Why Do Republicans Hate Us So Much?

​

Presidential elections have consequences. It is not about polls and popularity. It is not about how much money is raised. It is not a horse race. (Who’s ahead? Who’s behind? Who’s gaining?). As much as the media tend to focus on the individuals on the ballot, there is more at stake. Each candidate brings along baggage: the people they will nominate to head agencies, and the decisions each will make; the people they will nominate for the Supreme Court and the lower courts, and the decisions each will make. The budget priorities they will set. The Executive Orders they will issue. The foreign policies they will pursue. The economic direction they will set. The leadership they will give the nation. We need to focus on more than the individuals. We need to begin unpacking the enormous baggage of the Republican Party.

 

For a very long time, the Republicans were the party of business, and the Democrats the party of the people. In my words, Republicans were about making the world safe for the rich and the corporations, and Democrats were about making the world safe for everyone. Stereotypes to be sure. Yet, stereotypes may indeed include some truth. So, it is useful to review the concrete and specific actions taken by the administration and the Republican Congress since Inauguration Day 2017 to see how they stack up from this perspective.

 

The conclusion: Republicans really favor the very rich and the corporations. More surprising, perhaps, is the large number of actions they have taken against us. The Republican play-book is thick. It is a systematic campaign against the people.

 

By Republicans I mean, of course, the extremists who have taken over the label “Republican.” By us, I mean the 99% or so who are not really wealthy.

 

The research may be exhausting, but it is not exhaustive. For example, many Federal and state agency and departmental decisions are not here. Adverse Supreme Court decisions are not here. All the impacts of the administration’s appointees are not here. No source can cover everything.

 

I primarily sampled articles indexed under politics in the New York Times archives between the January 2017 inauguration and the end of July 2019. A small number of articles from the Washington Post and other sources. Just the facts have been extracted. All of the actions reported are included in the Appendix, along with my comments.

 

In summary, and in alphabetical order by subject, Republican actions have been:

 

Restricting Abortion and Birth Control

 

          O Using Federal funds to stifle abortion access

          O Validating religious objections to abortion and birth control

          O Directly attacking the right to an abortion

 

Reducing Civil Rights

 

Protecting Corporations

 

Sacrificing the Environment

 

O Polluting the Water

O Polluting the Air

O Continuing the Use of Toxic Chemicals

O Weakening the Endangered Species Act

O Compromising Pollution Permits

 

Weakening Financial Protections

 

Defunding Government Services

 

Refusing Reasonable Gun Control

 

Taking Away Health Care

 

O Weakening Medicaid and Medicare

O Limiting Malpractice Suits

O Hiding Dangerous Medical Devices

O Promoting Insurance Without Essential Benefits

O Compromising Health Insurance Availability

 

Withdrawing From International Agreements

 

Enabling Injustice

 

Cutting Into Labor Protections

 

Attacking the Poor and Elderly

 

Compromising Our Privacy

 

Delaying Racial Equality

 

Pushing Retirement Insecurity

 

Denying the Right to Vote

 

Breaching the Separation of Church and State

 

Protecting Sexual Assault Perpetrators

 

Cutting Taxes for the Rich and Corporations

 

Clouding Transparency

 

Now, some examples of Republicans promoting the interests of the very rich and the corporations:

 

o Allowing oil and gas companies to hide bribes to foreign governments for licenses and permits;

 

o Extensively relaxing or eliminating environmental regulations to relieve the financial burdens on corporations, at the cost of increased risks to the environment, public health and worker safety;

o Making it harder for students to reduce their loans, in favor of the lenders and schools;

 

o Allowing companies bidding for federal contracts to hide their violations of labor standards;

 

o Enacting a massive permanent tax cut for the rich and corporations, while making modest temporary tax cuts for the rest of us; and

 

o Allowing large donors to certain political groups to remain anonymous.

