by ALAN MACLEOD

One year after Oct. 7 attacks, Netanyahu is on a winning streak.” So reads the title of a recent Axios article describing the Israeli prime minister riding on an unbeatable wave of triumphs. These stunning military “successes,” its author Barak Ravid notes, include the bombing of Yemen, the assassinations of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the pager attack against Lebanon.

The same author recently went viral for an article that claimed that Israeli attacks against Hezbollah are “not intended to lead to war but are an attempt to reach ‘de-escalation through escalation.’” Users on social media mocked Ravid for this bizarre, Orwellian reasoning. But what almost everybody missed is that Barak Ravid is an Israeli spy – or at least he was until recently. Ravid is a former analyst with Israeli spying agency Unit 8200, and as recently as last year, was still a reservist with the Israeli Defense Forces group.

Unit 8200 is Israel’s largest and perhaps most controversial spying organization. It has been responsible for many high-profile espionage and terror operations, including the recent pager attack that injured thousands of Lebanese civilians. As this investigation will reveal, Ravid is far from the only Israeli ex-spook working at top U.S. media outlets, working hard to manufacture Western support for his country’s actions.

White House Insider

Ravid has quickly become one of the most influential individuals in the Capitol Hill press corps. In April, he won the prestigious White House Press Correspondents’ Award “for overall excellence in White House coverage”—one of the highest awards in American journalism. Judges were impressed by what they described as his “deep, almost intimate levels of sourcing in the U.S. and abroad” and picked out six articles as exemplary pieces of journalism.

Most of these stories consisted of simply printing anonymous White House or Israeli government sources, making them look good, and distancing President Biden from the horrors of the Israeli attack on Palestine. As such, there was functionally no difference between these and White House press releases. For example, one story the judges picked out was titled “Scoop: Biden tells Bibi 3-day fighting pause could help secure release of some hostages,” and presented the 46th President of the United States as a dedicated humanitarian hellbent on reducing suffering. Another described how “frustrated” Biden was becoming with Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

Protestors had called on reporters to snub the event in solidarity with their fallen counterparts in Gaza (which, at the time of writing, comes to at least 128 journalists). Not only was there no boycott of the event, but organizers gave their highest award to an Israeli intelligence official-turned-reporter who has earned a reputation as perhaps the most dutiful stenographer of power in Washington.

Ravid was personally presented with the award by President Biden, who embraced him like a brother. That a known (former) Israeli spy could hug Biden in such a manner speaks volumes about not only the intimate relationship between the United States and Israel but about the extent to which establishment media holds power to account.

It was a moving and special night that I never imagined even in my wildest dreams. It wouldn’t have been possible without my editors at @axios who made my stories better, my sources who trusted me, my family that came with me to Washington, and you, the readers. Thank you pic.twitter.com/aMQd2prsam

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) April 28, 2024

Ravid has made a name for himself by uncritically printing flattering information given to him by either the U.S. or Israeli government and passing it off as a scoop. In April, he wrote that “President Biden laid out an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in their call on Thursday: If Israel doesn’t change course in Gaza, ‘we won’t be able to support you,’” and that he was “making his strongest push for an end to the fighting in Gaza in six months of war, and warning for the first time that U.S. policy on the war will depend on Israel’s adherence to his demands,” which included “an immediate ceasefire.” In July, he repeated anonymous sources that told him that Netanyahu and Israel are striving for “a diplomatic solution” – another highly dubious claim.

MPN for more

by MIKAIL AHMED SHAIKH

A look into the group’s origins and history may explain the violent nature of the ongoing conflict.

The attacks of October 7, 2023, saw over 1,000 people killed in Israel, while over 250 were taken hostage by Hamas. Israel was caught off guard, as was the rest of the world. Nobody saw it coming, nor did anyone see the Israeli military’s retaliatory scorched-earth campaign in the Gaza Strip.

It’s been over a year since that day, during which time Gaza has borne witness to one of the bloodiest conflicts in the region in decades.

