There’s No Denying the Socialist Roots of Fascism

In the past few decades, there has been a deep discussion about the ideological roots of fascism, and above all, a great misunderstanding about the collectivist principles that this authoritarian movement promulgated. To understand this ideology better, it is necessary to know in depth the life, beliefs, and principles of both its political leaders (such as Benito Mussolini) and its philosophical leaders (such as Giovanni Gentile).

Mussolini was an Italian military man, journalist, and politician who was a member of the Italian Socialist Party for 14 years. In 1910, he was appointed editor of the weekly La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), and the following year he published an essay entitled “The Trentino as seen by a Socialist.” His journalism and political activism led him to prison, but soon after he was released, the Italian Socialist Party—increasingly strong and having achieved an important victory at the Congress of Reggio Emilia—put him in charge of the Milanese newspaper Avanti!

This intense political activism was followed by World War I, which marked a turning point in Mussolini’s life. In the beginning, the leader of the Socialist Party was part of an anti-interventionist movement, which opposed Italy’s participation in World War I. However, he later joined the interventionist group, which earned him expulsion from the Socialist Party.

Mussolini participated in the war and went on to take advantage of the dissatisfaction of the Italian people, due to the few benefits obtained by the Treaty of Versailles. He then blamed his former comrades of the Socialist Party for it, and that is when he started the formation of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which later would become the Italian Fascist Party.

Based strongly on the nationalist sentiments that flourished as a result of the combat, Mussolini came to power by the hand of violence, fighting against the traditional socialists and shielding himself in the famous squadron of the black shirts. It was only then that the ideological complex of fascism would begin to take shape.

Practically everyone knows that Karl Marx is the ideological father of communism and socialism and that Adam Smith is the father of capitalism and economic liberalism. Do you know, in contrast, who the mind behind fascism is? It’s very likely that you don’t, and I can tell you in advance that the philosopher behind fascism was also an avowed socialist.

Giovanni Gentile, a neo-Hegelian philosopher, was the intellectual author of the “doctrine of fascism,” which he wrote in conjunction with Benito Mussolini. Gentile’s sources of inspiration were thinkers such as Hegel, Nietzsche, and also Karl Marx.

Gentile went so far as to declare “Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form.” One of the most common reflections on this is that fascism is itself socialism based on national identity.

Gentile believed that all private action should be oriented to serve society. He was against individualism, for him there was no distinction between private and public interest. In his economic postulates, he defended compulsory state corporatism, wanting to impose an autarkic state (basically the same recipe that Hitler would use years later).

A basic aspect of Gentile’s logic is that liberal democracy was harmful because it was focused on the individual which led to selfishness. He defended “true democracy” in which the individual should be subordinated to the State. In that sense, he promoted planned economies in which it was the government that determined what, how much, and how to produce.

Gentile and another group of philosophers created the myth of socialist nationalism, in which a country well directed by a superior group could subsist without international trade, as long as all individuals submitted to the designs of the government. The aim was to create a corporate state. It must be remembered that Mussolini came from the traditional Italian Socialist Party, but due to the rupture with this traditional Marxist movement, and due to the strong nationalist sentiment that prevailed at the time, the bases for creating the new “nationalist socialism,” which they called fascism, were overturned.

Fascism nationalized the arms industry, however, unlike traditional socialism, it did not consider that the state should own all the means of production, but more that it should dominate them. The owners of industries could “keep” their businesses, as long as they served the directives of the state. These business owners were supervised by public officials and paid high taxes. Essentially, “private property” was no longer a thing. It also established the tax on capital, the confiscation of goods of religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal rents. Statism was the key to everything, thanks to the nationalist and collectivist discourse, all the efforts of the citizens had to be in favor of the State.

Fascism claimed to oppose liberal capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of a “third way,” the same position that would be held by Argentine Peronism years later. This opposition to international socialism and communism is precisely what has caused so much confusion in the ideological location of fascism, Nazism, and also Peronism. Having opposed the traditional internationalist Marxist left, these were attributed to the current of ultra-right movements, when the truth is that, as has been demonstrated, their centralized economic policies obeyed collectivist and socialist principles, openly opposing capitalism and the free market, favoring nationalism and autarchy.

In that sense, as established by the philosopher creator of fascist ideology, Giovanni Gentile, fascism is another form of socialism, ergo, it was not a battle of left against right, but a struggle between different left-wing ideologies, an internationalist and a nationalist one.

