer spending.[90]
A full-time minimum wage worker now earns a whopping 18% less than what such a worker earned in 2009, after adjusting for rising costs of living ($15,080 annually in 2021 compared with $18,458 in 2009). A minimum wage worker in 1968 earned, in inflation-adjusted terms, 46% more than today’s minimum wage![84]
The failure to sustain the value of the minimum wage paid to working people is particularly egregious when considering that, from 1979–2020, productivity has increased by 61.8%, yet hourly pay for workers has increased by only 17.5%, and, as noted, the minimum wage has lost significant value.[85]
At the same time, the disparity between pay for CEOs and pay for typical workers has skyrocketed. In 1965, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 21-to-1; in 1989, it was 61-to-1. In 2020, the disparity in pay between CEOs and typical workers was 351-to-1.[86]
The failure to raise the minimum wage by the ruling duopolist parties has been shameful.
Raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift 3.7 million people out of poverty and would raise the wages of 32 million people (21% of the workforce). “Minimum wage increases affect adults in their career-building years who are helping to support their families––with women disproportionately benefiting from a pay boost.”[87]
As Ralph Nader has noted, “the same corporate establishment who declared through the National Association of Manufacturers in 1937 that the minimum wage would be ‘a step in the direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism and Nazism’ has resorted to spewing out every broken-record argument in the book [in opposition to increasing the minimum wage].”[88] However, contrary to the arguments against an increase in the minimum wage, such increases do not lead to significant job losses[89] and they actually bolster consumer spending.[90]
Public Support for Increasing the Minimum Wage to $15 Per Hour
As is so often the case, corporate interests have prevailed in preventing an increase in the minimum wage, even though 62% of the people in the United States favor it. In a Pew Research poll, among Democrats or those leaning-Democrat, 87% favored increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour and 72% of Republicans or those leaning-Republican opposed such an increase.[91] In a Hill/Harris poll, the results were similar: 64% of registered voters supported the increase to $15 per hour, with only 36% of voters opposing the increase. Eighty-nine percent of Democrats and 67 percent of independents supported the increase, while 64% of Republicans opposed it.[92]
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Recognizing that many of our nation’s public policy disasters are a result of the corrupting influence of money, the Justice Movement supports major campaign finance reform legislation and the overruling of the Citizens United case, by a constitutional amendment if necessary.
|
There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember the second.
– Senator Mark Hanna (1895) |
The Record of Republicans and Democrats
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) limited independent political campaign expenditures by corporations and unions. In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Citizens United, declaring unconstitutional the BCRA, thereby allowing corporations and unions to make unlimited contributions to help candidates or political parties.
Both parties since then have had the opportunity to push for the overturning of Citizens United by a constitutional amendment but have utterly failed to do so––no doubt because they are both feeding from the same trough of corrupting money.
Politicians have garnered millions of dollars in campaign contributions, while government policies continue to be the opposite of what the majority of people in the United States want (e.g., a reduction in incarceration rates; an end to the failed “war on drugs,” equal educational opportunities and an end to crushing student debt; effective action on the climate crisis; an end to warrantless government surveillance; fairness in taxation; fiscal responsibility; immigration reform; universal health care; an end to presidential war-making; and campaign finance reform). In short, the role of money in politics is not only corrupting, but it is anti-democratic, as the interests of campaign contributors take precedence over the public interest.
For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA) spent $30 million on contributions to President Trump in 2016.[93] This led to a decrease in background checks and an increase in the sale of automatic rifles.
Enormous political contributions are not limited to one political party. During 2019-2020, Bloomberg LP contributed over $170 million to Democrats.[94]
Both parties are clearly to blame for not pushing to overturn Citizens United and otherwise cleaning up our campaign finance system. The American people deserve so much better.
Both parties since then have had the opportunity to push for the overturning of Citizens United by a constitutional amendment but have utterly failed to do so––no doubt because they are both feeding from the same trough of corrupting money.
Politicians have garnered millions of dollars in campaign contributions, while government policies continue to be the opposite of what the majority of people in the United States want (e.g., a reduction in incarceration rates; an end to the failed “war on drugs,” equal educational opportunities and an end to crushing student debt; effective action on the climate crisis; an end to warrantless government surveillance; fairness in taxation; fiscal responsibility; immigration reform; universal health care; an end to presidential war-making; and campaign finance reform). In short, the role of money in politics is not only corrupting, but it is anti-democratic, as the interests of campaign contributors take precedence over the public interest.
For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA) spent $30 million on contributions to President Trump in 2016.[93] This led to a decrease in background checks and an increase in the sale of automatic rifles.
Enormous political contributions are not limited to one political party. During 2019-2020, Bloomberg LP contributed over $170 million to Democrats.[94]
Both parties are clearly to blame for not pushing to overturn Citizens United and otherwise cleaning up our campaign finance system. The American people deserve so much better.
Public Support for Campaign Finance Reform
Most Americans want legislation that will prevent, or at least limit, corporate contributions to political campaigns. Seventy-seven percent of Americans say that there should be a limit on the amount of money individuals and groups can spend on campaigns. Sixty-five percent of Americans say that there should be new laws written that would reduce the role of money in politics.[95]
According to a study from the University of Maryland, 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats support a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United.[96] However, large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals continue to make large contributions in order to have their way with our government.
While most Americans want change, the corrupting influence of money in our political system leads to elected officials doing the bidding of their contributors rather than promoting the public interest. The very foundations of our democracy are thereby severely undermined.
According to a study from the University of Maryland, 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats support a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United.[96] However, large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals continue to make large contributions in order to have their way with our government.
While most Americans want change, the corrupting influence of money in our political system leads to elected officials doing the bidding of their contributors rather than promoting the public interest. The very foundations of our democracy are thereby severely undermined.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Yascha Mounk, “America Is Not A Democracy – How the United States lost the faith of its citizens––and what it can do to win them back,” The Atlantic (March 2018), available at https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/ america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/.
