What will 2022 bring in the way of misinformation on social media? 3 experts weigh in: December 27, 2021 7.58am EST

At the end of 2020, it seemed hard to imagine a worse year for misinformation on social media, given the intensity of the presidential election and the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic. But 2021 proved up to the task, starting with the Jan. 6 insurrection and continuing with copious amounts of falsehoods and distortions about COVID-19 vaccines. To get a sense of what 2022 could hold, we asked three researchers about the evolution of misinformation on social media. Absent regulation, misinformation will get worse Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State University While misinformation has always existed in media – think of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835 that claimed life was discovered on the moon – the advent of social media has significantly increased the scope, spread and reach of misinformation. Social media platforms have morphed into public information utilities that control how most people view the world, which makes misinformation they facilitate a fundamental problem for society. There are two primary challenges in addressing misinformation. The first is the dearth of regulatory mechanisms that address it. Mandating transparency and giving users greater access to and control over their data might go a long way in addressing the challenges of misinformation. But there’s also a need for independent audits, including tools that assess social media algorithms. These can establish how the social media platforms’ choices in curating news feeds and presenting content affect how people see information. The second challenge is that racial and gender biases in algorithms used by social media platforms exacerbate the misinformation problem. While social media companies have introduced mechanisms to highlight authoritative sources of information, solutions such as labeling posts as misinformation don’t solve racial and gender biases in accessing information. Highlighting relevant sources of, for example, health information may only help users with greater health literacy and not people with low health literacy, who tend to be disproportionately minorities. A woman stands on stage in front of an audience gesturing with her hands as the screen behind her displays a mosaic of close-up images of parts of people's faces Carnegie Mellon University’s Justine Cassell discusses algorithmic bias at the World Economic Forum in 2019. World Economic Forum, CC BY-NC-SA Another problem is the need to look systematically at where users are finding misinformation. TikTok, for example, has largely escaped government scrutiny. What’s more, misinformation targeting minorities, particularly Spanish-language content, may be far worse than misinformation targeting majority communities. I believe the lack of independent audits, lack of transparency in fact checking and the racial and gender biases underlying algorithms used by social media platforms suggest that the need for regulatory action in 2022 is urgent and immediate. Growing divisions and cynicism Dam Hee Kim, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Arizona “Fake news” is hardly a new phenomenon, yet its costs have reached another level in recent years. Misinformation concerning COVID-19 has cost countless lives all over the world. False and misleading information about elections can shake the foundation of democracy, for instance, by making citizens lose confidence in the political system. Research I conducted with S Mo Jones-Jang and Kate Kenski on misinformation during elections, some published and some in progress, has turned up three key findings. The first is that the use of social media, originally designed to connect people, can facilitate social disconnection. Social media has become rife with misinformation. This leads citizens who consume news on social media to become cynical not only toward established institutions such as politicians and the media, but also toward fellow voters. Second, politicians, the media and voters have become scapegoats for the harms of “fake news.” Few of them actually produce misinformation. Most misinformation is produced by foreign entities and political fringe groups who create “fake news” for financial or ideological purposes. Yet citizens who consume misinformation on social media tend to blame politicians, the media and other voters. The third finding is that people who care about being properly informed are not immune to misinformation. People who prefer to process, structure and understand information in a coherent and meaningful way become more politically cynical after being exposed to perceived “fake news” than people who are less politically sophisticated. These critical thinkers become frustrated by having to process so much false and misleading information. This is troubling because democracy depends on the participation of engaged and thoughtful citizens. Looking ahead to 2022, it’s important to address this cynicism. There has been much talk about media literacy interventions, primarily to help the less politically sophisticated. In addition, it’s important to find ways to explain the status of “fake news” on social media, specifically who produces “fake news,” why some entities and groups produce it, and which Americans fall for it. This could help keep people from growing more politically cynical. Rather than blaming each other for the harms of “fake news” produced by foreign entities and fringe groups, people need to find a way to restore confidence in each other. Blunting the effects of misinformation will help with the larger goal of overcoming societal divisions. Propaganda by another name Ethan Zuckerman, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Communication, and Information, UMass Amherst I expect the idea of misinformation will shift into an idea of propaganda in 2022, as suggested by sociologist and media scholar Francesca Tripodi in her forthcoming book, “The Propagandist’s Playbook.” Most misinformation is not the result of innocent misunderstanding. It’s the product of specific campaigns to advance a political or ideological agenda. Once you understand that Facebook and other platforms are the battlegrounds on which contemporary political campaigns are fought, you can let go of the idea that all you need are facts to correct people’s misapprehensions. What’s going on is a more complex mix of persuasion, tribal affiliation and signaling, which plays out in venues from social media to search results.

Pat Toomey: Mr. Irrelevant

Pat puts out a newsletter from time to time to explain to the good people of Pennsylvania what he is up to and I guess to justify his job. Well! Last week Pat came out bashing the Democrats spending bill as to inflationary. Pat the good Republican that he is must have forgotten about voting for the Trump tax cuts of 2017. Let’s take a quick look at these tax cuts. Christian Weller: Forbes 1/29/2020 The Tax Cuts Didn't Pay For Themselves, The Deficits Prove It The Federal Deficit Will Total $1 Trillion in 2020 According To The Congressional Budget Office Getty Less than a week after Treasury Secretary Mnuchin repeated the fanciful claim that the Trump tax cuts of 2017 would pay for themselves, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) proved him wrong. If tax cuts actually paid for themselves, they would reduce deficits based on faster revenue growth that comes from faster economic growth. Deficits immediately shot up after the 2017 supply-side tax cuts. And CBO forecasts that those deficits will continue to stay high for the foreseeable future. This is the opposite of tax cuts paying for themselves. CBO released its regular update to the economic and budget outlook on January 28. The new estimates show a deficit of $1 trillion for 2020. This is the equivalent of 4.6% of gross domestic product. The federal budget deficit will grow to 5.4% of GDP by 2030, according to GDP. This is a much worse outlook for the current deficit than CBO showed just before Congress passed the Trump tax cuts. In June 2017, CBO anticipated a deficit of 3.6% of GDP for 2020. The current deficit is thus 27.8% greater than CBO projected before the tax cuts. Moreover, this one percentage point difference in the current projected deficit and the prior projection equals $221 billion for 2020. This is a substantial gap that follows in large part from the tax cuts, especially since the economy continued to grow during this time. A temporarily larger deficit may be worth it, especially in a world of very low interest rates, if it translates into faster economic growth. But that is not what has happened. Economic growth increased briefly in early 2018 but quickly fell back to or even below the modest levels that persisted before the 2017 tax cuts (see figure below). Not all deficits are bad, but the ones from the supply-side tax cuts have proven to be. The Tax Cuts Did Not Result In Faster Growth Growth Has Slowed After A Short Increase Following The Tax Cuts Calculations Based on Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Congress enacted the trickle-down tax cuts, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in December 2017, aimed at accelerating growth. The argument in favor of these cuts went something like this: Giving corporations a lot more money and showering the richest households would give them more cash to invest. This would lower the cost of investing and spark a boom in investments in new manufacturing plants, office buildings, vehicle fleets and energy upgrades, among other things. These new investments would translate into faster productivity growth, higher economic growth and stronger wage and employment gains. That was at least the argument for selling lopsided tax cuts for the biggest winners in the current economy. But the first step in this chain — faster business investment growth — never happened. This should not have been surprising. Corporations were already profitable and sat on piles of cash in 2017. The richest households had also reaped the benefits of the economic expansion since 2009. And interest rates were very low. Yet none of these factors were enough to spark an investment boom. Those looking for cheap money for their investments didn’t have to look far. The problem was that there weren’t enough companies looking to invest. Other factors likely held back investments. Most notably, incomes have grown only slowly, households face increasing costs for health care, housing and education and continue to be burdened by massive amounts of consumer debt. There was and still is no reason for firms to invest in more capacity to make more stuff since they know consumers are maxed out and can’t by the additional things. This has important implications for using the federal purse to boost economic growth. Rather than wasting the money on trickle-down tax cuts, Congress could have spent the money on badly needed infrastructure improvements, on making education and health care more affordable and on greening the economy, to name just some of the bigger ideas. The result would have been direct income and job gains for American workers. Families would have gotten help with necessary yet costly items such as health care and education. And the cost of doing business for all companies would have been lower, not just for large cash-rich corporations. Both the economy and workers would have won. Investing in people and the country instead of wasting money on the lucky few actually works. Keep up the good work Pat