In fact, in 1943, Benito Mussolini promoted the “socialization of the economy,” also known as fascist socialization; for this process Mussolini sought the advice of the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Nicola Bombacci; the communist was the main intellectual author of the “Verona Manifesto,” the historical declaration with which fascism promoted this process of economic “socialization” to deepen anti-capitalism and autarchism, and in which Italy became known as the “Italian Social Republic.”

On April 22, 1945 in Milan, the Fascist leader would declare the following:

“Our programs are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor State. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the working class in struggle for life and death, against capitalism. We are the revolutionaries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourgeoisie by waving the red peril is an absurdity. The real scarecrow, the real danger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capitalist bourgeoisie as an ally against the threat of the red peril, even at best it would be an unfaithful ally, which is trying to make us serve its ends, as it has done more than once with some success. I will spare words as it is totally superfluous. In fact, it is harmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutionaries of whatever hue, with the man of reaction who sometimes uses our very language.”

Six days after these statements, Benito Mussolini would be captured and shot.

This article was republished with permission from El American.


Emmanuel Rincon

Emmanuel Rincón is a lawyer, writer, novelist and essayist. He has won several international literary awards. He is Editor-at-large at El American

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Company Contrast: Parler vs. Facebook

Each week 2ndVote takes a look at popular companies that either score well or score poorly  and then try to provide alternatives that either better align with the 2ndVote values or should be avoided to the best of your ability. This series is called The Company Contrast, and the company we will be focusing on this week is Parler, which gets a 2ndVote score of 3.08.

Parler is an American social networking service that believes in the basic right of free speech. Here users have the freedom to say what’s on their mind; be it supporting their chosen political candidate or criticizing the extreme liberal left and they can do so without their content being taken down or censored. In their company policy they state that their “mission is to create a social platform in the spirit of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” – Parler

When looking to connect with your community over social media, look to Parler or other alternatives to the mainstream tech giants such as Facebook (1.00).

Facebook, which receives a 2ndVote score of 1.00, clearly has no respect for the basic freedoms of Americans. On numerous occasions, Facebook has supported organizations such as the Center for American Progress which has worked to strip down our first amendment right by opposing religious liberties and RFRA laws. The company itself has even directly stopped free speech by censoring and banning users it doesn’t like, such as the former President, Donald Trump. We urge you to stop using Facebook’s platform and, if you feel compelled, send them a letter through our website demanding that they change these un-American policies.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

GOP Rep. Cammack: Omarova ‘Not Fit to Be Our Banking Nominee’

Republican senators sound alarm on Biden bank nominee

Friday on Fox Business Network’s Varney & Company, Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) reacted to five Democrat senators reportedly opposing President Joe Biden’s nomination of radical Saule Omarova as the Comptroller of the Currency, saying the Marxist philosophy of the banking nominee makes her “not fit” for the job.

“The thing about this administration that baffles me — I truly do not know where their heads are at. They are so far removed from reality. It’s concerning,” Cammack stated. “You know when you have someone, and I think about Senator Kennedy’s remarks when he addressed her, ‘is it professor or comrade?’ Her philosophies are rooted in Marxism. She is not fit to be our banking nominee.”

“But, again, it’s just like the typical Biden administration that we’ve seen over the last 11 months,” she continued. “They are willing to put everything on the line, consequences be damned, because they believe that they are somehow virtuous in pursuing this ultra-progressive, leftist ideology. But we see that their policies are hurting America. We know that this banking nominee will only exacerbate these problems.

“It’s pretty simple,” she concluded. “I know I have a minor in economics, not a major and certainly not a master’s or a Ph.D., but I can tell you this — when government spends more, people like you and me and everyone around the country, we have less in our pockets. It’s really that simple.”

Saule Omarova

3 Known Connections

In a March 2021 interview which was part of the Jain Family Institute’s Social Wealth Seminar series, Omarova, while discussing “troubled industries and firms that are in transitioning,” bluntly declared that the destruction of the oil, gas, and coal industries would be essential for the protection of the natural environment. “And here what I’m thinking about is primarily coal industry and oil and gas industry,” she said. “A lot of the smaller players in that industry are, uh, going to probably, uh, go bankrupt in, in, in short order, at least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change, right?” On another occasion, Omarova put it this way: “In order to prevent climate change, we have to bankrupt all the coal, oil, and gas companies.”

