Federally Employed Women (FEW) is pleased to announce the 50th National Training program (NTP) to be held at the lovely downtown Philadelphia Marriott, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from July 22-26, 2019. The theme is “Commemorating Fifty years of Training: Encourage, Empower and Elevate."
Now more than ever FEW is dedicated to providing value added training to better serve Federal employees. For 50 years, FEW has been at the forefront of preparing individuals for successful leadership and career advancement in the Federal government. In addition to a variety of training workshops, we are offering a 40-hour Special Emphasis Program Managers training in support of the Federal Women’s Program.
Ms. Karen M. Rainey, FEW National President, will be the General Speaker for the Opening Session on Monday, July 22, 2019. Ms. Rainey is the 24th National President of FEW, and is a member of the Board of Directors for the National Coalitions of Equity in Public Service (NCEPS) and the Federal Employee Education and Assistant Fund (FEEA). She currently works as an Information Technology Specialist Lead with the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Ms. Rainey’s passion is working with non-profit organizations in order to assist those who seek a fair and equitable chance to help themselves. Ms. Rainey’s vision for FEW’s membership is “Soaring to New Heights” and utilizes her talents as an advocate for women and the inclusion of a broader diverse talent pool to achieve greater opportunities at all levels of Government.
Ms. Barbara M. Littles will be the Opening Session Keynote speaker. Ms. Littles is an author, motivational speaker and trainer in leadership, business and spirituality. Ms. Littles has been praised by her clients as the“Strategic Negotiator”, as she masterfully coaches and mentors her clients to new levels of success in their careers.
On July 25, 2019, Mr. J. Bruce Stewart will be our Keynote Diversity Luncheon Speaker. Mr. Stewart, is the CEO of Small World Solutions, a management consulting firm specializing in inclusive diversity Mr. Stewart was formerly the Deputy Director of Training, Compliance, and Strategic Initiatives in the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and was responsible for the implementation of President Obama’s Executive Order on Diversity and Inclusion. He also co-chaired the White House Committee on Increasing Diversity in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce by reducing the impact of bias.
Mr. Stewart has completed a book on diversity leadership titled, “Cultural Leadership: The New Chemistry of Leading Differently.” and he has a second book scheduled to be published this fall titled, “Plus: How Good Teams Become Great”.
FEW’s National Program (NTP) Chair Naomi Bell added, “I’m excited to Chair FEW’s 2019 National Training! FEW continue to provide premier training, engaging speakers, informative workshops and invaluable networking for women employed by the federal government and retirees.”
About FEW: Federally Employed Women is a private, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1968 after Executive Order 11375 was issued that added sex to the forms of prohibited discrimination in the federal government. FEW has grown into a national organization serving over one million federally employed women both in the military and civilian workforce. FEW’s many accomplishments and activities have impacted the federal workforce and contributed to the improved working conditions for all. For more information about FEW and the NTP, visit www.few.org.
Infrastructure in the U.S. has become an issue that has not gotten the attention it should be getting, and as a result some infrastructure in the U.S. is becoming ineffective. The Highway Trust Fund is in danger of running out of money, as there is major concern about the gap between revenue and spending. Some major issues ineffective infrastructure pose include failure of levees, which becomes an issue of public safety, as well as increased congestion causing traffic delays, which in turn affects the economy.
The Federal Motor Fuels Tax, the source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, has not been increased since 1993. Issues in infrastructure are likely to be prevalent when the U.S. government is using 1993 dollars to solve modern day problems. The average family already pays an extra 9 dollars a day because of ineffective infrastructure issues. This includes things like car repairs, congestion, and the extra cost for the movement of goods as a result of things costing more to be shipped. Given the fact Americans already are paying for the tax, it would make sense to pay a little more so they can actually get something out of it, and avoid the unnecessary money they are spending because of ineffective infrastructure. There also should not be the concern that the tax money will be misappropriated because the money goes straight into the trust, and is only used to address infrastructure issues. In addition, some commerce associations including trucking associations say they would not mind paying more in motor fuels tax to address the issues.
However, one of the issues of the gas tax is that there are many motorists with hybrids and electric vehicles that do not go to the pump. As a result, Congress is looking at some pilot programs that have been used in states, to assess new kinds of taxes that would be fair to those that drive different kinds of vehicles. One proposal includes assessing a yearly fee to electric vehicle owners so they also have to pay a tax even though they do not go to the pump.