[2] “We used to say that the United States shared with South Africa the distinction of being the only industrialized nation without universal health insurance. Now we don’t even have South Africa to point to.” Bruce Vladeck, “Universal health Insurance in the United States: Reflections on the Past, the Present, and the Future,” Am J Public Health (January 2003), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov /pmc/articles/PMC1447684/. See also “America is a health-care outlier in the developed world: The only large rich country without universal health care,” The Economist (April 26, 2018), available at https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/04/26/america-is-a-health-care-outlier-in-the-developed-world.
[3] Nisha Kurani and Cynthia Cox, “What drives health spending in the U.S. compared to other countries,” Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker (September 25, 2020), available at https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending -in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/. In 2019, per capita health expenditures in the U.S. were $10,948; in Germany, $6,518; in Sweden, $5,551; and in Australia, $4,919. “Per capita health expenditure in selected countries in 2019,” Statista (September 2021), available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/ 236541/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/.
[4] Catey Hill, “This is the thing most likely to cause you financial ruin––but few prepare for it,” MarketWatch (April 3, 2019), available at https://www. marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-thing-most-likely-to-cause-you-financial-ruin-but-few-prepare-for-it-2019-02-11.
[5] “[T]he U.S. has nearly the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income countries. . . . Compared to countries with a similar GDP, the U.S. infant mortality rate is much higher [in the U.S.].” Joshua Cohen, “U.S. Maternal and Infant Mortality: More Signs Of Public Health Neglect” Forbes (August 1, 2021).
[6] Richard Sorian, “Democrats’ Feud Over Health Care Has Deep Roots,” HealthAffairs (August 19, 2019), available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/ 10.1377/forefront.20190815.209963/full/.
[7] Id.
[8] Bradley Jones, “Increasing share of Americans favor a single government program to provide health care coverage,” Pew Research Center (September 29, 2020), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/.
[9] Gaby Galvin, “About 7 in 10 Voters Favor a Public Health Insurance Option. Medicare for All Remains Polarizing,” Morning Consult, Politico (March 24, 2021), available at https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/.
[10] Id.
[11] Erica Socker, “New Poll: Majority of Voters Want Congress To Take Action To Lower Health Care Prices,” (June 30, 2021), available at https://www.arnold ventures.org/stories/new-poll-majority-of-voters-want-congress-to-take-action-to-lower-health-care-prices.
[12] Id.
[13] World Population Review, available at https://worldpopulationreview.com /country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country.
[14] “United States Population,” Worldometer, available at https://www.worldo meters.info/world-population/us-population/.
[15] World Population Review, available at https://worldpopulationreview.com /country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country.
[16] Id. See also “Countries with the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of May 2021,” Statista, available at https://www. statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/.
[17] Cornell William Brooks, Foreword, “How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?,” Brennan Center for Justice (2016), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Unnecessarily_Incarcerated_0.pdf.
[18] James Cullen, “The History of Mass Incarceration,” Brennan Center for Justice (July 20, 2018), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-mass-incarceration.
[19] “Biden also took credit for the law: ‘As a matter of fact, I drafted the bill, if you remember.’” “Biden reveled in the politics of the 1994 law, bragging after it passed that ‘the liberal wing of the Democratic Party’ was now for ‘60 new death penalties,’ ‘70 enhanced penalties,’ ‘100,000 cops,’ and ‘125,000 new state prison cells.’” “On the website for his 2008 presidential campaign, Biden referred to the 1994 crime law as the ‘Biden Crime Law’ and bragged that it encouraged states to effectively increase their prison sentences by paying them to build more prisons. German Lopez, “The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained,” Vox (September 29, 2020), available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/20/18677998/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration.
[20] Id.
[21] German Lopez, “The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained,” Vox (September 29, 2020), available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/20/18677998/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration.
[22] James Austin and Lauren-Brooke Eisen, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law (2016), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-many-americans-are-unnecessarily-incarcerated.
[23] Samantha Michaels, “Biden Said He’d Cut Incarceration in Half. So Far, the Federal Prison Population Is Growing,” Mother Jones (July 21, 2021).
[24] “New Poll Finds That Urban and Rural America are Rethinking Mass Incarceration,” Vera Institute of Justice (April 19, 2018), available at https://www.vera.org/newsroom/new-poll-finds-that-urban-and-rural-america-are-rethinking-mass-incarceration.
[25] Zogby Analytics “Re: Public Opinion Poll Findings on Jails and Local Justice Systems,” (February 13, 2018), available at https://safetyandjusticechallenge. org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/RTI_MacArthur_Local_Criminal_Justice_Memo-2018.pdf.
[26] Id.
[27] “91 Percent of Americans Support Criminal Justice Reform, ACLU Polling Finds” (November 16, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/91-percent-americans-support-criminal-justice-reform-aclu-polling-finds.
[28] Criminal Justice System Survey Results (November 13, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_campaign_for_smart_justice_polling_memo_2.pdf.
[29] “Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in America,” (March 2012), available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2012/03/30 /pew_nationalsurveyresearchpaper_final.pdf.
[30] “Poll Results on Youth Justice Reform,” GBA Strategies (February 6, 2017), available at https://njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Youth-First-National-Poll-Memo-Feb-2016.pdf.
[31] Before September 11, 2001, the NSA abided by the clear prohibitions under FISA. That all changed after President Bush issued an order to the NSA to engage in surveillance that was wholly illegal under FISA. Wayne Murphy (“Murphy”), former Operations Director of the NSA, stated in a deposition taken by Rocky Anderson, now Executive Director of the Justice Movement, as follows:
[2] “We used to say that the United States shared with South Africa the distinction of being the only industrialized nation without universal health insurance. Now we don’t even have South Africa to point to.” Bruce Vladeck, “Universal health Insurance in the United States: Reflections on the Past, the Present, and the Future,” Am J Public Health (January 2003), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov /pmc/articles/PMC1447684/. See also “America is a health-care outlier in the developed world: The only large rich country without universal health care,” The Economist (April 26, 2018), available at https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/04/26/america-is-a-health-care-outlier-in-the-developed-world.