 

And, some examples of Republican actions against the rest of us:

 

o Defunding and suppressing the availability of abortion and birth control information across the globe, harming women and their families;

 

o Making it harder to prove sexual assault charges on campuses, hurting the victims and their families;

 

o Extending the authority for warrantless surveillance for another six years, compromising the individual’s right to privacy;

 

o Attempting to require access to our encrypted communications in criminal investigations;

 

o Proposing cutting or eliminating many government services, and agencies, all of which serve the public interest;

 

o Allowing people with severe mental problems to continue to buy guns, endangering all of us;

 

o Proposing to reduce or eliminate health care for millions;

 

o Withdrawing from international cooperation in a number of areas, including the Iran nuclear accord, the Paris climate agreement, human rights organizations, and funding education and health services around the world;

 

o Allowing stock brokers to act in their own interests, rather than in their retirement clients’ interests;

 

o Delaying enforcement against residential racial segregation;

 

o Breaking down the separation of church and state established in the Constitution;

 

o Targeting people of color for voter suppression;

 

o Reducing worker protections under labor laws;

 

o Allowing discrimination in auto loans by charging minorities higher fees; and

 

o Significantly reducing public health and environmental protection regulations.

 

Thus, Republicans consistently have reduced government services and restricted the protection of individual rights, public health, and the environment across a wide range of activities. These include health care, finance, support for the poor, discrimination, privacy and legal redress.

 

This list is far from complete. And this administration still has eighteen months left to do further damage to our system.

 

There is a theme in the play-book: People do not deserve government protection; they are on their own. The environment does not deserve protection if it harms corporate profits. International cooperation is not important. Health care, decent food and housing, and equal opportunity are not basic human rights, but privileges which may be withdrawn.

 

The breadth of these Republican actions reflects more than just a political philosophy. I believe that they reflect both hatred and disdain for those who have not succeeded on their own. And the source of this enmity? Racism is one major factor. Greed is another. A third is a strong emphasis on individualism as the road to salvation, and a belief that those who do not succeed deserve their fate. In this Republican view, providing services for the less successful just diverts resources from those who have earned their success.

 

To the extent that this perspective is valid, it suggests that overcoming Republican extremism will not be a simple matter of political compromise. It will require winning hearts and minds already committed to a fundamental set of values. Much harder, but something which must begin and persist, for the sake of our democratic system and values.

 

In the meantime, there must be a laser focus on the state and national elections in 2020. It is imperative to take power away from these Republicans, these haters and extremists.

 

© 2019 Allan Abramson

 

APPENDIX: Republican Actions and Proposals for the Rich and Against the Rest of Us

(From Inauguration Day 2017 through July 2019)

(Arranged alphabetically by subject)

 

Restricting Abortion and Birth Control

 

Using Federal funds to stifle abortion access

 

The administration reinstated the policy prohibiting foreign aid to health providers who discuss abortion as a family-planning option. Just the mention of abortion is enough. (23 Jan 17) This is a “gag” rule, certainly inconsistent with our domestic ideal of free speech. Who benefits? The anti-abortion movement. Who pays? Poor people around the world, deprived of the medical facts. Pretending that they are not aware of abortion as an option is ludicrous. They certainly are aware. But deprived of knowledge of all their options, they may seek unsafe abortions, paying in sickness or in death. Is this fair? Of course not.

 

The administration also announced that funds would be denied to foreign organizations which give money to foreign abortion providers. (25 March 19) This extends our reach to the world, attempting to affect other countries’ access to abortion. Imperial arrogance?

 

The administration canceled funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which provides family planning services, including contraception, to women in at least 155 countries. (3 Apr 17) Why do Republicans want to keep the world’s women ignorant of their family planning options?

 

The Senate reversed a rule prohibiting states from denying funding to family planning clinics that also provide abortions. (30 Mar 17) Aimed primarily at Planned Parenthood, this allowed states to deny funds for women’s health activities. Is this fair?

 

The administration proposed to deny Federal funding to clinics which provide abortions or which refer women to those who do abortions. (17 May 18) This rule also would primarily affect Planned Parenthood.

