Friday News Roundup — July 12th, 2019
Non-Delegated Future; Diplomatic Downfall; Democratic Primary; Russian Sub Incident; Blunders in Bahrain; Soccer's Pay for Play; Plus News You May Have Missed
Happy Friday from Washington. This week, patriotism, fireworks, and B-2 stealth bombers were all in the air as the United States celebrated its 243rd birthday and a victory in the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup. The President’s hour-long speech on the Fourth of July reminded us that we owe our freedom to Revolutionary War troops’ ability to take over the airports.
As we move into the languid heat of summer in D.C., the eyes of the international community will be on Iran’s nuclear enrichment levels, which have now exceeded those established in an international accord in 2015. The United States is looking to increase sanctions in response, but many are worried that continued Iranian actions will further escalate a crisis that is already running too hot.
This week, Dan discusses the future rule of Congress under an emerging doctrine of conservative jurisprudence; Michael defends the words of the British ambassador; Chris updates us on the state of the Democratic Primary; Joshua covers a scary crisis on a Russian nuclear submarine. One of our interns, Carlota, dives into the continuing challenges of productive discussions between Israel and Palestine and the failure of the Bahrain Summit. Madison, another intern, looks at the nuances in the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team’s fight for equal pay. Lastly, we will highlight some news you might have missed this week.
Make Congress Great Again?
Dan Mahaffee
Over at The Atlantic, John Yoo and James Phillips delved further into the Supreme Court ruling on the census citizenship question to analyze how the Justices’ thinking is changing regarding the administrative state. Their piece breaks down the jurisprudential arguments in greater detail, but, sum up, the decision regarding the Commerce Department’s interpretation of census policies sets the stage for a sea change in how far government agencies can set policy without an act of Congress that explicitly authorizes their action or judicial oversight.
In breaking down the conservative versus progressive visions for the role of the administrative state and the separation of powers, Yoo and Phillips lay out the differences:
For conservatives committed to the original understanding of the Constitution, such broad transfers of legislative authority violate the separation of powers. The Framers granted executive power solely to the president, legislative power solely to Congress, and judicial power solely to the courts, rather than allowing their combined exercise, as in parliamentary systems…But beginning with Woodrow Wilson, progressive thinkers viewed the separation of powers as obsolete and ineffective for a modern industrial society. They urged instead that Congress delegate its powers to expert agencies, which could issue regulations without having to survive both houses of Congress and the president. The agencies would become perpetual-motion machines of progressive lawmaking…It is the agencies, not Congress, that issue the real federal laws that most Americans encounter every day.
In reading Department of Commerce v. New York, Yoo and Phillips see a growing foundation for the five conservative-leaning justices to reshape the deference that the courts have long given to how agencies interpret their legislative mandate to create the various Federal rules that cover wide swaths of the American life and economy from food inspections to environmental standards to securities regulations. The consequence of this reshaping, as Yoo and Phillips point out, is that the Supreme Court may soon reduce the power of Federal agencies to craft these regulations, and, therefore, Congress and the courts will soon have a greater responsibility to write and to review, respectively, the various details of the government regulation.
In many of these roundups’ bits and bytes, we have covered issues related to separation of powers, and decried how Congress has often been a willing participant as it has handed its prerogatives over to the Executive Branch. As befits our collective backgrounds, you could be fair in accusing us of having a national security and foreign policy bias, as we have largely focused on issues related to war powers and foreign relations. In considering the premise raised by Yoo and Phillips, we must now pay attention to how Congress has let its abilities related to the domestic regulatory environment atrophy. Just as on the foreign stage, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have tended to view executive authority through the lens of which party controls the White House, rather than the preservation of their Congressional powers.
If a Supreme Court-mandated reshaping of the regulatory process looms on the horizon, it will fundamentally change the relationship between modern Americans and their government. Power will shift from bureaucrats and agency staff to directly elected representatives. The question that remains is whether those representatives are well equipped to take on this challenge. Such a shift would lay bare many of the shortcomings we already see.