Critical infrastructure is most at risk of flooding in these 10 districts

Critical infrastructure is most at risk of flooding in these 10 districts Here are the top 10 House districts that have the highest percentage of critical infrastructure — such as power plants and hospitals — currently susceptible to flooding. All of these lawmakers voted along party lines on President Joe Biden’s climate bills, with the Democrats supporting them and the Republicans opposed. Rep. Maria Salazar (R) FL-27Rep. Steve Scalise (R) LA-1Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D) TX-29Rep. Byron Donalds (R) FL-19Rep. Randy Weber (R) TX-14Rep. Ted Deutch (D) FL-22Rep. Carlos Giménez (R) FL-26Rep. Troy Carter (D) LA-2Rep. Doris Matsui (D) CA-6Rep. Clay Higgins (R) LA-3 88%78%74%73%70%69%69%68%65% 63% Source: First Street Foundation Graphic: John Keefe, CNN

Does He Really Believe His Own Nonsense?

Just Another Snake Oil Stalesman Fact check: David Perdue falsely claims Brian Kemp turned over control of Georgia elections to Stacey Abrams Daniel Dale profile By Daniel Dale, CNN Updated 12:49 PM ET, Thu December 9, 2021 'It's head-spinning': Ex-GOP lawmaker reacts to ex-senator's gubernatorial bid JU Source: CNN 'It's head-spinning': Ex-GOP lawmaker reacts to ex-senator's gubernatorial bid 01:51 Washington (CNN)Former Sen. David Perdue of Georgia launched his campaign for governor on Monday with a false claim about his chief opponent in the Republican primary, incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp. In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Perdue accused Kemp of handing control of Georgia elections to Democrat Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia state House minority leader who is now making a second run for governor after Kemp beat her in a close race in 2018. "Over my dead body will we ever do what Kemp did, and that is turn our elections over to Stacey Abrams," said Perdue, who lost his US Senate seat to Democrat Jon Ossoff in early 2021. "We'll never let that happen again." Perdue's claim echoed language he used in the announcement video he released earlier on Monday: "Over my dead body will we ever give Stacey Abrams control of our elections again." Perdue didn't elaborate on how Kemp supposedly turned over Georgia elections to Abrams, and his campaign didn't respond to CNN's requests for clarification. But his comments on Fox were preceded by some relevant context from Hannity. Hannity had complained just over a minute earlier about a 2020 legal settlement between Democratic organizations and Georgia elections officials. That settlement, which Trump has denounced repeatedly, laid out statewide standards for how Georgia counties had to verify absentee voters' signatures and for how quickly those counties had to contact absentee voters whose ballots were at risk of being tossed out. Facts First: Perdue's claim was entirely inaccurate. Stacey Abrams has never been in control of Georgia elections, and Kemp certainly did not turn over Georgia elections to her. In reality: The 2020 legal settlement didn't give control of Georgia elections to any Democrat, neither Abrams nor Kemp was a party to the settlement and Abrams wasn't even in government at the time. Perdue could perhaps argue that he meant "turn our elections over to Stacey Abrams" in some less-than-literal way. But his claim is baseless no matter how generously you interpret it. In a rare moment of unity, the Kemp and Abrams campaigns both said Tuesday that Perdue's claim was false. Kemp campaign spokesman Cody Hall said in an email to CNN that "the claim he gave Abrams control of elections is a lie." Hall also said that "the Governor had no role in the settlement negotiations" and "was not a party to the agreement." The Abrams campaign reiterated that she had not been involved in the settlement either. Campaign spokesman Seth Bringman said in an email to CNN: "David Perdue was apparently using one of Donald Trump's favorite Georgia fairy tales to make the argument that Brian Kemp is not anti-voter enough. Is this real life?!" Following Trump The March 2020 settlement has become a boogeyman to Trump and his Georgia allies. Trump has blasted both Kemp and Republican Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger over the settlement -- while wrongly describing what it said and wrongly describing it as an Abrams vehicle for election fraud. So even without confirmation from Perdue that this is what he was referring to on Monday, it's worth explaining who was involved in the agreement, where it came from and what it actually included. The settlement resolved a legal complaint that had been filed in 2019 by the Democratic Party of Georgia and two national Democratic entities, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The defendants listed on the settlement document Trump and others have criticized were Raffensperger and four other then-members of the state election board. Kemp and Abrams were not mentioned in the settlement. The specifics of the settlement The settlement addressed a Democratic complaint about a hole in Georgia elections law. But it did not change anything about who has power over Georgia elections. Here's the background. A law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2019 required counties to give absentee voters the opportunity to "cure" problems with their ballots, such as mismatched or missing signatures, before those ballots were tossed out. The law had also required counties to "promptly" get in touch with the voters whose ballots were in danger. But the law didn't define "promptly" and didn't specify what methods counties needed to use to notify the voters. The Democratic plaintiffs alleged that too many absentee ballots had been rejected in Georgia because of the absence of such specifics; they also argued that these rejections had disproportionately disenfranchised "African-American and other minority voters." Raffensperger settled the complaint by agreeing to enforce a set of statewide notification standards -- standards that, as Raffensperger's office emphasized to CNN, the state election board had already approved at public meetings during the weeks prior to the settlement agreement. Raffensperger said in a statement to CNN that the settlement "didn't change Georgia law -- it upheld it." Under the new standards, counties had to notify absentee voters of pending ballot rejections, and the opportunity to "cure" the problem, either by the next business day or in three business days, depending on how late in the campaign the ballot was received. And counties were required to send the voters a mailed notice for sure, plus try them by phone and email if that extra information was available on their voter registration records. Nothing in this policy represented a transfer of election power to Abrams or to Democrats more broadly. Georgia's signature-match system was eliminated by the new Republican elections law Kemp signed in March 2021; now Georgia's absentee voters have to provide one of several forms of non-signature identification. But contrary to Trump's claim in September 2021 that the 2020 legal settlement "effectively abolished signature verification" in Georgia, the verification system was very much in place during the 2020 presidential election. In fact, the settlement explicitly kept a signature verification system in place -- laying out a statewide process for how counties had to go about comparing voters' new signatures with older signatures on file. Training materials Some Republicans have complained that another section of the settlement gave too much power to Democrats. Raffensperger and the state election board members agreed to "consider in good faith" sending counties "additional guidance and training materials" on signature verification that would be drafted by the Democratic plaintiffs. Even if Raffensperger's office did send counties Democratic-drafted guidance and training materials, that still wouldn't mean Abrams had been handed control of Georgia elections. But Raffensperger's office told CNN on Tuesday that they didn't end up sending out those documents. "We considered but did not use or distribute the materials from the Democratic Party plaintiffs," the office said in an email. CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to add a comment from Raffensperger and to clarify when the Georgia state election board approved new statewide notification standards for absentee ballots. Paid Content

A Texas school district is reviewing 400 library books after a GOP lawmaker's inquiry December 8, 2021 Rachel Treisman