In May 2021, Omarova was named a Senior Berggruen Fellow at the Berggruen Institute, a Los Angeles-based think tank which believes that both capitalism and democracy are “faltering” institutions in need of “great transformations.”

To learn more about Saule Omarova, click here.

RELATED VIDEO: Steve Moore breaks down damaging effects of Biden economic policies

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Celebrates Thanksgiving At Billionaire’s Compound As Normal Americans Struggle Through Inflation

President Joe Biden will spend his Thanksgiving holiday at a private billionaire’s compound as inflated costs continue to surge for lower and middle class Americans.

The president landed in Nantucket, Massachusetts, on Tuesday where he is expected to celebrate Thanksgiving with Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein, according to Fox News. The Biden family has spent the holiday on the island for several decades, but canceled their plans in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Meanwhile, the price of the average Thanksgiving dinner has risen more than 14% from the previous year, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual Thanksgiving dinner cost survey. The report further shows that the average Thanksgiving dinner for six people will cost an approximate $53.31, with the cost of turkey alone skyrocketing by 24% in comparison to the previous year.

A recent Trafalgar poll revealed that 52% of Americans say inflation forced them to change their holiday plans in accordance to the rise in food prices and shortages.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy criticized the president’s Nantucket holiday Wednesday by pointing to the average American’s struggle with inflation during the Thanksgiving holiday.

“Dear President Biden, while you are in Nantucket, enjoying your meals at a billionaire’s compound, here are the prices that Americans are paying for their Thanksgiving dinner-the most expensive one in history,” he wrote.

The country has witnessed its highest inflation levels in the past three decades, with the Consumer Price Index reaching 6.2% on a year-over-year measure. Food companies’ quarterly profits have fallen significantly as a result of inflation, labor shortages and supply chain issues, forcing them to increase the price of their meat, grain and steel can products.

The U.S. has suffered a shortage of oil production that caused gas prices to stand at an average of $3.40 per gallon, hitting its highest Thanksgiving week level since 2012, according to new data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

To resolve the current rise of inflated gas prices, Biden ordered the Department of Energy Tuesday to release 50 millions barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which will reportedly provide 2-3 days worth of U.S. oil supply.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told White House Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy that a “20 pound turkey” is not significantly pricier than in the past during Tuesday press conference.

“There are an abundance of turkeys available, they’re about $1 more for a 20 lb. bird, which is a huge bird if you’re feeding a very big family,” Paski said. “And that’s something that again, we’ve been working to make sure people have more money in their pockets to address it as the economy is turning back on.”




RELATED VIDEO: Rep. Crenshaw: This Administration Has Become a Joke and Inflation Isn’t Going Away Anytime Soon


Forgo The Turkey’: NBC Host Suggests Not Buying Thanksgiving Bird This Year As Prices Rise

Thanksgiving Gas Prices Hit Highest Level Since 2012

Over 75% Of Americans Say Inflation Is Affecting Them Personally, Poll Shows. Nearly 60% Blame Biden

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Oil Reserves Released By Biden Expected to Primarily Go To China, India

Gas prices for Americans are at an all time high. There are no words.

Oil reserves released by Biden expected to primarily go to China, India

U.S. taps 50 million barrels of oil from reserves in an attempt to tamper spiking costs at the gas pump

By Caitlin McFall FOX Business, November 24, 2021:

President Biden’s move to tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is expected to supply Chinese and Indian oil needs as gas demands have led to global shortages, reports said Tuesday.

The White House said the Department of Energy will release 50 million barrels of oil held in U.S. reserves — 18 million of which have already been congressionally approved for sale.


U.S. President Joe Biden speaks on the economy during an event at the South Court Auditorium at Eisenhower Executive Office Building on November 23, 2021 in Washington, DC. President Biden announced the release of 50 million barrels of oil from the S (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images / Getty Images)

China and India have been actively purchasing U.S. sour crude oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, first reported Bloomberg.

Sour crude oil contains high levels of sulfur, which reportedly makes it more expensive to process and traditionally turns buyers away.

But U.S.-produced sour crude oil appeals to foreign buyers because of its relatively affordable price tag, the publication said.