First, as Yoo and Phillips also point out, Congress would have to “staff up.” It would be necessary to regain a lot of the expertise that has been lost. In 1995, as part of his pledge to shrink government, then Speaker Newt Gingrich shuttered the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment — thus doing away with the body responsible for providing Congress with much of its technical research related to science and technology. At the same time, the budget for staffing Congressional Committees and Members’ Offices have remained largely stagnant, even as Washington, DC, has climbed the ranks of pricey cities in which to live and work. Watch Mark Zuckerberg and other tech titans testify before baffled Members of Congress, and it becomes clear that Congress’s technical acumen is dangerously lagging — and cutting-edge issues such as AI policies, data privacy, and technology regulation could increasingly fall on Congress’s shoulders.
Furthermore, raising the salaries of Members of Congress must also be considered, if we are to want the best and brightest to enter public service, rather than those who can take a pay cut compared to what they would earn for their talents and labor in the private sector. That however, remains highly contentious in today’s populist political environment. Members of Congress, “newly re-tasked” to turn their attention to the scope of Federal regulation would also have to change how they prioritize their time. With the regulatory docket transferred from the Executive back to the Legislature, can Members of Congress still spend 30 hours a week fundraising for re-election? Can they continue their Tuesday-to-Thursday work week so that they’re back in the district for the town halls, ribbon cuttings, and Peoria Potato Paloozas that require their presence?
Beyond the institutional, there are the broader ramifications. In a country that now politicizes everything from soccer to sneakers to siding, the most arcane federal rule could be hotly debated during election season. Conservatives would have to balance deregulatory zeal with the public desire for environmental protections, safe products, and fair markets. Blaming a nebulous “Federal bureaucracy” — or even a “deep state” — would no longer be an outlet. At the same time, progressives would have to balance their regulatory goals with the responsibility they bear for the regulatory burden. One might hope that such a shift would force compromise — pared back, simplified, yet effective regulations that could allow conservatives and progressives to both claim victory.
“Making Congress great again” might just mean making it do its job.
British Ambassador Resigns for Doing His Job
Michael Stecher
The Washington diplomatic cocktail party is a particular art form; senior officials, lawmakers, journalists, local grandees and foreign diplomats gather, consume hors d’oeuvres and gin and tonics and chat about the issues of the day. Good diplomats take careful note of who says what and report back to their capitals with the straight dope in a form of memo called a “cable,” a term dating to a time when these reports were issued over encoded telegraph instead of encrypted emails as they now are.
This week, the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, landed in hot water and then resigned when some of these national leadership-level correspondences ended up in the pages of the Mail on Sunday. Sir Kim got the axe for doing exactly what he was meant to do in precisely the form he was supposed to do it — an expressly English form of bureaucratic tragedy — but the Darroch Affair also demonstrates how jaded we in the beltway bubble have become and the way that Brexit continues to poison British politics.
Sir Kim’s assessments of the goings on in DC feel familiar to us because we are living in them every day, but they were not meant for an audience of Washingtonians. Her Majesty’s Government appointed an ambassador to serve in Washington precisely because that person could find out whether reports about discord within the administration were inventions of the media and if there was some master plan animating the discordant and contradictory policy moves. Sir Kim’s assessment: reports of “vicious infighting and chaos” are “mostly true.” Sir Kim also provided Prime Minister Theresa May with some helpful tips to optimize her relationshipwith the president.
Among the pieces of advice that any foreign leader would want to know were that the U.K. government should leverage connections with people who could influence the president in the cabinet, the White House staff, and outside friends and advisors, and that President Trump relies heavily on one-on-one telephone conversations, and Ms. May would be well served to make herself one of the people that he calls.
The Darroch Affair feels discordant to outside observers because people who say that President Trump “radiat[es] insecurity,” “will never look competent,” and responds best to “simple” arguments tend to be White House officials who speak on background to the Washington Post or laundered through the pages of a Bob Woodward book. I cannot stress this enough: ten months ago, a “senior official in the Trump administration” anonymously wrote an op-ed in the Times in which he or she acknowledged that the president acts “in a manner detrimental to the health of our republic” and is “amoral,” and we still do not know who this person is but also do not talk about it any more!
The United States has a slightly different process for selecting ambassadors than most of our fellow democracies and major powers. Often our presidents appoint friends, campaign supporters, and party stalwarts to posts that are considered desirable, particularly in Europe, while most other countries appoint seasoned civil servants to these critical posts. Without the tact that a career diplomat develops over their long service, these ambassadors can sometimes say the sorts of things that Sir Kim would never put in a cable out loud, as when the U.S. ambassador to the European Union called the European Commission “out of touch with reality,” the U.S ambassador to the UK said of Ms. May that “the UK is in need of leadership,” or the U.S. ambassador to Germany said that he wanted to “empower” conservatives who would challenge the leading politicians in Europe.