[3] Nisha Kurani and Cynthia Cox, “What drives health spending in the U.S. compared to other countries,” Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker (September 25, 2020), available at https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/what-drives-health-spending -in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/. In 2019, per capita health expenditures in the U.S. were $10,948; in Germany, $6,518; in Sweden, $5,551; and in Australia, $4,919. “Per capita health expenditure in selected countries in 2019,” Statista (September 2021), available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/ 236541/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/.
[4] Catey Hill, “This is the thing most likely to cause you financial ruin––but few prepare for it,” MarketWatch (April 3, 2019), available at https://www. marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-thing-most-likely-to-cause-you-financial-ruin-but-few-prepare-for-it-2019-02-11.
[5] “[T]he U.S. has nearly the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income countries. . . . Compared to countries with a similar GDP, the U.S. infant mortality rate is much higher [in the U.S.].” Joshua Cohen, “U.S. Maternal and Infant Mortality: More Signs Of Public Health Neglect” Forbes (August 1, 2021).
[6] Richard Sorian, “Democrats’ Feud Over Health Care Has Deep Roots,” HealthAffairs (August 19, 2019), available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/ 10.1377/forefront.20190815.209963/full/.
[7] Id.
[8] Bradley Jones, “Increasing share of Americans favor a single government program to provide health care coverage,” Pew Research Center (September 29, 2020), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/.
[9] Gaby Galvin, “About 7 in 10 Voters Favor a Public Health Insurance Option. Medicare for All Remains Polarizing,” Morning Consult, Politico (March 24, 2021), available at https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/.
[10] Id.
[11] Erica Socker, “New Poll: Majority of Voters Want Congress To Take Action To Lower Health Care Prices,” (June 30, 2021), available at https://www.arnold ventures.org/stories/new-poll-majority-of-voters-want-congress-to-take-action-to-lower-health-care-prices.
[12] Id.
[13] World Population Review, available at https://worldpopulationreview.com /country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country.
[14] “United States Population,” Worldometer, available at https://www.worldo meters.info/world-population/us-population/.
[15] World Population Review, available at https://worldpopulationreview.com /country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country.
[16] Id. See also “Countries with the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of May 2021,” Statista, available at https://www. statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/.
[17] Cornell William Brooks, Foreword, “How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?,” Brennan Center for Justice (2016), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Unnecessarily_Incarcerated_0.pdf.
[18] James Cullen, “The History of Mass Incarceration,” Brennan Center for Justice (July 20, 2018), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-mass-incarceration.
[19] “Biden also took credit for the law: ‘As a matter of fact, I drafted the bill, if you remember.’” “Biden reveled in the politics of the 1994 law, bragging after it passed that ‘the liberal wing of the Democratic Party’ was now for ‘60 new death penalties,’ ‘70 enhanced penalties,’ ‘100,000 cops,’ and ‘125,000 new state prison cells.’” “On the website for his 2008 presidential campaign, Biden referred to the 1994 crime law as the ‘Biden Crime Law’ and bragged that it encouraged states to effectively increase their prison sentences by paying them to build more prisons. German Lopez, “The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained,” Vox (September 29, 2020), available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/20/18677998/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration.
[20] Id.
[21] German Lopez, “The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained,” Vox (September 29, 2020), available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/20/18677998/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration.
[22] James Austin and Lauren-Brooke Eisen, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law (2016), available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-many-americans-are-unnecessarily-incarcerated.
[23] Samantha Michaels, “Biden Said He’d Cut Incarceration in Half. So Far, the Federal Prison Population Is Growing,” Mother Jones (July 21, 2021).
[24] “New Poll Finds That Urban and Rural America are Rethinking Mass Incarceration,” Vera Institute of Justice (April 19, 2018), available at https://www.vera.org/newsroom/new-poll-finds-that-urban-and-rural-america-are-rethinking-mass-incarceration.
[25] Zogby Analytics “Re: Public Opinion Poll Findings on Jails and Local Justice Systems,” (February 13, 2018), available at https://safetyandjusticechallenge. org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/RTI_MacArthur_Local_Criminal_Justice_Memo-2018.pdf.
[26] Id.
[27] “91 Percent of Americans Support Criminal Justice Reform, ACLU Polling Finds” (November 16, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/91-percent-americans-support-criminal-justice-reform-aclu-polling-finds.
[28] Criminal Justice System Survey Results (November 13, 2017), available at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_campaign_for_smart_justice_polling_memo_2.pdf.
[29] “Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in America,” (March 2012), available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2012/03/30 /pew_nationalsurveyresearchpaper_final.pdf.
[30] “Poll Results on Youth Justice Reform,” GBA Strategies (February 6, 2017), available at https://njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Youth-First-National-Poll-Memo-Feb-2016.pdf.
[31] Before September 11, 2001, the NSA abided by the clear prohibitions under FISA. That all changed after President Bush issued an order to the NSA to engage in surveillance that was wholly illegal under FISA. Wayne Murphy (“Murphy”), former Operations Director of the NSA, stated in a deposition taken by Rocky Anderson, now Executive Director of the Justice Movement, as follows:
|
Q: [F]rom the enactment of the FISA in 1978 . . . until September 11, 2001, did the NSA actually obtain access to the metadata or communications to and from the United States without a warrant or a court order?
