Recent investigations have revealed that many rail companies systematically neglect crucial maintenance and push back against regulations that would mandate more rigorous safety checks and infrastructure investments. (Photo: Thomas WInz/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

As ambitious rail projects like Brightline West push forward, Nevada stands at a critical crossroads in terms of infrastructure growth and rail safety. It’s been a year since Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed Assembly Bill 456—a bill that aimed to strengthen rail safety protocols—and the risks that haunt our tracks are not just lingering; they are intensifying. In a state known for its high stakes, gambling with rail safety seems a perilous bet we continue to make.

In addition to Amtrak trains already operating through our state, the Brightline West project will transport the most precious cargo carried by rail: people. With this fact in mind, we simply cannot continue to gamble with rail safety—the stakes are too high.

AB 456 was designed as a comprehensive response to the escalating dangers in our rail systems, featuring crucial measures like train length limitations, improved defect detection, and provisions to clear blocked crossings. These are not mere regulatory tweaks; they are lifesaving necessities, underscored by a series of derailments in and around Nevada. Each incident serves as a grim reminder of what is at stake: fiery derailments and blocked crossings that jeopardize lives and fracture communities.

Recent investigative reports, including those by ProPublica, have highlighted a national crisis in rail safety, detailing systemic failures that lead to catastrophic accidents. These investigations have revealed that many rail companies systematically neglect crucial maintenance and push back against regulations that would mandate more rigorous safety checks and infrastructure investments.

In Nevada, the situation is dire. U.S. Congressman Mark Amodei, echoing the frustrations of many Nevadans, has criticized Union Pacific for its abysmal communication and negligence, particularly around the issue of blocked crossings. These blocked crossings are not just inconvenient; they are dangerous, preventing emergency responders from reaching crises swiftly, which could be the difference between life and death.

Furthermore, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recently had to suspend its safety assessment of Union Pacific—one of the nation’s largest railroads—after uncovering that the company coached employees on how to respond to safety interviews. This coaching was widespread across Union Pacific’s 23-state network, which includes Nevada, severely undermining the authenticity of safety culture assessments. Such deceit not only skews the data that regulators rely on to assess and enhance safety but also indicates a deep-rooted culture of complacency and manipulation underpinning corporate operations.

As railroads continue to boast of rising profits amidst declining revenues—the unsustainability of this is a topic for another discussion—their repeated appearances in the halls of Nevada’s government expressing cries that they cannot afford to invest more in safety are both intolerable and unacceptable.

The pervasive influence of rail lobbyists is a significant barrier to safety improvements. Their sway in stifling regulation is powerful, as evidenced by the stalled reforms even after high-profile derailments that have captured national attention. The lobbyists’ efforts ensure that profits continue to override public safety, keeping essential safety measures like AB 456 from becoming law.

As we observe the somber anniversary of AB 456’s veto, it’s crucial that we confront the reality of our legislative landscape. Nevada must not only reinstate measures proposed in AB 456 but also champion new initiatives that place safety at the forefront of rail operations. Our state should lead by example, showing that despite its reputation for gaming, it does not gamble with the safety of its citizens.

Looking ahead, particularly with the Brightline West project, Nevada has a unique opportunity to redefine rail safety standards. We must implement a proactive approach to safety, not just for Nevada but as a model for the nation. This means extensive oversight, transparent operations, and a legislative backbone strong enough to stand up to corporate pressure.

As the tracks of progress are laid down, let’s ensure they are not only fast and efficient but also safe and secure. Nevada has the chance now to place a winning bet on the lives and safety of our residents. It’s time for a shift in priorities—from corporate profits to public safety—and for Nevada to establish itself as a leader in rail safety innovation.

The post Rolling the dice on rail safety: Nevada’s high-stakes legislative gamble appeared first on Nevada Current.

Former NBA player Royce White addresses a crowd after the fatal police shooting of Daunte Wright in April 2021. (Photo: Elizabeth Flores/Star Tribune via Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

After the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, former NBA player Royce White became an outspoken advocate of defunding the police. Over those ensuing months, he appeared at a number of protests and marches in Minnesota – demonstrations that conservative politicians and pundits excoriated.

Four years later, White accepted the endorsement of the Minnesota GOP in the state’s 2024 U.S. Senate race.

In the interim, White had appeared on the show of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, where he decried the “establishment” and “corporatocracy.” While on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, he complained that women “had become too mouthy.” Elsewhere, he lambasted the LGBTQ+ movement as “Luciferian” and described Israel as the vanguard of a “new world order.”

White’s transition from an NBA player who advocated for progressive causes to an acolyte of Jones is more common than you might think.

Many people might associate conspiracy theories with certain demographics or political leanings. But the reality is far more nuanced, with emerging research finding that there is far more diversity among conspiracists than scholars previously thought.

Conspiracy theories are just as likely to be held by your MAGA-hat wearing uncle as they are your best friend who’s a fan of the band Phish and goes to CrossFit three times a week.

Entering the margins

For the past four and a half years, I’ve immersed myself in spaces occupied by conspiracy theorists.

What began as an attempt to understand the QAnon conspiracy movement quickly expanded into an exploration of a wide range of alternative belief systems.