In none of these cases — nor when former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul earned the ire of the Russian government for meeting with members of the opposition — did the United States seriously contemplate replacing an ambassador for ruffling the feathers of the host government. Ambassadors are the representatives of their governments; it is helpful if they have good relations with leaders in the host nation, but it is not for the host nation to decide who represents other countries in their capitals. Former French Ambassador to the U.S. Gérard Araud and anonymously sourced currently serving ambassadors in Washington make this point very clearly: they consider it their job to give unfiltered advice to their home governments and it would be a dereliction to sugar coat their analysis out of fear that they might be disclosed.
The jury is still out as to whom to blame for the leak of these classified cables. Some commenters have asked cui bono and suggested that the Russians stand to benefit most from a deterioration of the U.S.-UK Special Relationship. Most observers, however, have looked to references in the original Daily Mail article and the publicly pro-Brexit persona of the journalist who broke the story as a sign that the leak represents a new front in the war being waged within the UK government over Brexit. This is not the first major leak of heavily classified information coming out of internal ruptures over Brexit; Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson resigned in May over accusations that he had played a part in leaking internal debates from the UK National Security Council.
Many members of the pro-Brexit wing of the Conservative Party believe that the career civil servants they oversee have bought in too deeply to the idea of a UK harmonized with the European Union. Echoing (specious) complaints about the “deep state” in the U.S. civil service, an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal suggests that British government employees have been “willing to subvert the popular will by stealthy leaks and scare tactics” over Brexit. If this line of reasoning is correct and some Brexiteer took out an internal rival who was seen as being a supporter of remaining in the European Union, this will have been a pyrrhic victory. If Ms. May or her likely successor, Boris Johnson, respond to this by appointing a new ambassador who is more to President Trump’s tastes, they will have established that, in order to declare the UK’s independence from the dictates of faceless committees in Brussels, they are willing to kowtow to a public temper tantrum in Washington.
24 Shades of Blue: The Democratic Primary Part III
Chris Condon
After the first Democratic Primary debates last month, every pundit in America felt the need to immediately put in their two cents. “Beto’s Spanish pandering was pathetic” and “Kamala is the new frontrunner! Don’t question it!” were repeated over and over on every blog in America over the course of a few weeks. Now that things have quieted down a bit, I would like to examine the race so far in our third installment of the informal CSPC Democratic Primary analysis. The contest has been shaped by the first debate, so I will take this opportunity to survey the field before the second debates later this month. Keep in mind that it is still very early in the process, so all of these developments should be taken with a grain of salt.
The above chart might look familiar, because I have used it in the past two iterations of this analysis to make sense of the historically large Democratic primary field. Since there is much about the chart that remains the same, I will not discuss these similarities. Rather, I will focus on what has changed since our last discussion: which candidates have risen, fallen, or dropped out entirely. There are two changes that are generally more notable than the others: first, the fall from grace of Beto O’Rourke, once heralded as the young, charismatic up-and-comer of the Democratic Party. While in the last installment of our primary analysis I discussed the rise of Pete Buttigieg to O’Rourke’s level, it has now been accompanied by an equal and opposite fall in O’Rourke’s numbers. Most ascribe this both to O’Rourke’s lackluster debate performance (with unsolicited Spanish) and his lack of media coverage compared to Buttigieg. Both candidates are young, white males who are vaguely moderate, so it is unclear whether Beto will be able to reclaim this lane from Mayor Pete in the coming months.
The second change affects two candidates. After their performances in the first set of debates, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have been rewarded with profound increases in their poll numbers. They have separated themselves from the middle of the pack very effectively, and have approached the frontrunners quickly. In some polls, they have both surpassed Sanders and are only separated from Biden by single digits. On average, Bernie still maintains a small lead over both, but it may only be a matter of time before his voters find the progressive credentials of the other candidates sufficient to abandon him. Their paths to this position were not identical; Elizabeth Warren distinguished herself in the “undercard” debate, taking on mostly second-tier candidates to reinforce her image as a knowledgeable and competent operator.