Over 42,000 people have been killed in Gaza, with Israel no closer to rescuing the hostages, although the Israeli military assassinated Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in July and his successor Yahya Sinwar in October, who was the alleged mastermind of the October 7 attacks.

Meanwhile, South Africa has filed a “genocide” case against Israel with the International Court of Justice, while the International Criminal Court has applied for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes.

Attempts at truce talks and mediation have thus far failed and with an extensive bombing spree in Lebanon having followed — which killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah — there is a very real fear of the conflict expanding into a regional conflagration.

So, it warrants asking why Hamas attacked Israelis in the first place. An attack that led to one of the most violent asymmetric conflicts of the 21st century.

According to a 2023 analysis by Joe Macaron for Qatari state-run broadcaster Al Jazeera, Hamas’ attack was triggered following “growing demands for a response” to far-right Israeli policy in the occupied West Bank, especially surrounding illegal settlements.

“The rising tensions in the West Bank caused by these policies necessitated the shift of Israeli forces away from the south and into the north to guard the settlements,” Macaron writes. “This gave Hamas both a justification and an opportunity to attack.”

Moreover, Macaron argues that the normalisation of Arab-Israeli relations was an additional motive for the attack since the process “further diminished the significance of the Palestinian issue for Arab leaders who became less keen on pressuring Israel on this matter”.

On the other hand, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organisation, argues, “One of Hamas’s goals was simply to kill Israelis,” citing a report by The Washington Post which reported that attackers had written instructions to do so.

The CSIS piece also suggests that Hamas was driven by revenge for past Israeli violence and the illegal occupation of the West Bank.

Alternatively, a senior Hamas official told Al Jazeera in October 2023 that the group took hostages and expressed hope that the kidnappings would ensure the release of “all” Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

“We managed to kill and capture many Israeli soldiers,” said Hamas deputy chief Saleh al-Arouri. “Our detainees in [Israeli] prisons, their freedom is looming large. What we have in our hands will release all our prisoners. The longer fighting continues, the higher the number of prisoners will become.”

But the answer to why the attack was launched on Israel perhaps lies in the group’s past, in how Tel Aviv or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood influenced the genesis of the group to control the Palestinian sphere of influence before it eventually became powerful enough to outgrow its creators.

October 7

Fighters from the Palestinian group Hamas attacked Israeli towns on Oct 7, 2023, killing and capturing scores of civilians and soldiers in a surprise assault.

The worst attack on Israel for decades unleashed a conflict that both sides vowed to escalate. According to the Rand Corporation, a US-based think tank, at least 1,200 Israelis were killed on October 7, with 250 others taken hostage and moved to the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, in retaliatory airstrikes that began the same day, Palestinian health officials reported that more than 230 people were killed and 1,600 were wounded in the Gaza Strip. That number has since ballooned to 42,847 fatalities as of October 24, 2024.

Dawn for more

by BHIM BHURTEL

Indian leader eases border tensions with China for more economic engagement, acknowledgement his strategic dalliance with US has failed

India and China have recently agreed to disengage from their prolonged border standoff in the western sector of the India-China Himalayan border on the sidelines of 16^th BRICS summit. Tensions have simmered since June 15, 2020, after 20 Indian and an unknown number of Chinese soldiers were killed in a high-mountain clash.

China’s main grievance with India emerged after Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power and began strengthening ties with the United States. India started signing agreements that effectively designated it as a US partner and ally in South Asia.

China perceived this as part of Washington’s broader “China containment policy,” which was central to former President Barack Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy during his second term. In response, China sought to pressure India, aiming to keep it from becoming too closely aligned with the US.

On August 29, 2016, India signed an adapted version of the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) with the US. In response, China ramped up pressure on India, particularly at the Doklam tri-junction, where the borders of Bhutan, China and India converge.

In an effort to ease tensions, India’s then-foreign secretary, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, visited Beijing and assured his Chinese counterparts that India was committed to resolving differences through a high-level mechanism.

This led to the first informal summit between Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan, China, on April 27–28, 2018, where both leaders  discussed and agreed on various issues to manage their differences.