One of Texas' largest school districts is reviewing more than 400 of its library books following a Republican lawmaker's statewide inquiry into school library titles dealing with topics like race, gender and sexuality. The North East Independent School District in San Antonio says it was already in the process of reviewing its library books when state Rep. Matt Krause, who chairs the Texas House's General Investigating Committee, announced his inquiry in late October. A Texas lawmaker is targeting 850 books that he says could make students feel uneasy Politics A Texas lawmaker is targeting 850 books that he says could make students feel uneasy Krause — who is also a candidate for Texas attorney general — sent schools statewide a 16-page list of roughly 850 books related to gender identity, sexuality, race and sexual health, and asked officials to tell him how many copies of the books their libraries hold and how much their districts spent on them. He said at the time that he was targeting titles that "might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex or convey that a student, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." Article continues after sponsor message These titles include And Tango Makes Three, a children's book about a same-sex penguin couple and their daughter; the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Confessions of Nat Turner and the nonfiction We the Students: Supreme Court Cases For and About Students. Some school districts, like Austin and Dallas, have said that they won't comply with Krause's request. San Antonio district found 414 of those titles in its schools North East ISD spokesperson Aubrey Chancellor told NPR over email that the district was reviewing its books when it learned of Krause's request, at which point it determined that its libraries held 414 of the books on his list. That's out of some 800,000 books across the district, she later clarified, and the breakdown varies across its 67 campus libraries. Chancellor said district officials asked staff to review those books out of an abundance of caution and to make sure they don't contain any obscene or vulgar material. "For us, this is not about politics or censorship, but rather about ensuring that parents choose what is appropriate for their minor children," Chancellor wrote. She said the process is moving quickly, with more than 100 books having been reviewed and deemed age-appropriate in a matter of days. Texas governor decries school library books with 'pornographic or obscene material' Politics Texas governor decries school library books with 'pornographic or obscene material' Most are appropriate and will remain on the shelves, she added, but some may contain content that "needs further review to ensure the books are accessible based on age appropriateness." Faced with student criticism, the district spokesperson calls it a "reshuffle" Some North East ISD students have already voiced their opposition to the statewide inquiry and review: An online petition titled "Remove the Krause List from all NEISD schools" has accrued nearly 2,000 signatures in about five days. The petition notes that titles on Krause's list primarily include books about race, resources for safe sex, books about gender identity and stories centering LGBTQ relationships, and said such books offer students important information and a place to see their stories represented. "Many black and lgbtq students in NEISD are appalled and hurt by NEISD's decision to comply with Matt Krause and suppress our harmless resources and stories," it reads. "We are asking for NEISD to take action against the suppression of our resources, and we are asking students to help us in advocating against this Krause list." Education In Virginia's Election: It Wasn't Just About Critical Race Theory Consider This from NPR Education In Virginia's Election: It Wasn't Just About Critical Race Theory When asked about the petition, Chancellor characterized the review process as part of a broader effort to determine the age-appropriateness of books and move them around as needed. "If a book needs to be moved from elementary to the secondary level or whether a book at the high school level needs to be placed in a separate section that requires parental permission," she wrote. "The idea is more of a reorganization and a reshuffle — the purpose is not to remove books." The district is also forming a book review committee to determine which books may need to go in a separate section of the library and launching an electronic tool that parents can use to see which library books their children are checking out. It's part of a larger GOP push to decide what Texas schools can teach Krause is one of several Texas Republicans to have recently demanded information about school library books that they deem inappropriate as the highly politicized debate over critical race theory plays out in districts across the country. Last month, Gov. Greg Abbott asked the state's association of school boards to shield students from library books with "pornographic or obscene material," and then directed state education officials to develop standards for blocking the presence of such books in Texas public schools. Texas Public Radio has more on Republicans' latest efforts to dictate what can be taught in classrooms. This story originally appeared on the Morning Edition live blog.

Michigan school shooting shows how violence can transition from online threats to real-world tragedy by Mia Bloom & Volkan Topalli

The warning signs were there. In the days leading up to the deadliest school shooting of 2021 in the U.S., 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley made a series of disturbing comments and messages – both online and in a drawing. He had been caught at school searching online for bullets. The drawing on his desk, discovered by one of his teachers, depicted a gun pointing at the words “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.” It is, perhaps, easy to look back at the postings of a mass shooter after the event and highlight the red flags that were potentially missed. But how do you know when a young person is writing offensive, threatening or disturbing posts merely to garner attention or to blow off steam, rather than presenting a threat to themselves or others? And at what point in the transition from online threats to real-world harm should concerns by teachers, parents or peers be deemed actionable by law enforcement and other officials? More than 140,000 readers get one of The Conversation's informative newsletters As experts in extremist violence and criminal justice, we believe many of the investigative tactics used in countering terrorism can be leveraged to prevent violent acts like the one Ethan Crumbley is charged with carrying out. In particular, monitoring social media and systematically assessing the threat of individuals who post disturbing content can prove critically important. Among the charges Crumbley faces is one count of terrorism, a rarity in school shooting cases. Karen McDonald, the prosecutor in Oakland County, Michigan, spoke of the similarity between the events at Oxford High School and terrorism: “If that’s not terrorism, I don’t know what is.” As such, which lessons can be used from terrorism research to help identify potential lone-actor shooters? They leak information about the attack Research on lone-actor terrorism indicates most “leak” crucial information before an attack. In up to 74% of cases included in studies, such individuals shared crucial details of the planned attack with friends, family members or co-workers. The study looked at lone actors across a variety of movements, from far-right nationalists to Islamist extremists to single-issue groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front. In some of these cases, details were posted online before the attack. They display disturbing behavior Speaking on CNN, Candice Delong, a former FBI profiler, explained that active shooters often exhibit aggressive and inappropriate behavior. Indeed, prosecutor McDonald said there was a “mountain of digital evidence” that Crumbley planned the attack in advance, adding that there was “additional evidence that hasn’t been released yet.” Investigators are continuing to review Crumbley’s social media and online behavior – not only what he posted but also his search history. At his arraignment, the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office said materials recovered from Crumbley’s cellphone included “a video made by him the night before the incident wherein he talked about shooting and killing students the next day at Oxford High School.” “Further, a journal was recovered from Ethan’s backpack also detailing his desire to shoot up a school to include murdering students.” Our own assessment of what is publicly known about this material suggests striking similarities between Crumbley’s behaviors before the shooting and the types of radical online content – manifested in memes, images and gaming platforms – most often associated with violent extremist groups that target and recruit young people. They radicalize online first Our research finds that extremists rely heavily on social media and the internet to recruit and access vulnerable youths. And like individuals recruited online, school shooters can often experience a similar transition – they go from posting violent fantasies online to engaging in real-world actions. In Crumbley’s case, he moved very quickly from online posts to real-world harm, seemingly much faster than most lone-actor shooters who can take several months or even a year before they manifest violence. They draw inspiration from online violence Critically, it is not necessary for extremist groups to purposely direct young individuals into such destructive behavior. Many lone-actor shooters perpetrate acts of violence through mere exposure to such messaging, especially when it resonates with a young person’s existing insecurities or grievances. This creates a pernicious form of plausible deniability – where extremist groups or individuals can simultaneously incite violence through multiple means and deny responsibility for the actions of individuals who are inspired by them. Psychologist Randy Borum has argued multiple motivations might be the norm, but online incitement is certainly a common theme. They fixate on perceived enemies and injustices Lone-actor shooters can become focused on imagined “enemies” deserving of punishment and “justice.” This behavior has been evident in the past few years with “incels” – involuntary celibates – who blame women for their social rejection and use violence to express their misogyny. According to the U.N. Office of Counter-Terrorism, many school shooters include incel language in their manifestos, journals and other writings. We do not yet know the specific motivations behind the latest school shooting. But we do get a picture of Crumbley as someone acting out of perceived frustrations and resentments. And in this way, he may not be dissimilar from mass killers like Elliot Rodger, Alek Minassian, or Jake Davidson who identify or have been identified as incels. The common theme is these young men’s frustrations, along with growing feelings of anger and hate, is that they transitioned from being expressed through online fantasy to real-world tragedy. Crumbley matches many of the stereotypical characteristics associated with other mass shooters: He was young, white, male and seemingly disaffected. It is also clear that Crumbley was attracted to firearms. Reading the signs Not all young men posting and consuming violent content online will carry out acts of violence. The majority, in fact, won’t. But experience shows that some are at risk for taking what they see online to try to make it happen in the real world, and the consequences of these few acts can be devastating to families and communites. In Crumbley’s case, warning signs appear to have been missed. School officials did meet with Crumbley and his parents to voice their concerns over his behavior twice, including on the day of the attack, but as Tim Throne, the district superintendent, later wrote, “At no time did counselors believe the student might harm others.” School lockdowns, active-shooter drills, and campus security – all of which Oxford High had implemented – cannot replace preemptive prevention. Identifying and getting to would-be shooters before they can move from the hypothetical online world to the physical real world is critical. Reading those signals and setting up early-warning interventions before they turn into a tragedy is critical work for those in public safety and academia. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