A: . . . . [N]o. Q: And did the NSA obtain access to metadata of communications to and from the United States, without a warrant or court order, after October 4, 2001? A: [T]here were three baskets of information that the President’s authority, which was implemented on October 4th, 2001, allowed us access to, and that included both telephony and internet metadata as well as content from telephony and e-mail. Q: Without a court order? A: Under the President’s authority, yes, that’s correct. * * * Q: Was the NSA required, according to your understanding, to obtain a court order or warrant, prior to September 11, 2001, if the NSA was going to intercept or obtain any communication or metadata relating to a communications involving a United States citizen? A: . . . [Y]es. Q: [I]f the NSA had desired to collect metadata on telephone calls placed by Qwest telephone customers in your view, did it have the legal authority to do that without obtaining a court order or a warrant? * * * A: . . . [U]nder the terms of The Program we were authorized to acquire all metadata from telecommunications service providers. * * * Q: And by bulk metadata that would include metadata on communications between people with respect to whom the NSA had no particularized suspicion of any wrongdoing? A: . . . [Y]es. Q: After the President’s Surveillance Program was in place, beginning October 4th 2001, did you believe that the NSA was authorized, legally, without a court order to obtain telephony metadata if it was going through a telecommunications company in the United States? . . . In bulk? A: Yes. Q: And did you believe, before October 4, 2001, that the NSA was legally authorized to do that without a court order? * * * A: No. Q: And did the NSA collect bulk metadata on telephone calls through any telecommunications company in the United States after October 4th, 2001? * * * A: My answer to that is yes. * * * A: [T]here were three baskets of information that the President’s authority, which was implemented on October 4th, 2001, allowed us access to, and that included both telephony and internet metadata as well as content from telephony and e-mail. Q: Without a court order? A: Under the President’s authority, yes, that’s correct. |
That radical change in policies and practices by the NSA following September 11, 2001, is summarized by a former NSA official and whistleblower, Thomas Drake, in an affidavit filed in the lawsuit referenced above, as follows:
|
Prior to September 11, 2001, the NSA managed the task of gathering foreign intelligence while instilling a respect for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) among its employees. It was a prime directive. Everything changed after the attacks on September 11. The NSA’s new approach was that the President had the authority to override FISA and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the NSA worked under the authority of the President. The now commonly understood charge with respect to intercepting intelligence was “just get it,” regardless of the law.
|
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and Supporting Memorandum, Valdez, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al., Case No.: 2:15-cv-00584-RJS, United States District Court for the District of Utah, available at https://rockyanderson.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/dkt-63-pltfs-motion-to-dismiss.pdf.
[32] “Obama on Investigating Bush Crimes: ‘Need to Look Forward’,” (Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K27oIJlAlA.
[33] “Opposition to U.S. Government Surveillance Grows” AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (September 7, 2021), available at https://apnorc.org /projects/opposition-to-u-s-government-surveillance-grows/.
[34] “Early in the process [of drafting the Constitution], Congress was to be given authority to ‘make’ war, but Madison and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts successfully changed that word to the more specific ‘declare,’ so the record shows, ‘leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.’” Michael Beschloss, Presidents of War (Broadway Books: 2018), at 5.
[35] James Madison, Letters of Helvidius Number 4, pp. 33–39 (printed in Philadelphia Gazette of the U.S., September 14, 1793) (from the Federalist Papers), available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Madison/01-15-02-0070.
“During the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, Madison and the other Founders had debated the quandaries of war. They sought to ensure that, unlike in the Old World societies governed by sovereigns, Americans would go to war only when it was absolutely necessary—and that the decision would be made not by the President but by the legislature. Virginia’s George Mason had written that he was ‘ag[ainst] giving the power of war to the Executive, because [that branch was] not safely to be trusted with it.’ James Wilson of Pennsylvania insisted that the Constitution ‘will not hurry us unto war; it is calculated to guard against it.’ Madison himself considered war ‘the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.’ As he reminded Jefferson in 1798, ‘The constitution supposes, what the History of all Gov[ernmen]ts demonstrates, that the Ex[ecutive] Is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ative].’ Michael Beschloss, Presidents of War (Broadway Books: 2018), at 4–5.
[36] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the United States Congress, December 6, 1805, found at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-2779.
[37] Ferrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 4 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937, p. 319.
[38] Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798, Thomas Jefferson Papers.
[39] Michael Beschloss, Presidents of War, New York: Broadway Books, 2018, pp. 4–5.
[40] Quoted in Conor Friedersdorf, “Abraham Lincoln’s Warning About Presidents and War, The Atlantic, July 13, 2012, available at https://www.theatlantic.com/ politics/archive/2012/07/abraham-lincolns-warning-about-presidents-and-war/259767/.
[41] “ICJ deplores moves toward a war of aggression on Iraq,” International Commission of Jurists (March 18, 2003), available at https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/.
[42] Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger, “Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan,” The Guardian (September 15, 2004), available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq; “Former UN head calls Iraq war ‘illegal’” CBC News (March 19, 2003), available at https://www. cbc.ca/news/ canada/former-un-head-calls-iraq-war-illegal-1.380751.
[43] Gregory P. Noone, “The War Powers Resolution and Public Opinion,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2012), available at https://scholarly commons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=jil.
[44] Frank Newport, “Public Wants Congress to Approve Military Action, Bombings,” Gallup (July 7, 2008), available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/108658/public-wants-congress-approve-military-action-bombings.aspx.
[45] “What Does Student Debt Look Like in Other Major Countries?” Student Debt USA, available at https://studentdebtusa.com/what-does-student-debt-look-like-in-other-major-countries/.
[46] Ed Pilkington, “How Biden helped create the student debt problem he now promises to fix,” The Guardian (December 2, 2019), available at https://www.the guardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/02/joe-biden-student-loan-debt-2005-act-2020.
[47] Andrew Marantz, “What Biden Can’t Do on Student Debt––and What He Won’t Do,” New Yorker (October 29, 2021), available at https://www.newyorker.com/ news/news-desk/what-biden-cant-do-on-student-debt-and-what-he-wont-do.
[48] Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet, et al., “New Poll Data Puts Biden At Odds with Most Americans on Student Loan Forgiveness,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education (May 17, 2021), available at https://www.diverseeducation.com/students/article/ 15109247/new-poll-data-puts-biden-at-odds-with-most-americans-on-student-loan-forgiveness.
[49] Melanie Hanson, “Economic Effects of Student Loan Debt,” Education Data Initiative (October 18, 2021), available at https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-economic-impact (“Hanson”).
[50] Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet, et al., “New Poll Data Puts Biden At Odds with Most Americans on Student Loan Forgiveness,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education (May 17, 2021), available at https://www.diverseeducation.com/students/article/ 15109247/new-poll-data-puts-biden-at-odds-with-most-americans-on-student-loan-forgiveness.