Despite Modi’s assurances to China, India went ahead and signed another foundational agreement with the US — the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) — on September 6, 2018, on the sidelines of the inaugural 2+2 dialogue between the two countries.

On October 11-12, 2019, the second informal summit between Modi and Xi took place in Mahabalipuram, Tamil Nadu. The summit, however, appeared to be a failure, likely due to Modi’s decision to align more closely with the US by agreeing to a third foundational agreement. It’s possible that Modi bluntly responded to Xi of India’s intention to formalize its partnership with the US during their discussions.

This assumption is supported by Xi’s subsequent statement during an official visit to Kathmandu, Nepal, directly after the Mahabalipuram summit. There, Xi warned that “anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bodies and shattered bones,” which could have been interpreted as a veiled response to India’s growing ties with the US.

Following the deadly clashes in Galwan on June 15, 2020, the Indian media—often referred to as “Godi media” for its pro-Modi stance—launched an intense anti-China propaganda campaign. Despite China’s concerns and Modi’s earlier assurances to Xi at the Wuhan summit, India continued to strengthen its ties with the US.

Asia Times for more

AL JAZEERA

Understanding the Electoral College, battleground states and key races in the US for the November 5 vote.

In 48 states, the presidential candidate who gets the most votes wins all that state’s electors, but in Maine and Nebraska, the winner-takes-all method does not apply.

These two states allocate their electors based on a more complicated system that reflects the popular vote on the state and congressional district levels. Hence, their Electoral College votes can be split.

The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of its House members plus two, the number of US senators from each state.

For example, California gets 54 Electoral College votes. That corresponds to its two senators and 52 House members.

There are a total of 538 electors: 535 from the 50 states and three from the District of Columbia, which is the federal capital and not a state.

Before the elections, the political parties in each state choose their slate of electors. The electors are almost always party officials or supporters.

Under this system, a candidate who wins the popular vote may not actually win the White House.

One recent example was in 2016 when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote to Republican Donald Trump. His victory was buoyed by wins in key swing states that polls had predicted would go in favour of Clinton: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

There can also be “faithless electors” like in 2016 when seven electors cast their ballots for the other candidate rather than the one that won the state’s vote.

Five of the electors were unfaithful to Clinton and two to Trump. One of the Democratic electors voted for Senator Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton.

A Supreme Court decision in 2020 rejected the idea that electors may exercise discretion in the candidate they back. The court sided with Washington and Colorado courts that imposed penalties on faithless electors.

What are battleground states?

Most states lean very clearly towards either Democrats or Republicans, making their electoral outcomes almost a given.

But every four years, several states offer close races between the two main presidential candidates. These are known as battleground states, swing states or toss-up states. Candidates disproportionately focus their campaigns on these states.

Election analysts consider states battlegrounds when opinion polls show the margin of victory in those states to be fewer than 5 percentage points.

The seven battleground states expected to determine the outcome of the 2024 elections are:

• Arizona  – 11 electoral votes
• Georgia – 16 electoral votes
• Michigan – 15 electoral votes
• Nevada – six electoral votes
• North Carolina – 16 electoral votes
• Pennsylvania – 19 electoral votes
• Wisconsin – 10 electoral votes

Al Jazeera for more

by BINOY KAMPMARK

The British cannot help themselves.  They are a meddling island people who conquered huge swathes of the earth in a fictional fit of absentmindedness and remain haughty for having done so.  They have fought more countries they can name, engaged in more wars they care to remember.  They have overthrown elected rulers and sabotaged incipient democracies.  In the twilight of empire, Britain sought, with heavy hearted reluctance, to become wise Greek advisors to their clumsy Roman replacement: the US Imperium.

US politics, to that end, remain a matter of enormous importance to the UK.  Interfering in US elections is a habit that dies hardest of all.  In 1940, with the relentless march of Nazi Germany’s war machine across Europe, British intelligence officers based in New York and Washington had one primary objective: to aid the election of politicians favouring US intervention on the side of Britain.  As Steven Usdin noted in 2017, they also had two other attached goals: “defeat those who advocated neutrality, and silence or destroy the reputations of American isolationists they deemed a menace to British security.”

