Tuesday, October 31, 2023

How America's oligarch problem became the world's oligarch problem
THEY USED TO BE CALLED PLUTOCRATS

Thom Hartmann
October 31, 2023 

Image by Dee from Pixabay

LONG READ

Many of America’s oligarchs — the people whose great wealth and/or ownership of media properties gives them tremendous influence over our politics — believe they’re arguing for policies that will produce a “better” America. Or at least an America that’s better and safer for oligarchs and their families and businesses

Tragically, they’re wrong. Their support for GOP-aligned racist, “free market deregulation,” and climate denial policies are tearing America apart and will threaten their grandchildren every bit as much as they do yours and mine.

Nonetheless, in America and increasingly around the world, oligarchs taking over the political dialogues of nations are all the rage. From America to Turkey to Russia to the Philippines, oligarchs have either risen to near-absolute power or bought off so many politicians that they have effective control of entire political parties and thus entire nations.

Increasingly, America’s oligarch problem has become the world’s oligarchy problem, as country after country follows the GOP’s example and sidelines labor rights, women’s rights, voting rights, and democracy itself.

When the Constitution was being written there were multiple debates about how to prevent our republic from turning into a dictatorship or an oligarchy. Thomas Jefferson was worried about too much power being invested in the president; John Adams was concerned that wealthy oligarchs would either get themselves elected to the senate or simply purchase senators for their own ends.

While Jefferson was still the US envoy to France and living in Paris, just after the Constitution had been written but a year before it would be ratified, Adams wrote him on December 6, 1778 that:

“You are afraid of the one — I, of the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have a full fair and perfect Representation. — You are Apprehensive of Monarchy; I, of Aristocracy.

Today we have both.

Donald Trump was both an oligarch and very much wanted and tried to become America’s first Caesar, an emperor with unlimited power who would hold his office for life. At the same time, because of the corrupt Citizens United decision by 5 Republicans on the Court, both the Senate, House, and much of America’s media are very much under the control of our nation’s rightwing oligarchs.

It’s a phenomenon that’s popping up worldwide. In a new book, The Oligarch’s Grip, authors David Lingelbach and Valentina Rodríguez Guerra take the definition of “oligarch” beyond the common understanding of a person who’s morbidly rich.

In a review of the book for The Financial Times, Simon Kuper writes:

“The book distinguishes various types of oligarchs. ‘Business oligarchs’ like Musk turn wealth into political power, while ‘political oligarchs’ go the other way. A classic example of the latter, says the book, is Vladimir Putin, ‘a billionaire with nuclear weapons’. Oligarch presidents have decision-making power, oligarch influencers such as Rupert Murdoch, Charles Koch and George Soros set agendas, while platform owners such as Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Larry Page have rewired the information streams that flow into our brains.”

The authors of The Oligarch’s Grip argue that a true oligarch is a rich person who uses his or her (it’s almost always a man, though) money to seize political power (whether by running for office or simply buying and owning politicians) or an elected or appointed official who used their political position and power to make a boatload of money.

A true oligarch, they write, is “someone who secures and reproduces wealth or power, then transforms one into the other.”

For example, when South Africa was working out their post-apartheid constitution, one of America’s largest corporations loaned them a lawyer who helped get corporate personhood written into their constitution, along with fighting most efforts at limiting money in South African politics.

The result was predictable: current South African president Cyril Ramaphosa rose from a union leader through the political ranks to becoming, in 1994, the chairman of the Constitutional Assembly which wrote the new Constitution.

Knowing the new rules of the game he’d helped write, he retired from politics in 1996 to seek his fortune and, using his considerable political connections and power, ended up in short order as one of South Africa’s dozen or so billionaire oligarchs. Once he became fabulously rich through his political connections, he got himself elected president in 2018 and was recently re-elected.

Here in the USA, we’ve seen this cycle play out more than once. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, American oligarchs had largely avoided politics until World War I. Following the war and Woodrow Wilson’s raising the top tax rate to 91 percent, many jumped in with both feet when Warren Harding ran for president on the Republican ticket in 1920.

Harding’s platform was twofold: “A return to normalcy” (which meant lowering the top wartime income tax bracket on the morbidly rich from 91 percent down to 25 percent) and “more business in government, less government in business” (privatize and deregulate).

The uber-wealthy and owners of America’s largest newspapers loved it. They threw a small fortune into getting Harding elected and he won the popular vote by 26.2 percent, the largest margin in American history.

For the next nine years Republicans went on a tax-cutting and regulation-destroying spree known as the “Roaring 20s,” making the merely rich into the morbidly rich while keeping average working people in poverty by violently fighting that era’s union movement, routinely murdering strikers and union leaders.

Their excesses led straight to the stock market crash of October 1929, which kicked off the Republican Great Depression and brought Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt into office. Roosevelt gleefully took on America’s most toxic oligarchs, saying, “They hate me, and I welcome their hatred!”

Between that and the failed attempt the DuPont family and a handful of other oligarchs allegedly organized to kidnap and kill FDR (ended by General Smedley Butler), America’s oligarchs decided to pretty much stay out of politics after World War II.

The Nixon and Agnew bribery scandals of the late 1960s and early 1970s produced a whole new crop of laws further limiting America’s oligarchs from participating in politics. The top tax rate was generally around 90 percent, giving the very wealthy an incentive to leave their money in their businesses and pay their employees well. Which is why from the 1930s through the end of the 1970s the American middle class grew in both numbers and wealth faster than any the world had ever seen.

But then in the 1970s five Republicans on the Supreme Court, for the first time in American history, began the process of legalizing political bribery, first ruling that laws limiting big money in politics were suppressing the “free speech” rights of billionaires (1976) and then extending that “right to bribe” to corporations as well (1978).

This was a huge flag for America’s oligarchs signaling that, like during Harding’s, Coolidge’s, and Hoover’s time, the GOP was again up for sale to the highest bidder. Those with money began shoveling it at politicians who’d do their bidding, and politicians with power began to get seriously rich from their association with the oligarchs.

History knows that time as the “Reagan Revolution.”

In 2010, five Republicans on the Supreme Court doubled down on their predecessor’s work, making it super easy for billionaires to give lavish gifts and support to Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. That Citizens United decision blew open the doors to oligarchy in America.

A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness details the damage these democracy-destroying decisions, made by SCOTUS members who, themselves, were at the time being groomed by billionaires, have done to our political system.

In 2010, American billionaires spent a mere $31 million on elections. Buckley and Bellotti notwithstanding, there were still substantial limits on dark money and big money in politics. But that was the year the Court handed down their Citizens United decision.

That number jumped to $231 million in the 2012 and 2014 elections, and over $600 million for both 2016 and 2018.

The blowout came in 2020, when Trump was running for re-election and there was a very real chance the billionaires could seize complete control of the federal government.