The White House’s Tuesday announcement means the U.S. will seek to accelerate sales abroad in an attempt to counter spiking prices at the gas pump.

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks on the economy during an event at the South Court Auditorium at Eisenhower Executive Office Building on November 23, 2021 in Washington, DC. President Biden announced the release of 50 million barrels of oil from the S (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images / Getty Images)

The additional 32 million barrels will be intended for U.S. consumers to alleviate increased demand.

Earlier this month OPEC+, led by nations like Saudi Arabia and Russia, refused to increase production to meet rising demands.

Gas shortages have led to rising inflation and gas prices at the pump not seen in seven years.

“The President has been working with countries across the world to address the lack of supply as the world exits the pandemic,” the White House said in a statement.

In a globally coordinated effort China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom will also tap their reserves to try and bring down gas prices.

“The president stands ready to take additional action, if needed, and is prepared to use his full authorities working in coordination with the rest of the world to maintain adequate supply as we exit the pandemic,” the administration added.

RELATED ARTICLE: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis blasts Biden, calls inflation a ‘huge problem,’ pledges gas tax relief

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

‘Will Not Fix The Problem’: Biden Releasing Oil Reserves Due To Politics, Critics Say

  • President Joe Biden’s decision to tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was derided by top GOP lawmakers and experts who said the move was political and won’t move the needle on gasoline prices.
  • “Even if the economic reality of five or maybe 10 cents a gallon of short term impact isn’t that big of a deal, doing nothing might look like a really big political problem,” Kevin Book, a National Petroleum Council member and managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • The federal government will release 32 million barrels of oil from the SPR and accelerate the release of 18 million barrels that had already been congressionally mandated, the White House announced Tuesday.
  • “This very temporary measure is not going to solve the supply issue at the pump nor is it a solution to gas prices that have doubled in the last year,” Rep. Fred Upton, the top Republican on a House energy subcommittee, told the DCNF.

President Joe Biden’s decision to tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was derided by top GOP lawmakers and experts who said the move was political and won’t move the needle on gasoline prices.

The federal government will release 32 million barrels of oil from the SPR and accelerate the release of 18 million barrels that had already been congressionally mandated, the White House announced Tuesday. Biden’s move to release crude oil from the nation’s emergency reserves was made alongside China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K., marking the first internationally coordinated release of emergency oil reserves.

However, experts suggested that the action was likely a political reaction to ever-rising prices at the pump and said it wouldn’t have a significant long term effect.

“It’s possible to say, ‘okay, this is something that politically, if not economically, requires intervention.’ The problem might be that, actually they started talking about doing something back in August,” Kevin Book, a National Petroleum Council member and managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The White House was aware of these rising prices and concerned about them, and started taking steps towards intervention and created an expectation for intervention,” he continued. “So, even if the economic reality of five or maybe 10 cents a gallon of short term impact isn’t that big of a deal, doing nothing might look like a really big political problem.”

Book added that the release would have a minimal effect on oil prices, which had already declined over the last several weeks as reports of such a move became public. The price of oil is expected to decrease in the next couple of months due to normal seasonal market fluctuations, according to Book.

A Goldman Sachs report published last week echoed Book’s comments, arguing that tapping the SPR is a “short-term fix to a structural deficit” and was already priced-in to the market. Oil prices may even increase more than expected due to the move, the report concluded.

Biden even acknowledged that he doesn’t have a near-term fix for higher prices and that tapping reserves would barely have an effect during a CNN town hall in October. His administration has mulled an SPR release for months.

But, like Book, Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute Senior Vice President Christopher Guith said Tuesday that the White House should focus on long term policies rather than “ineffectual band aids.”

‘A cynical move’

Biden, meanwhile, has faced heavy criticism for his administration’s anti-fossil fuel actions, which include revoking the Keystone XL pipeline permit and banning new oil and gas leases on federal lands. While the president has set ambitious clean energy goals, gasoline prices have risen to their highest level in nearly a decade, government data showed.

Gas prices are tightly tied to the price of crude oil.

“This very temporary measure is not going to solve the supply issue at the pump nor is it a solution to gas prices that have doubled in the last year,” Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the top Republican on a House energy subcommittee, told the DCNF.

The SPR was established in the 1970s as a tool to help the U.S. survive future energy crises where the global supply of oil dried up. The total inventory is estimated at around 604 million barrels of oil which is kept in deep underground storage caverns in Texas and Louisiana.