These include, but are not limited to, discredited intellectuals who promote race science; butthole sunners who believe that by harnessing the sun’s rays, they live longer; and semen retention enthusiasts, which is a practice that discourages ejaculation as a way to boost testosterone levels.

Most researchers have understood conspiracy theories and alternative beliefs as being a product of poor education or misinformation spread on social media. But recent research has found that support for them exists regardless of educational level or income. Some of the most privileged people in U.S. society hold deeply conspiratorial beliefs, as do sports fans, yogis and video game enthusiasts.

While some many say that believing in UFOs or Bigfoot may not be that big of a problem, these ideas can lead to real-world harms. Butthole sunning, for example, has been linked with cancer.

By understanding how conspiracy theories and alternative belief systems intersect and evolve over time, you can see how anyone – no matter their political leanings – can become subsumed by them.

Forbidden knowledge

Different conspiracy theories, forms of psuedoscience and discredited beliefs – such as the notion that the Earth is flat – occupy the same space.

They are part of a collective waste bin of discarded ideas, a phenomenon that political scientist Michale Barkun characterizes as “stigmatized knowledge.” Because they’ve been discredited by mainstream institutions, they often only emerge on the fringes of society.

Certain stigmatized narratives can also become tools wielded by politicians and media influencers who will say or do anything to make money and gain power.

For example, in their book “Conspirituality: How New Age Conspiracy Theories Became a Health Threat,” Derek Berry, Matthew Remski and Julien Walker document the ways in which contemporary New Age spiritualism has been hijacked by social media influencers, who have then gone on to promote vaccine misinformation and foment government mistrust.

Social media platforms provide financial incentives for individuals creating the most engaging content. Of course, what’s engaging is not necessarily what’s accurate or truthful. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of these influencers became popular by suggesting that they had “sacred” or “secret” knowledge on how to defeat the virus.

It’s one way people can go from embracing seemingly harmless ideas, like Bigfoot, to becoming open to more radical beliefs like the Great Replacement Theory, which is the conspiracy theory that illegal immigrants are colluding with Democrats to change the racial demographics of America and, in doing so, shape future elections.

The intersection of politics and alternative beliefs is not a recent phenomenon.

Some of these beliefs, like the imaginary continent of Atlantis, were used by the Nazi party to create a link to a mythical pure race. Indeed, a key component of the Nazi’s rise to power was the promotion of ideas that today would be described as New Age mysticism – a spiritual movement that emphasizes magical experiences and the notion that spiritual forces connect everything in the universe.

The complexity of conspiracists

While many pundits point to white Christian nationalists as the group most susceptible to conspiracies – and there is some truth to this claim – it’s important to pay attention to others who possess conspiratorial ideas.

The anti-vaccine movement is now a pet issue for many on the right, but it first gained notoriety among wealthy liberals. One of the most visible promoters of the movement is current presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Jacob Chansley, also known as the “QAnon Shaman,” is another well-known example of this juxtaposition: He’s been seen protesting on behalf of both right- and left-wing causes and was at the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

A 2021 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 23% of Republicans believe that “the government, media and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles.”

The number might seem high, but probably isn’t all that surprising: It’s one of the core tenants of the right-wing QAnon conspiracy theory. But I found the survey’s other findings somewhat startling – that 8% of self-identified Democrats and 14% of independents also agreed with that statement.

Where do we go from here?

While seemingly unrelated at first glance, conspiracy theories such as QAnon and alternative wellness practices such as drinking urine share common themes. Namely, they’re united by distrust in mainstream institutions. They long for alternative belief systems that confirm their existing beliefs and ignore contradicting evidence.

Being critical of those in positions of power is a healthy thing, but there are times in which trust in leadership makes sense – like listening to firefighters evacuating a building or public health officials during a global pandemic.

In fairness, the number of Americans who believe in conspiracy theories does not seem to be rising. At the same time, conspiracies were a core motivator for many of the Jan 6 protesters who attempted to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

As the contributors to my forthcoming edited essay collection argue, conspiracy-laden narratives not only undermine societal institutions, but they also strain relationships with fellow citizens. They train people to be suspicious of trusted sources of information – and suspicious of one another.

None of that bodes well for liberal democracy.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post What QAnon supporters, butthole sunners and New Age spiritualists have in common appeared first on Nevada Current.

This isn't the first time the Lombardo team has claimed credit for the results of Biden's policies. (Photo of Lombardo campaigning in 2022 by David Becker/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

“I’m pleased to announce the allocation of $250 million towards Middle Mile Infrastructure,” Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo said in a statement released by his office this week. “This significant investment will enhance internet connectivity in communities across Nevada that have struggled with inadequate internet access. By addressing these critical gaps, we are ensuring that all Nevadans have the opportunity to benefit from reliable and fast internet service.”

“We” are ensuring? Who’s the “we”?

In other words, where did the $250 million come from?

The press release from Lombardo’s office left that part out.

Later in the press release, Lombardo’s office notes that the middle mile infrastructure – thousands of miles of fiber optic lines, basically – is part of a larger investment, and “Over the next four years, over $900 million will be dedicated to broadband infrastructure and digital equity and adoption initiatives.”