[51] Carmen Reinicke, “More than 60% of voters support some student loan debt forgiveness,” CNBC (Dec. 22, 2021), available at https://www.cnbc.com/ 2021/12/22/more-than-60percent-of-voters-support-some-student-loan-debt-forgiveness.html; “1 in 5 Voters Support Complete Student Debt Forgiveness; 3 in 10 Say None Should Be Forgiven,” available at https://assets.morningconsult.com/ wp-uploads/2021/12/21171345/211221_student-loans_fullwidth.png.
[52] Hanson.
[53] “New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Reinstating the Gainful Employment Rule, Easing Student Debt Discharge in Bankruptcy” (July 27, 2021), available at https://www.defendstudents.org/news/data-for-progress-july-2021-poll.
[54] Van Nguyen, “Poll shows Americans want affordable tuition,” The Daily Texan (October 29, 2016), available at https://thedailytexan.com/2016/10/19/poll-shows-americans-want-affordable-tuition/.
[55] “Carbon Footprint by Country 2021” World Population Review (2021), available at https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country.
[56] Krishna Ramanujan, “More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change,” Cornell Chronicle (October 19, 2021), available at https://news.cornell. edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change.
[57] Oliver Milman, “Governments falling woefully short of Paris climate pledges, study finds,” The Guardian (September 15, 2021), available at https://www.the guardian.com/science/2021/sep/15/governments-falling-short-paris-climate-pledges-study.
[58] Michael Le Page, “Was Kyoto climate deal a success? Figures reveal mixed results,” New Scientist (June 14, 2016), available at https://www.newscientist. com/article/ 2093579-was-kyoto-climate-deal-a-success-figures-reveal-mixed-results/.
[59] Glenn Kessler, “John Kerry’s misfire on U.S. performance on Kyoto emissions targets,” The Washington Post (May 30, 2013), available at https://www. washingtonpost.com/ blogs/fact-checker/post/john-kerrys-misfire-on-us-performance-on-kyoto-emissions-targets/2013/05/29/9a063d84-c8af-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_blog. html (awarding Kerry three “Pinocchios” for his misrepresentations about U.S. emissions reductions).
[60] Katharine Hayhoe: Here’s How Long We’ve Known About Climate Change,” EcoWatch (November 25, 2016), available at https://www.ecowatch.com/ katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-2103671842.html.
[61] See video produced by Justice Movement Executive Director, Rocky Anderson on the devastating consequences of poor leadership, and the opportunities for effective leadership, regarding the climate crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MKcHOqJp6Y.
[62] Alastair Gee, “Is this the end of forests as we’ve known them? Trees lost to drought and wildfires are not returning. Climate change is taking a toll on the world’s forests – and radically changing the environment before our eyes,” The Guardian (March 10, 2021), available at https://www.theguardian.com/environ ment/2021/ mar/10/is-this-the-end-of-forests-as-weve-known-them; “Global warming fuels bark beetles, tree-killing menaces – The beetles have killed more than 5% of the forested area in the western U.S.,” Yale Climate Connections (March 31, 2020), available at https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/global-warming-fuels-bark-beetles-tree-killing-menaces/.
[63] Alejandra Borunda, “The science connecting wildfires to climate change: A heating-up planet has driven huge increases in wildfire area burned over the past few decades,” National Geographic (September 17, 2020), available at https://www.national geographic.com/science/article/climate-change-increases-risk-fires-western-us.
[64] “Impacts of Climate Change – Rising Sea Level,” UCAR Center for Science Education, available at https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/rising-sea-level; Christina Nunez, “Sea level rise, facts and information,” National Geographic (February 19, 2019), available at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1.
[65] “CO2 and Ocean Acidification: Causes, Impacts, Solutions,” Union of Concerned Scientists (January 30, 2019, Updated February 6, 2019), available at https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/co2-and-oceanacidification#:~:text=affects% 20marine%20life-,Ocean%20acidification%20affects%20marine%20life, survival%20of%20many%20marine%20species.
[66] “How does climate change affect coral reefs?” National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, available at https://oceanservice.noaa. gov/facts/ coralreef-climate.html; “Coral reefs and climate change,” International Union for Conservation of Nature (March 2021), available at https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/coral-reefs-and-climate-change.
[67] Mary Caperton Morton, “Global Warming Hits Marine Life Hardest,” Eos (American Geophysical Union) (May 2, 2019), available at https://eos.org /articles/global-warming-hits-marine-life-hardest.
[68] “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves,” United States Environmental Protection Agency (April 2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves.
[69] Tiffany Means, “Climate change and droughts: What’s the connection?” Yale Climate Connections (August 18, 2021), available at https://yaleclimate connections.org/ 2021/08/climate-change-and-droughts-whats-the-connection/; Steve Gorman, “Southwest U.S. drought, worst in a century, linked by NOAA to climate change,” Reuters (September 21, 2021), available at https://www.reuters .com/business/environment/ southwest-us-drought-worst-century-linked-by-noaa-climate-change-2021-09-21/.
[70] Sarah Kaplan and John Muyskens, “The past seven years have been the hottest in recorded history, new data shows – Global temperatures in 2021 were among the highest ever observed, with 25 countries setting new annual records, according to scientists from NASA, NOAA and Berkely Earth,” The Washington Post (January 13, 2022), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/.
[71] “Public Opinion on Energy & Climate Change,” (2018), available at https://epic. uchicago.edu/area-of-focus/public-opinion-on-energy-climate-change/.
[72] “Americans see too little federal action on climate change, back range of policies to reduce its effects,” Pew Research Center (June 18, 2020), available at https://www.pew research.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/.
[73] Id.
[74] Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis, “Climate Insights 2020: Overall Trends,” (August 24, 2020) Stanford University, Resources for the Future, and ReconMR, available at https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020/.
[75] Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis, “Climate Insights 2020: Policies and Politics,” Stanford University, Resources for the Future and ReconMR (September 23, 2020), available at https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020-policies-and-politics/; National Survey of Public Opinion on Global Warming, available at https://media.rff.org/documents/Climate_Insights_2020_Topline_Findings_Policies_and_Politics.pdf.; Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis, “Technical Report: Climate Insights 2020: Policies and Politics,” (September 2020), available at https://media .rff.org/documents/Policies_and_Politics_Technical_Report_2020.pdf.
