Group items tagged

If there is a barrier to Trump resurrecting the massive deportations of the Bush and Obama years, though, it lies in the independence of local law enforcement. To override them is certainly possible. But it would require a vast expansion in federal power that, under any other circumstances, would be anathema to small-government conservatives worried about Washington overreach and rejecting the judgment of local police. The self-proclaimed law-and-order candidate would have to act against the wishes of police chiefs. Trump couldn’t persuade voters in those places to support his candidacy. How much punishment is he willing to inflict on them to ensure they assist in an unprecedented eviction of the American populace?

Recent progress on climate change has been vital, environmentalists say. Although some say that the work is fragile at best and could be undone by the Trump administration, others remain certain that the grass-roots nature of environmental work will protect it from any sweeping federal changes. “Real change — the change that makes a difference — has been made at regional or local levels,” said Lonnie Thompson, distinguished university professor in Ohio State University’s School of Earth Sciences and a senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center. “It’s coming from the bottom up, (and) these changes will come no matter who’s in charge, what we believe or what we hope for.”

It's not far-fetched to suggest there is a "deep state" in Washington. Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower looked at the nexus of the Pentagon and arms manufacturers and coined the phrase the "military-industrial complex." Today's observers also point to the collusion of corporate interests and D.C. power brokers as the true guiding hand in American politics.

The Trump White House already seems to be at war with what it would say is the "deep state:" thousands of federal government bureaucrats faced with the awkward reality of working for a president who campaigned loudly against Washington officialdom and promised to "drain the swamp" when in power. This week, almost 1,000 American diplomats signed a dissent memo against Trump's executive order on immigration, prompting White House press secretary Sean Spicer to icily declare that "career bureaucrats" can "either get with the program or they can go." And Trump's public spat with Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee who sought to defy his immigration order, ended with him firing Yates in an angry, chilling memo that claimed she "betrayed the Department of Justice."

With such ubiquity comes power and influence. And along with the technology’s benefits come worries over privacy and personal freedom. Yes, AI can take some of the time and effort out of decision-making. But if you are a woman, a person of color, or a member of some other unlucky marginalized group, it has the ability to codify and worsen the inequalities you already face. This darker side of AI has led policymakers such as U.S. Senator Kamala Harris to advocate for more careful consideration of the technology’s risks.

Today, we can see a similar pattern emerging with the deployment of AI. Good intentions are nice, but they must account for and accommodate a true diversity of perspectives. How can we trust the ethics panels of AI companies to take adequate care of the needs of people of color, queer people, and other marginalized communities if we don’t even know who is making the decisions? It’s simple: we can’t and we shouldn’t.

Since 2002, the US Department of Justice’s WEB Du Bois program has sponsored research fellowships on issues of race and criminal justice. During Republican and Democratic administrations, a diverse group of academics have carried the spirit of the noted sociologist and civil rights leader to the race challenges of the 21st century. Given the racial disparity endemic at every stage of the justice system the DoJ’s investigation of these issues has been praiseworthy. But with Jeff Sessions as attorney general exploring the roots of this injustice may now be compromised. In the recently released solicitation for the Du Bois fellowships the DoJ invited scholars to engage in research on five issues arising out of the “tough on crime” era that would make a student of the Du Bois legacy shudder. Whereas Du Bois is widely known for promoting the idea that “the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line”, the DoJ solicitation displays no interest in such high-profile issues as police killings of unarmed black men or the impact of mass incarceration on the African American community. Instead, “protecting police officers” is the only area of law enforcement prioritized by the DoJ. Another research priority, “enhancing immigration enforcement”, coming at a moment when barely disguised racist imagery accompanies those policies, seems particularly jarring when upheld in the name of a civil rights legend. The DoJ approach to research is unfortunately consistent with the misconstrued “law and order” agenda that Jeff Sessions has brought to his leadership. Within a month of taking office Sessions had rescinded the Obama-era decision to phase out federal contracting with private prisons. That initiative had been based in part on an inspector general’s finding that such prisons had higher levels of assault and safety concerns than public prisons.

The court ruled in favor of the Dynamex drivers, agreeing that they had been misclassified as independent contractors and are, in fact, employees. The ruling also concluded that employers could only classify as independent contractors those workers who meet the conditions laid out in the "ABC standard" established in other states:(a) that the worker is free from control and direction over performance of the work, both under the contract and in fact; (b) that the work provided is outside the usual course of the business for which the work is performed; and (c) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business (hence the ABC standard).

While some of these workers may be independent contractors by choice, others, like the Dynamex drivers, were forced into the classification by employers looking to save money. The National Employment Law Project estimates that employers can reduce payroll and other taxes by up to 30 percent by re-classifying employees. State-level studies on the issue, meanwhile, have uncovered extremely high misclassification rates—a series of audits in Ohio found that 47 percent of workers were misclassified. (This misclassification, not surprisingly, costs federal, state, and local governments hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues.)

The 86-page report, from the District’s Office of the Budget Director, applies evidence-based methodology and economic forecasting to compare two approaches to alleviating poverty: a negative local income tax (similar to the federal earned-income tax credit for poor families) versus a straightforward cash grant, known as guaranteed or universal basic income (UBI for short).

“There are certainly a lot of advantages to a UBI program,” one of the researchers, Susanna Groves, a senior budget analyst for the city, said on a recent episode of “The Basic Income Podcast.” “It doesn’t have a social stigma attached to it. It provides a benefit for everyone and could really help. But what we found is that a negative income tax was a more feasible approach for the District to provide a minimum income benefit.”