Where’s the $900 million coming from?

The statement from Lombardo’s office neglected to say.

Perhaps because everyone already knows.

Or should.

A presentation from the Governor’s Office of Science, Innovation and Technology (OSIT) indicates that of the $250 million Lombardo was “pleased” to announce this week, $87 million is provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), more commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, introduced by the Biden administration and passed by Congress in November, 2021.

Despite the law’s bipartisan passage, only 13 members of the U.S. House of Representative who, like Lombardo, are Republicans, voted for the bill. Nevada’s Mark Amodei wasn’t one of them.

According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, another $74 million of the $250 million was also provided under the infrastructure bill. The OSIT presentation indicates that money was assigned to the capital projects fund under the American Rescue Plan Act. ARPA passed both houses of Congress in March, 2021 without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate.

Those two tranches of funding comprise about two-thirds of the $250 million. As for where the other third comes from, as of late Thursday neither the governor’s office nor OSIT could provide a detailed breakdown.

But during a legislative interim committee meeting last month, OSIT Director Brian Mitchell said there were several sources of broadband funding for Nevada – 12, to be exact, Mitchell said.

He provided legislators with a graphic to illustrate those 12 sources. 

Every one of them is federal:

As the size of the bubbles indicate, the overwhelming majority of broadband funding to be provided to Nevada is the result of either the bipartisan infrastructure bill or ARPA, one of which passed with only minority support from congressional Republicans and the other with no Republican support at all.

Lombardo must be torn.

It was only a few weeks ago Lombardo wrote Biden a letter demanding the president “embrace free market principles that rely on supply and demand and rein in excessive federal spending.”

So why doesn’t Lombardo reject all that federal spending provided – over Republican opposition – by the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress, and just let free market principles provide broadband to rural and other underserved communities? 

Yes, the free market has had decades to do that, and failed. But surely the free market will get around to it eventually, no matter how many more decades it takes, right? 

In the meantime, Lombardo could be at ease knowing he had adhered to his faith in free market principles.

But Lombardo contains multitudes.

Just a couple weeks after telling the president how to do his job and demanding that Biden rein in “excessive federal spending,” there Lombardo was, celebrating the groundbreaking of a high-speed train that has received $6.5 billion in federal grants and financing – again thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure bill that most members of Congress from Lombardo’s party opposed.

And this week he is “pleased to announce” all that federal funding for broadband.

For some reason Lombardo and his office did not feel obligated to tell the public where the broadband funding was coming from. Maybe his faith in free market solutions wouldn’t let him.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen’s office issued a statement noting she helped include the $74 million for middle mile funding when the infrastructure law passed.

The Nevada media largely acquiesced to the governor’s narrative, however, reporting the press release from Lombardo’s office under Lombardo-friendly headlines like “Gov. Lombardo allocates $250 million to improve state internet infrastructure,” and “Lombardo announces $250 million for better internet to 40,000 Nevadans,” and even “Governor Lombardo Providing $250 million for Internet Access.”

This isn’t the first time Lombardo has claimed credit for the results of Biden administration policies. 

His political action committee is fond of touting how many straight months of employment growth have occurred “under Joe Lombardo’s leadership.” Lombardo’s PAC always neglects to note that all of those consecutive months of employment growth, in addition to about twice as many more, have occurred under Joe Biden’s leadership.

Construction of fiber optic networks to underserved/unconnected Nevada communities is indeed a development worth celebrating. 

But Lombardo, Steve Sisolak, your last ride share driver… federal broadband funding would be coming to Nevada no matter who the governor was.

So Nevadans who applaud broadband funding may want to consider saying something Lombardo should but won’t: Thanks, Biden.

The post Lombardo tries to hog credit for Biden administration achievements (again) appeared first on Nevada Current.

Riley Gaines, the ex-Kentucky swimmer on Feb. 15, 2023 at the Kansas Statehouse (Photo: Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Women’s sports rarely get the respect they deserve and very few female athletes ever break through to become household names.

Stellar performances by Brittney Griner, Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoopes and many more have made the WNBA what it is today. But it’s not a coincidence that the arrival of Caitlin Clark, a white University of Iowa alum, has sparked a firestorm of media attention and endorsements.

So it’s unusual, to say the least, for Riley Gaines — a former college swimmer who tied for fifth place in the 200 freestyle final at the 2022 NCAA Women’s Championships — to become one of the best-known female athletes in the country.

Usually that sort of résumé would prompt another round of conservative griping about Millennials and Gen Zs being rewarded with participation trophies just for showing up — and never having to learn the tough, character-building lessons of pain, hard work and sacrifice.

Last year, North Carolina Republicans even introduced a bill that would eliminate such awards in youth sports. One of the sponsors, GOP state Sen. Bobby Hanig, told the media that “what we’re not teaching our children is to be prepared for life, be prepared for failure.

“… When kids are growing up they’re being taught it’s OK to just be OK. You don’t have to be the best,” he added.

But it’s A-OK with Republicans that Gaines isn’t the best in her sport — far from it. That’s because she’s turned her failure into a winning right-wing crusade against LGBTQ+ rights because the woman with whom she tied for fifth, University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, is transgender. (Again, even if Thomas were disqualified, Gaines would have only come in fourth, which doesn’t even get you on the podium).