They spent a total of $2,362,000,000 in that election, with $1.2 billion of it going to elect conventional politicians who would then be beholden to their patrons.

As Americans for Tax Fairness notes:

“The report finds that almost 40% of all billionaire campaign contributions made since 1990 occurred during the 2020 season. Billionaires had a lot more money to give politicians and political causes in 2020 as their collective wealth jumped by nearly a third, or over $900 billion, to $3.9 trillion between the March beginning of the pandemic and a month before Election Day. Billionaire fortunes have continued to climb since: as of October 2021, billionaires were worth $5.1 trillion, more than a 20-fold increase in their collective fortune since 1990, when it stood at $240 billion, adjusted for inflation.

“These campaign donations are a profitable investment: they buy access to politicians and influence over tax and other policies that can save tycoons billions of dollars. While that $1.2 billion ‘investment’ in 2020 was massive, it totaled less than 0.1% of billionaire wealth (and less than one day’s worth of their pandemic wealth growth), leaving almost unlimited room for future growth in billionaire campaign spending.”

And next year will be far worse. As NBC News tells us:

“Political ad spending is projected to reach new heights by the end of the 2024 election cycle, eclipsing $10 billion in what would amount to the most expensive two years in political history.”

This crisis of oligarchy isn’t limited to the US. The Thatcher/Reagan “great neoliberal experiment” of the late 1970s and 1980s — which included deregulation of campaign contributions and gutting political bribery laws — was experienced worldwide.

For 30 years, ending laws against political bribery became an international fad. Oligarchs promoted it at Davos and before the UN. Countries around the world tried to imitate America’s tax-cut policy.

As a result, since 1980 we’ve seen multiple democracies first flip into oligarchy; many then went all the way to full-on fascism. They include: Russia, Turkey, Philippines, Peru, Brazil (in recovery now), El Salvador, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Nigeria, Nepal, and Montenegro.

Each of these countries are now controlled by local oligarchs.

So why are these oligarchs putting all this time and money into deconstructing democracy in nation after nation?

Numerous studies (and history) tell us that great wealth distorts the mind. As wealth goes up, empathy goes down. People who’ve achieved great wealth (even when inherited, like with Trump or Koch) often come to believe that their success is purely a function of their own brilliance, and their superb judgement should give them the right to decide what’s best for the nation and the world.

Whether it’s Elon Musk retweeting white supremacists, Mark Zuckerberg dialing back content moderation, Rupert Murdoch platforming lies and disinformation, or Charles Koch funding think tanks and political action groups across the nation, all of them believe they’re doing the right thing.

But in any population — including a population of oligarchs — there will always be people who are so damaged, uninformed, or narcissistic that they’re destructive to everything and everyone around them. The difference is that ordinary people — unless they buy an AR15 — are incapable of destroying many people’s lives, whereas oligarchs routinely make decisions that often lead to just that outcome.

The core idea of democracy is to prevent oligarchs from seizing and wielding political power out of proportions to average citizens. It’s to defer to the wisdom of the crowd, rather than any one oligarch.

Oligarchy, as I lay out in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, is neither a stable political or economic system. It’s always a transitional system, typically a mere waystation in the shift from democracy to fascism or some other form of authoritarianism.

And it tears nations apart.

America is suffering from a crisis of cynicism about our political system: few trust our politicians or political parties. The reason, apparently invisible to the media, is simple: everybody can see that what the vast majority of Americans want (stronger social safety net, climate action, better schools, affordable healthcare, a nation free of gun violence, the rich paying their taxes) isn’t happening.

And in every case, Americans know, these things are not happening because some oligarch is paying off some politician.

Oligarchy is corrosive. It destroys trust and confidence in government. It breeds cynicism and discontent. It encourages crime, both white collar and on the street. It even corrupts a nation’s legal system, as we can see with the Trump trials: if he wasn’t a billionaire oligarch he would have been in prison long ago.

The world is slowly coming to terms with its crisis of oligarchy. Before Barack Obama showed how Democratic politicians could fund elections without oligarchs’ money, even the Democratic Party, starting with the 1992 election, had slipped into neoliberalism and begun to dance to the oligarchs’ tune.

Now the Congressional Progressive Caucus — which eschews PAC and other dark money — is nearly half the party at the federal level and President Biden is leading a charge for campaign finance reform. It nearly bore fruit last year, when only at the last-minute did bought-off Senators Sinema and Manchin join a Republican filibuster to kill the For The People bill that would have begun the process of again limiting dark money in politics.

As long as Republicans, deeply corrupted by America’s rightwing billionaires, control the House of Representatives, there’s little we can do about our oligarchy crisis at the federal level. But lots is happening at the state level, and movement building to overturn Citizens United and its unprincipled predecessors is well underway.

If you agree, hook up with your local Democratic Party and let them — and your elected officials — know your top priority is to end oligarchy and return American government to the people who vote to elect our officials instead of the billionaires who pay for their TV ads.

Step by step, we’ll make America into a functioning democracy, and this time it’ll be a fully inclusive one. Tag, we’re it!
Louisiana’s ‘In God We Trust’ law tests limits of religion in public schools

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

The Conversation
October 28, 2023

When Louisiana passed a law in August 2023 requiring public schools to post “In God We Trust” in every classroom – from elementary school to college – the author of the bill claimed to be following a long-held tradition of displaying the national motto, most notably on U.S. currency.

But even under recent Supreme Court precedents, the Louisiana law may violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from promoting religion. I make this observation as one who has researched and written extensively on issues of religion in the public schools.

The Louisiana law specifies that the motto “shall be displayed on a poster or framed document that is at least 11 inches by 14 inches. The motto shall be the central focus … and shall be printed in a large, easily readable font.” The law also states that teachers should instruct students about the phrase as a way of teaching “patriotic customs.”

Similar bills are being promoted by groups like the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, a nonprofit that supports members of Congress who meet regularly to defend the role of prayer in government. To date, 26 states have considered bills requiring public schools to display the national motto. Seven states, including Louisiana, have passed laws in this regard.




Recent shift in the law

The Supreme Court has long treated public schools as an area where government-promoted religious messaging is unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s establishment clause. For example, the Supreme Court held in 1962, 1963, 1992 and 2000 that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional either because it favored or endorsed religion or because it created coercive pressure to religiously conform. In 1980, the court also struck down a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in classrooms.

At the same time, the court has protected private religious expression for individual students and teachers in public schools.

The Louisiana law comes at a time of rising concerns about Christian nationalism and on the heels of a pivotal court case. In the 2022 case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court overturned more than 60 years of precedent when it ruled that a public school football coach’s on-field, postgame prayer did not violate the establishment clause. In doing so, the court rejected long-standing legal tests, holding instead that courts should look to history and tradition.