Kamala Harris faced a different challenge. Taking on both Bernie and Biden in the second night’s debate, she unexpectedly went on the warpath against the former vice president creating what many have called the defining moment of the debate. Framing Biden as an out-of-touch relic of a racist past, she took a sizeable chunk out of his polling numbers and established herself as a sharp, prosecutorial challenger. While this image may entice Democratic voters whose chief aim is turning both barrels on President Trump next year, it may hurt her with voters that appreciate a more compromise-oriented, folksy candidate (like Biden). Harris also exhibits indecisiveness on certain issues that are traditionally important to progressive constituencies; on criminal justice, she is notoriously authoritarian, and has not been clear regarding her penchant for socialized medicine. Once voters dig deeper into Senator Harris’ record, they may not like what they see.
The rest of the mid-tier candidates struggle to distinguish themselves, among them multiple high-profile members of the Senate. Although Julián Castro saw a small bump in the polls following the first debate, the rest of the candidates in the middle of the pack have seen little or no change in their standing; if their campaigns are to continue through the fall, they must distinguish themselves in the eyes of voters and donors alike. We have also seen the entrance of two new and unexpected candidates: Joe Sestak and Tom Steyer. Sestak, a former admiral, congressman, and Senate candidate, was not mentioned at all as a potential presidential candidate. Tom Steyer was even more of a surprise; earlier this year, the billionaire explicitly ruled out a run for president, opting instead to focus on private efforts to impeach Trump. Nevertheless, he has thrown his hat into the ring.
Finally, we say goodbye to everyone’s favorite nuclear enthusiast Eric Swalwell, who exited the race following an undistinguished performance at the first debate accompanied by low poll numbers. As the summer progresses, candidates will endeavor to secure their spots in the second set of debates. For those at the top, this will provide an opportunity to secure their standing and perhaps a spot as the frontrunner. For those below, the next few months are a time to do or die, to distinguish themselves as someone who can both represent the ideals of the party and carry those ideals to the White House. Whatever happens, we will be watching the contest closely.
One Ping Only…
Joshua Huminski
On July 4th, while the United States celebrated its Independence Day, Vladimir Putin disclosed that 14 sailors had died in an accident aboard a nuclear-powered submersible. The incident, which took place in the Barents Sea, occurred when a fire erupted in the battery compartment of the submarine.
Unsurprisingly, the Russian Navy released few details on the AS-31 submersible (in other reporting referred to as the AS-12), part of the Losharik program, believed to be a series of deep-sea submersibles for sensitive or covert missions. The Russian Navy refused to release any information on the submersible calling it “absolutely classified.” Speaking at a funeral for the fallen sailors, Captain Sergei Pavlov, an aide to the commander of Russia’s navy praised the heroism of the crew saying the averted a “planetary catastrophe”, hopefully hyperbole and a reference to the nuclear reactor, more than anything else.
The Losharik is believed to operate at up to depths of 6,000 meters (20,000 feet), making it capable of accessing undersea cables and communications pipelines. Such accessibility would prove useful for intelligence collection, and certainly disruption in the event of a conflict.
This recent accident (the worst since the Kursk in 2000), lifts the veil on the silent service and the fact that submarines have not gone away, despite the lack of attention. Russian submarines fired missiles into Syria from the Mediterranean Sea and continue to operate in the North Atlantic and further afield, and at a more aggressive operational tempo.
In 2018 the United States reactivated the Navy’s 2nd Fleet to oversee the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans in response to Russian naval activity. Vice Adm. Andrew “Woody” Lewis, commander of the 2ndFleet, warned that the Russian undersea threat is real…They are very competent.” U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Andrew Lennon, NATO submarine forces commander, warned in 2017 that “Russian submarine . . . activity is higher now in the last three years than it has been since the cold war.” He added, “What we have observed over the past three years are more deployments [annually] of Russian submarines away from their local waters than we have observed in the prior decade.”
While the operational tempo of submarine activity may have dimmed after the end of the Cold War, it is in fact as high as ever, as evidenced by the senior officer comments. While it may remain behind the scenes and certainly hidden, submarine warfare is very much alive and well; the reports of its demise are very much exaggerated. Undoubtedly there is a very active game of cat and mouse, hunter and hunted, occurring under the waves that would provide Tom Clancy (or his spiritual successors) plenty of fodder for a Hunt for Red October sequel.
[Author’s note: the Hunt for Red October (book) will likely never be surpassed and remains one of the author’s favorite books of all time.