Shortly after her loss, Gaines started popping up in statehouses across the country, advocating for bans on transgender athletes under the guise of feminism. It’s truly a bigoted solution in search of a problem. The Michigan High School Athletic Association, for instance, said in 2021 that only 10 trans athletes used the association’s transgender athlete policy in the last five years.

Having lost the battle for public opinion on LGBTQ+ rights — 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage — right-wingers have tried to peel off voters by whipping up moral panics about all-gender bathrooms and kids’ books featuring gay characters.

While Republicans have found success pushing anti-LGBTQ+ laws in red states, like Florida, Texas and Ohio, that hasn’t worked particularly well in battlegrounds. In 2022, Gaines campaigned in Michigan for GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon, who ran on a transgender sports ban, Ron DeSantis-style “Don’t Say Gay” law and banning “pornographic” books (Dixon never provided examples, despite famously promising a reporter she’d send a list).

Dixon lost to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer by almost 11 points.

But Gaines’ career, at least, is still on a roll, as she’s hit the GOP Lincoln Dinner circuit, headlined a GOP Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds fundraiser and was the guest of U.S. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Bruce Twp.) at the 2023 State of the Union address. (Gaines also endorsed DeSantis for president, which worked out about as well as stumping for Dixon).

Reynolds went so far as to declare that Gaines is “fighting on the front lines of the most important women’s issue of our time” — which will come as a shock to the millions of people who voted for abortion rights measures and candidates in response to the far-right Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.

But for those with a serious case of main character syndrome, Gaines must truly be an inspiration. No matter how much you might fail, no matter how insignificant the things you’re obsessed with are, as long as you have an unstoppable ego, there’s hope that you might achieve Influencer status someday.

You may have heard that Gaines popped up in Michigan again this month, this time as the commencement speaker at Adrian College, a small liberal arts school close to the Ohio border.

In announcing Gaines as the speaker, a school administrator billed the event as “offer[ing] our graduates the opportunity to broaden their understanding of world issues and inspire them as they embark on their future endeavors.”

You could make the argument that may have been achieved if Gaines did a debate or at least took questions after a speech (although I’m personally not of the belief that much is accomplished by engaging with those who don’t believe in the basic humanity of LGBTQ+ people). But the format of a commencement address is one-sided by design, so an accomplished leader can impart wisdom on the next generation. (Again, it’s hard to see how a fifth-place college swimmer fits the bill).

It seems clear that college officials didn’t think it was worth considering how LGBTQ+ students or family members would feel being forced to endure hateful propaganda on what should be a joyous day for all. As a bisexual woman with two kids who are proud members of the LGBTQ+ community, I can say I wouldn’t have wanted to subject my family to that.

And several alumni did speak out.

“She [Gaines] has no message to deliver other than she hates trans people. That’s her message,” Leann McKee, who is trans and a 1984 Adrian College graduate, told the Advance.

But in inviting Gaines, Adrian’s controversy-courting president seemed to get the reaction he was looking for, just like having former Gov. Rick Snyder speak at the 2017 graduation only a year after the Flint water crisis became an international news story.

Maybe the only upside of this sorry episode is that Gaines upstaged “Wheel of Fortune” host Pat Sajak, who delivered the commencement address up the road at conservative Hillsdale College, where he chairs the board. It seems that being a TV fixture since Ronald Reagan was president can’t really compete with Gaines’ brand of Instagrammable victimhood.

This column was originally published in Michigan Advance, which like Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The post Lessons from Riley Gaines on participation trophies and main character syndrome appeared first on Nevada Current.

(Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Next year, when key provisions of President Trump’s 2017 tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations expire, we have an opportunity to get our money back.

I’m not just talking about all the foregone tax revenue we’ve lost because the rich have paid so little since 2017 — though we should get that back, too. I’m talking about the money families have lost to corporate price gouging.

Let me explain.

In 2017, Republicans slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, giving massive corporations their biggest tax windfall since Ronald Reagan was president. A few years later, as Americans emerged from a global pandemic, these same corporations drove up prices for families.

While inflation hamstrung workers and families, it didn’t make a dent in corporate profits. In fact, as many CEOs boasted themselves, it’s been a boon. Companies simply passed rising costs along to consumers — and then some, bringing in record profits as a result.

All told, corporate profit margins skyrocketed to 70 year-highs. And by the end of 2023, when Americans were beyond fed up, after-tax corporate profits hit an all-time record high of $2.8 trillion. My organization, Groundwork Collaborative, recently found that corporate profits drove over 50 percent of inflation in the second and third quarters of last year.

But why would a change in the corporate tax rate unleash the kind of rampant corporate profiteering we saw in the aftermath of the pandemic? Simple: It’s a lot more fun to gouge customers when you get to keep more of what you pull in.

Look at Procter & Gamble, which has raised the price of everything from toothpaste to diapers. Last year, the company pulled in more than $39 billion in profit.

If they had to pay the 35 percent statutory tax rate, they would have sent nearly $14 billion to Uncle Sam. Instead, they paid a 21 percent rate and, using loopholes, got to keep an extra $10 billion — which helped with their combined $16.4 billion worth of dividends and stock buybacks for shareholders.