The problem with using history and tradition as a broad test is that it can change from one context to the next. People – including lawmakers – are apt to ignore the negative and troubling lessons of U.S. religious history. Prior to the Kennedy decision, history and tradition were used by a majority of the court to decide establishment clause cases only in specific contexts, such as legislative prayer and war memorials.

Now, states like Louisiana are trying to use history and tradition to bring religion into public school classrooms.

A history of ‘In God We Trust’


Contrary to what people often assume, the phrase “In God We Trust” has not always been the national motto. It first appeared on coins in 1864, during the Civil War, and in the following decades it sparked controversy. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt urged Congress to drop the phrase from new coins, saying it “does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege.”

In 1956, amid the Cold War, “In God we Trust” became the national motto. The phrase first appeared on paper money the next year. It was a time of significant fear about communism and the Soviet Union, and atheism was viewed as part of the “communist threat.” Atheists were subject to persecution during the Red Scare and afterward.

Since then, the motto has stuck. Over the years, legal challenges attempting to remove the phrase from money have failed. Courts have generally understood the term as a form of ceremonial deism or civic religion, meaning religious practices or expressions that are viewed as being merely customary cultural practices.


The future of the law


Even after the Kennedy ruling, the Louisiana law may still be unconstitutional because students are a captive audience in the classroom. Therefore, the mandate to hang the national motto in classrooms could be interpreted as a form of religious coercion.

But because the law requires a display rather than a religious exercise like school prayer, it may not violate what has come to be known as the indirect coercion test. This test prevents the government from conducting a formal religious exercise that places strong social or peer pressure on students to participate.

The outcome of any constitutional challenge to the Louisiana law is far from clear. Prior cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance offer one example. Though the Supreme Court dismissed on standing grounds the only establishment clause challenge to the pledge it has considered, lower courts have held that reciting the pledge in schools is constitutional for a variety of reasons.

These reasons include the idea that it is a form of ceremonial deism and the fact that since 1943 students have been exempt from having to say the pledge if it violates their faith to do so.

The Louisiana law, however, requires instruction about the national motto.

If the law is challenged in court and upheld, teachers could teach that the motto was adopted when the nation was emerging from McCarthyism and fear of communism was widespread. Moreover, they could teach that many people of faith throughout U.S. history would have viewed this sort of display as against U.S. ideals.

Division is likely

More than two centuries before Roosevelt argued that it was sacrilegious to put “In God We Trust” on coins, the Puritan minister and Colonist Roger Williams famously proclaimed that “forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.” Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island, at least in part, to promote religious freedom.

Additionally, there is no prohibition on alternative designs for the national motto posters as long as the motto is “the central focus of the poster.” In Texas, a parent donated rainbow-colored “In God We Trust” signs and others written in Arabic, which were subsequently rejected by a local school board. This situation, which gained significant media attention, brought the exclusionary impact of these laws into public view.

It could be argued that accepting wall hangings that favor Christocentric viewpoints – and rejecting those that reflect other religions or add symbols such as the rainbow – is religious discrimination by government. If so, schools might be required to post alternative motto designs that meet the letter of the new law in order to uphold free speech rights and prevent religious discrimination.

The Louisiana law would have been brazenly unconstitutional just two years ago. But after the Kennedy decision, the law may survive a potential legal challenge. Even if it does, one thing is for certain: It will be divisive.

Frank S. Ravitch, Professor of Law & Walter H. Stowers Chair of Law and Religion, Michigan State University

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





That ‘Gulf’ shrimp you ate probably wasn’t from the Gulf of Mexico

Photo by Farhad Ibrahimzade on Unsplash


Wesley Muller, Louisiana Illuminator
October 30, 2023

What if every imported seafood product for sale in Louisiana had a red sticker with the word “Imported” affixed to the front of its packaging?

That question is one of several the state Seafood Safety Task Force is asking in an effort to address a struggling domestic fishery and increasing health risks from imported catch.

The task force met Friday for just the second time in over a decade following a long dormant period that ended last month.

State Sen. Fred Mills, R-St. Martinville, chairs the task force that he said will try to develop solutions to address three areas: the health and safety of consumers, the economy of the domestic seafood sector, and consumer education.

An influx of cheap foreign catch has flooded the seafood market in Louisiana, and most restaurants in the state choose to serve imported shrimp and crawfish to patrons who are either oblivious to it or mistakenly believe they’re eating local fare, according to the Louisiana Shrimp Association. The effects have decimated a local industry and unique Louisiana culture while also potentially introducing harmful contaminants into the food supply.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the primary line of defense protecting consumers from such risks, but the agency screens only about 2% of the foreign catch that arrives at U.S. ports of entry, according to a Government Accountability Office report. Of that small amount sampled, roughly 10% has tested positive for contaminants. For comparison, the European Union, the world’s largest seafood importer, screens about 50%.

Louisiana has tried to close the gap by deploying health inspectors to test samples at the 58 permitted wholesale distributors of imported seafood across the state.

It’s not enough, however. The health department currently has funding for just four inspectors, and it typically takes about eight days to get results back from the state lab, according to agency officials. Contaminated food can reach millions of people in that amount of time.

The task force is researching ways to pay for more testing through tariffs or fees and to shift the testing higher up along the supply chain as close as possible to the source.

There have been 2,600 violations of Louisiana’s imported shrimp law — and no fines



But additional testing can only go so far. Kim Chauvin, a shrimp exporter and president of the Women’s Southern Fisheries Alliance, said there are different ways foreign exporters have circumvented seafood inspectors.

If a batch of foreign seafood is rejected at a port, some companies will try to slip it in through a different destination, Chauvin said.

Even more frustrating and almost universally decried in Louisiana is deceptive labeling that exploits local cultural references.

The task force mentioned Boudreaux’s Brand Crawfish Tail Meat, which can be found in almost any Louisiana grocery store. Everything about the product suggests it’s from Louisiana, from its use of a classic Cajun name to the words “Wild Caught” in large lettering across the label.

At the bottom of the label, it lists a Westwego address and a logo in the shape of Louisiana for its distributor, Gulf Marine Products Co.. However, a keen observer will notice a declaration elsewhere on the label: “Product of China.”

“They’re using our culture, they’re using our heritage,” Chauvin said. “It’s a huge problem, and it’s very deceiving.”

Several members of the panel said shrimp laid out on an ice display at grocery stores is often taken out of the similar frozen packages that may or may not be from a foreign country. The catch might be advertised as “Wild Caught Gulf Shrimp,” but it often deliberately fails to specify which gulf it came from.

One idea the panel discussed is a state law that would require all foreign seafood products to have a brightly-colored or otherwise easy-to-read sticker or tag that says, “Imported.” That way consumers are never confused or uncertain about what they’re buying.