This conservative Republican just told an uncomfortable truth about the Trump wing in Congress (CNN) Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw did something rare in Republican politics over the weekend: He used actual facts to rebut a commonly held misconception. Speaking at an event for the Texas Liberty Alliance PAC on Sunday, Crenshaw lit into what are often believed to be the most conservative -- and most Trump-loving -- members of the GOP conference. Here's Crenshaw: "There's two types of Members of Congress: There's performance artists and legislators. The performance artists are the ones that get all the attention, the ones you think are more conservative because they know how to say slogans real well, they know how to recite the lines that they know our voters want to hear." He then goes on to cite data suggesting that Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, was actually one of the most loyal supporters of the then-President's agenda in 2017 and 2018, during the 115th Congress when Republicans held both the House and Senate majorities. Then Crenshaw drops the hammer, noting that the House Freedom Caucus members were some of the least loyal to Trump's agenda. "All of them," Crenshaw insisted. "What you hear so often is not true," Crenshaw warned the audience. "We have grifters in our midst... in the conservative movement. Lie after lie after lie." THE POINT -- NOW ON YOUTUBE! In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe! So, is Crenshaw right? FiveThirtyEight kept tabs on votes in support of Trump's agenda and positions for all four years of his presidency. Which makes it relatively easy to fact-check Crenshaw's claims. In the 115th Congress, Kinzinger, that scourge of all Trumpists, voted in line with the Trump position 99% of the time. That put him in a tie for the 2nd most Trump-y voting record in the House over those two years. And some of the least supportive members of the Trump agenda over that same time were, in fact, members of the Freedom Caucus. There was Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, who backed the Trump position just 72.9% of the time. And fellow Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who was with Trump only 77.8% of the time. And Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (80.4%). And Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (81.1%). And Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks (83.7%). And South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman (83.9%). And even Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan (85.1%). (For his part, Crenshaw wasn't in the 115th Congress under GOP control. When he got elected and served in the back half of the Trump presidency in the House GOP minority, he voted with Trump 90.8% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.) There's more -- lots more -- but you get the idea. Crenshaw, in the main, is absolutely right that Kinzinger was one of the strongest supporters of Trump's agenda over his first two years in the White House and prominent members of the House Freedom Caucus were among the then-President's least steady backers. Neither Crenshaw's office nor that of Biggs, the current Freedom Caucus chair, immediately responded to a request for comment. What gives? My educated guess is that Trumpism isn't really about a set of conservative policy positions. It's about an attitude (confrontational) and a worldview (conspiratorial). Does Trump even know the facts Crenshaw was telling the crowd on Sunday? Probably not. And it's not immediately clear to me he would care. Trump likes performers and the House Freedom Caucus -- from Gaetz to Gohmert to Jordan -- is full of them. They are the faces of the modern Trump Republican Party -- even though their voting records suggest they have been something short of fully supportive of the former President.

Penobscots don’t want ancestors’ scalping to be whitewashed By DAVID SHARPDecember 4, 2021 AP

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Most Americans know about atrocities endured by Native Americans after the arrival of European settlers: wars, disease, stolen land. But they aren’t always taught the extent of the indiscriminate killings. Members of the Penobscot Nation in Maine have produced an educational film addressing how European settlers scalped — killed — Indigenous people during the British colonial era, spurred for decades by cash bounties and with the government’s blessing. “It was genocide,” said Dawn Neptune Adams, one of the three Penobscot Nation members featured in the film, called “Bounty.” She said the point of the effort isn’t to make any Americans feel defensive or blamed. The filmmakers say they simply want to ensure this history isn’t whitewashed by promoting a fuller understanding of the nation’s past. At the heart of the project is a chilling declaration by Spencer Phips, lieutenant governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Issued in November 1755, it gave “His Majesty’s Subjects” license to kill Penobscots for “this entire month.” The reward was about $12,000 in today’s dollars for the scalp of a man, and half that for a woman’s scalp. The amount was slightly less for a child. Settlers who killed Indigenous people were sometimes rewarded with land, in addition to money, expanding settlers’ reach while displacing tribes from their ancestral la The declaration is familiar to many Penobscots because a copy of the document was displayed at the tribal offices at Indian Island, Maine. “If every American knew the whole history of this country, even the dark and uncomfortable parts, it would help us to get along better and to understand each other better,” said Maulian Dana, who co-directed the film with Neptune Adams. Both Europeans and Native Americans engaged in scalping, but English colonists greatly expanded the practice when the government sanctioned the effort with bounties, the filmmakers said. The first known colonial scalping order is from 1675. That’s just a few short decades after the first Thanksgiving in 1621, when Pilgrims gathered with Wampanoag people for a harvest celebration, said Chris Newell, who is Passamaquoddy and wrote “If You Lived During the Plimoth Thanksgiving.” All told, there were more than 70 bounty proclamations encouraging white colonists to kill tribal members in what’s now New England, and another 50 government-sanctioned proclamations elsewhere across the country, the filmmakers’ research found. Colonial governments paid out bounties for scalps of at least 375 Indigenous people across New England between 1675 to 1760, they said. Emerson Baker, a Salem State University professor who specializes in New England history, called the tribal education effort “a powerful course correction.” “Most people realize that Native Americans were here first and that the colonists did their best to remove them from the land. They just have no idea of the extremes that it took,” Baker said. “Pretty much any Native American man, woman or child was considered fair game at times, and sometimes by the government.” Collaborating with the Massachusetts-based Upstander Project, the filmmakers released “Bounty” in November during National Native American Heritage Month. Neptune Adams and Dana, along with Tim Shay and their families, were filmed at the Old State House in Boston. It’s the same location where Lt. Gov. Phips’ scalping order was signed. In “Bounty,” the three participants describe having nightmares of Penobscots being chased through the woods, and discuss the dehumanization and massacre of their people. “When you learn about a people’s humanity, that affects how you treat my kids, how you vote on public policy, how you may view my people,” Dana said. Accompanying the short video is a 200-page study guide aimed at teachers. Several school districts, including Portland Public Schools in Maine’s largest city, are purchasing licenses for the video and plan to use the study guides to assist instruction. In Portland, the scalp bounties will be included as one element in a curriculum that will bring the school district into compliance with a 2001 law requiring students to be taught Wabanaki Studies focusing on Native Americans in Maine, said Fiona Hopper, social studies teacher leader and Wabanaki studies coordinator. “Students and teachers will see in ‘Bounty’ the ongoing endurance and resistance of Penobscot Nation citizens,” Hopper said. Follow David Sharp on Twitter at https://twitter.com/David_Sharp_AP

Young Americans are raising alarms about the state of U.S. democracy in a new poll NPR