 

The administration announced that Federal family planning money would be denied to organizations providing abortion referrals. (22 Feb 19) Again, this would affect Planned Parenthood.

 

Validating religious objections to abortion and birth control

 

The administration proposed a rule to eliminate a requirement that religious employers provide birth control coverage in health insurance plans. The rule was adopted on 17 Oct 17. A religious objection to birth control thus took preference over women’s ability to choose among medical options.

 

The administration expanded religious objection protections for doctors, nurses and other health care workers who object to performing procedures like abortion. (18 Jan 18) Again, religion over women’s rights.

 

The administration announced an expanded “conscience rule” for health care workers who oppose abortion and other medical procedures for religious or moral grounds. Federal funds would be denied if organizations did not accept conscience objections, even refusals to refer patients to other providers. (2 May 19) Another breach of the separation of church and state.

 

Directly attacking the right to an abortion

 

States have become more aggressive in their efforts to reduce or ban abortions. Ohio’s House, for example, adopted a law banning abortions after detection of fetal heartbeats. (16 Nov 18) Mississippi did the same. (21 Mar 19) Georgia followed. (7 May 19) Missouri, too. (17 May 19) Louisiana, too (29 May 19) Alabama banned nearly all abortions, including cases of rape or incest. (15 May 19)

 

My view

 

Just to be clear, my support for women’s right to choose abortion stems from a fundamentalist reading of the Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The major opposition to abortion stems from religious groups and readings of the Bible. So my position: people have the right to oppose abortion as a matter of belief, but there is no Constitutional right to impose those views on others through the law.

 

Reducing Civil Rights

 

Congress voted to extend the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program for six years. (Mid-Jan 18) This continues authority for broad surveillance without justification in court for individual cases. The right to privacy is impaired by this policy.

 

The Office of Civil Rights in the Education Department dismissed more than 500 disability rights complaints, asserting that serial filings or burdensome filings were not worthy of review. (20 Apr 18) Due process for the disabled has been compromised.

 

The administration proposed to eliminate policies intended to ensure that minority and disabled children are treated fairly in schools. (17 Dec 18) So, discrimination becomes acceptable.

 

The administration proposed to roll back rules banning discrimination against transgender patients and insurance customers. (24 May 19) Again, the government legalizes discrimination.

 

Protecting Corporations

 

A rule requiring publicly traded oil, gas and mineral companies to disclose bribes to foreign governments for licenses or permits was reversed. (1 May 17) Corporate lobbyists had long argued that hindering foreign bribes placed U.S. companies at an unfair disadvantage. We decry corruption the world over, but the Senate has endorsed secret bribes. Our moral standing has been compromised. Who benefited? The companies. Who pays? We do, through tax writeoffs and/or higher prices for goods and services.

 

Under this administration, there has been a 62% drop in penalties and return of illegal profits by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and a 72% drop in corporate criminal and civil penalties by the Justice Department. (3 Nov 18) Enforcement and deterrence against corporations has been significantly weakened. Who pays? The public, in higher risk of corporate illegalities.

 

Sacrificing the Environment

 

Polluting the Water

 

The Senate voted to reverse the Stream Protection Rule, which regulated surface mining by ordering restoration of mined areas. The rule would have protected about 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests. (2 Feb 17) Who benefited? The coal industry, saving about $52 million a year. Who paid? The stream environment and its citizen users. Was this fair?

 

The Republican Kentucky Legislature approved reducing annual mine inspections from four to one. Further, rather than checking miners’ safety equipment on site, an inspector will write a “safety analysis” based on conversations with miners. Similarly, in West Virginia, the Republican Legislature replaced actual mine safety inspections with “compliance visits and education.” And, State mine safety and health standards would be eliminated. (20 Mar 17) Both of these state actions compromised environmental safety and worker safety. The companies would save money, and we would pay in reduced worker safety and an environment at increased risk.

 

The administration’s budget proposed to eliminate regional water cleanup programs such as the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, South Florida, and the Great Lakes. (10 Apr 17) These are not just local programs, but protection for national treasures. Why do Republicans promote pollution in these important waters?