Another problem, Chauvin said, is that some Louisiana schools are serving foreign shrimp to kids for lunch. Schools are exempt from the state’s labeling law that requires food service establishments to indicate on their menus or on a sign if they serve imported shrimp or crawfish.

Chauvin said school systems will call her company to get a quote for her shrimp but almost always choose the cheaper foreign-sourced options.

The panel’s next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 27. Mills said he has invited an official from the Port of New Orleans to provide information on food imports and customs.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on Facebook and Twitter.
Digital Deception: Disinformation’s Impact in the Israel-Hamas War

By Yusuf Can on October 20, 2023


Disinformation and even complete fabrications have spread rapidly after Hamas’ attack on Israel. The actions of social media giants like X have enabled disinformation to spread quickly. Regulations may help, but every false claim could potentially provoke a wider conflict.


IMAGE CREDIT


Hamas' unprecedented attack on Israel on October 7 and the ongoing Hamas-Israel war in Gaza have again denoted the overwhelming impact of disinformation and misinformation in the digital age. With over 5,000 lives lost, the dissemination of false information, often through social media platforms, has not only added to the chaos but has also exacerbated the emotions of millions across the planet.

While social media platforms offer immediate access to information, they also serve as fertile ground for spreading falsehoods, making it challenging for the public to distinguish fact from fiction. The role of platform owners, content moderation, and regulatory measures is now under scrutiny as we grapple with the implications of disinformation during a devastating conflict.


In the aftermath of the Hamas' attack, the digital landscape became the epicenter of a disinformation pandemic

False information in conflict

In the aftermath of the Hamas' attack, the digital landscape became the epicenter of a disinformation pandemic. While there are numerous instances, some garnered more attention than others. A recent case involved the distribution of videos supposedly portraying an Israeli air assault. However, it became evident upon closer scrutiny that these videos had been extracted from video games, notably Arma 3. The interesting twist is how swiftly this facade was unveiled. It wasn't just the game's developers who stepped forward but also a community of online users intimately familiar with the game. Nevertheless, the fabricated imagery continued to thrive.

Those with more insidious motivations went well and beyond and created a fake White House announcement. An image resembling a screenshot of a supposed White House document suggested that Israel was being provided with $8 billion in aid, implying that this would hinder aid for Ukraine. Although the White House denied issuing any such statement, the fabricated image continued to spread.

Mainstream media outlets also experienced their fair share of fake footage. A manufactured video claimed to show a BBC report declaring that weapons provided by NATO to Ukraine had been sold to Hamas. The circulation of the content continued to spread despite the BBC denying the existence of such a report. Last but not least, the US Embassy in Lebanon had to put out a statement denying that the embassy was being evacuated after false reports garnered attention online.

Even the US President is not immune to disinformation. The White House had to retract President Joe Biden's statement stating he saw images of children beheaded by Hamas during a meeting with Jewish leaders at the White House. However, the White House clarified that these images were based on reports from Israeli government officials and media, and they had not been independently verified. These unverified claims gained traction online, further intensifying the high emotional tensions.

In the recent al-Ahli hospital explosion in Gaza, a misleading video circulated online, falsely claiming that it showed a failed Hamas rocket hitting the hospital. This video, initially from 2022, had no direct connection to the recent hospital incident. This episode also highlights the danger of disinformation during crises, especially those involving civilian casualties and war crimes, as it can inflame emotions and lead to hasty judgments, fueling online debates and deepening divides.

Fueling the disinformation Fire on “X”

The role of Elon Musk and his platform X (formerly Twitter) in the increase of disinformation during the Israel-Hamas war merits particular attention. Musk has faced criticism for the platform's handling of disinformation since he purchased the company. Musk's declared commitment to freedom of expression and his platform's transformation into X have raised concerns about spreading conspiracy theories and antisemitism.

In fact, Musk and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met and discussed the issue of antisemitism on X only recently. Experts attribute the proliferation of disinformation on X during the conflict to Musk's changes over the past year, including the decision to disband the company’s Trust and Safety Council responsible for content moderation. The platform's focus has shifted from verifying facts to maximizing view counts, possibly incentivizing users to share information without considering its trustworthiness.

In addition, the algorithm on X has been modified to prioritize posts with the maximum engagement, encouraging insidious users to share disinformation since dramatic and shocking content often performs exceptionally well, therefore distorting reality. Engagement with conflict-related images and videos creates a strong incentive for individuals pushing specific narratives to share old footage from unrelated events. Posts from X users with premium subscriptions (marked by a blue checkmark) were boosted to the top of users' news feeds. While the blue checkmark was initially intended to foster a better user experience, it inadvertently led to the elevation of unverified and misleading content. Such content often garnered hundreds of thousands of views and engagements, spreading fabrications at an unparalleled pace.


While X has garnered significant attention, other platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, and Telegram have also struggled with false information regarding the Israel-Hamas war

While X has garnered significant attention, other platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, and Telegram have also struggled with false information regarding the Israel-Hamas war. Similar to previous crises, content from the conflict initially appeared on encrypted messaging platforms like Telegram. While Telegram can serve as a primary source for footage, the lack of vetting and fact-checking on such media means that information can and is often taken out of context when shared on platforms like X. This prevalent problem underlines the challenges of addressing disinformation, as it often gains prominence due to its ability to elicit strong reactions and go viral. Each of these platforms has the power to shape public perception beyond the digital realm, potentially influencing geopolitical outcomes.

The EU Crackdown on Social Media Giants

The European Union is cracking down on tech giants to curb the rampant spread of disinformation across social media platforms. Mark Zuckerberg's Meta, the conglomerate that owns Facebook and Instagram, has been served an injunction: comply with European law within 24 hours or face the consequences. X didn't escape the EU's crosshairs either. Thierry Breton, the EU's industry chief, has urged Meta and X to demonstrate "timely, diligent, and objective action" to combat the spread of disinformation. He had given them just one day to provide a detailed account of the "proportionate and effective" measures they had taken.

Breton has demanded that Meta uphold its end of the bargain. The company has responded by setting up a special operations center to monitor and counter the evolving situation. Still, the EU insists that the response must be comprehensive and swift. This isn't just a warning shot; it's part of a broader effort to enforce the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), designed to protect users on these massive tech platforms. This law has already come into force, with firms being granted time to ensure their systems comply. But as of late August 2023, the strictest rules are now in play for platforms with over 45 million EU users, including X.

Musk's X or Zuckerberg's Meta are not the only companies facing the EU's scrutiny. Breton has written warning letters to the CEOs of other companies, such as TikTok. However, no formal probes have been initiated yet except for announcing the investigation of X. The EU's stance underscores the global battle against disinformation, especially during critical conflicts like the Israel-Hamas war. Musk's response, demanding evidence of violations, echoes a growing debate about the balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility of tech companies to protect the public from false information and hate speech.