Corporations did well from Trump’s corporate tax cuts, with executives getting big raises and shareholders receiving big buybacks. But the real bonus came when inflation hit. Corporations used the cover of supply chain issues and broader inflation to hike prices more than their higher input costs justified — and they didn’t have to worry about their tax bill.

Our tax code is exacerbating some of the worst corporate excesses, effectively “subsidizing corporate price gouging,” as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) described it recently. But it’s not only that low tax rates incentivize companies to overcharge. Rock-bottom tax rates also make collusion more profitable, as we saw with Pioneer Oil.

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission barred former Pioneer Oil CEO Scott Sheffield from joining the board of ExxonMobil following their merger, because Sheffield allegedly colluded with OPEC to raise oil prices. As families struggled with higher energy costs, the oil and gas industry banded together to keep prices high, which according to one analyst accounted for 27 percent of inflation in 2021.

When the reward is higher with lower corporate taxes, executives like Sheffield are more willing to take the risk. Higher corporate taxes are both crucial for accountability and for ensuring that there’s far less incentive for executives to squeeze as much as they can from their customers.

Wall Street tycoons and CEOs didn’t take the heat of inflation — they fanned its flames and families got burned. It’s no wonder people overwhelmingly favor a tax code that’s no longer rigged for corporations, especially as they struggle with high prices.

Congress raising the corporate tax rate in 2025 is an opportunity to recoup some of the truly obscene profits corporate America raked in during this period of economic upheaval for American families. It’s time Americans got their money back.

This commentary was originally published in Otherwords.org

The post Trump’s corporate tax cuts paved the way for inflation appeared first on Nevada Current.

Hundreds of BYD vehicles wait at a port in Suzhou, China, to ship out. (AFP via Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden tweeted: “Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.”

Fast-forward five years to May 2024, and President Biden has announced a hike in tariffs on a variety of Chinese imports, including a 100% tariff that would significantly increase the price of Chinese-made electric vehicles.

For a nation committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, efforts by the U.S. to block low-cost EVs might seem counterproductive. At a price of around US$12,000, Chinese automaker BYD’s Seagull electric car could quickly expand EV sales if it landed at that price in the U.S., where the cheapest new electric cars cost nearly three times more.

As an expert in global supply chains, however, I believe the Biden tariffs can succeed in giving the U.S. EV industry room to grow. Without the tariffs, U.S. auto sales risk being undercut by Chinese companies, which have much lower production costs due to their manufacturing methods, looser environmental and safety standards, cheaper labor and more generous government EV subsidies.

Tariffs have a troubled history

The U.S. has a long history of tariffs that have failed to achieve their economic goals.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was meant to protect American jobs by raising tariffs on imported goods. But it backfired by prompting other countries to raise their tariffs, which led to a drop in international trade and deepened the Great Depression.

President George W. Bush’s 2002 steel tariffs also led to higher steel prices, which hurt industries that use steel and cost American manufacturing an estimated 200,000 jobs. The tariffs were lifted after the World Trade Organization ruled against them.

The Obama administration’s tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels in 2012 blocked direct imports but failed to foster a domestic solar panel industry. Today, the U.S. relies heavily on imports from companies operating in Southeast Asia – primarily Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Many of those companies are linked to China.

Why EV tariffs are different this time

Biden’s EV tariffs, however, might defy historical precedent and succeed where the solar tariff failed, for a few key reasons:

1. Timing matters.

When Obama imposed tariffs on solar panels in 2012, nearly half of U.S. installations were already using Chinese-manufactured panels. In contrast, Chinese-made EVs, including models sold in the U.S. by Volvo and Polestar, have negligible U.S. market shares.

Because the U.S. market is not dependent on Chinese-made EVs, the tariffs can be implemented without significant disruption or price increases, giving the domestic industry time to grow and compete more effectively.

By imposing tariffs early, the Biden administration hopes to prevent the U.S. market from becoming saturated with low-price Chinese EVs, which could undercut domestic manufacturers and stifle innovation.

2. Global supply chains are not the same today.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, such as the risk of disruptions in the availability of critical components and delays in production and shipping. These issues prompted many countries, including the U.S., to reevaluate their dependence on foreign manufacturers for critical goods and to shift toward reshoring – bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. – and strengthening domestic supply chains.

The war in Ukraine has further intensified the separation between U.S.-led and China-led economic orders, a phenomenon I call the “Supply Chain Iron Curtain.”

In a recent McKinsey survey, 67% of executives cited geopolitical risk as the greatest threat to global growth. In this context, EVs and their components, particularly batteries, are key products identified in Biden’s supply chain reviews as critical to the nation’s supply chain resilience.

Ensuring a stable and secure supply of these components through domestic manufacturing can mitigate the risks associated with global supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions.

3. National security concerns are higher.

Unlike solar panels, EVs have direct national security implications. The Biden administration considers Chinese-made EVs a potential cybersecurity threat due to the possibility of embedded software that could be used for surveillance or cyberattacks.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has discussed espionage risks involving the potential for foreign-made EVs to collect sensitive data and transmit it outside the U.S. Officials have raised concerns about the resilience of an EV supply chain dependent on other countries in the event of a geopolitical conflict.