Young Americans are raising alarms about the state of U.S. democracy in a new poll December 1, 202112:08 PM ET Juana Summers Twitter Students wait in line to cast their ballot at a polling station on the campus of the University of California, Irvine, on Nov. 6, 2018. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images A majority of young Americans are worried about the state of democracy in the U.S., according to a new poll released this week by the Harvard University Kennedy School's Institute of Politics. The poll found that 52% of young people in the U.S. believe that the country's democracy is either "in trouble" or "a failed democracy." Just 7% said that democracy in the United States is "healthy." There are significant partisan divides. While young Democrats are roughly evenly split on whether U.S. democracy is functioning or in trouble, 70% of young Republicans reported tht the country was either a democracy in trouble, or a failed democracy. John Della Volpe, the Institute of Politics polling director, said that after turning out in record numbers in last year's elections, "young Americans are sounding the alarm." "When they look at the America they will soon inherit, they see a democracy and climate in peril – and Washington as more interested in confrontation than compromise," said Della Volpe, who advised the Biden presidential campaign on the youth vote. "Despite this, they seem as determined as ever to fight for the change they seek." Article continues after sponsor message Democracy is declining in the U.S. but it's not all bad news, a report finds Politics Democracy is declining in the U.S. but it's not all bad news, a report finds The Harvard Youth Poll is one of the most extensive efforts to poll young Americans, who are notoriously difficult to survey. The poll of 2,109 18-29 year old U.S. residents was conducted between Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2021, with interviews in English and Spanish. The poll also found that nearly half of young Republicans say there is a 50% chance or better that they will see a second civil war in their lifetime, compared to 32% of young Democrats and 38% of independent or unaffiliated voters. Della Volpe said that along with Republicans, young people without college experience, Latino young people and those who indicated that they lived in small towns were more likely to say they believed a civil war could occur in their lifetimes. Young people have somewhat bleak views of Biden While young voters leaned heavily Democratic in the 2020 election, the Harvard Youth Poll found that Biden's job approval rating is at 46% among voters age 18-29, while 51% disapprove. That's a 13-point drop since the last Harvard Youth Poll in March, when 59% of Americans 18-29 said they approved of Biden's job performance. The findings come as Democrats are looking ahead to next year's midterm elections and attempting to energize key parts of their base, including the youngest generation of voters who are less likely to participate in non-presidential elections. Biden receives higher approval ratings from young Democrats than Republicans: 75% of young Democrats said they approved of Biden's job performance now, compared to 9% of Republicans and 39% of independent or unaffiliated voters. US President Joe Biden takes a selfie with a supporter after speaking at the Dakota County Technical College in Rosemount, Minnesota, November 30, 2021. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images All told, 45% of young people said they believed the Biden Administration cares about their generation, while 38% disagreed. When asked about key issues, young voters gave Biden the highest approval rating for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. His lowest rating, meanwhile, comes from his handling of gun violence, which has been a galvanizing issue for many young Americans. But disapproval among young people isn't limited to Biden. A majority of young people also disapprove of how Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are doing their jobs, according to the poll, with Republicans faring worse among the predominantly left-leaning age group. Biden hits a new low in the NPR/Marist poll as inflation concerns rise Politics Biden hits a new low in the NPR/Marist poll as inflation concerns rise There's a GOP push in Wisconsin to take over the state's election system Politics There's a GOP push in Wisconsin to take over the state's election system In terms of favorability, those ages 18-29 are split on President Biden. The poll found that 46% view him favorably, compared to 44% who view him unfavorably. Young people reported dimmer views of former President Trump as well. His favorable rating was 30%, and unfavorable rating was 63%. Mental health and lingering pandemic effects The poll also raises some significant concerns about the mental health of those between the ages of 18-29 in the United States. The poll found that more than half (51%) of young Americans reported "feeling down, depressed, or hopeless" at times, and roughly a quarter reported thoughts of self-harm over a two-week period. "Between 50-55 million young Americans are in this cohort, which means every day there are millions of millions of millions... who are struggling with this on a regular basis," said Della Volpe. A majority of 18-29 year olds also reported that the coronavirus pandemic has changed them, with 14% saying that they had become a "very different person." Young Democrats were more likely than young Republicans to say that the pandemic had changed them. But overall, a majority said the pandemic has had a negative impact on their life. On that issue, there is no partisan divide: 51% of Democrats, 51% of Republicans and 52% of independents all say the pandemic has had a negative impact on their life. Power the future of public radio. Donate today! Celebrate 50 years of NPR by donating to your local station. You'll be funding reliable programming and fact-based reporting from journalists in your community, across the country and around the world. Donate Now More Stories From NPR

Dr.Oz Running Right out the Door

Quack TV Doctor Thinks He Deserves to Be a Senator, Because That’s Where We Are Now Peter Wade/ Rolling Stone Tue, November 30, 2021, 4:30 PM Dr. Mehmet Oz, the quack doctor who became famous as a fixture of Oprah Winfrey’s media empire, is hoping to parlay his TV career into a political one. The surgeon and TV host announced Tuesday that he running as a Republican for the Pennsylvania Senate seat being left vacant by retiring GOP Sen. Pat Toomey. “I’m running for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania because America needs a conservative Republican to cure what’s wrong with Washington,” Oz tweeted along with a video in which he claims he “took on the medical establishment to argue against costly drugs and skyrocketing medical bills.” Oz may have a medical degree, but he has a long history of hawking bullshit medical advice and making unfounded weight loss claims. He’s said raspberry ketones are “the No. 1 miracle in a bottle to burn your fat” (the Public Affairs Council says this is a “scam”). He’s said lavendar soap can reduce leg cramps. He even once said in a now-deleted tweet that astrological signs “may reveal a great deal about our health.” (The list goes on.) Oz has also, not surprisingly, has downplayed the risks posed by Covid, arguing to Sean Hannity in the heat of the pandemic last April that the nation needs to “get our mojo back” and that opening schools may be a good way to get things back on track. “Let’s start with things really critical to the nation,” he told the Fox News host. “Schools are a very appetizing opportunity. I just saw a nice piece in the Lancet arguing that the opening of schools may only cost us 2-3% in terms of total mortality. Any life is a life lost, but to get every child back into school where they’re safely being educated, being fed, and making the most out of their lives with a theoretical risk on the backside — it might be a trade-off some folks would consider.” Oz leaned on his medical credentials in claiming he’s qualified to handle the pandemic in an op-ed published Tuesday by The Washington Examiner. “During the pandemic, I learned that when you mix politics and medicine, you get politics instead of solutions,” he wrote. “That’s why I am running for the U.S. Senate: to help fix the problems and to help us heal.” Oz is not the only candidate running for the seat, but a recent exit from the race by Trump-endorsed candidate Sean Parnell — who suspended his campaign following allegations of domestic abuse and losing custody of his children — has opened up the field. “The influx of unqualified, untested and wealthy Republican candidates in this race will intensify the viciousness of their intra-party fight and leave their ultimate nominee badly out of step with Pennsylvania’s general election voters,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Patrick Burgwinkle said in a statement Tuesday. “The GOP will find Oz is no miracle cure for their mounting problems in this primary.” According to the Associated Press, Oz has been a New Jersey resident for decades, but he recently registered to vote using his in-laws’ Pennsylvania address. He voted there this year using an absentee ballot.

Potatoes and Science

BANGOR, Maine (AP) — University of Maine researchers are trying to produce potatoes that can better withstand warming temperatures as the climate changes. Warming temperatures and an extended growing season can lead to quality problems and disease, Gregory Porter, a professor of crop ecology and management, told the Bangor Daily News. “The predictions for climate change are heavier rainfall events, and potatoes don’t tolerate flooding or wet conditions for long without having other quality problems,” Porter said. “If we want potatoes to be continued to be produced successfully in Maine, we need to be able to produce varieties that can be resistant to change.” Around the world, research aimed at mitigating crop damage is underway. A NASA study published this month suggested climate change may affect the production of corn and wheat, with corn yields projected to decline while wheat could see potential growth, as soon as 2030 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario. ADVERTISEMENT Maine is coming off of a banner potato crop thanks in part to the success of the Caribou russet, which was developed by UMaine researchers. But Porter fears that even that variety isn’t as heat tolerant as necessary to resist the future effects of climate change. Pests are another factor. The Colorado potato beetle and disease-spreading aphids have flourished with the changing climate, said Jim Dill, pest management specialist at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension. Breeding seemingly small changes like hairier leaves that make it difficult for insects to move around on the plant can cut down on pests’ destruction and also the need for pesticides, he said. Breeding such characteristics into potatoes is a long process of cross-pollinating different potato varieties. The process is well underway. They’re in a research testing phase right now at sites throughout the United States. Test potatoes in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida are testing high temperature stress. “It takes 10 years of selection after that initial cross pollination, and it might take two to five years before enough commercial evaluation has taken place to release a new potato variety,” Porter said. This story has been corrected to show that the NASA study suggests wheat production could grow, while corn yields could decline, under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario. ___ Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate

Medicare premium increase is not due to inflation, despite Fla. senator’s claim

As Republicans seek to take back control of Contress, a key voting bloc will be older Americans, and the GOP aims to illustrate how much worse life has grown for them under the Biden administration. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., shown speaking during a Senate hearing in February, claims inflation is to blame for Medicare premium increases. That's just wrong, experts say. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., shown speaking during a Senate hearing in February, claims inflation is to blame for Medicare premium increases. That's just wrong, experts say.ERIN SCOTT/Pool / MCT by Phil Galewitz, Kaiser Health News/Politifact Published Nov 27, 2021 An increase in Medicare Part B premiums means “America’s Seniors Are Paying the Price for Biden’s Inflation Crisis” — The headline of a press release from Sen. Rick Scott (R., Fla.) Republicans blame President Joe Biden for this year’s historic surge in inflation, reflected in higher prices for almost everything — from cars and gas to food and housing. They see last month’s 6.2% annual inflation rate — the highest in decades and mostly driven by an increase in consumer spending and supply issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic — as a ticket to taking back control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections. A key voting bloc will be older Americans, and the GOP aims to illustrate how much worse life has grown for them under the Biden administration. Advertisement Sen. Rick Scott (R., Fla.) issued a press release Nov. 16 suggesting that rising general inflation was behind the large increase in next year’s standard premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers physician and some drug costs and other outpatient services. Headlined “Sen. Rick Scott: America’s Seniors Are Paying the Price for Biden’s Inflation Crisis,” the press release from Scott says he is “slamming Biden’s inaction to address the inflation crisis he and Washington Democrats have created with reckless spending and socialist policies, which is expected to cause significant price increases on [senior] citizens and Medicare recipients.” Was the climbing annual inflation rate over the past several months to blame for the increase in Medicare Part B premiums? We reached out to Scott’s office for more detail but received no reply. Upon further investigation, we found there is little, if any, connection between general inflation in the past few months and the increase in Medicare Part B premiums. What’s the status of Medicare premiums? Medicare Part B premiums have been growing steadily for decades to keep up with rising health spending. The U.S. inflation rate, for years held at bay, has been above 4% since April, hitting 6.2% in October, the highest rate in decades. Advertisement On Nov. 12, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that the standard monthly premium for Medicare Part B would rise to $170.10 in 2022, from $148.50 this year. The 14.5% increase is the largest one-year increase in the program’s history. Scott’s press release refers to the CMS report. CMS cited three main factors for the increase: rising health care costs, a move by Congress last year that held the premium increase to just $3 a month because of the pandemic, and the need to raise money for a possible unprecedented surge in drug costs. Inflation was not on that list. In fact, half of the premium increase was due to making sure the program was ready in case Medicare next year decides to start covering Aduhelm, a new Alzheimer’s drug priced at $56,000 per year, per patient. It’s been estimated that total Medicare spending for the drug for one year alone would be nearly $29 billion, far more than any other drug. How big a hit will seniors feel? The Part B premium is typically subtracted automatically from enrollees’ Social Security checks. Because Social Security recipients will receive a 5.9% cost-of-living increase next year — about $91 monthly for the average beneficiary — they’ll still see a net gain, though a chunk will be eaten away by the hike in Medicare premiums. About 70% of Medicare beneficiaries won’t face a 14.5% increase, anyway, because a “hold-harmless” provision in federal law protects them from premium increases that exceed Social Security’s cost-of-living increase, said Gretchen Jacobson, a vice president of the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund. So their increase will be limited to 5.9%. Advertisement Those not covered by the hold-harmless provision are mainly high-income beneficiaries (people with incomes over $91,000 for individuals), those newly enrolled in Medicare Part B, people who receive both Medicaid and Medicare, and enrollees not receiving Social Security because they are still working. Inflation’s role Several Medicare experts said the spike in the general inflation rate has little or nothing to do with the Medicare premium increase. In fact, Medicare is largely immune from inflation, because the program sets prices for hospitals and doctors. “This is so false that it is annoying,” Paul Ginsburg, a professor of health policy at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, said of Scott’s claim. “The effect of the inflation spike so far on prices is zero because Medicare controls prices.” Advertisement Medicare Part B premiums, he said, reflect changes in the amount of health services delivered and a more expensive mix of drugs. “Premiums are tracking spending, only a portion of which reflects prices,” Ginsburg said. “I can’t see that the administration really had any discretion” in setting the premium increase due to the need to build a reserve to pay for the Alzheimer’s drug and make up for the reduced increase last year, he said. Stephen Zuckerman, codirector of the Urban Institute’s health policy center, said a rise in wages caused by inflation could spur a small boost in Medicare spending because wages help determine how much the program pays providers. But, he said, such an increase would have to occur for more than a few months to affect premiums. Continued soaring inflation could influence 2023 Medicare premiums, not those for 2022. “The claim that premium increases are due to inflation in the last couple of months doesn’t make sense,” Zuckerman said. CMS faced the challenge of trying to estimate costs for an expensive drug not yet covered by Medicare. “It is a very difficult projection to make, and they want to have enough contingency reserved,” said Jacobson, of the Commonwealth Fund. Still, the 5.9% jump that will hit most enrollees is a relatively large premium increase, she added. Those beneficiaries will see an $8.76 monthly increase in premiums, or about $105 more for all of 2022. Our ruling Though his statement contains a sliver of truth, Scott’s assertion ignores critical facts that create a different impression. For instance, Medicare policy experts said, current general inflation has little, if anything, to do with the increase in premiums. CMS said the increase was needed to put away money in case Medicare starts paying for an Alzheimer’s drug that could add tens of billions in costs in one year and to make up for congressional action last year that held down premiums. And most seniors will not pay hundreds of dollars more for premiums because of the hold-harmless provision. About 30% of Medicare enrollees — those with high incomes and those who do not receive Social Security — will have to pay the full $21.60 a month, or about $259 for 2022, a 14.5% increase. People in this category either have higher incomes or are not yet receiving Social Security because they are still working. The other 70% of enrollees will face a 5.9%, or $8.76 a month, increase. This means most Medicare enrollees will see a $105 increase in premiums for all of 2022, not hundreds of dollars. We rate the claim mostly false. Published Nov. 27, 2021 PG Phil Galewitz, Kaiser Health News/Politifact

Facebook and Google Funding Misinformation

    An   [MIT Technology Review]   

Take the time and check out this very interesting article.  Be informed.

                                                                                                                https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/11/20/1039076/facebook-google-disinformation-clickbait/

 

                                                     Logic  for the Illogical

 

                        

Even after Biden tax hike, U.S. firms would pay less than foreign rivals y By Tom Bergin Reuters

                                                Don't Let  Big Corporations Fool You.

June 22 (Reuters) - U.S. companies pay less income tax than their overseas competitors and would likely continue to do so under a tax hike proposed by President Joe Biden, according to a Reuters analysis of filings by hundreds of U.S. and international firms.

The analysis undercuts arguments by some company executives and trade groups that Biden’s plan would leave U.S. firms paying some of the world’s highest taxes and struggling to compete against foreign rivals. Industry representatives have aggressively lobbied against the proposal, which would increase the corporate tax rate to 28%, from the current 21%. The president also wants a minimum tax of 21% on overseas income, up from 10.5%.

U.S. corporations typically pay less - sometimes much less - than those statutory rates because the U.S. tax code is unusually generous with tax breaks and deductions, and in allowing overseas tax planning, according to the Reuters analysis. The analysis was reviewed by four academics with experience in measuring corporate tax payments.