It is a well-known fact that false information has the potential to influence public opinion, create confusion and fear, and even shape government policies

Navigating the Disinformation Dilemma

It is a well-known fact that false information has the potential to influence public opinion, create confusion and fear, and even shape government policies. This confusion can hinder informed decision-making. Manipulative content often stokes strong emotions like anger, fear, or sympathy. These emotions can be redirected to serve a specific agenda, often by insidious actors. Yet even more daunting is that false information involving multiple nations can strain international relations.

As the EU pushes for transparency and accountability from tech giants, this serves as a stark reminder that the era of self-regulation in the tech world might be, and more importantly, should be coming to an end. The EU's enforcement of the DSA isn't just a regulatory maneuver, it's a battle to safeguard democracy and public discourse during times of crisis. In the era of instant information sharing, platforms must act swiftly and decisively to counter disinformation. As these examples show, there have never been more drastic consequences than with the Israel-Hamas war, where every post, claim, or video, even complete fabrications, could potentially widen the present conflict and inflict actual suffering.

The views expressed in these articles are those of the author and do not reflect an official position of the Wilson Center.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


YUSUF CAN
Program Coordinator
READ MORE

MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM

The Wilson Center’s Middle East Program serves as a crucial resource for the policymaking community and beyond, providing analyses and research that helps inform U.S. foreign policymaking, stimulates public debate, and expands knowledge about issues in the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Read more


How pernicious misinformation is shaping the Israel-Hamas war

That “hospital explosion” wasn’t really a hospital explosion.


Screenshot via PBS

The Editorial Board.
October 27, 2023 | 

Editor’s note: Thank you for reading to the Editorial Board, your place for politics in plain English for normal people and the common good. This humble newsletter is how I make a living. It’s how I pay for my daughter’s piano lessons and nature programs and all those things. Some have asked how they can support the EB without committing to a subscription. Here’s the tip jar! In any case, many thanks for reading the EB! –JS



I wanted to interview Nicholas Grossman regarding the role of misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war. I hoped to ask the professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, and senior editor of Arc Digital, about misinformation that arose from American reporting on an explosion at a hospital in Gaza.

You know what? I ended up repeating a bit of misinformation!

I asked him to lay out the facts about a “hospital explosion” that “killed hundreds,” and he said nuh-uh (not his words). In fact, Professor Grossman said, “there never were hundreds killed by an explosion at that hospital. Media reported that the hospital was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike killing 500, but that was based on something a Hamas-controlled agency said and was never supported by evidence.”

“This instance wasn’t normal. While there’s often partial and false info coming out of wars, it is not normal for major media outlets, such as the Times, to publish false information. But this time, many did.”


Professor Grossman went on to say “what apparently did happen is something hit a nearby parking lot and caused a smaller explosion, most likely a rocket fired from Gaza towards Israel that fell short (ie, not an Israeli projectile). People were camping in the parking lot, and the explosion killed some of them, but far less than the originally reported number. The estimates I’ve seen range from 10 to 50.”

My point isn’t to draw attention to my error, but to highlight the pernicious influence of misinformation on everyone, even those, like me, who are at least aware of that pernicious influence, and who are taking the time to ask knowledgeable people about it in times of war.

Now imagine the pernicious influence of misinformation on people who have no such awareness, or more importantly, on governments that are invested in misinformation being taken as fact. Scaled big enough, that misinformation could affect choices leaders make. As you will see in the rest of my interview, the misinformation that arose from American reporting on the “hospital explosion” could end up shaping the war.


JS: The Gaza hospital explosion story produced a lot of misinformation very quickly. Some say that was an inflection point in a potential widening of the conflict. But isn’t misinformation kinda normal?

NG: Misinformation is pretty normal, especially in war. Combatants try to spin news in their favor, and sometimes lie. They have trouble seeing through the chaos — known as the “fog of war” — to know exactly what’s happening, and it’s even harder for outside observers.

But this instance wasn’t normal. While there’s often partial and false info coming out of wars, it is not normal for major media outlets, such as the Times, to publish false information. But this time, many did. Politicians in various countries treated it as fact. Protestors surrounded US embassies. The King of Jordan canceled a planned meeting with President Biden. The news media error was big enough that the Times put out a long editor’s note explaining and apologizing.


JS: What challenge does Biden face given this misinformation? Just by stating the facts as known, he risks his “honest broker” position, no?

NG: If anyone still believes the false story, even though it’s been corrected, they would likely see that the president saying that it’s false as bias towards Israel. Some who acknowledge that it’s false still say that, because while Israel didn’t bomb that hospital or kill those people, they’re bombing many targets in Gaza and killing many people.

But those crowds are probably impossible to satisfy, and Biden isn’t about to say that false stories are true in an attempt to satisfy them.

Where it creates a serious challenge is in reactions from major players. If Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and others sympathetic to Hamas’ side believe that the hospital attack happened — or even if the leaders know it’s false but a lot of their people still believe it — they could become more likely to intervene and widen the war. If Arab leaders believe it, or feel a need to placate a public that believes it, they will be less likely to support diplomacy or work with the US to manage the crisis.


JS: Hussein Ibish has said the key to ending this is to stop dehumanizing both sides, in this case Israelis and Palestinians, and start “rehumanizing” them. I trust Hussein means well, but revenge has a powerful pull on the psyche. What can leaders of good faith do?

NG: There’s a lot of well-meaning commentary that offers hope and a vision for the future, but doesn’t give anyone anything actionable to do now. “Rehumanizing both sides” sounds wonderful, but I don’t know how to do it in the short-term, and it doesn’t answer questions like “how can Israel avoid a repeat of the deadly Hamas attacks?”

The best leaders may be able to do is frequently remind Israel that thinking strategically yields better outcomes than lashing out in vengeance. That’s apparently been a focus for the Biden administration, as they’ve held up post-9/11 America as a cautionary tale, stressed that if Israel is going to overthrow Hamas they need to plan for what comes after, and pushed Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.


JS: Relatedly, what is the president doing right? Wrong? Some say he’s giving a free pass to Israel. Others say his left flank is going to be a problem for him. Others still are calling him a war president by proxy.

NG: It’s a really hard situation and I think he’s handled it well under the circumstances. In particular, supporting Israel in public has given him more leverage with the Israelis behind the scenes, which he’s used to delay an Israeli ground invasion, get humanitarian supplies into Gaza, and more. He’s also sent clear signals to Iran that the US does not want the war to widen, but is prepared to, which functions as deterrence.

As for something Biden did wrong? I thought his speech overdid the links between Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas, miscasting Israel as Ukraine and Russia as Hamas. The wars, the combatants, and the overall situations are too different in too many ways. Russia-Ukraine is pretty straightforward. Israel-Palestine is anything but.