 

Offshore oil drilling safety regulations were rolled back. Independent verification of safety on offshore platforms was eliminated. The requirement for designs to function in “most extreme” scenarios was dropped. And no longer would professional engineers have to certify equipment safety for new wells. (27 Sep 18) What all of this does is put responsibility for drilling safety back into the companies’ hands, without external checks. Inviting more oil spills and water pollution.

 

Polluting the Air

 

The House reversed an Obama rule requiring the oil and gas industry to reduce its emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. (10 Feb 17) Then, the EPA proposed to weaken the requirements for energy companies to reduce emissions of methane. (10 Sep 18) Monitoring and repairing methane leaks would decrease. Venting and burning methane from drilling would increase. Who benefits? The oil and gas companies’ profits. Who pays? Again, we all do, with increased global warming.

 

The administration directed the EPA to withdraw and rewrite the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The new rule was issued in Oct 17. It would preserve hundreds of old polluting coal-fired power plants, allow new coal-fired plants, and discourage alternate energy sources, such as wind and solar farms. Coal-fired plants emit, among other pollutants, fine particulates, which contribute to lung cancer and premature deaths in the general population. The EPA’s own analysis predicted up to 1,400 additional premature deaths annually by 2030, up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, a rise in bronchitis, and tens of thousands of missed school days. Preserving old coal power plants harms and kills people. It is that simple.

 

The EPA initiated the roll back of a rule reducing air pollution from freight-hauling diesel-powered trucks. (15 Feb 18) Why increase air pollution? To save the industry money.

 

The EPA proposed to eliminate the rule requiring car manufacturers to double average mileage by 2025. (2 Aug 18) This would maintain high greenhouse gas emissions for much longer than under the Obama rule. Who benefits? The car makers. Who pays? Everyone, with increased global warming. (31 May 18) The formal proposal also would eliminate the right of states to enact stricter auto emission standards. What happened to Republican support for states rights? Oh, yes, profits come first.

 

The administration drafted a proposal to abandon Obama-era carbon dioxide emission regulations, allowing older and inefficient power plants to continue operating years longer, rather than closing or installing better controls. (5 Jul 18) Who benefits? Coal mining and utility companies. Who pays? We all do, with increased global warming.

 

The administration proposed to weaken the risk-benefit analysis of mercury regulation of emissions from coal-burning power plants, by eliminating consideration of the side benefits from reducing other pollutant emissions .(30 Sep 18) Particulate reductions, in particular, were estimated to avoid about 11,000 premature deaths per year. These other benefits are real, but would no longer be counted in determining mercury limits. The impact would be reduced health protections, in favor of cost-savings for the industry. Death and sickness, to save money. Is this right?

 

The administration proposed to allow the sale of ethanol enriched gasoline in the summer, removing an anti-smog rule adopted in 2011. (8 Oct 18) Thus, more summer smog, to benefit large scale producers of ethanol. Again, if it’s health protection versus money, the administration chooses money. The people pay again.

 

The EPA dissolved the Particulate Matter Review Panel, made up of experts advising the agency on limits to protect public health. (11 Oct 18) Small particulates cause respiratory disease. By dissolving the Panel, it would be easier for EPA to reduce particulate protections, increasing widespread sickness around the country. Is this right?

 

The EPA further proposed to change its risk assessments of fine particulates to assume that there are no benefits from reducing levels below the current standard. (20 May 19) But the science shows that this is false; further reductions would save lives and improve health. Is this right?

 

The EPA proposed to eliminate an Obama requirement for new coal power plants to install equipment to capture carbon dioxide emissions, which would help reduce global warming. (4 Dec 18) This proposal would make it cheaper to build new coal-burning plants, at the cost of the environment. Is this fair?

 

The Administration issued a rule reducing the Federal role in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants. The rule reduces the Federal role in setting emission standards, and lets the states decide whether or not to reduce these emissions. (19 Jun 19) In effect, this would preserve older and less efficient coal-burning plants, and increase our contribution to global warming. Is that protecting the environment and public health?