BYD targets EV sales in Mexico

While Biden’s EV tariffs might succeed in keeping Chinese competition out for a while, Chinese EV manufacturers could try to circumvent the tariffs by moving production to countries such as Mexico.

This scenario is similar to past tactics used by Chinese solar panel manufacturers, which relocated production to other Asian countries to avoid U.S. tariffs.

Chinese automaker BYD, the world leader in EV sales, is already exploring establishing a factory in Mexico to produce its new electric truck. Nearly 10% of cars sold in Mexico in 2023 were produced by Chinese automakers.

Given the changing geopolitical reality, Biden’s 100% EV tariffs are likely the beginning of a broader strategy rather than an isolated measure. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai hinted at this during a recent press conference, stating that addressing vehicles made in Mexico would require “a separate pathway” and to “stay tuned” for future actions.

Is Europe next?

For now, given the near absence of Chinese-made EVs in the U.S. auto market, Biden’s EV tariffs are unlikely to have a noticeable short-term impact in the U.S. They could, however, affect decisions in Europe.

The European Union saw Chinese EV imports more than double over a seven-month period in 2023, undercutting European vehicles by offering lower prices. Manufacturers are concerned. When finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced democracies meet in late May, tariffs will be on the agenda.

Biden’s move might encourage similar protective actions elsewhere, reinforcing the global shift toward securing supply chains and promoting domestic manufacturing.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post History says tariffs rarely work, but Biden’s 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs could defy the trend appeared first on Nevada Current.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sam Brown asks that you please pay no attention to the 2022 version of himself. (Sam Brown for Senate campaign photo)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Two years ago, when Republican Sam Brown was running for a U.S. Senate seat for the first time, he was debating Adam Laxalt and the topic turned to federal spending.

“One of the things that I’ve been proposing,” Brown said in that debate, “is that anywhere you have a duplication of a department or agency at the federal level that also has a state counterpart, that we don’t need that duplication.”

Brown, who this year is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen, identified the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, and federal “environmental departments and agencies” as parts of the federal government “we don’t need.”

Immediately after Brown made those comments, one of the debate moderators asked if there is “anything you want to do with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid?” 

“We can start with what I just described,” Brown said.

What Brown had just described was cutting federal funding by eliminating entire federal departments, and leaving states to fill the void. Nevadans may want to know how he thinks that approach would apply to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How would that work?

Brown’s answer: Pay no attention to that 2022 version of Sam Brown.

“I will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid,” Brown said Thursday in a statement provided by his campaign.

The statement did not address the question sent to him – what he meant when, in that 2022 debate, he responded to a question about the fate of those programs by referencing his “just described” yearning to take a meat cleaver to the federal government,

Brown’s statement Thursday also failed to even acknowledge a question asking whether Brown still wants to eliminate several entire federal departments and agencies, as he indicated in his 2022 remarks. Brown instead resorted to boilerplate Republican grumbling about “exorbitant spending” and “bloated bureaucracy.”

And scurrying back from boldly naming federal departments “we don’t need,” Brown Thursday merely called for “trimming the excessive waste within federal departments.”

The charitable view is that when Brown was musing about axing federal government departments and suggesting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be addressed in some similar if vaguely articulated manner, he was just riffing – idly filling the air with words during a campaign he had entered perhaps not to win, but to burnish his brand for future political opportunities (like his candidacy for another U.S. Senate seat this year). 

Now Brown, confronted with his own words, is pretending he never said them.

That’s an established pattern with Brown this campaign season, as illustrated when he recently refused to confirm or refute his declaration in 2022 that dumping tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste in Nevada would be a “great source of revenue” for the state.

In a similar example of evasion early this month, Brown did not answer questions posed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal about whether he believed the 2020 election won by Joe Biden was stolen.

Given Brown’s phobia of clarity, the most concrete statement there is regarding his position on eliminating federal departments remains his 2022 declaration that “we don’t need” the U.S. departments of Energy, Education, Transportation, and federal “environmental departments and agencies.” 

He’ll have one job

Brown’s call for gutting “duplication” federal departments or agencies if Nevada has one with the same name is likely a bit alarming to Nevadans who may have noticed over the years that adequately funding public programs, functions, and services has never been Nevada’s forte.

In his defense, Brown may not be one of those Nevadans. 

He has only been in the state since 2018, and spent almost all of that time laser-focused on launching a career in the U.S. Senate. It would be understandable if the barriers and hardships posed to Nevadans by threadbare public services and programs have escaped his attention.

Then again, perhaps Brown just doesn’t care.

In a radio interview in 2022, Brown acknowledged his vision vision of federal spending cuts will “take money out of programs that people like,” and promised it would “be painful.”

Let’s assume – only for the sake of discussion, hopefully – that Brown’s Washington dreams come true, and not only is he elected to the Senate, but Trump is returned to the White House. In that carnival of the macabre, individual initiatives and proposals and ideas put forth by Brown will be irrelevant. 

Brown will be just another interchangeable Republican cog in the Trump machine, his one job being to do whatever Trump says. 