On “free pass to Israel,” I’d say it’s clear that Biden is supporting Israel after the October 7 Hamas attacks, but not simply going along with whatever Israel wants. Some Americans (and others) want Biden to be more critical of Israel, to stop US military aid, to make America’s priority stopping the Israeli military, or take other steps. But “free pass” is more political hyperbole than objective analysis.

Regarding Biden’s “left flank,” it’s hard to say. For one, it’s impossible to know now what American voters will have at the front of their minds when voting in November 2024. Some criticism of Biden about Israel from the left is a genuine criticism by Biden voters, and some is by activists, commentators, podcasters, etc., who’d never vote Biden, and who guaranteed that Biden would lose in 2020 and Democrats would lose the 2022 midterms. How, or if, US policy towards today’s events in Israel and Gaza impacts the next American election — I don’t know.

And I don’t think others really know either.

“War president by proxy” is ridiculous. A lot of things happen in the world that are outside America’s control. Hamas killing 1,400 people in Israel was one of them, and Israel responding to that militarily is another. As a global leader, the US president plays a role in managing various crises. Israel and Hamas have fought many times, across many presidencies, and the US has been giving Israel aid throughout.


JS: Some say Trump’s “isolationist” tendencies are better than Biden’s “internationalist” tendencies. Is this a real debate or false binary?

NG: In general, it’s a false binary. There are degrees of isolationism and interventionism, and circumstances can change views. George W. Bush ran in 2000 as an anti-interventionist, and after Sept. 11 became the opposite. Specifically, it’s wrong. Trump deployed more US troops to Syria, authorized drone strikes, ordered the assassination of an Iranian general — the first foreign military commander targeted and killed by the US since World War II — and quite a bit more. Biden withdrew forces from Afghanistan and curtailed the drone program, then did a lot to help Ukraine after Russia’s invasion. It’s not cut and dry.

On Israel-Palestine, Trump wasn’t isolationist, taking various actions to shift US policy in favor of the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That didn’t cause the violence we’re seeing, but it did worsen the situation in ways that made violence more likely.




John Stoehr  is the editor of the Editorial Board. He writes the daily edition. Find him @johnastoehr

Israel-Hamas war and the impact of online disinformation


Inna Lazareva,Adam Smith,Avi Asher-Schapiro
Published: October 12, 2023

A dove flies over the debris of houses destroyed in Israeli strikes, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip 
October 11, 2023. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

What’s the context?

Israel-Hamas war sparks deluge of disinformation that spills over into the real world
Disinformation spreads worldwide after Hamas attack on Israel
Platforms struggle to moderate viral falsehoods
False narratives can manipulate opinion and hinder justice

TEL AVIV/LONDON/LOS ANGELES - False and misleading information has surged online since the militant Islamist group Hamas launched its surprise attack on Israel, manipulating world opinion, fomenting local confusion and bolstering calls for retribution, experts say.

Israel has since rained down retaliatory strikes on the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, leaving 180,000 homeless and 2.3 million without electricity or water.

At least 1,200 Israelis and 1,200 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, according to reports.

Rights groups and researchers have warned against social media users sharing misleading or baseless claims, including miscaptioned imagery or altered documents, in an effort to shape public perception.


GO DEEPER
In Middle East, poor miss out as 'faulty' algorithms target aid

GO DEEPER
AI supercharges disinformation and censorship, report warns
European Union industry chief Thierry Breton this week urged social media leaders Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to tackle the spread of disinformation on their respective platforms - X, Facebook, and Instagram - to comply with new EU online content rules.

Here's what you need to know about disinformation during the conflict and how it's spreading:
What disinformation is spreading?

There have been four main narratives that have spread across social media, according to Jack Brewster, an editor for news rating website and misinformation tracker NewsGuard.

These are the key fake story lines identified by Brewster:that the attack against Israel was a false flag, a campaign perpetrated expressly to lay blame on an opponent.

that Israel is staging footage of dead children killed by Hamas.

that the U.S. administration approved an $8 billion aid package for Israel.
and that Ukraine sold weapons to Hamas.

The Arab Center for Social Media Advancement, a non-profit known as 7amleh, also tracked some inaccurate accounts of Jewish babies being held captive in Gaza, as well as of sexual abuse.

For families in the Middle East, disinformation can have a personal toll.

On Monday, a video on Musk's X platform purported to show Yaffa Adar, an 85-year-old grandmother, who was kidnapped from her home in Kibbutz Nir Oz near the border with Gaza on Saturday.

It shows footage of an older woman, surrounded by soldiers. The woman is seen resting after exiting a black van as soldiers hand her a bottle of water.

The video spread widely online, but on verification with the family, it became apparent the woman shown is not Adar.

“It was absolutely heartbreaking (to see that video) – to think that maybe she’s back and then to find out that it’s not her,” her granddaughter Adva Adar told Context.
What has helped fuel disinformation?

Across social media, dis- and misinformation have been spread about the violence in an echo of the fake news unleashed in the early stages of the Russia-Ukraine war, Brewster said.

The most notable change in the social media space is how X, formerly Twitter, is being used to spread disinformation, tech and media experts said.

“Some users have passed off video game footage as real, while others have shared clips from other events or wars entirely,” Brewster said.

Other social media platforms, such as TikTok, have been used to share out-of-context videos.

NewsGuard highlighted two videos purporting to show Israeli senior officials captured by Hamas - the men were in fact in the hands of Azerbaijan’s security service - and Hamas militants paragliding into Israel in a clip that was filmed in Egypt.

These videos received hundreds of thousands of views before being taken down.

TikTok did not provide comment when contacted by Context.

X directed Context to statements made by CEO Linda Yaccarino that it had "redistributed resources and refocused internal teams ... to address this rapidly evolving situation."

Theodora Skeadas, a former public policy staffer at Twitter who worked on content moderation, said that staffing cuts had significantly undermined the platform's capacity to tackle the deluge of doctored posts and misleading videos and images.

"The work that Twitter would have done in the past is (to) elevate reliable information, remove misinformation and content that violates the terms of service (and) add labels to certain posts for more context," she said.
How are platforms tackling the problem?

X has said that more than 500 unique Community Notes, a feature that lets users add context to potentially misleading content, have been posted about the conflict.

But Skeadas said community notes "can't keep up with the volume of posts during a crisis".

YouTube has said that graphic content may be allowed on the platform if it provides sufficient news value, but is moderating for videos that violate its rules.

Snap says it is monitoring for misinformation and incitement of violence.

Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, said a team of experts including Hebrew and Arabic speakers were monitoring the "rapidly evolving situation in real-time".
What are the real-world consequences?

The main aim of false narratives is to manipulate public opinion and justify collective punishment, Nadim Nashif, executive director of 7amleh, told Context.

“These phenomena have a considerable impact on ... access to information, something quite worrying in a context in which Palestinian narratives are censored and/or unable to make it to the online realm," he said.