The last time the U.S. tapped the SPR was in 2011 when former President Barack Obama ordered a strategic release amid the Libyan civil war, a move that disrupted the Middle Eastern nation’s oil exports.

“President Biden’s policies are hiking inflation and energy prices for the American people,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso said in a statement. “Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will not fix the problem.”

“We are experiencing higher prices because the administration and Democrats in Congress are waging a war on American energy,” he continued.

Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said the move was like someone eating everything from the pantry then “shooting the farmers.”

“This is a cynical move by a guy who’s done everything in his power to restrict production here at home and in North America,” Kish told the DCNF. “All the while watching Russia become our number two supplier of foreign oil.”

Kish noted that oil prices have increased since Biden announced the release, a sign that it would have little effect on gasoline prices.

Republican Whip Steve Scalise said the SPR is strictly for emergency purposes in response to a question from the DCNF during an October roundtable. If Biden wanted to lower prices, he would make it easier for firms to drill and construct domestic pipelines, the Louisiana Republican added.

“The SPR is not to be used as a piggy bank just to bail you out when your failed policies create higher gas prices,” Scalise said.

“The answer is very straightforward and it’s right under our feet,” he continued. “Instead of trying to drain what’s left of our reserves, we ought to be producing more energy and creating more jobs here in America to take leverage away from OPEC countries and to take leverage away from Russia.”



Energy and environment reporter. Follow Thomas on Twitter


Trump Responds After Biden Announces Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserves

Oil Prices Rise After Biden Announces Emergency Action

Joe Manchin Again Urges Biden To Reinstate Keystone XL Pipeline

Biden’s Energy Secretary Fails To Answer Question About Oil Industry

Environmentalists Are Making Putin Stronger Than Ever

White House Adviser Says There’s An ‘Energy Crisis,’ Doubles Down On Calls For Boosted Foreign Oil, Gas Production

Oil Prices Surge Again After OPEC Ignores Biden

Is The Shift To Renewable Energy Propelling Us Into An Energy Crisis?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

With Oil Prices Up More than 60% in a Year Beijing Biden Sells U.S. Oil Reserves Overseas to Asia

Joe Hoft over at Gateway is reporting that terrible Joe is selling America’s reserves of oil to Asia after shutting down oil production in the U.S. This is the act of an enemy. There is no pushback from quisling GOP ‘leadership.’

With Oil Prices Up More than 60% in a Year Biden Decides to Sell US Oil Reserves Overseas to Asia

By Joe Hoft  November 18, 2021 at 5:20pm

Education Views reports:

Practically overnight, America went from oil independence and being a net oil [exporter], to suffering shortages and, as noted, rising prices. When asked about the problem, Biden risibly blamed OPEC and Russia. Meanwhile, Jennifer Granholm, the energy secretary, simply cackled maniacally and claimed the administration was helpless

Biden is now under pressure to tap the SPR to relieve some of the pressure on fuel prices. (Again, remember that Biden birthed this problem by squashing American fuel production, thereby creating the shortage. There’s also the little matter of his administration working with Congress to print money like rolls of toilet paper—except that toilet paper is more useful than inflationary dollars.) Even Chuckie Schumer wants to lower prices by chipping away at our SPR emergency supply, despite our having vast, untapped resources beneath American land.

It turns out, though, that Biden is already tapping into the SPR; he’s just not doing it to help Americans. A report in investment circles is finally trickling down into the mainstream news: Biden is selling massive amounts of SPR oil…to Asia!

This is based on a Bloomberg report:

About 1.6 million barrels of crude from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a monthly record — was shipped out in October, according to data from market intelligence firm Kpler. Three cargoes were loaded onto a supertanker in the U.S. Gulf Coast and are headed to Asia.

“Given the ongoing pace of the current SPR release — 12 million barrels in the last two months and the biggest weekly release so far last week at 3.1 million barrels — it’s fair to assume more SPR barrels are going to leave U.S. shores in the weeks ahead,” said Matt Smith, an oil analyst at Kpler.

Biden gave Taliban terrorists $84 billion in arms and gear and planes and choppers.  Biden opened the Southern Border and more than a million illegal immigrants have crossed into the US.  Now Biden sells the US oil reserves to Asia after changing America from being an oil exporter to dependent on Russia and the Middle East.