Much of this is also covered in Thomas E. Mahl’s 1998 study Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44, which was initially scoffed at for giving much credence to Britain’s role in creating the office of Coordinator of Information, an entity that became the forerunner of the Office of Strategic Services, itself the forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mahl was, it was revealed in 1999, on to something.  In a dull yet revealing study written at the end of World War II documenting the activities of the British Security Coordination office, an outfit established by Canadian spymaster Sir William S. Stephenson with the approval of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, activities of interference are described on a scale to make any modern Russian operative sigh with longing envy.  Those roped into the endeavour were a rather colourful lot: the classicist Gilbert Highet, future novelist of dark children’s novels extraordinaire Roald Dahl, and editor of the trade journal Western Hemisphere Weekly Bulletin, Tom Hill.

During Stephenson’s tenure, the office used subversion, sabotage, disinformation and blackmail with relish to influence political outcomes and malign the America Firsters.  (How marvellous contemporary.)  It cultivated relations with such figures as the 1940 Republican nominee for president, Wendell Willkie.  It also offered gobbets of slanted information to media outlets, often produced verbatim, by suborned pro-interventionist hacks.  In October 1941, BSC provided FDR a map purporting to detail a plan by Nazi Germany to seize South America, a document the president gratefully waved at a news conference. (The study claims its authenticity, though doubts remain.)

The Democrats are currently receiving the moral and physical aid of volunteers from the British Labour Party, who are throwing in hours and tears for a Kamala Harris victory in various battleground states.  Their presence was revealed in a now deleted social media post from Labour’s head of operations, Sofia Patel, noting that somewhere in the order of 100 current and former party staff were heading to the US prior to polling day to campaign in North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

On the other side of the political aisle, Nigel Farage, now Reform UK leader and member for Clacton-on-Sea, has spent much time openly campaigning for Donald Trump.  Hardly surprising that he should complain about UK Labour doing what he has been doing habitually since 2016.  Walking political disaster and former Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss, historically the shortest occupant in that office, also put in an appearance at the 2024 Republican National Convention to offer what limited support she could.

Dissident Voice for more

by PAUL JAY

This episode of Oats for Breakfast Podcast interviews journalist and filmmaker Paul Jay.

Paul discusses why a second Trump term would be significantly more dangerous than previous Republican presidencies, including Trump’s first term in office. He also talks about what it might take, over the long term, to beat back the advances that the far-right has been making in the U.S. and Canada. 

The Analysis-News for more

VIDEO/Youtube

by AZAD ESSA & UMAR A. FAROOQ

Despite fear-mongering and threats that Trump would be worse for Palestinians, these Muslims say they’ve had enough

In 2016, Saad Husain swallowed a bitter pill and voted for Hillary Clinton, despite her hawkish track record on foreign policy in the Middle East.

This year, Husain says the toxic rhetoric, reels of disinformation, fear-mongering, and crucially, the liberal establishment’s insistence on voting for “the lesser of two evils”, is giving him flashbacks of that year.

Then in 2020, he begrudgingly voted for a lacklustre Joe Biden to ward off the return of Former President Donald Trump.

The 62-year-old from Canton, a town in Wayne County, Michigan, says he has watched with horror over the past year as Biden, who was referred to by many as the “lesser evil”, signed off on the most military aid any US administration has ever sent to Israel as it massacred Palestinians by the tens of thousands in Gaza.

“I’ve had enough,” a resolute Husain told Middle East Eye. “I will be voting for Jill Stein,” he said, referring to the Green Party’s candidate, considered one of the more prominent third-party candidates on the ballot.

Husain’s decision is not inconsequential.

As a resident of one of seven swing states in the US, considered amongst those where even a handful of votes could determine the election result, his vote for the third-party is being perceived by many Democrats as a gift to Trump.

In 2020, for instance, the Democrats narrowly won Michigan. Four years earlier, Trump won the state by just 10,000 votes.