This can lead to further calls for violence and to actual harm, as well as obscuring human rights violations and preventing justice from being served, he said.

Adar, whose grandmother is still missing, is worried that disinformation could prevent her family getting help.

“We are really looking for the world to understand the situation here – and then something like this comes up and people think that things are better, where they are not.”

New to Context? We'd love for you to find out a little more about what we do. Click here for a selection of our best work.

(Writing by Adam Smith; reporting by Inna Lazareva in Tel Aviv, Adam Smith in London, Avi Asher-Schapiro in Los Angeles; editing by Lyndsay Griffiths and Zoe Tabary)


Analysis: Propaganda, deception, and fake news in the Israel-Hamas conflict

The last thing that matters in any propaganda operation is whether there is any truth in it.

Palestinians wounded in Israeli air raids on the Gaza Strip are brought to al-Aqsa hospital in Deir el-Balah, on October 14, 2023 [Adel Hana/AP Photo]

By Zoran Kusovac
Published On 14 Oct 2023

The Hamas Authority for Refugee Affairs has called Israel’s already notorious directive that all civilians should evacuate the northern part of the Gaza Strip “fake propaganda”.

Whoever wrote that is dead wrong, and was certainly not involved in the planning of last week’s armed incursion into Israel carried out by the Palestinian group’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. The last thing that matters in any propaganda operation is whether there is any truth in it.




KEEP READING





Multiple surprise breaches of Israel’s security barriers between it and Gaza were carried out in a very determined and efficient fashion, as were the executions and captures of members of Israeli armed forces and civilians in the settlements swarmed by Hamas’s fighters.

But the main purpose of the attack was not military, except possibly to the limited degree of taking hostages who can be used as human shields in case of (expected) Israeli armed retaliation on the ground. The real purpose of the action was Hamas’s desire to demonstrate what it is capable of, militarily and in terms of willingness to use extreme violence.

The action was planned as a message saying “This is what we can and will do” – and as such it falls under that important, even crucial, part of the art of war we call psychological warfare.



The term may be new – it was first used barely 80 years ago, at the beginning of World War II – but the actions it describes are as old as warfare itself, as old as humanity.

From time immemorial, military commanders knew that they stood a better chance of being victorious in battle if their enemy was weakened and demoralised by fear and uncertainty.

Ancient warrior chiefs knew that surprise is one of the most efficient military tactics. If you make your foes guess when and how you will attack, and especially if you make them expect you at a different place at a different time, you have already half won your battle. The other half of victory is achieved by striking your enemy when and where he did not expect you and overcoming his weakened resistance.

Many wars in the past have been won without ever waging or winning one decisive battle. US senator and former military officer in the Vietnam War, John McCain, stated that Vietnamese Commander-in-Chief General Vo Nguyen Giap beat the United States in war but never in battle. In that sense, Hamas beat Israel in last weekend’s battle, but it has not won the war. Yet it scored an important propaganda victory

.
Palestinians queue to fill containers with water in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on October 14, 2023 [Mahmud Hams/AFP]

Scenes of Hamas machinegunning Israelis – soldiers and civilians – caused outrage in Israel and most of the Western world. But in the eyes of many Palestinians, most of the rest of the Arab world and many Third World countries, the armed fighters demonstrated determination, nerves of steel, skill in the use of modern military technologies and total disregard for their own lives in an action that proved that underdogs can successfully challenge the domination of the big and the mighty. In that vast part of the world, Hamas scored an important propaganda victory.

In Israel and in the West, it shot itself in the foot, giving additional proof to those who consider Hamas fighters cold-blooded murderers and “terrorists”. It also unified Israelis who rallied together regardless of differences in politics or opinions.

Was Hamas aware of the effect the raid would produce? Certainly, but it obviously calculated that it was worth it for them to show themselves in a new light and again raise awareness of the Palestinians’ plight.


The Israeli response was as expected: first came deliberate aerial bombing of Gaza with doubtful military effect, and then came an immediate psychological warfare campaign. Propaganda and guns – a classic military strategy

.
(Al Jazeera)

Israel’s call to civilians to evacuate northern Gaza in 24 hours is pure propaganda in the function of war. Every military planner knows that even under extreme threat, civilians, who cannot be disciplined the way armies can, who resist attempts to instil order, who try to take with them possessions that slow them down, and try to find alternative routes and means etc, may only cover 20-25km (12.5-15.5 miles) in a day.

But when their numbers swell, with even 10,000 being huge, not to mention a million, they will simply block every road, including ones needed by the military to manoeuvre, and create chaos, panic and demoralisation.


This is exactly what Israel intended to do, but it succeeded only partially. Why? We’ll examine it tomorrow.

Just to add that I was right about the Israeli land attack on Gaza not happening on Friday night. I believe it will not happen today, either.

But I will not say it might not happen next weekend. That might be a realistic time for the Israeli army to have achieved their desired level of operational readiness.


SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
  


Republicans plot to butcher the IRS budget to pay for aid to Israel

Story by M.L. Nestel • 
 RawStory

Rep. Mike Johnson

If Republicans get their way to support interests abroad — the IRS budget will take a hit worth billions of dollars.

On Monday, the House Rules Committee proposed a $14 billion package to help bolster Israel's military as it continues warring with Hamas, and the monies would be slashed from the Internal Revenue Service to stop its efforts to probe deep-pocketed tax cheats, according to the Washington Post.

"I understand their priority is to bulk up the IRS," Johnson said in an interview with Fox News. "But I think if you put this to the American people and they weigh the two needs, I think they're going to say standing with Israel and protecting the innocent over there is in our national interest and is a more immediate need than IRS agents."

The legislation comes as President Joe Biden offered to bankroll the allied country with about the same sum in his Israel Aid Plan, but it didn't come with a cleaving IRS budget.

It also comes after some conservatives since January have gone on the offensive against the arm of government tasked with collecting funds from all U.S. taxpayers.

The countermeasure of finding a way to pay for the theatre in both Gaza and Ukraine is one of the first lines in the sand drawn by newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) since he took over the gig about a month after Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was ousted by a contingent in his own party.


Related video: House Israel aid bill includes $14.3 billion by slashing IRS funds (NBC News)
Duration 3:04  View on Watch


“It becomes the piggy bank the Democrats have accepted already,” Grover Norquist, an anti-tax proponent at Americans for Tax Reform, told the outlet.

Republicans are seeking to make marked cuts to the IRS after moving to undo the IRS expansion dictated in Biden's Inflation Reduction Act last year of which they already rescinded $20 billion from the original $80 billion price tag that was established as part of a compromise to raise the country's debt ceiling.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) said Democrats are attempting to hammer out a bipartisan deal with Republicans.

“We can’t wait for the House, who knows what will happen there," he rhetorically asked last week, according to Politico. "The Senate will go first. It’s my hope that if the Senate can move quickly and pass something with strong bipartisan support we can importune the House to act."