Bahrain Summit: A New Failure that Was Predictable
Carlota Cumella de Montserrat
President Trump’s “Deal of the Century” has always been an illusory solution to achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Bahrain Summit was supposed to be its grand opening. However, the meeting — which had been downgraded from summit to conference to workshop — failed to advance the ball toward its primary goal. Israel and Palestine need new ideas to break them out of their deadlock, but talking about peace without their input was not new, it is the same old story. Trying to solve their issues our way is also not new. The only way to get a different outcome is to do something different: have the parties sit down and discuss what is important to them, not to us. The conference even failed to mention the two state solution, which seems to be the only one that could actually put an end to this conflict.
One reason for the PLO’s call to boycott this meeting is their firm belief that the solution to the long lasting conflict cannot be solved by economic development alone. It can only be solved if they in fact sit and talk about what they each want. What are their real priorities is something that we have not been able to understand, which is why it is them who should decide what they are willing to give up in exchange for the coexistence of two peaceful states. Palestinians have been asking for three main concessions and none of them correspond with boosting their economy; It is not a matter of naiveness but a matter of priorities. A thriving economy might be an American priority but it is a secondary matter for Palestinians and it will continue to be as long as they still have the occupation, refugees, and a constant fight over the status of Jerusalem. They have been strangled economically before, their national movement has survived, and they are determined to do so again. It is not even a political matter anymore, it is an identity conflict. It is naive to think that identity and liberty can be bought, sold or buried under any economic terms or financial agreements. For the people of Palestine, this is about dignity and they deserve at least what was promised to them by the UN’s Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967, the Oslo Accords, and decades of American-led diplomacy.
The dim expectations for this conference could stem from the fact that it was orchestrated by the same administration that cut economic support for the Palestinian refugees, and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israeland Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, potentially opening the door to legitimizing the annexation of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank — ones deemed illegal according to international law. Whilst the United States might not have officially declared to be against Palestine’s position, it has acted as an opponent in the past years. Therefore, the PA can not trust an administration that seems to be acting against its interests and being unclear regarding where exactly it stands in this conflict. For the Palestinians, the language used by the U.S. administration is condescending and perpetuates hostility. The United States might have very good intentions in their peace project, but it has failed to give that impression to the Palestinians. White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman‘s public declarations regarding the occupation of the West Bank and the Palestinians inability to govern themselves have pushed Palestine away from accepting anything that comes from this side of the ocean.
The solution implies that Israel and Palestine talk and decide on the details of the creation of two states; that will not be possible with the United States occupying a place at their table. The failure of this conference gave definite proof that the United States can no longer be the key actor in the peace process. Trump’s insistence in aligning with the Israeli government and it’s inability to understand the Palestinian demands has achieved nothing new, other than preventing anyone else from trying to find an alternative solution. Therefore, if Trump or anyone else in the U.S. administration think they have a new idea regarding this conflict after this failed attempt, they would much better keep it to themselves.
If the conflict between Palestine and Israel has any hope of peace and stability, both of them and the international community must give up their utopian dreams, whether that be Palestinian surrender, unabridged right of return, or a single state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Restating each side’s demands as non-negotiable is the old solution and it is clear it is not working. Israelis, Palestinians, and a broad and unbiased group of mediators from the international community should sit down, openly, face to face, and negotiate the raw details of a two state solution. Both sides have the right to defend their own interests and almost the obligation of leaving the cosmetics aside and deciding where the real compromise lies. What is clear is that we have yet not been able to understand all the details of this conflict and therefore any solution that the United States proposes is going to be lacking essential parts of the issue. Palestine has little room to maneuver if it has to defend what they consider a matter of dignity, not only in front of Israel but also their American allies. So perhaps it is time they try a new way of solving this issue and actually talk to each other about what matters to them.
Equal Pay for Equal Play: A Good Slogan, But a Bad Idea
Madison Howell
As chants for equal pay filled the French stadium after the U.S. Women’s National Team’s (USWNT) World Cup win, Americans at home continue to spout facts about how the players are ridiculously underpaid even though they supposedly earn more revenue, bring in more viewers, and are, simply, better than their male counterparts. The USWNT has been dubbed the “most successful team in women’s soccer history” with four World Cup wins, four Olympic gold medals, and eight CONCACAF Gold Cups while the U.S Men’s National Team (USMNT) has only six Gold Cup wins in many more tries and only one bronze and one silver Olympic medal. Even though both the USWNT and the USMNT are governed by the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF), they have different payment models. The players on the USMNT only get paid through bonuses by appearing on a game’s roster, while the USWNT gets a biweekly base salary along with bonuses.