This will be the first time Husain will have voted for a candidate for commander-in-chief outside the Democratic Party since he cast his first vote 30 years ago.

In doing so, Husain joins a legion of Muslim-American voters across swing states who say that not only are they refusing to be intimidated into voting for Harris, as Democrats hold the spectre of another Trump presidency over their heads, but they are also searching for a new political home outside the two-party system.

In interviews across several swing states, including North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan and Florida, Middle East Eye spoke to several Muslim Americans who say they are voting for third-party candidates, like Jill Stein and Claudia de la Cruz, and they say they are prepared to face the consequences.

“We don’t know what Trump would do, and yes, I am worried about him. But it’s all still hypothetical. In comparison, I do know what the Democrats have done,” Husain told MEE. 

“I believe a third voice would be good for democracy and we have to build for the future,” Husain added.

Fear of Trump 2.0

According to a Pew Study from 2017, Muslims make up around 3.45 million people in the US, many of whom live in several swing states across the US. The Council on American Islamic Relations (Cair) released data in late August showing there were 2.5 million registered Muslim voters in the country.

Palestine, and by extension, Israel’s war on Gaza, is an issue that tops the list of priorities for many Muslims this time around, even beyond domestic concerns.

While it is unclear how Muslim Americans will vote in this year’s presidential election, polls suggest that a sizeable number of the community will snub Harris over her support for Israel, with many indicating they are considering voting for a third-party candidate.

In August, a Cair poll showed that in Michigan, 40 percent of Muslim voters backed Stein from the Green Party.

Stein and several other third-party candidates have been vocal critics of US support for the war on Gaza, with Stein pledging to end the war on day one, if she were to become president. Stein also pledged to impose an arms embargo on Israel until it complies with international law.

In that same Cair poll, Republican candidate Trump shows 18 percent of the Muslim vote going to him in Michigan, with Harris trailing at 12 percent.

While several commentators have warned that a Trump 2.0 presidency would be especially dangerous for Muslims, Arab Americans, as well as other minorities, several prominent imams and community leaders have publicly called on the Muslim community to ensure that Harris suffers an electoral defeat.

“We may not know what the future holds, but we know this: we will not taint our hands by voting for or supporting an administration that has brought so much bloodshed upon our brothers and sisters,” a group of more than 130 imams from across the country wrote in a letter.

“We want to be absolutely clear: don’t stay home and skip voting. This year, make a statement by voting third-party for the presidential ticket.”

None of those interviewed by MEE said they are under the illusion that a third-party candidate can viably win the election.

They said voting for a third-party was either based on principle or a strategic imperative.

In Florida, where Trump won in 2020, Javeria Farooqi, 39, says she would be voting with her conscience. 

“I’m not afraid of a Trump presidency. We’ve already had a Trump presidency …I’m no better off under the Democrats because you’re seeing the political climate right now as to what’s happening at Palestinian rallies, at Palestinian protests,” Farooqi, told MEE.

“What I am truly afraid of is answering to my Lord, because there will be a day where I have to answer, what did I do when my brothers and sisters and children were being butchered? What did I do in the face of brutal injustice? That is what I’m afraid of, not Donald Trump’s presidency,” said Farooqi, who hails from Fort Lauderdale in Broward County and previously voted Democrat.

In 2020, Florida became Trump territory.

Others, like Nazia Kazi, pointed to the double standards of the Democratic Party that warns of Trump fascism while it flouts domestic and international law; and while it stands by as academics are fired and students are criminalised and demonised as antisemitic for criticising Israel.

Under the Biden administration, the US government has fudged the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor’s attempt to seek arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

It has also publicly lampooned the case brought against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

“Every four years, we get this predictable hand-wringing from US liberals about a lesser evil, about this being the most important election of our lives, all while the Democratic Party grants key concessions to the right-wing it claims to want to defeat,” Kazi, an anthropologist and educator in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told MEE.

“This year, their refrains have become even more grotesque as we witness US-backed slaughter in Gaza. While there are elements of ‘controlled opposition,’ those highly visible mouthpieces who tell us they oppose that slaughter while they also sheepdog for the Democrats.”