'There are American hostages': House GOP slammed for 'exploiting a war to pass a tax cut'

“House GOP’s price for helping Israel: making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes.”


House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), Image via screengrab/X.


David Badashand
The New Civil Rights Movement
October 30, 2023

The House GOP under Speaker Mike Johnson has put forth legislation to provide aid to Israel for its war against Hamas terrorists, but in what some say is an unprecedented move Republicans are claiming they must include “offsets” to pay for the $14.3 billion package. Those “offsets,” or “pay-fors,” some say, will actually cost Americans more money: they come from cuts to the IRS.

Punchbowl News cofounder Jake Sherman reports the “offset will NEVER, EVER fly. Dems will reject it out of hand.”

Aaron Fritschner, the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) points out: “This is not an ‘offset’ and the use of that word in this context is not appropriate. Every relevant authority from CBO [Congressional Budget Office] on down has said that cutting IRS funding this way would *increase* deficits. This isn’t an offset, it’s exploiting a war to pass a tax cut for the rich.”

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) says it is an “obvious trap set by unserious people.”

“Was this in the Bible?” Moskowitz adds, appearing to refer to the large number of reports detailing Speaker Mike Johnson’s Christian nationalism. “To choose between Israel and the IRS. This is dead in the Senate. It violates Republicans single subject spending rule. It adds to the deficit. Playing political games with Israel’s security. I will support Israel.”

“Foreign Policy and National Security being conducted as a future political mailer,” Moskowitz later added. “’You chose the IRS over Israel’. I am not going to take the bait. There are American Hostages. This is not a game.”

Fritschner goes one step further, noting that the Congressional Budget Office’s “score” of the bill’s impact “will not be accurate because the bill ends with a section in which the Republicans instruct CBO not to count the effects of the bill that increase the deficit!”

“Fool people into believing you are cutting deficits using this one weird trick,” he adds, mockingly.

Mother Jones’ Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief David Corn labels the bill, “Helping the wealthy get away with cheating on their taxes so Israel has more bombs to drop.”

Colin Seeberge, a senior adviser at the liberal public policy research organization, Center for American Progress, writes: “This isn’t a pay-for, it’s a back door tax cut for the wealthy. Just outrageous.”

Journalist John Harwood: “House GOP’s price for helping Israel: making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes.”

Mark McDevitt, Chief of Staff to U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA), blasted Republicans: “Deeply f*cking unserious people during very f*cking serious times. What a disgrace.”

Matt Glassman, Ph.D., of Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute sarcastically called the GOP’s bill a “galaxy-brain move.”

“‘Offsetting’ spending by cutting IRS funding is such a galaxy-brain move, since you could also offset it by *increasing* IRS funding,” Glassman writes.


Federal budget expert: Blame Bush and Trump tax cuts for the US revenue problem

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 05: (AFP OUT) Former President George W. Bush walks past President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, former first lady Michelle Obama and former President Bill Clinton to give a eulogy for his father, former President George H.W. Bush during the State Funeral at the Washington National Cathedral on December 5, 2018 in Washington, DC.
 (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)

October 29, 2023

When jobs are plentiful and business profits soar, that means good news for federal tax revenues. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

For 15 years after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 went into effect, that’s exactly what happened: Changes in the U.S. unemployment rate were a strong predictor of changes in our federal tax revenues as a percent of the GDP; a drop in the unemployment rate caused revenues as a percent of GDP to increase. But since the beginning of the 21st century, a series of tax cuts under presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump have shattered the link between tax revenues and employment. Revenues as a percent of GDP dropped significantly, and now they no longer grow much when the economy strengthens.

After news that the federal deficit grew despite a strong economy, amid rising interest rates, there are renewed fears about the nation’s fiscal outlook. With these fears typically come calls to reduce spending. But the U.S. doesn’t have a spending problem; it has a revenue problem caused by tax cuts.

The Bush and Trump tax cuts broke our modern tax structure: Revenues are significantly lower and no longer grow much with the economy

Chart: Center for American Progress)

Between 1995 and 2000, the unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.0%, and revenues rose from 17.9% to 20.0% of GDP—the equivalent of taking in an additional $600 billion per year after adjusting for the size of the economy. When the unemployment rate fell a similar amount between 2015 and 2019, going from 5.4% to 3.7%, revenues dropped from 17.9% of GDP to 16.3%—the equivalent of taking in $450 billion less per year after adjusting for the size of the economy.

Why did this happen? Because during that same time, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and later the Trump tax cuts slashed taxes, significantly lowering overall revenue. Importantly, a disproportionate share of the benefits from these cuts accrued to very rich Americans, profitable corporations and wealthy heirs.

This newfound pattern of low revenues even in times of high employment has persisted up to the present day. In fiscal year 2023—which just ended September 30—the unemployment rate averaged 3.6%, the lowest since 1969. However, because of these large tax cuts, revenues were a paltry 16.5% of GDP.

These lower revenues have a profound impact on the finances of the nation. Prior to the tax cuts being enacted, the Congressional Budget Office projected long-term stability of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Yes, the CBO projected rising spending driven by Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But the agency also projected that revenues would be able to keep up indefinitely without any additional tax increases, due to real wage gains leading to higher revenues. Now, however, the CBO projects that debt is on track to rise as a percent of GDP indefinitely, with revenues now significantly lower and no longer projected to match primary (noninterest) program costs.

Two points explain this. The first involves a concept called the fiscal gap, which measures how much primary deficit reduction is required to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio. The 30-year fiscal gap is smaller than the size of the Bush tax cuts, their extensions and the Trump tax cuts under current law over the next 30 years. Therefore, mathematically and unequivocally, without those tax cuts, the debt ratio would be declining, not rising.


Second, even though the debt ratio is rising, spending can’t be blamed. The CBO’s 2012 long-term budget outlook was the last time debt was projected to decline indefinitely—because that projection was made before the Bush tax cuts were largely permanently extended. And relative to the CBO’s 2012 projection, current projections of program costs are down, not up. In short, if you were trying to explain how we got from the CBO’s 2012 projection of a declining debt ratio to its current projections of a rising debt ratio, changes in spending have lowered the future debt path, but revenues have declined significantly more than spending. Changes in revenues are therefore entirely responsible for going from a declining debt ratio to an ever-growing debt ratio.

Both revenues and spending are lower than earlier projections, meaning low revenues are responsible for persistent primary deficits

(Chart: Center for American Progress)


The first step in effecting change is proper diagnosis. Those who look to blame spending to close the primary deficit are looking in the wrong place. If not for the regressive tax cuts initiated under presidents Bush and Trump, we would have been looking at a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. Any discussion of how to change our fiscal path should focus first on generating additional revenue lost to these tax cuts.


SEE