Reuters examined the effective tax rates – reflecting the actual tax payments companies reported – of 52 of the largest U.S.-based multinational firms, and then compared them to the rates paid by these companies’ main overseas competitors. The U.S. companies paid an average effective tax rate of 16% in 2020 compared to an average rate of 24% paid by 200 foreign companies that the U.S. firms named as their competitors in filings.

If Biden’s proposed tax rates were applied to the U.S. firms’ 2020 earnings, the companies would have paid effective rates averaging about five percentage points higher, or 21%, the Reuters analysis found.

That’s still lower than the average rate paid by their overseas competitors. Moreover, U.S. firms would likely retain a bigger tax advantage over their foreign rivals than the analysis shows, for two reasons. First, the Reuters calculations do not account for the impact of new tax breaks for U.S. firms that Biden proposes to encourage domestic manufacturing and clean-energy investments. Second, the Biden plan would also require foreign companies with U.S. operations to pay higher taxes on their U.S. income.

Business lobby groups have argued that the Biden proposal, which requires congressional approval, would leave domestic firms at the mercy of their foreign rivals.

“Such tax increases would make the United States uncompetitive as a place to do business and make U.S. companies uncompetitive globally,” said Joshua Bolten, chief executive of the Business Roundtable, which represents about 200 large U.S. companies, when the measures were first announced on March 31.

The trade group said comparisons of effective tax rates, as in the Reuters analysis, can be “informative” but are only one of many valid ways to analyze how taxes impact the global competitiveness of U.S. firms. The organization said that simpler comparisons of statutory tax rates among nations - without considering deductions, credits and overseas tax planning - also accurately reflect the incentives for firms to locate in one nation versus another.

Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, declined to comment on Reuters’ findings but said: “Higher taxes will hinder investment and competitiveness for U.S. businesses, ultimately hurting U.S. workers.”

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and chairman of the Senate finance committee, dismissed such arguments. “The data are clear: U.S. mega-corporations are contributing far too little to federal revenues, particularly in comparison to foreign counterparts,” Wyden told Reuters.

Reuters ran its findings by Biden’s Treasury Department and the White House. The White House said in a statement: “This reporting highlights that the corporate tax code is broken. The largest corporations don’t pay their fair share in the United States, and pay less in other competitor countries.” Biden’s proposal, the White House said, is designed to address “the tax games and giveaways that underlie the rock-bottom tax rates described by this reporting.”

Republican leaders who have said the proposed hikes will damage U.S. firms’ competitiveness, including Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, declined to comment on the Reuters analysis. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democrats in Congress are pushing a bill to implement Biden’s plan. It could come up for a vote any time in the divided Senate. Its success may rely on the support of one Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has pushed for lower tax rates than Biden wants. All Republican senators are expected to oppose it.

All of the 52 U.S. firms Reuters examined, and in most cases their overseas rivals, published detailed reconciliations explaining the deviation between their actual tax bill and the statutory tax rate in their home countries. These disclosures show that the U.S. firms’ relatively low effective tax rates stem from business-friendly provisions unique to the United States.

For example, U.S. tax breaks to encourage research and other activities generate bigger savings than similar breaks in other nations. The U.S. allows tax deductions for many expenses - such as client entertainment, stock-based compensation and certain legal costs - that are not typically deductible elsewhere. And U.S. companies can save far more money by shifting profits into tax-haven nations than, for instance, their rivals in Japan, Germany or France, whose governments limit such maneuvers.

RIDDLED WITH LOOPHOLES

Analyses cited by several business groups have said U.S. businesses currently face an average combined state and federal statutory tax rate of nearly 26% and that Biden’s plan would raise their rates to 32%.

Consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers noted the average nominal tax rate among developed countries was 23% - lower than Biden’s proposed rate of 28% - and urged companies to lobby against the increases. Johnson & Johnson’s Chief Financial Officer Joseph Wolk told analysts in April that Biden’s plan would make the U.S. rate the highest among developed countries.

Such simplified comparisons, however, do not reflect actual taxes paid after deductions, credits and other advantages enjoyed by U.S. firms. Johnson & Johnson, for instance, paid an effective tax rate of less than 11% in 2020, according to the company’s annual report. The pharmaceutical giant did not comment on Reuters findings but said tax policy should create a “level playing field” for U.S. firms internationally.

PricewaterhouseCoopers declined to comment.

In another typical example, Activision Blizzard Inc (ATVI.O) – the California-based publisher of hit video games such as Call of Duty and World of Warcraft – reported paying an effective tax rate of 16% last year. Two of its main competitors, Sony Corporation (6758.T) and Nintendo Co Ltd (7974.T), are based in Japan and paid effective tax rates of 22% and 28%, respectively, according to their annual reports.

Activision declined to comment for this story.

The company slashed its tax payments through tax breaks and deductions and by operating subsidiaries in tax-haven nations. Activision has, for instance, saved hundreds of millions in taxes over the past decade, company filings show, by reporting billions of dollars in profits through a subsidiary based in Bermuda, an island with no corporate tax. Activision reported that it reduced its overall effective tax rate in 2020 by 4 percentage points because of the low tax rates paid by its foreign subsidiaries.

Activision rivals Sony and Nintendo each generate about three-fourths of their revenues outside of Japan, compared to about half for Activision. And yet Nintendo reported that taxes on overseas income reduced its effective tax rate by just 0.6 percentage points, while Sony reported a decrease of 2.4 percentage points.

Tax havens such as Bermuda don’t provide the same benefit to Japanese firms. Japan has a law that allows authorities to levy Japanese corporate taxes of about 30% on any income reported from operations in foreign jurisdictions with a tax rate of less than 20%. Similar rules are common in industrialized nations other than the United States.

STATE TAX BREAKS

Another reason Activision paid a relatively low effective tax rate is that its tax payments to U.S. states only increased the company’s total rate by 2 percentage points. That’s typical: On average, the effective rates of the 52 U.S. multinationals examined by Reuters were raised by just 1 percentage point by state tax payments. Business groups often cite 4% or 5% as the typical state tax burden, based on averages of statutory state rates that usually do not equate to actual taxes paid.

A host of factors lower companies’ state tax payments. States often lure companies with tax breaks, and compete with one another to offer the most generous incentives. Also, companies only pay state taxes on their U.S.-based income. And they can lower the bill further by apportioning earnings to relatively low-tax states.

At the federal level, companies drive down their tax bill through a host of deductions or credits that are often unavailable or limited in other nations. U.S. firms, for instance, can deduct the cost of share grants as compensation to executives and staff. Activision reported lowering its effective tax rate by 1 percentage point through such deductions. On average, the U.S. firms examined by Reuters reduced achieved savings of 2.6% from that provision.

The video game firm shaved an additional 3 percentage points off its tax bill by collecting tax credits for research and development spending. Its competitors Nintendo and Sony reported smaller tax savings from research credits.

Such credits are available to an array of U.S. firms, and not just in research-intensive sectors such as pharmaceuticals. Sport apparel giant Nike Inc (NKE.N), for instance, lowered its effective tax rate by 2 percentage points in 2020 through R&D credits. Two-thirds of the 52 U.S. companies Reuters examined reported similar benefits, with an average tax reduction of about 3 percentage points.

Research tax credits are common outside the United States, but typically worth less, often not enough to warrant company disclosure. Just 18 firms of the 200 foreign competitors to U.S. firms examined by Reuters reported benefits from research or other tax credits.

Some U.S. companies, to be sure, will take a bigger hit than others from Biden’s tax plan. But even if U.S. companies collectively sustain a bigger tax hit than foreseen, they would still be well-placed to compete, the analysis shows. On average, the 52 U.S.-based companies examined by Reuters had profit margins of 24%, well above than the average margin of 14% among their 200 foreign competitors.

“The argument on ‘competitiveness’ is code for ‘corporations should pay no taxes’,” said Senator Wyden, “and it doesn’t hold water.”

 

                     

Get It Right Kevin!

Nov. 21, 2021 by Linda Qui- NYT

Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and the minority leader, mounted his case against President Biden’s social spending bill in a record-breaking speech that stretched for more than eight hours from Thursday to Friday.