Advocacy groups have used several strategies to try and raise attention to the issues. They have been doing things like organizing local town halls and seeing what the local people want, using media to raise awareness, and talking directly with lawmakers. Advocacy groups want people to speak with their members of Congress about what good some of the infrastructure projects are doing, as well as talking about the needs, and how ineffective infrastructure affects their lives. The Dominos Pizza pothole campaign is a great example of how media is talking about infrastructure issues, and showing that these issues are a reality.
It is important to look at other nations in what they are doing, and how much they are spending on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP. The U.S. is behind many countries in terms of spending as a percentage of GDP. And generally speaking a dollar spent on infrastructure multiplies in its affect on the economy, so there are several benefits for a country when spending money on infrastructure.
The major roadblock for infrastructure improvements right now is the divide in Congress, and the major gridlock it is causing. Lawmakers constantly worry about the next election and many believe that the possibility of raising a tax will upset voters and hurt their chances at re-election. However, lawmakers get voted in to do something, and bring change and improvements when they are needed. So it is not necessarily the case that increasing a tax will upset taxpayers, and if enough members of Congress see this, infrastructure improvements could happen.
31 states have already raised their motor fuels tax, and it is possible that states are doing this to show that it is time the federal government steps in and partners with state governments to raise the federal tax. $20 billion a year for infrastructure is not a big ask, given the issues and needs for improvements. Next year the current surface transportation bill will expire, and that would result in a massive shortfall in funding. It is probably in lawmakers’ best interest to avoid nothing getting funded, resulting in thousands of people losing their jobs, right before an election. This means there is a good chance some type of bill will get passed, the question is how large in scope will it be. Regardless of how things play out, the infrastructure issue should be something that is a focal point of debate during the upcoming 2020 campaign season.
By: John Guzman
Article by Elaine Kamarck courtesy of The Brookings Institute
In the space of less than a decade, the world of social media has gone from being an enabler of to a threat to democracy. While the internet can still mobilize large numbers of people to political action, it can also spew false information about candidates, suppress the vote, and affect the voter rolls and the election machinery of the state. By 2016, social media had become a weapon against democracy as opposed to a tool for democracy. Unless we are vigilant, the new world of artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to be an even more dangerous weapon in the years ahead. This paper will look at Russian interference in the 2016 election with an emphasis on intra-party disruption and then it will look at the ways in which AI can further disrupt democracy if we are not prepared.
The new technologies of the information age were heralded as invaluable instruments of democratic action because, in authoritarian countries, the regular media is under the control of the state, making the dissemination of negative information about the state and the publication of dissenting opinions all but impossible. When the “Arab Spring” began in Tunisia, it began with a group called Takriz that used new information technology to organize and eventually topple the country’s long-time president.
But in the space of a few short years, the technologies that once promised a way to break the tyranny of state-sponsored media and circumvent bans on political protests became the tools of those who would seek to undo democracy in America and throughout the Western world. The Russian assault on the 2016 American presidential election and on democracy was enormous and unprecedented—and it continues in 2018. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the nation in July that “The warning lights are blinking red again,” a reference to the description of the intelligence climate prior to 9/11.
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
The fact of Russian interference in the 2016 election is now well known in the United States. What is less well known is that the Russians have been at this in other countries; from elections in the Ukraine, to the Brexit vote in Great Britain, to Scotland, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway and Spain.
The purpose of Russian interference is deeper than simply attempting to move an election in a policy direction that would be preferable to Russia. After nearly two years of investigation we know that Russia’s goals are to destroy faith in democracy itself. They want to make citizens in democratic countries doubt the electoral system and they intervene in order to exacerbate a society’s differences by spreading malicious content. For instance, the assault on American democracy included not simply an assault on Hillary Clinton, the presidential candidate who, as a former Secretary of State had taken a tough stand toward Putin’s Russia, but it also included efforts to exacerbate the fault lines in American politics— especially race. Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) had it exactly right when he said at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, “Russia does not have loyalty to a political party in the United States. Their goal is to divide us and discredit our democracy.”
In thinking about this threat, it is important to differentiate what is going on now from what has happened in the past. For instance, there is nothing new about election chicanery. The presidential election of 1800, a tough battle between President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson (they didn’t run on a ticket in those days) set the standard for decency pretty low. Adams’ campaign warned that if Jefferson was elected, “our wives and daughters would be the victims of legal prostitution,” and Jefferson’s campaign accused Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character.”
Nor is there anything new about foreign intervention in American political campaigns. In fact, the Founding Fathers were obsessed with the topic, which led to the inclusion of the emoluments clause in the Constitution. The world’s two superpowers at the time had definite preferences between the candidates. France preferred Jefferson’s party; England preferred Adams’ party.