The real risk Brown poses if elected to the Senate isn’t in the form of his juvenile calls for eliminating federal departments or any other fly-by-night ideas or positions that might flutter through his noggin and manifest as spoken word, only for him to later act like he never said it.

The real risk posed by Brown in the Senate is that he will be a rock solid lock to go along with whatever Trump decides he wants to do on any given day, from eliminating abortion rights nationally, to dumping nuclear waste in Nevada, to the binders full of authoritarian and unconstitutional measures and actions Trump and his minions are threatening to use to attack people who have displeased him and everyone his adoring fans love to hate.

Brown ran for a U.S. House seat in Texas and lost in the primary. Then he moved to Nevada and ran for a U.S. Senate seat and lost in the primary. Now he’s running for another Senate seat, and this time is expected to finally win a primary.

It’s obvious he hasn’t seriously thought through the ramifications of his facile talk-radio-ready pronouncements.

He does however seem laser-focused on how to become a career politician, even if the prerequisite is condoning Trump’s lawlessness and venality, and doing whatever Trump says. 

Meanwhile, there already exists a sprawling Trump administration-in-waiting plotting to concentrate power in an authoritarian White House, defund federal agencies, and brush aside the roles bestowed on those agencies by Congress and the courts.

As a U.S. senator, Brown’s role in that endeavor would be confined to cheering it on, something he sounds ready and willing to do.

The post Brown said he wants to ax multiple federal departments, promised spending cuts will ‘be painful’ appeared first on Nevada Current.

(Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Listening recently to a local political candidate denigrate public education in Nevada was very disheartening. Not because of character flaws or perceived inability of the candidate. He, like most voters, believes that national and state school rankings based on standardized test scores accurately measure school quality and effectiveness.

Improving public education seems to be on the agenda of each local, state and national political candidate; even though they are powerless to do so. Their prescribed remedies for curing the ills of public schools are more harmful than helpful.

Those disaffected with public schools are misled by the illusion that individual differences in academic ability are due to school quality. There is no valid evidence that school environments or instructional practices are responsible for gaps in reading ability or standardized test scores.

Simply put, schools and districts with higher standardized test score averages have students that have higher test scores. The primary difference remains the composition of the student body. Since their inception, standardized test results have always favored wealth over poverty when comparing different populations of test-takers.

There is nothing more fallacious than national rankings from media sources such as U.S. News and World Report. U.S. News proudly proclaims, “Since 1983 they have provided education rankings and helped parents and students find the perfect school.”

This should be interpreted as: Buy a home in an upper-middle class or wealthy neighborhood and surround your children with high achieving students or send them to more selective private or charter schools that are more adept at excluding low achieving students, and your children will be in schools with higher test scores.

School ranks remain largely unchanged over the past four decades and consistently reflect the socio-economic demographics of student populations. Suburban schools outperform inner-city schools in every metropolitan area. Some regular public schools have been supplanted by magnet and theme schools that have siphoned-off higher achievers within their districts.

Common levels of performance are not attainable in any field. Statements whining about low proficiency rates in particular schools or districts demonstrate the desire to dismantle public education. Parents and many educators have been hoodwinked into accepting standardized test scores as effective measures of learning and academic success.

Editorial and opinion pieces stating that Henderson or Summerlin schools “outperform” Las Vegas or North Las Vegas schools are made based on state test score averages. Instructional differences between schools have little or no impact on test score averages. Demographics determine averages.

There are no proven instructional methods or academic interventions that overcome disparate academic outcomes when comparing student populations. Schools across the valley mirror the situation in other metropolitan communities.

Poverty has a major influence on test score averages. Other socio-cultural and non-educational factors, such as the number of English learners and special education students, and parent education levels influence test score averages.

About 70% of Nevada students reside in Clark County, so CCSD largely determines test score averages for the state. Because of disproportionality of the previous factors, Nevada will always be near the bottom when compared to other states.

Using the nationwide teacher shortage as an excuse for poor academic performance of schools with large numbers of students in poverty is misleading. Universal instructional methods would be in place if common outcomes were possible.

Teachers with reasonably sized classrooms can have a profoundly positive effect across many measures in education, but little impact on individual standardized test scores. Low test scores are not a valid reason to question the funding of public schools. About 80% of a public school budget is the cost of personnel.

Competitive salaries are a good first step in attracting and retaining quality personnel, but more aggressive and creative solutions are needed. Suggestion: Create a local pipeline of educators for CCSD by expanding partnerships with institutions of higher education across the valley to effectively and cooperatively train PreK – 12 teachers and other educational personnel.

It is important to stress the importance of funding preschool programs. Preschool education may be our last best hope to improve all academic outcomes, including test scores. Academic success for individual students is largely determined prior to entering kindergarten.

The issue is not just the misperception that standardized test scores are an accurate measure of school quality. Educators also need to stop pretending that they largely influence individual test scores. The public needs to stop pretending that the only policies that might improve academic performance are educational ones.  

The post Standardized testing is a flawed yardstick for assessing educational success appeared first on Nevada Current.