Middle East Eye for more

by SONALI KOLHATKAR

Elon Musk’s recently announced scheme to bribe voters into backing his favorite presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is a symbol of the economic worldview Republicans are promoting: one where the lines between corporate interests and public regulators are blurred, where government officials and commercial actors scratch each other’s backs so they can gobble up taxpayer dollars. 

Musk announced he would be giving away $1 million a day to a lucky winner who signs his America PAC petition affirming the First and Second Amendments.

The sweepstakes are for registered voters in swing states, who, by signing the petition, are passing a sort of Republican purity test on affirming the right to free speech—which the extremist conservatives often use as the basis for spreading racist dogma and conspiracy theories—and the right to bear any and all firearms, including weapons of mass murder such as those used against defenseless children.

Musk’s audacious plan dangerously skirts the boundaries of legality. There are federal election laws in place banning financial incentives to vote. Even something as seemingly benign as offering freebies to those sporting “I Voted” stickers is potentially against the law. Given this, Musk’s lawyers appear to have advised him against directly paying voters to cast their ballots for Trump and so, bribing registered voters to sign a Trumpian petition is what the billionaire seems to have settled on as a workaround.

Political commentators remarked that Musk would likely get away with skirting or breaking the law. After all, the United States justice system is long known for favoring the wealthy. Musk’s move is so outrageous that it even prompted a group of former Republican lawmakers and advisers to write to the U.S. Department of Justice asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate him. The Justice Department subsequently warned Musk that he may be breaking the law.

The world’s richest man is throwing his lot in with Trump—and throwing millions of dollars toward electing him from his endless well of cash. Musk has been vocal about why he backs the Hitlerian despot. Trump has also been open about his desire to reward Musk with political power in exchange for financial contributions. It’s a match made in heaven, designed to lead the rest of us into hell.

The overtly transactional relationship between the two goes at least as far back as this past summer when Trump said to a crowd of his supporters—few, if any, of whom are millionaires, let alone billionaires—that the country must give wealthy people like Musk special treatment. “We have to make life good for our smart people, and [Elon Musk is] as smart as you get,” said Trump at a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in July 2024.

Since then, Musk has lobbied Trump on social media for a job in the government to enable exactly that: a tailor-made position to strip away regulations holding people like him and corporations like his, accountable on behalf of the public. Trump didn’t even attempt to hide the source of the idea, saying, “At the suggestion of Elon Musk, who has given me his complete and total endorsement… I will create a government efficiency commission,” which would make “recommendations for drastic reforms.”

Musk expects to lead it, having already named the nonexistent agency the “Department of Government Efficiency,” while Trump claimed he would appoint Musk as “Secretary of Cost-Cutting.” During his first term, Trump promised to undo two regulations for every new regulation that was enacted. He has now promised to cancel 10 existing regulations for every new one.

While Musk may come across as merely a “smart” man who, through ruthless efficiency, has created business models that drive innovation and benefit the public, in truth what he is expert at is depending on U.S. taxpayers for handouts. He is, as per a recent report by Politico, “the single biggest beneficiary of U.S. government contracts.” Further, Rolling Stone pointed out that if Musk were to be given a government appointment, he might get a special tax benefit that only federal officials are eligible for, which could reap even more financial benefits for him.

Just as he seems to believe he is above federal election law, Musk does not think environmental, or labor regulations apply to him. His SpaceX company, which has delusions of colonizing Mars, has routinely violated the Clean Water Act in Texas by illegally dumping industrial waste near sensitive bodies of water. When the Federal Aviation Administration announced hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against SpaceX over violations, Musk threatened to sue the agency.

Musk has also flouted labor laws. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that his company Tesla illegally fired union organizers and thereby violated labor regulations. SpaceX has also gotten into trouble with the NLRB over severance payments. In response, Musk is suing the agency, and questioning its constitutionality.