So, the real problem spurs from the difference in payment models, along with unbalanced investment. The USWNT wants a “revenue sharing model”, where their payment is based on their revenue, in their equal pay discrimination lawsuit against the USSF, which they claim the USSF have “categorically rejected”. However, even if the USWNT and the USMNT had proportional payment models, the result would still be skewed in the men’s favor due to under-marketing and underinvestment by the USSF in the USWNT and women’s soccer. The public’s support behind equal pay for women is a worthy concern, but it does not accurately reflect the sports marketplace.
It is nearly impossible to compare the USMNT and the USWNT in any grouping of years; the teams are always on a different four year cycle and the respective FIFA World Cups bring in uncomparable revenue. From 2016 to 2018, excluding World Cup revenue, the USWNT had $50.8 million in revenue from regular season games, while the men only earned $49.9 million in revenue. However, regular season games are only ¼ of the USSF revenue, with the other ¾ come from broadcasting rights and other sponsorships. In World Cup years, the difference is starker. The revenue of the World Cup determines the size of the winner’s bonus pool, and the men’s World Cup always makes more money. The men’s World Cup in 2018 brought in $6.1 billion in revenue while the 2019 women’s World Cup only earned $131 million. However, the women received 23% of the revenue while the men only received 7%, so comparatively the women get more money from the World Cup. Because of the bigger pool, the USSF awards bigger bonuses to the men’s team for each win in the World Cup, but they stand to gain more with winning the men’s World Cup.
Comparing the USWNT to the USMNT is not an accurate comparison. The USWNT is better in women’s soccer than the USMNT is in men’s soccer, but in a country where the star athletes play football, basketball, or baseball, two of which are not available to women at the professional level, it is an unfair comparison. 7% of Americans say soccer is their favorite sport to watch, while 37% claim football is their favorite, but in the rest of the world, soccer, with 3.5 billion fans, is the most popular sport, and their viewership drives the revenue for men’s soccer. The 2019 womens’ World Cup final was a hit on TV in the United States with 14.3 million viewers, 22% more viewers than the 2018 men’s World Cup final, but the USMNT was not in the tournament, let alone the final, so it was naturally less popular in the United States. FIFA even scheduled two other men’s soccer tournament championships, the South America’s Copa America and the North America’s Gold Cup, on the same day as the women’s World Cup, which suggests that men’s regional tournament games are as popular to watch as the womens’ World Cup final. Men’s sports are just more popular than women’s sports, so they get more broadcasting and sponsorship deals, which fairly causes the investment discrepancy between the USMNT and USWNT. Now, with the USWNT jersey at the #1 best selling men’s or women’s jersey ever on Nike.com, their sponsorships are bound to increase, but, as the regular season starts up again and the hype of winning the World Cup ends, will likely drop significantly.
The best option for both the USMNT and USWNT to eliminate discrepancies would be to have two separate owners of the teams. The USSF should be divided into a U.S. Men’s Soccer Federation and the U.S. Women’s Soccer Federation so that each governing body could focus on one team without neglecting the other. The men would not be targeted by rampant social movements while the women would get a governing body truly invested in their success. Both teams could be under the “revenue sharing model”, so their investment comes from their performance and revenue. Even the USMNT agrees with this type of payment model, as they support the revenue sharing model and “equal compensation for all U.S. soccer players”. The USWNT should get proportionally equal pay to the USMNT, along with better investment and marketing through separate ownership, but that is not the same as equal pay.
Even without these changes, or any fixes at all, the only way to increase investment in women’s soccer, and all women’s sports, is to increase its popularity by supporting teams. As Rapinoe says, “What’s next?… What can we do to support the [women’s] leagues around the world?” The bottom line is, if you want the USWNT to make more money, go to their games, buy their gear, watch their broadcasts; in short, open your wallet instead of your mouth.
News You Might Have Missed
In First, Chinese Military Armored Vehicles Exercise in Europe
In a joint exercise with the German Bundeswehr, a Chinese medical corps with armored vehicles has been deployed to Europe. This marks the first-ever presence of Chinese armored vehicles in Europe. China has been increasing military cooperation and exercising throughout the world, ostensibly for humanitarian preparations. Still, this story notes remarks from retired PLA Colonel to the South China Morning Post about how it also reflects preparations for when China may need to protect its investments related to the Belt and Road Initiative.