 

Continuing the Use of Toxic Chemicals

 

The EPA proposed to allow continued use of the chemical chlorpyrifos. EPA scientists had determined that chlorpyrifos could cause learning and memory declines, particularly for farm workers and young children. (29 Mar 17) Their final decision was announced on 18 July 19. Who benefited? The companies, which continue to sell this pesticide. Who paid? The workers and children exposed to it.

 

It was reported that the EPA ordered a two-year postponement of tighter rules on lead, mercury, arsenic and other coal plant wastes that threaten human health. (18 Sep 17) Who benefited? The companies, saving money on pollution controls. Who paid? The people exposed to these toxic emissions.

​

The EPA announced postponement of bans on certain uses of three toxic chemicals found in consumer products. (19 Dec 17) The chemicals are methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), ingredients in paint strippers, and trichloroethylene (TCE), used as a spot cleaner in dry-cleaning and as a degreasing agent. Methylene chloride is toxic to the brain and liver, and NMP can harm the reproductive system. TCE is “carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure,” also causing developmental and reproductive damage. This action continues worker and public exposure to these dangerous chemicals. Who benefits? The manufacturers, of course. Who pays? All who are exposed.

 

Later, the EPA decided to allow continued commercial use of methylene chloride, overriding an Obama determination that continued use presented an unreasonable risk. (15 Mar 19)

 

The EPA changed its risk assessments of toxic chemicals to exclude the risks from chemicals already contaminating the air, water or land. (7 Jun 18) By excluding current and real exposures from contamination, these assessments will reduce the basis for strict regulation of these chemicals. Who benefits? The manufacturers. Who pays? The rest of us and the environment, of course.

 

OSHA proposed exemptions to the beryllium rule, which is a mineral estimated to kill about 100 workers each year. (23 Jun 17) Under the proposal, major industries could become exempt from the lower worker exposure rule. Who benefits? The industry, which saves compliance money. Who pays? The workers who become sick or die.

 

In all of these toxic chemical decisions, profits consistently came before public health.

 

Weakening the Endangered Species Act

 

The Interior Department proposed considering economic factors in deciding whether a species deserves protection under the Endangered Species Act. (19 Jul 18) This has been prohibited until now. Why remove protections if mining or drilling or development might be profitable? The whole point of the Endangered Species Act is to preserve species.

 

The administration planned to open 9 million acres to mining and drilling by eliminating endangered species protections for the sage grouse. (6 Dec 18) This would set a precedent for ignoring the Endangered Species Act.

 

Compromising Pollution Permits

 

The EPA intends to propose eliminating the right of individuals or communities to appeal pollution permits to Agency administrative judges. Industries, however, would still be able to appeal to the judges to increase their pollution emissions. (12 Jul 19) Could the EPA preference for companies over people be more clear?

 

Weakening Financial Protections

 

The Education Department froze procedures that would have eased erasing the federal loan debt of students cheated by colleges that acted fraudulently. (14 Jun 17) Who benefits? The lenders. Who pays? The students cheated of their education. Is this fair?

 

Congress voted to exempt thousands of small and medium banks from the strict rules under Dodd-Frank, leaving only 9 or 10 big banks to be so regulated. (22 May 18) This is a big step toward another financial crisis.

 

Defunding Government Services

 

The first Republican budget proposed to cut the EPA by 31 %, and Health and Human Services by 18 %. The Legal Services Corporation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts — would be completely defunded. (16 Mar 17) These all are entities which are intended to serve the public interest. It has long been clear that Republicans do not believe that government should provide public interest services: their budget serves their agenda.

 

 

Refusing Reasonable Gun Control

 

Congress reversed an Obama rule intended to prevent people with severe mental problems from buying guns. (15 Feb 17) The rule would have affected about 75,000 people, whose names would have been added to the national background check database. Who benefited? The gun industry’s profits. Who paid? The rest of us, with increased risk of gun violence. Does it even make sense to allow people with severe mental problems to buy guns?