One corporate executive, Matt Teske, the CEO of an electric vehicle charging platform named Chargeway, told BBC, “I think Musk’s interests are focused, predominantly, around a handful of things that are important to him related to his businesses, regulation being something he’s voiced concerns around.” It’s no wonder Musk wants to oversee an agency to protect his own interests and make his companies more profitable.

City Watch for more

by SAM PIZZIGATI

The quarter-trillionaire has had plenty of help — from all of us U.S. taxpayers.

Once upon a time, here in the United States, we taxed the rich. Significantly. Today, by contrast, we’re actively enhancing their fortunes. Including the biggest personal fortune of them all, the quarter-trillion-dollar stash that belongs to Elon Musk, the current numero uno on the Forbes real-time list of the world’s largest fortunes.

Musk owes a hefty chunk of his own personal fortune to the taxes average Americans pay. He just happens to be, notes a just-published Politico analysis, “the single biggest beneficiary of U.S. government contracts.”

Two of Musk’s commercial operations, Tesla and SpaceX, have received billions in American taxpayer support. The federal government, Politico points out, has essentially “outsourced its space program” to SpaceX, and Tesla, a shaky electric vehicle company when Musk bought it, only “took off after receiving $465 million in subsidies from the Obama administration in 2010.”

All the tax dollars that Musk has collected from the Defense Department, NASA, and the U.S. intelligence community — coupled with the “generous government subsidies and tax credits to the electric-vehicle industry” that have so boosted Musk’s Tesla — have Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot fairly fuming.

Taxpayers like himself, Boot notes, are subsidizing the “fire hose of falsehoods” that now appear on X, the former Twitter, the social media app that Musk bought for $44 billion two years ago. Our tax dollars have essentially supersized our world’s single wealthiest individual.

Back in the middle of the 20th century, the United States took quite a different approach to the money pouring into rich people’s pockets. From the early 1940s through the mid-1960s, the incomes of America’s richest faced a tax bite that would be unimaginable today.

In 1942, then-president Franklin Roosevelt proposed a 100 percent tax rate on income over $25,000, the equivalent of about $484,000 today. Congress wouldn’t go along with that 100 percent top rate. But lawmakers did give the okay to a 94 percent top tax rate on 1944 income over $200,000.

In the 1950s, under the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower, the federal tax rate on top-bracket income never dipped below 91 percent.

Today’s top-bracket federal income tax rate? That stands, on paper, at 37 percent on income over $693,751 for a couple filing jointly. But assorted loopholes have left the tax rate the rich face on their actual annual gains enormously lower.

In 2021, a joint report from the Biden administration’s Office of Management and Budget and Council of Economic Advisers calculated that America’s wealthiest 400 billionaire families, between 2010 and 2018, “paid an average of just 8.2 percent of their income” — counting the gains in the value of their investments — in federal individual income taxes.

“That’s a lower rate,” the report noted, “than many ordinary Americans pay.”

Could we ever get back to anything close to Eisenhower-era tax rates on the richest among us? This past March, the Biden administration proposed a 25 percent minimum tax on the total income — including unrealized capital gains — of the nation’s top 0.01 percent, households worth at least $100 million.

About the same time, progressive lawmakers — led by U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and representatives Pramila Jayapal from Washington State and Brendan Boyle from Pennsylvania —  introduced the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, legislation that would impose a wealth tax on America’s 100,000 wealthiest households, our richest 0.05 percent.

Under this proposed legislation, wealthy households worth up to $1 billion would face an annual tax of 2 percent on their wealth over $50 million. Richer households would face an additional 1 percent tax on wealth over $1 billion.

One of the Senate co-sponsors of that legislation, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, has also gone a step further and called for a 100 percent tax on wealth over $1 billion.

“I think people can make it on $999 million,” Sanders told journalist Chris Wallace last year.

Sanders and one of America’s most famous deep pockets, Bill Gates, have actually had a friendly podcast discussion over whether our tax rates should allow billion-dollar fortunes to even exist. The Sanders proposal, noted Gates, would tax away over 99 percent of his personal fortune. Gates would be willing to let the IRS take 62 percent, about $100 billion.

For a better America, that certainly might make a good place to start.

Inequality for more