Is it time to impeach and remove Biden yet?  If not when will it be enough?


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

NYT Explores What Happens When Democrats Have All the Power. The Answer May Surprise You

It turns out voters and lawmakers in progressive states arrive at decisions like everyone else: on self-interest. But that’s not all.

Last week New York Times video journalist Johnny Harris asked a simple question.

“What do Democrats actually do when they have all the power?”

It turns out that 18 states in the US are effectively run by Democrats, who control both the executive and legislative branches. As Harris notes, Democratic leaders tend to blame Republicans for foiling their progressive plans, but that’s hardly the case in these 18 states where Republicans stand well away from the levers of power.

To answer his question—what do Democrats do when they have power?—Harris teamed up with Binyamin Appelbaum, the lead writer on business and economics on the Times editorial board and author of The Economists’ Hour.

What they found may surprise you.

First, Harris and Applebaum drilled into the 2020 Democratic Party Platform to see which values were most important to Democrats. They then focused on a particular state: California, the “quintessential liberal state” where Democrats rule with ironclad majorities and control the government in most major cities. Finally, the journalists decided to look at one specific policy: housing.

As Harris notes, housing policy is not exactly sexy stuff. But Applebaum stresses just how important housing is in battling inequality.

“Looking at California, you have to look at housing,” Applebaum says. “You cannot say you are against income inequality in America unless you are willing to have affordable housing built in your neighborhood….The neighborhood where you are born has a huge influence on the rest of your life.”

Moreover, Harris points out that Democrats overwhelmingly agree on its vital importance, noting that the word housing is mentioned more than 100 times in the Democrats’ platform. Indeed, Democrats are shown repeating a common mantra in the Times video.

“Housing is a human right.”

“Housing is a human right.”

“Housing is a human right.”

Democrats may say housing is a human right, but Applebaum notes their actions say something else, at least in California.

“You know those signs where you drive into a state and it says ‘Welcome to California’?” asks Applebaum. “You might as well replace them with signs that say KEEP OUT. Because in California the cost of housing is so high that for many people it’s simply unaffordable.”

As the Los Angeles Times noted in 2019, California has “an overregulation problem,” which is why nine of the 15 priciest metro areas in the US are in California and the median price of a house in San Diego is $830,000. In some cases, people have had to wait 20 years to build a pair of single family homes. (Applebaum, it’s worth noting, appears to misdiagnose the problem. He complains that “the state has simply for the most part stopped building housing.” Perhaps Applebaum simply misspoke, but it’s worth noting the state doesn’t need to build a single unit of housing; it simply needs to step back and allow the market to function.)

Regulations, however, aren’t the full story. As Harris notes, Californians themselves have fought tooth and nail to keep higher-density affordable housing out of their neighborhoods. Palo Alto is cited as an example, where voters in 2013 overturned a unanimous city council vote to rezone a 2.46-acre site to enable a housing development with 60 units for low-income seniors and 12 single-family homes.

“I think people aren’t living their values,” Applebaum says. “There’s an aspect of sort of greed here.”

Housing isn’t the only area the Times journalists find where progressives fail to “live their values.” Washington state having the most regressive tax rate in the US is cited as another example, as are the “gerrymandered” school districts in states like Illinois and Connecticut that consign low-income families to the least-funded schools because of their zip code.

The journalists are left with a gloomy conclusion.

“For some of these foundational Democratic values of housing equality, progressive taxation, and education equality, Democrats don’t actually embody their values very well,” Harris says.

Applebaum is even more blunt.

“Blue states are the problem,” the economics writer says. “Blue states are where the housing crisis is located. Blue states are where the disparities in education funding are the most dramatic. Blue states are the places where tens of thousands of homeless people are living on the streets. Blue states are the places where economic inequality is increasing most quickly in this country. This is not a problem of not doing well enough; it is a situation where blue states are the problem.”

Harris says affluent liberals “tend to be really good at showing up at the marches” and talking about their concerns over inequality. But when rubber meets the road, they tend to make decisions based on a different calculus: what benefits them personally.

For some, the findings and claims of the Times journalists could be jarring. But they are likely no surprise to FEE readers.

One of the pillars of public choice theory—a school of economics pioneered by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan—is that people make decisions based primarily on self-interest. (People act out of concern for others, too, but these interests tend to be secondary to self-interest.) Buchanan’s theory rests on the idea that all groups of people tend to reach decisions in this manner, including people acting in the political marketplace such as voters, politicians, and bureaucrats.