 

After Delta Airlines decided to remove a promotional discount for National Rifle Association members, the Georgia legislature retaliated by removing a sales tax exemption for jet fuel from a tax-relief bill. (1 Mar 18)

 

Taking Away Health Care

 

Weakening Medicaid and Medicare

 

The Republican Wisconsin Governor proposed drug testing of Medicaid applicants and some food stamp applicants. (31 May 17) Let’s see, if you are on drugs you cannot get health care or food. Does this make any sense, other than pushing people into the emergency room? Which is cheaper, preventing health problems or dealing with emergencies? A direct attack on the poor.

 

Congressional legislation proposed ending Medicaid expansion in 2020, and barring those who dropped out of the program from rejoining. (7 Mar 17) Why would Republicans want to deny health care to the poor?

 

The administration allowed states to impose work requirements in Medicaid. Those who do not meet the work requirements would be dropped from Medicaid, forcing more of the poor to do without health care. (11 Jan 18) An executive order extended these work requirements to those who receive food assistance and housing subsidies. (10 Apr 18) Is this fair?

 

The administration intends to relax bans on kickbacks and payments to advisors who influence people’s choices on Medicare and Medicaid. So, bribes to increase profits would not be punished. Again, the people pay. (24 Nov 18)

 

Utah and Idaho legislators proposed to limit or rollback voter initiatives to expand Medicaid coverage. Why would they want to deny their citizens expanded health care?

(4 Feb 19)

 

Limiting Malpractice Suits

 

A Republican bill proposed to limit noneconomic damages (eg, pain and suffering damages) to $250,000 in healthcare lawsuits such as product liability and malpractice. (5 Apr 17) Who benefits? The doctors, hospitals and manufacturers. Who pays? Those hurt by products and poor treatment. Often the harm caused cannot be repaired, but the damages awarded can stimulate the offenders to improve. This cap on damages will encourage the offenders, instead of protecting future victims. Is this fair?

 

Hiding Dangerous Medical Devices

 

The Republican Congress moved toward allowing the manufacturers of

cardiac defibrillators, insulin pumps, breast implants and other medical devices to delay reporting dangerous malfunctions to the Food and Drug Administration. The bill would allow these companies to report malfunctions every three months, instead of within 30 days of a problem. (11 Jul 17) Who benefits? The medical device manufacturers. Who pays? Anyone using a device which could harm their health. Is this fair?

 

Promoting Insurance Without Essential Benefits

 

The administration proposed regulations making it easier to buy less expensive health insurance which does not meet the Obamacare requirements, such as covering pre-existing conditions. A fraud on buyers who are trying to save money. (20 Feb 18)

 

The administration issued a rule allowing small businesses to join and issue health plans which may not include essential health benefits, such as mental health-care, emergency services, maternal care, and prescription drug coverage. This may lower insurance premiums, at higher cost to patients needing these services. Why permit health insurance missing essential benefits? Doesn’t everyone need such coverage? (19 Jun 18)

 

Compromising Health Insurance Availability

 

The administration moved in court to strike down Obamacare completely. Note that the Republicans have now had 10 years to develop an alternative, with no success. A complete strike-down would take 20-30 million off health care. Is this good policy? (25 Mar 19)

 

The administration cut grants to non-profits which help people obtain health insurance, reducing this funding by about 80% since 2016. Why make it harder for people to find affordable health insurance? (10 Jul 18)

 

Withdrawing From International Agreements

 

The administration withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran. (8 May 18) This destabilized an international agreement and increased the potential for conflict with Iran.

 

The administration announced that it would stop participating in the Paris climate accords. (1 Jun 17) This seriously harmed the prospects of international cooperation on mitigating climate change.

 

The administration announced that it is withholding more than half the money that aids Palestinian refugees. (16 Jan 18) This money pays for schools and health clinics that serve nearly two million people in Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Denying education and health care to refugees now is official U.S. policy.