[76] NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: Climate Change, October 2021: Americans Don’t Think the World or the U.S. is Doing Enough About Climate Change,” (October 29, 2021), available at https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-national-poll-climate-change-october-2021/.
[77] Fires, Floods Linked to Climate, Monmouth University Polling Institute (October 4, 2021), available at https://www.monmouth.edu/pollinginstitute/reports/ MonmouthPoll_US_100421/.
[78] Robert Warren, “Reverse Migration to Mexico Led to US Undocumented Population Decline: 2010 to 2018,” Center for Migration Studies (February 26, 2020), available at https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-reverse-migration-022620/.
[79] “Poll finds Americans respect immigrants, want ‘non-partisan’ solution,” Catholic News Agency (June 26, 2012), available at http://www.catholic newsagency.com/news/poll-finds-americans-respect-immigrants-want-non-partisan-solution/.
[80] Id.
[81] Id.
[82] Claire Felter, et al., “The U.S. Immigration Debate,” Council on Foreign Relations (August 31, 2021), available at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-immigration-debate-0?gclid=CjwKCAiA24SPBhB0EiwAjBgkhq7OQZ7Zl OyJxoM9xaiMO2O HaY-5yipMcJBElLVIV7l2jrPj2MVA3xoCYWkQAvD_BwE.
[83] Id.; Nicole Narea, “Poll: Most Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Vox (February 4, 2021), available at https://www. vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/2/4/22264074/poll-undocumented-immigrants-citizenship-stimulus-biden.
[84] David Cooper, et al., “Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift the pay of 32 million workers,” Economic Policy Institute (March 9, 2021), available at https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2025-would-lift-the-pay-of-32-million-workers/ (“Cooper”).
[85] “The Productivity-Pay Gap,” Economic Policy Institute (August 2021), available at https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/.
[86] Lawrence Mishel and Jori Kandra, “CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322% since 1978 – CEOS were paid 351 times as much as a typical worker in 2020,” Economic Policy Institute, available at https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/#:~:text= In%202020%2C%20the%20ratio%20of,%2Dto%2D1%20in%201989.
[87] Id.
[88] “Ralph Nader: Give workers a raise,” USA Today (Op-ed) (March 18, 2014), available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/18/ralph-nader-minimum-wage-hike-column/6540579/.
[89] Cooper; Paul J. Wolfson and Dale Belman, “15 Years of Research on U.S. Employment and the Minimum Wage” (Hanover, NH: Tuck School of Business, 2016), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705499; Doruk Cengiz and others, “The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134 (3) (2019): 1405–1454, available at https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz014.
[90] “A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago estimates that a $1 raise for a minimum wage worker translates to an additional $2,080 in consumer spending by their household over the course of a year.” “Small Businesses Get a Boost From a $15 Minimum Wage” Center for American Progress (February 25, 2021), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/small-businesses-get-boost-15-minimum-wage/#:~:text=A%20study%20by%20the%20Federal,the%20 course%20of%20a%20year.
[91] Amina Dunn, “Most Americans support a $15 federal minimum wage,” Pew Research Center (April 22, 2021), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/.
[92] “Poll: 64 percent support increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025,” The Hill (February 3, 2021), available at https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/537217-poll-64-percent-support-increasing-the-federal-minimum-wage-to.
[93] Haberman, M., Karni, A., & Hakim, D. “N.R.A. gets results on gun laws in one phone call with Trump,” The New York Times (August 21, 2019), available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/us/politics/trump-gun-control-nra.html.
[94] “Who are the Biggest Organization Donors?,” OpenSecrets, available at https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top organizations.
[95] Bradley Jones, “Most Americans Want to Limit Campaign Spending,” Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center, May 30, 2020),
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donor s-have-greater-political-influence/.
[96] Ashley Balcerzak, “Study: Most Americans want to kill 'Citizens United' with Constitutional Amendment,” The World, The Center for Public Integrity,
https://theworld.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment.
[33] “Opposition to U.S. Government Surveillance Grows” AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (September 7, 2021), available at https://apnorc.org /projects/opposition-to-u-s-government-surveillance-grows/.
[34] “Early in the process [of drafting the Constitution], Congress was to be given authority to ‘make’ war, but Madison and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts successfully changed that word to the more specific ‘declare,’ so the record shows, ‘leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.’” Michael Beschloss, Presidents of War (Broadway Books: 2018), at 5.
[35] James Madison, Letters of Helvidius Number 4, pp. 33–39 (printed in Philadelphia Gazette of the U.S., September 14, 1793) (from the Federalist Papers), available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Madison/01-15-02-0070.
“During the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, Madison and the other Founders had debated the quandaries of war. They sought to ensure that, unlike in the Old World societies governed by sovereigns, Americans would go to war only when it was absolutely necessary—and that the decision would be made not by the President but by the legislature. Virginia’s George Mason had written that he was ‘ag[ainst] giving the power of war to the Executive, because [that branch was] not safely to be trusted with it.’ James Wilson of Pennsylvania insisted that the Constitution ‘will not hurry us unto war; it is calculated to guard against it.’ Madison himself considered war ‘the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.’ As he reminded Jefferson in 1798, ‘The constitution supposes, what the History of all Gov[ernmen]ts demonstrates, that the Ex[ecutive] Is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ative].’ Michael Beschloss, Presidents of War (Broadway Books: 2018), at 4–5.
[36] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the United States Congress, December 6, 1805, found at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-2779.
[37] Ferrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 4 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937, p. 319.
[38] Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798, Thomas Jefferson Papers.
[39] Michael Beschloss, Presidents of War, New York: Broadway Books, 2018, pp. 4–5.
[40] Quoted in Conor Friedersdorf, “Abraham Lincoln’s Warning About Presidents and War, The Atlantic, July 13, 2012, available at https://www.theatlantic.com/ politics/archive/2012/07/abraham-lincolns-warning-about-presidents-and-war/259767/.
[41] “ICJ deplores moves toward a war of aggression on Iraq,” International Commission of Jurists (March 18, 2003), available at https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/.