Here’s a fact check of some of his remarks.

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“Just a few weeks ago, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger said nobody elected Joe Biden to be F.D.R. This even spends more than F.D.R. while he was fighting a world war.”

This is misleading. Spending and tax cuts in the bill will add up to about $2 trillion over 10 years, and could snowball into $4 trillion if shortened programs are extended.

That is indeed a larger dollar amount than the New Deal programs passed under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which cost about $800 billion after adjusting for inflation, according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. But World War II itself cost about $5 trillion.

Moreover, comparing New Deal programs with the social spending bill should account for the changes in the United States’ economy and population size. The report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis also noted that the cost of the New Deal amounted to 40 percent of annual gross domestic product.

In comparison, the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that Mr. Biden signed into law in March and his initial proposal for a $4 trillion economic plan — which became the whittled-down infrastructure measure and the social spending bill — together would amount to 28 percent of G.D.P.

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“You’re hiring 87,000 I.R.S. agents to come after them, 1.2 million more audits, and half of all those 1.2 are going after Americans who make $75,000 or less.”

This is misleading. The bill provides the I.R.S. with $80 billion in additional funding, including nearly $45 billion for enforcement. The Congressional Budget Office noted in September that the proposal would result in increased audit rates for everyone, with high-income earners facing the largest increase.

The bill does not contain any specifics directing how audits would be spread among taxpayers of different incomes, and the Biden administration and Republicans disagree on how it would play out.

The Treasury Department said in a May report about the proposal that tax audit rates would not rise for those earning less than $400,000 since the “compliance proposals are designed to ameliorate existing inequities by focusing on high-end evasion.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. McCarthy pointed to calculations from Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee that compared historical audit data.

In the past decade, tax audit rates have fallen for higher-income earners and have stayed relatively stable for lower-income earners, which the Treasury Department attributed to the I.R.S.’s diminished resources and inability to retain specialized auditors needed to examine the filings of the wealthy.

The I.R.S. examined 1.4 million individual income tax returns in 2010, about 1 percent of the total number filed. In 2018, the latest year with available data, audits decreased to 370,000, or about 0.2 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would return enforcement to its 2010 levels. Doing so would indeed result in about 1.2 million more audits, and about 580,000 of those would affect people making less than $75,000.

But that is because a vast majority of tax filers — about 70 percent — make under that threshold. Looking at what fraction of returns are examined by income group, rather than the sheer number, shows that wealthier taxpayers would have a better chance of being audited than lower-income earners under the Democrats’ proposal.

Under 2010 levels of enforcement, about 0.5 percent of returns reporting between $1 and $75,000 in income would be audited, as would 1 percent of those with more than $75,000 in income. In comparison, those rates were 0.3 percent and 0.1 percent in 2018. For those making more than $10 million, more than 20 percent of returns would be examined under 2010 levels, compared with 5.3 percent in 2018.

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“All you have to do as an American is spend $28 and the I.R.S. is going to knock on your door.”

This is misleading. This was a reference to a proposal by the Treasury Department requiring banks to report aggregate annual flows of $10,000 or more in customer accounts to better tackle tax evasion. (A previous version of the proposal suggested monitoring flows of $600.) Wages and federal benefits are exempt from the reporting requirement, and banks will not report individual transactions. But this proposal did not make its way into the social spending bill.

In a fact sheet, the Treasury Department said it was a “misconception” that all Americans would face greater scrutiny under the proposal.

Michelle Nessa, an accounting professor at Michigan State University and expert on tax audits, said that the bank reporting requirement was “unlikely to meaningfully increase audit risk for most people.”

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“We’re going to take taxes from you so somebody who makes $800,000 can get a tax break to buy a Tesla.”

False. The Democrats’ bill would increase tax credits for electric vehicles to $12,500 from $7,500 if the car is made in the United States with union labor and if its battery is also produced domestically. The credits cover sedans that cost up to $55,000 and zero-emission vans, SUVs and trucks that cost up to $80,000, so the Tesla Model 3, which starts in the mid-$40,000s, would qualify.

But the hypothetical almost-millionaire in Mr. McCarthy’s example would not qualify, as only individuals making $250,000 or less (and joint filers making $500,000 or less) can claim the credits under the bill.

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“More than one million people who lost their job after President Biden was sworn in because he shut down a pipeline. ”

False. Early in his presidency, Mr. Biden rescinded the construction permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and the company behind the project terminated it altogether in June. Mr. McCarthy wildly exaggerated the pipeline’s effect on employment.

The company itself has estimated that the pipeline would employ about 11,000 Americans. The State Department, in a 2014 report, estimated that it would support about 42,000 temporary jobs during two years of construction and 35 permanent employees after the initial phase.

Biden’s ​​Social Policy Bill at a Glance

---

Card 1 of 6

A narrow vote. The House passed President Biden’s social safety net and climate bill on Nov. 19. Democratic leaders must now coax the $2 trillion spending plan through the 50-50 Senate and navigate a tortuous budget process. Here’s a look at some key provisions:

Child care. The proposal would provide universal pre-K for all children ages 3 and 4 and subsidized child care for many families. The bill also extends an expanded tax credit for parents through 2022.

Paid leave. The proposal would provide workers with four weeks of paid family and medical leave, which would allow the United States to exit the group of only six countries in the world without any national paid leave.

Drug prices. The plan includes a provision that would, for the first time, allow the government to negotiate prices for some prescription drugs covered by Medicare. ​​

Climate change. The single largest piece of the bill is $555 billion in climate programs. The centerpiece of the climate spending is about $300 billion in tax incentives for low-emission sources of energy.

Taxes. The plan calls for nearly $2 trillion in tax increases on corporations and the rich. The bill would also suspend a $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction, mostly to the benefit of wealthy Americans in liberal states.

Mr. McCarthy may have been referring to a 2020 analysis from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s biggest trade group, that estimated that nearly one million jobs would be lost by 2022 if drilling were banned on federal lands — not from the cancellation of one pipeline.

Mr. Biden banned new oil and gas leases on federal lands but did not rescind existing leases. Moreover, in June, a federal judge blocked the administration’s suspension of new leases. The approval of leases has actually increased under Mr. Biden, as has employment in oil and gas extraction.

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“Biden terminated every successful immigration policy put into place by President Trump, triggering the largest wave of illegal immigration in of all history.”

This is exaggerated. Mr. Biden has indeed rescinded many of President Donald J. Trump’s immigration policies, but he also has kept a key policy intact.

While the Biden administration has rescinded the so-called Muslim ban, halted construction of Mr. Trump’s border wall and stopped conducting workplace immigration raids, it is continuing to use a public health rule that allows officials to turn away hundreds of thousands of migrants at the border.

Additionally, the Biden administration tried to end a Trump-era program that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their applications were being reviewed, but it was ordered to restart the program.

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“You’re providing money, $450,000, for people who came here illegally, and you’re taking it from American hardworking taxpayers.”

This is misleading. The bill itself does not provide hundreds of thousands of dollars for unauthorized immigrants. Rather, this was a reference to a proposal to provide monetary compensation for damage inflicted by a Trump-era immigration policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others have filed lawsuits on behalf of migrant families separated at the border by the Trump administration. About 5,500 children were separated from their parents. The Wall Street Journal reported that the lawsuits seek damages of varying ranges and average $3.4 million per family.

The Biden administration and lawyers for the families have been in negotiations to provide $450,000 for each family member affected, but The New York Times reported that only a minority of families would be eligible as many have not filed complaints against the government.

When asked about the figure this month, Mr. Biden said “that’s not going to happen.” A White House spokeswoman later clarified that the Justice Department had told plaintiffs that the $450,000 figure was “higher than anywhere that a settlement can land.”

What Mr. McCarthy Said

“Mr. Speaker, you might remember the Iron Dome. Your party actually defunded that.”

False. Despite some opposition from progressive Democrats to providing funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, the House voted 420 to 9 in September to provide $1 billion in new funding. Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the funding.

                                                    Logic for the Illogical