 

The administration withdrew the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council, joining Iran, North Korea, and Eritrea as the only countries outside of the Council. (19 Jun 18)

 

Enabling Injustice

 

The Justice Department allowed state and local law enforcement officials to seize the cash, cars or personal property of people suspected of crimes but not charged. (19 Jul 17) This is “guilty, until proven innocent,” turning our justice system against the Constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches or seizures. My judgement is that such seizures will affect the poor and minorities much more than the middle class or rich. Is this fair?

​

The administration supported forced arbitration in disputes involving nursing homes, for-profit schools, and banks, reversing Obama-era rules and policies. (10 Aug 17) This would deny individuals their day in court before a jury of their peers. Who benefits? The corporations, which save money and time, and which win most arbitrations. Who pays? The people, of course.

 

Cutting Into Labor Protections

 

The Republican legislatures in both Kentucky and West Virginia moved to significantly reduce or eliminate mine safety inspections. (Early Mar 17) This is not a result of improved mine safety. Who benefits? The owners. Who pays? The workers and the environment.

 

Congress repealed a requirement that companies seeking significant federal contracts disclose violations or allegations of violations of labor standards, like safety and fair-pay rules, or instances when they were accused of such violations. (1 May 17) The public interest in knowing about labor violations was denied. Who benefited? The corporations. Who paid? The workers and their public supporters. Why allow companies to bid for federal contracts when they violate labor standards? Is this fair?

 

Three Executive Orders reduced protections for Federal workers. (25 May 18) One made it easier to fire and discipline workers. Another directed agencies to renegotiate union contracts, which could weaken union power to protect workers. Another reduced “official time” for union representatives. Is it fair to attack Federal workers?

 

The National Labor Relations Board announced that it would propose a rule making it harder to hold companies accountable for labor violations against employees of their contractors and franchisees. (13 Sep 18) Is this fair for the workers?

 

The NLRB issued a decision that would make it easier for employers to decertify unions. (NYT and Portside.org, 13 July 19) This time the NLRB is streamlining the process for employers who “think” that the union has lost the support of a majority of their members. The employers now can declare an “anticipatory withdrawal” from its union bargaining agreement. Then, the union must prove that they have a majority membership, through a new election. This reverses prior decisions making the employer prove that the union had lost majority status, and could be liable for an unfair labor practice charge if they could not prove it. Could there be a more blatant anti-union decision? Is this fair?

​

Attacking the Poor and Elderly

 

On 22 May 17, The Administration’s proposed budget would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $192 billion over 10 years; Medicaid, by $800 billion; and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, $21 billion. (22 May 17) Is this anything other than a war upon the poor and the elderly? Why do Republicans hate them so much?

 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule denying federal housing assistance to families with at least one undocumented immigrant. (10 May 19) Current rules allow assistance if at least one family member is legal. Over 100,000 families could lose their housing with this policy. Cruelty.

 

The Agriculture Department proposed a rule to reduce eligibility for food stamps, potentially eliminating 3 million people from the program. (23 Jul 19) Is this fair?

 

Compromising Our Privacy

 

The Justice Department and FBI renewed their push for authority to require access to encrypted communications on cell phones and other devices, in criminal investigations. (24 Mar 18) A direct attack on our privacy.

 

Delaying Racial Equality

 

The administration delayed enforcement until 2020 of a federal housing rule requiring communities to address patterns of racial residential segregation. (4 Jan 18) Why delay action against segregation?

 

The Senate voted to cancel an Obama rule which prohibited higher fees for minorities taking out car loans. A few weeks later, the House agreed. (18 Apr 18) This would legalize loan discrimination.

 

Pushing Retirement Insecurity

 

The administration initiated a reversal of the fiduciary rule, that requires brokers to act in a client’s best interest, rather than their own, when providing retirement advice. (3 Feb 17) How many stories have we heard of brokers draining their client’s retirement funds, rather than protecting them? Who benefits? The brokers. Who pays? The elderly. Why does the government support brokers over the rest of us? The fiduciary rule was common sense for protecting us. Why do Republicans disagree?