A child care center opened in Connecticut during World War II in 1942 for thirty children of mothers engaged in the war industry. It was one of hundreds of "war nurseries" across the U.S., but federal funding for the child care centers ended when the war did in 1945. (Photo by Gordon Parks, US Office of War Information, June 1943. Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA/OWI Collection)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

In most American families led by couples, both parents are in the workforce. Almost three-quarters of American mothers with children under 18 work. At the same time, nearly 1 in 4 U.S. children are being raised by single moms.

Yet child care is generally unaffordable, and paid leave is not available to most U.S. parents.

Around the world, however, most employed women automatically get paid maternity leave. And in most wealthy countries, they also have access to affordable child care.

These holes in the U.S. safety net are a problem for many reasons, including one I’ve been researching with my colleagues for years: Paid parental leave and child care help women stay in the workforce and earn higher wages over time. This lack of parental leave and child care may explain why the U.S. is no longer a leader in women’s workforce participation.

Maternity leave

The U.S. is one of a handful of countries worldwide that doesn’t mandate paid maternity leave. The others are Papua New Guinea and some small Pacific island nations.

Paid maternity leave, which typically lasts at least three months, needs to be designed thoughtfully. When women can and do take 15 months or more off after having a baby, as they may in a few countries, long leaves can limit mothers’ work experience and lead to discrimination.

The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act did mandate 12 weeks of unpaid leave with the ability to return to their job afterward for some American workers. Yet most families can’t forgo the income that moms bring home.

Denmark offers what I think is a strong example of a national policy.

There, moms get almost 22 weeks of paid maternity leave and dads get two weeks of paid paternity leave. On top of that, mothers can take another 19 weeks and fathers can take another 11 weeks of paid parental leave. This policy, which includes additional flexibility, grants parents both the time and resources necessary to care for children, without “mommy tracking” mothers.

Child care

In many wealthy countries, child care and preschool are considered a mainstay of the educational system. But in the U.S., only about two-thirds of all children between the ages of 3 and 6 are getting publicly supported child care of any kind, including kindergarten, versus nearly all of the kids that age in France.

High-quality early childhood education programs are associated with many excellent outcomes for children from lower-income families, including higher rates of educational attainment, employment and wages.

In other words, when governments invest in child care and maternity leave, it fosters a more productive, healthy and creative workforce.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post U.S. is way stingier with maternity leave and child care than the rest of the world appeared first on Nevada Current.

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Dear President Biden, I am publicly writing to ask you to take executive action to protect American families, like mine, in danger of losing a loved one to deportation. Undocumented spouses and immediate family of U.S. citizens need your help now. 

We all get married for the same reasons: love and commitment. My wife Daisy and I got married in Las Vegas after moving here from California for a more affordable life. Daisy and I had talked about getting married for years but couldn’t afford a ceremony. On our wedding day in a Las Vegas chapel in 2019, I committed my life to Daisy in the eyes of God. It was a short, small ceremony but that was all we needed. Daisy wore a pretty little dress. It was a beautiful, pivotal moment for us.

I would have never imagined this special moment when I left the chaos and insecurity of Honduras many years before. I traveled 17 days to the US/Mexico border and then walked through the desert. I made this dangerous trip in search of a better life, that American success I had always heard about. And then, while I was packing gladiolas in a California greenhouse, I met a coworker who became the love of my life: Daisy. She is a beautiful, sweet person with a big and noble heart. Daisy shared my dream of creating a stable and loving home with children. I thought she was Mexican, but she told me she was born in the U.S. It surprised me because this could possibly open a new opportunity for me to see my parents back at home, who are getting old and frail and are constantly on my mind. We moved to Las Vegas together because she got offered a horticultural job growing tomatoes, chiles, and cucumbers, and life is more affordable here. 

From what I have heard and seen in the United States, it is a country where I can find safety and security. It’s said that in America, where you start out in life should not determine where you end up. Unlike my home country, Honduras, it seems like everyone who works hard in America can advance and participate fully in life here. But that has not been my experience so far. Even though my wife Daisy is a U.S. citizen, I am barred from changing my immigration status because of how I came here. I pay taxes but can’t get a Social Security number which makes it hard to find good stable work. I’ve done a little bit of everything: working in casino housekeeping, construction projects building up Las Vegas, and now landscaping and gardening. The pay is better for working outside but in the Nevada desert can be very difficult because of the extreme heat. 

Regardless of my hard work and the life we’re building together, I’m afraid of being separated from Daisy every day because I could easily be deported and prevented from returning. Any interaction with the police could mean an end to the life I’ve built here. But my situation is just one of an estimated one million undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens who face barriers in the current immigration system. 

This is why I’m asking you, President Biden, to take action. I understand that according to the law, you have the authority to expand eligibility for “parole in place” to include long-term undocumented spouses and immediate family of U.S. citizens. This would help me, and the immediate family (spouses, parents, children and siblings) of thousands of U.S. citizens, get work permits and have better opportunities and strengthen the economy. It would keep families like mine together. We came to this country to build a better life. No matter what, we will fight for our goals: to live in peace, free from danger, with the people we love. Help me, Mr. President, keep the vows I made in that Las Vegas chapel: to love and to cherish Daisy, till death do us part.

The post Married in Vegas, hoping and working for the best appeared first on Nevada Current.