[42] Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger, “Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan,” The Guardian (September 15, 2004), available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq; “Former UN head calls Iraq war ‘illegal’” CBC News (March 19, 2003), available at https://www. cbc.ca/news/ canada/former-un-head-calls-iraq-war-illegal-1.380751.
[43] Gregory P. Noone, “The War Powers Resolution and Public Opinion,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2012), available at https://scholarly commons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=jil.
[44] Frank Newport, “Public Wants Congress to Approve Military Action, Bombings,” Gallup (July 7, 2008), available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/108658/public-wants-congress-approve-military-action-bombings.aspx.
[45] “What Does Student Debt Look Like in Other Major Countries?” Student Debt USA, available at https://studentdebtusa.com/what-does-student-debt-look-like-in-other-major-countries/.
[46] Ed Pilkington, “How Biden helped create the student debt problem he now promises to fix,” The Guardian (December 2, 2019), available at https://www.the guardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/02/joe-biden-student-loan-debt-2005-act-2020.
[47] Andrew Marantz, “What Biden Can’t Do on Student Debt––and What He Won’t Do,” New Yorker (October 29, 2021), available at https://www.newyorker.com/ news/news-desk/what-biden-cant-do-on-student-debt-and-what-he-wont-do.
[48] Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet, et al., “New Poll Data Puts Biden At Odds with Most Americans on Student Loan Forgiveness,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education (May 17, 2021), available at https://www.diverseeducation.com/students/article/ 15109247/new-poll-data-puts-biden-at-odds-with-most-americans-on-student-loan-forgiveness.
[49] Melanie Hanson, “Economic Effects of Student Loan Debt,” Education Data Initiative (October 18, 2021), available at https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-economic-impact (“Hanson”).
[50] Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet, et al., “New Poll Data Puts Biden At Odds with Most Americans on Student Loan Forgiveness,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education (May 17, 2021), available at https://www.diverseeducation.com/students/article/ 15109247/new-poll-data-puts-biden-at-odds-with-most-americans-on-student-loan-forgiveness.
[51] Carmen Reinicke, “More than 60% of voters support some student loan debt forgiveness,” CNBC (Dec. 22, 2021), available at https://www.cnbc.com/ 2021/12/22/more-than-60percent-of-voters-support-some-student-loan-debt-forgiveness.html; “1 in 5 Voters Support Complete Student Debt Forgiveness; 3 in 10 Say None Should Be Forgiven,” available at https://assets.morningconsult.com/ wp-uploads/2021/12/21171345/211221_student-loans_fullwidth.png.
[52] Hanson.
[53] “New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Reinstating the Gainful Employment Rule, Easing Student Debt Discharge in Bankruptcy” (July 27, 2021), available at https://www.defendstudents.org/news/data-for-progress-july-2021-poll.
[54] Van Nguyen, “Poll shows Americans want affordable tuition,” The Daily Texan (October 29, 2016), available at https://thedailytexan.com/2016/10/19/poll-shows-americans-want-affordable-tuition/.
[55] “Carbon Footprint by Country 2021” World Population Review (2021), available at https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country.
[56] Krishna Ramanujan, “More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change,” Cornell Chronicle (October 19, 2021), available at https://news.cornell. edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change.
[57] Oliver Milman, “Governments falling woefully short of Paris climate pledges, study finds,” The Guardian (September 15, 2021), available at https://www.the guardian.com/science/2021/sep/15/governments-falling-short-paris-climate-pledges-study.
[58] Michael Le Page, “Was Kyoto climate deal a success? Figures reveal mixed results,” New Scientist (June 14, 2016), available at https://www.newscientist. com/article/ 2093579-was-kyoto-climate-deal-a-success-figures-reveal-mixed-results/.
[59] Glenn Kessler, “John Kerry’s misfire on U.S. performance on Kyoto emissions targets,” The Washington Post (May 30, 2013), available at https://www. washingtonpost.com/ blogs/fact-checker/post/john-kerrys-misfire-on-us-performance-on-kyoto-emissions-targets/2013/05/29/9a063d84-c8af-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_blog. html (awarding Kerry three “Pinocchios” for his misrepresentations about U.S. emissions reductions).
[60] Katharine Hayhoe: Here’s How Long We’ve Known About Climate Change,” EcoWatch (November 25, 2016), available at https://www.ecowatch.com/ katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-2103671842.html.
[61] See video produced by Justice Movement Executive Director, Rocky Anderson on the devastating consequences of poor leadership, and the opportunities for effective leadership, regarding the climate crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MKcHOqJp6Y.
[62] Alastair Gee, “Is this the end of forests as we’ve known them? Trees lost to drought and wildfires are not returning. Climate change is taking a toll on the world’s forests – and radically changing the environment before our eyes,” The Guardian (March 10, 2021), available at https://www.theguardian.com/environ ment/2021/ mar/10/is-this-the-end-of-forests-as-weve-known-them; “Global warming fuels bark beetles, tree-killing menaces – The beetles have killed more than 5% of the forested area in the western U.S.,” Yale Climate Connections (March 31, 2020), available at https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/global-warming-fuels-bark-beetles-tree-killing-menaces/.
[63] Alejandra Borunda, “The science connecting wildfires to climate change: A heating-up planet has driven huge increases in wildfire area burned over the past few decades,” National Geographic (September 17, 2020), available at https://www.national geographic.com/science/article/climate-change-increases-risk-fires-western-us.
[64] “Impacts of Climate Change – Rising Sea Level,” UCAR Center for Science Education, available at https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/rising-sea-level; Christina Nunez, “Sea level rise, facts and information,” National Geographic (February 19, 2019), available at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1.
[65] “CO2 and Ocean Acidification: Causes, Impacts, Solutions,” Union of Concerned Scientists (January 30, 2019, Updated February 6, 2019), available at https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/co2-and-oceanacidification#:~:text=affects% 20marine%20life-,Ocean%20acidification%20affects%20marine%20life, survival%20of%20many%20marine%20species.
[66] “How does climate change affect coral reefs?” National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, available at https://oceanservice.noaa. gov/facts/ coralreef-climate.html; “Coral reefs and climate change,” International Union for Conservation of Nature (March 2021), available at https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/coral-reefs-and-climate-change.