 

The House proposed legislation to prevent the states from setting up retirement plans for employees of companies which do not provide retirement benefits. (14 Feb 17) The plans would be pooled and managed by state-contracted professionals. The Senate then reversed a rule permitting cities and counties to set up such retirement plans, too. (30 Mar 17) Why would Republicans oppose retirement plans for workers?

 

Denying the Right to Vote

 

In a win for voting rights, the Supreme Court upheld a reversal of a restrictive North Carolina voting law that had been held as an unconstitutional effort to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.” (15 May 17) The Republican inspired law claimed voter fraud, and denied use of the forms of identification used disproportionately by blacks, including IDs issued to government employees, students and people receiving public assistance. Republicans in many states have tried to limit voting by African-Americans, who typically lean Democratic. I would like to say that this is un-American, but unfortunately we have a long tradition of limiting African-American voting rights.

 

The Justice Department supported Ohio in the state’s purging of infrequent voters from its election rolls. (8 Aug 17) Ohio removes voters who sit out three election cycles and fail to respond to a warning. The Constitution guarantees the right to vote; there is no provision for losing that right by not voting in three elections. This is pure voter suppression, when we should be doing all we can to increase the number of voters.

 

The Tennessee House passed a bill fining community groups which submit incomplete voter registration papers. (16 Apr 19) This is a clear attempt to discourage voter registration drives. In a democracy which often votes at less than 50% of eligible voters, shouldn’t we be encouraging more voters? Not for the Republicans, it seems.

 

Breaching the Separation of Church and State

 

The administration planned to repeal the Johnson Amendment, prohibiting churches from engaging in political activity without losing their tax-exempt status. (2 Feb 17) Another step toward weakening the Constitutional separation of church and state…

 

A new Arizona law allowed parents to use their child’s share of state education funding to pay for private school tuition, among other options. (7 Apr 17) Thus, public funds would be directed to private schools, which generally are religious schools.

 

The Education Department proposed a $5 billion-a-year tax credit for individuals donating to scholarships at private schools. (28 Feb 18) Another blow to the separation of church and state.

 

The Education Department decided against enforcing the law that prohibits religious organizations from providing Federally funded educational services to private schools. (11 Mar 19) Secretary De Vos swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws. Not anymore.

​

Protecting Sexual Assault Perpetrators

 

The Department of Education loosened its policy on campus sexual assault, from previous guidelines using the easiest standard of proof of sexual assault, “preponderance of the evidence.” (22 Sep 17) The new policy permits colleges to raise its standard to “clear and convincing evidence,” making it much harder for victims to win their cases. Why would Republicans want to protect sexual predators?

 

Cutting Taxes for the Rich and Corporations

 

The Republican Tax Act proposed massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations. (Dec 17) The corporate tax reductions would be permanent, while the individual tax reductions would expire in 2025. The corporate tax rate would become 21%, down from 35%. The corporate Alternative Minimum Tax would be eliminated. The estate tax exemption would double, to 11.2 million. In part, this is a continuation of many decades of efforts to shift corporate taxes to individuals. Hmmm…Wonder who benefits most…?

 

The administration capped the state and local tax deduction at $10,000. (26 Feb 19) This loss of deductions effectively cost tax payers $323 billion on their 2018 returns. Who benefits? The administration, with increased individual tax revenue to offset its tax cuts for the rich.

 

Clouding Transparency

 

The White House announced the elimination of public access to visitor logs documenting meetings, keeping the public from knowing which activists, lobbyists, political donors, foreign visitors, etc., have access to the White House. (14 Apr 17) Why hide this information from the public?

 

The administration will end a requirement for certain non-profits to disclose the names of large donors to the IRS. (17 Jul 18) This will allow some political groups to hide their sources of donations. Who benefits? The donors, who remain anonymous. Who pays? The public, which will remain ignorant of who is influencing our political system.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

* All dates in this Appendix are the dates of reporting.