The Perfect Wine Crime
Crystal Staebell
Maison Rostang, a Michelin two-star restaurant in Paris, certainly has something to wine about after 150 bottles of old vintage wine were stolen, amounting to an estimated loss between $450,000-$675,000. Workers decanted the wine cellar on Monday morning to discover a 20-inch hole in the wall. Police suspect that the vin villains’ broke in through the Paris Catacombs and corkscrewed into the restaurant, but police are still reviewing security camera footage to determine if the odious oenophiles had other forms of access to the wine cellar. The Michelin guide had previously raved about the restaurant’s “magnificent wine list,” consisting of almost 50,000 bottles. Despite the massive loss in liquid assets, the owners say the restaurant will remain open as police continue to investigate what may well have been a private label, premier cru classé robbery for hire. (And if you have something to say about the abundance of wine puns, my apologies. They were made in pour taste).
Executive Order Looks to Improve Treatment for Kidney Disease
Sarah Weintraub
On Wednesday, the Trump Administration rolled out an executive order targeting the way that the government focuses on the prevention and treatment of kidney disease, the ninth-leading cause of death in the United States. The order emphasizes prevention measures and education around the disease, improved in-home dialysis care, and the need for a larger supply of kidney transplants. To reduce the number of people getting kidney disease, a known risk-factor in the development of kidney disease, the administration hopes to combat obesity. Currently, most Americans go to dialysis centers for care, but the hope is that more will be able to receive at-home care. Today, over $110 billion of taxpayer money is spent on Medicare costs related to kidney disease. This executive order would hope to improve the lives and prospects for the 37 million people who live with the disease.
Oil Riggers and Rigged Elections: Russia Channels Money into Salvini’s Political Party
Stephanie Lizzo
Oil and water may not mix, but a recently released audio recording indicates that Russian oil money and Italian politics combine quite nicely. The clip reveals that 3 Russian and 3 Italian men met in October to discuss a deal that would funnel millions of dollars of oil revenue into the political party of Matteo Salvini, the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy. Participants constructed the framework supporting the transaction: a Russian oil company would offer a discount worth approximately $65 million to the Italian company, Eni, and the money would then be used to support Salvini’s campaign. Such an agreement flagrantly violates the existing Italian law that political parties cannot receive donations from foreign governments or organizations. The Italians’ repeated insistence that the funds must be received before the May election eliminates any doubt regarding the money’s intended purpose. Beyond eroding the integrity of Italy’s elections, this illicit arrangement represents another instance in Russia’s ongoing campaign to weaken democratic and liberal governance in Europe.
Macron’s “ecotax” on airplane tickets: a controversial measure
Carlota Cumella de Montserrat
France has announced an “ecotax” on tickets for flights departing from France, hoping to collect almost $200 million annually. The green tax amount depends on the distance travelled and the type of ticket bought, going from $1.50 to $18. The first reaction to the announcement did not take long to appear and the airline sector’s stock prices fell 3% across Europe. French airlines are also raising complaints that it will make domestic companies less competitive. France is not the only country wanting to react to a climate emergency, and perhaps a fight among EU countries is on who will become the leader in the fight against climate change. At this stage, though, while want huge decisive steps, Climate Action ensures this measure will “not significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Bye Bye Bug
Madison Howell
This Wednesday, the last Volkswagen (VW) Beetle was produced in Puebla, Mexico. To nostalgists’ relief, VW has not completely shut out the possibility of a reboot of the Beetle. The Bug grew from an attempt by the Nazis to make car ownership accessible to the worker class volk into the rebranded Beetle, an “emblem of the hippie era”. The Beetle was first marketed as a ugly inexpensive car that “gets you there”, but now is recognized as a cute modern roadster, with one model even including a built-in flower pot. It was a car that showed the evolution of technology, while still keeping the same recognizable features, and it will be greatly missed. As the President of VW, Scott Keogh, stated “while its time has come, the role it has played in the evolution of our brand will be forever cherished”. Now, the Puebla factory will produce the new 2022 electric VW van, a modern rendition of the classic VW bus.
The views of contributors are their own, and not that of CSPC.