[67] Mary Caperton Morton, “Global Warming Hits Marine Life Hardest,” Eos (American Geophysical Union) (May 2, 2019), available at https://eos.org /articles/global-warming-hits-marine-life-hardest.
[68] “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves,” United States Environmental Protection Agency (April 2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves.
[69] Tiffany Means, “Climate change and droughts: What’s the connection?” Yale Climate Connections (August 18, 2021), available at https://yaleclimate connections.org/ 2021/08/climate-change-and-droughts-whats-the-connection/; Steve Gorman, “Southwest U.S. drought, worst in a century, linked by NOAA to climate change,” Reuters (September 21, 2021), available at https://www.reuters .com/business/environment/ southwest-us-drought-worst-century-linked-by-noaa-climate-change-2021-09-21/.
[70] Sarah Kaplan and John Muyskens, “The past seven years have been the hottest in recorded history, new data shows – Global temperatures in 2021 were among the highest ever observed, with 25 countries setting new annual records, according to scientists from NASA, NOAA and Berkely Earth,” The Washington Post (January 13, 2022), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/.
[71] “Public Opinion on Energy & Climate Change,” (2018), available at https://epic. uchicago.edu/area-of-focus/public-opinion-on-energy-climate-change/.
[72] “Americans see too little federal action on climate change, back range of policies to reduce its effects,” Pew Research Center (June 18, 2020), available at https://www.pew research.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/.
[73] Id.
[74] Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis, “Climate Insights 2020: Overall Trends,” (August 24, 2020) Stanford University, Resources for the Future, and ReconMR, available at https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020/.
[75] Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis, “Climate Insights 2020: Policies and Politics,” Stanford University, Resources for the Future and ReconMR (September 23, 2020), available at https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020-policies-and-politics/; National Survey of Public Opinion on Global Warming, available at https://media.rff.org/documents/Climate_Insights_2020_Topline_Findings_Policies_and_Politics.pdf.; Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis, “Technical Report: Climate Insights 2020: Policies and Politics,” (September 2020), available at https://media .rff.org/documents/Policies_and_Politics_Technical_Report_2020.pdf.
[76] NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: Climate Change, October 2021: Americans Don’t Think the World or the U.S. is Doing Enough About Climate Change,” (October 29, 2021), available at https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-national-poll-climate-change-october-2021/.
[77] Fires, Floods Linked to Climate, Monmouth University Polling Institute (October 4, 2021), available at https://www.monmouth.edu/pollinginstitute/reports/ MonmouthPoll_US_100421/.
[78] Robert Warren, “Reverse Migration to Mexico Led to US Undocumented Population Decline: 2010 to 2018,” Center for Migration Studies (February 26, 2020), available at https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-reverse-migration-022620/.
[79] “Poll finds Americans respect immigrants, want ‘non-partisan’ solution,” Catholic News Agency (June 26, 2012), available at http://www.catholic newsagency.com/news/poll-finds-americans-respect-immigrants-want-non-partisan-solution/.
[80] Id.
[81] Id.
[82] Claire Felter, et al., “The U.S. Immigration Debate,” Council on Foreign Relations (August 31, 2021), available at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-immigration-debate-0?gclid=CjwKCAiA24SPBhB0EiwAjBgkhq7OQZ7Zl OyJxoM9xaiMO2O HaY-5yipMcJBElLVIV7l2jrPj2MVA3xoCYWkQAvD_BwE.
[83] Id.; Nicole Narea, “Poll: Most Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Vox (February 4, 2021), available at https://www. vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/2/4/22264074/poll-undocumented-immigrants-citizenship-stimulus-biden.
[84] David Cooper, et al., “Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift the pay of 32 million workers,” Economic Policy Institute (March 9, 2021), available at https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-by-2025-would-lift-the-pay-of-32-million-workers/ (“Cooper”).
[85] “The Productivity-Pay Gap,” Economic Policy Institute (August 2021), available at https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/.
[86] Lawrence Mishel and Jori Kandra, “CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322% since 1978 – CEOS were paid 351 times as much as a typical worker in 2020,” Economic Policy Institute, available at https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/#:~:text= In%202020%2C%20the%20ratio%20of,%2Dto%2D1%20in%201989.
[87] Id.
[88] “Ralph Nader: Give workers a raise,” USA Today (Op-ed) (March 18, 2014), available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/18/ralph-nader-minimum-wage-hike-column/6540579/.
[89] Cooper; Paul J. Wolfson and Dale Belman, “15 Years of Research on U.S. Employment and the Minimum Wage” (Hanover, NH: Tuck School of Business, 2016), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705499; Doruk Cengiz and others, “The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134 (3) (2019): 1405–1454, available at https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz014.
[90] “A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago estimates that a $1 raise for a minimum wage worker translates to an additional $2,080 in consumer spending by their household over the course of a year.” “Small Businesses Get a Boost From a $15 Minimum Wage” Center for American Progress (February 25, 2021), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/small-businesses-get-boost-15-minimum-wage/#:~:text=A%20study%20by%20the%20Federal,the%20 course%20of%20a%20year.
[91] Amina Dunn, “Most Americans support a $15 federal minimum wage,” Pew Research Center (April 22, 2021), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/.
[92] “Poll: 64 percent support increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025,” The Hill (February 3, 2021), available at https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/537217-poll-64-percent-support-increasing-the-federal-minimum-wage-to.
[93] Haberman, M., Karni, A., & Hakim, D. “N.R.A. gets results on gun laws in one phone call with Trump,” The New York Times (August 21, 2019), available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/us/politics/trump-gun-control-nra.html.
[94] “Who are the Biggest Organization Donors?,” OpenSecrets, available at https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top organizations.
[95] Bradley Jones, “Most Americans Want to Limit Campaign Spending,” Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center, May 30, 2020),
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donor s-have-greater-political-influence/.
[96] Ashley Balcerzak, “Study: Most Americans want to kill 'Citizens United' with Constitutional Amendment,” The World, The Center for Public Integrity,
https://theworld.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment.