In light of this well-documented history, Russian interference is not that unusual. Russia has had a distinct set of policy preferences centered on the lifting of sanctions imposed on them by the U.S. government after their takeover of Crimea. They have also had a long-time interest in weakening the NATO alliance and, through it, America’s role in the world. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was one of the more hawkish members of the Obama Administration when it came to the “Russian reset.” Putin is known to hate her for her criticisms of the 2011 Russian elections and to blame her for instigating the demonstrations that followed them. Throw into the mix a heavy dose of misogyny on the part of Putin and his regime, and it is easy to understand why Putin did not want Hillary Clinton to become president.
Russian attitudes toward Trump are also understandable. As far back as 1987, Trump took out full-page ads in three national newspapers, in which he argued for what would become the root of his “America First” foreign policy. The foreign policy pronouncements of a real estate developer would probably not normally draw the attention of a foreign government, but by 2015, Trump’s long shot candidacy had become far more realistic. As a candidate, Trump was as pleasing to the Russians as Hillary was disagreeable. On issue after issue, Trump diverged from long-standing American foreign policy consensus on issues that Russia cared about. While Trump had very little interest in the Republican Party platform being written in the summer of 2016, the one place his campaign intervened was to water down support for U.S. assistance to the Ukraine.
It is one thing for a foreign power to want the outcome of an election to coincide with their policy preferences. It is another thing for a foreign power to try to undermine, sow distrust, and create confusion with regard to the very foundations of a nation. The 2016 election ushered in a new era in election meddling—an era dedicated not just to helping elect one party or the other, but an era dedicated to disrupting democracy itself.
Most attention has been paid to Russian efforts to help Donald Trump and the Republican Party. But there is another story that is just as, if not more disturbing: The fact that Russians also intervened in 2016 to suppress the vote amongst African-Americans and to alienate Bernie Sanders’ voters from Hillary Clinton.
VOTER SUPPRESSION AS THE MALEVOLENT USE OF SOFT POWER
In 2004, my colleague at Harvard and former dean, Joe Nye, wrote a famous book called “Soft Power.” So-called hard power is the power we are all familiar with—the epitome of which is military power. The United States has been the undisputed master of military power in the world for some decades now. But there are real limits to the use of hard power. Thus, as Nye defined it, there is another side of power—soft power, which is “getting others to want the outcomes that you want.” Soft power, according to Nye, “co-opts people rather than coerces them.” What the Russians accomplished in the 2016 presidential election was the malevolent use of soft power.
The right to vote, taken for granted by so many Americans, is, for African-Americans the result of a long and bloody struggle. They have been beaten and lynched for trying to vote. They have been subjected to a variety of impediments from poll taxes to literacy tests. In spite of passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, in spite of the civil rights movement and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, African-Americans still face challenges in exercising their right to vote. Some states have cut back on early voting, others have required a government-issued ID to vote. Still others have disenfranchised citizens for felony convictions. All of these restrictions hit the African-American population disproportionately.
In modern America, old-fashioned racism combines with partisan interests. Beginning with the Great Depression and accelerating into the civil rights movement, African-American voters moved out of the party of Lincoln and became the most loyal voting block in the Democratic Party. In each of the five presidential elections in the 21st century, African-Americans have given an average of 90 percent of their vote to the Democratic candidate for president—a pattern repeated in many other elections in the United States.
Slavery, of course, has been called America’s original sin. And the Russians have been exploiting it as far back as the Cold War. “Covert influence campaigns don’t create divisions on the ground, they amplify divisions on the ground,” according to Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA. Which is exactly what the Russians have done with regards to race relations in the United States for many years. In 2016, they used new technologies to suppress the African-American vote. While there are undoubtedly many contributing factors in addition to Russian interference, 2016 did see a significant decline in the black vote as the chart below, derived from Pew Research, indicates.
Reported voter turnout rate in the 2016 election
Source: Pew Research, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, November 2016 and earlier years.
When we break turnout down by state, an even more interesting picture emerges. Black turnout decreased the most in two of the three states Hillary Clinton was supposed to win but lost by narrow margins: Michigan, where the drop-off in black turnout was a whopping 12.4 percent, and Wisconsin, where the drop-off was 12.3 percent. The other close state was Pennsylvania, where the drop-off was 2.1 percent. In Michigan and Wisconsin, the simple difference between the vote share won by Barack Obama in 2012 and the share won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 tells a dramatic story. The following table shows the raw votes for Clinton and Trump by state, the margin of victory that Trump won by, and the difference between Barack Obama’s vote in 2012 and Hillary Clinton’s vote in 2016 in key counties.