Many believe that self interest is part of the human condition, something as natural as hunger, love, and procreation. Harnessing the instinct of self-interest in a healthy way—through free exchange—has long been considered a cornerstone of capitalism and a key to a prosperous society.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,” Adam Smith famously observed in The Wealth of Nations. “We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”

For many progressives, however, self-interest has become a kind of heresy. The idea that individuals should be motivated by such things as profit and self-interest is anathema; these are values to be found in Ayn Rand novels, not practiced in 21st century America.

But as Applebaum notes, progressives are in fact making decisions based on self-interest—he uses the word “greed”—not altruism. This should come as little surprise, and it would be perfectly fine if progressives were acting on self-interest in a market economy; but they are not. They are using the law in perverse ways to their own benefit—all while maintaining the belief that they’re acting out of altruism.

The Times article makes it clear that voters and politicians in progressive states still arrive at decisions like everyone else: on self-interest. The results are just far worse when those decisions are made in the political space, not the marketplace.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Here’s Everything That’s Wrong With the Build Back Better Spending Bill House Democrats Just Passed

House Democrats voted Friday to pass the so-called “Build Back Better” plan, a multi-trillion-dollar welfare and climate change spending bill. They’re heralding it as a major accomplishment that will uplift struggling Americans and revitalize the economy. So, let’s review all the reasons it’s an utterly terrible piece of legislation.

First, the cost is astronomical. The Biden administration and its allies in Congress have repeatedly made false claims about its price tag. They’ve time and time again parroted the claim that the legislation “costs zero” because it supposedly does not add to the national debt and is “paid for” with new tax increases. (It actually does add to the debt, but that’s not the point). Yet this is an absurd argument. As I previously explained:

While it may be more fiscally responsible to pair spending increases with tax hikes, it doesn’t make them cost less. That’s like saying that buying groceries with cash instead of a credit card means the price tag is zero—it’s nonsensical.  Every dollar the government spends has to come from somewhere. Whether it’s financed through additional debt or new taxes means that the consequences are different, yes, but there are still costs involved.

The true cost of the legislation, once one accounts for budget gimmicks and dishonest political rhetoric, is up to $4.9 trillion. That’s an astounding $32,000 per federal taxpayer.

And most of this money would go to wasteful government programs and counterproductive expansions of the welfare state.

For example, the bill funnels billions into electric vehicle subsidies that make almost zero difference on carbon emissions and pad the pockets of wealthy consumers. It similarly wastes billions funding a “Civilian Climate Corps” that would pay people to do environmental activism that even proponents admit won’t reduce emissions. It puts hundreds of billions toward subsidies for healthcare, childcare, and housing that will ultimately push the cost of these sectors even higher and prove counterproductive.

So, too, the Build Back Better agenda openly violates President Biden’s promises that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000. It raises billions in new taxes on nicotine products that millions of working-class Americans regularly consume and hikes corporate taxes that ultimately fall on workers’ shoulders via lower wages. It does all this while, rather hypocritically, giving the rich a net tax cut.

What do we get in exchange for this hodge-podge of wasteful spending and punitive tax hikes? Worse economic outcomes, not the revitalization that President Biden and his allies have promised.

Because the bill confiscates trillions from the private, productive sector and funnels it through the government’s political schemes, it will actually lead to lower wages, lower employment, and lower economic growth over the long-run. That’s the finding of analyses by the Wharton School of Businessthe Tax Foundation, and too many other experts to count. (And no, the spending bill won’t reduce inflation as President Biden oddly claims).

In sum, the Build Back Better agenda is a government spending bill that’s uniquely terrible even by the abysmally low standards we expect from Congress. The good news is that it doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere once it gets to the Senate.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Donald J. Trump, ‘Joe Biden is Building Back Broke!’

We have labeled Biden’s Build Back Better agenda calling it Biden’s Build Back Worse agenda. It looks like we’ve been trumped on this, no pun intended.

President Donald J. Trump’s ‘Save America’ organization has released a new video touting the 45th President’s record on the economy while blasting Joe Biden’s ‘Build Back Broke’ agenda for America.

It seems that not a moment goes by before either Biden, one of his handlers, the White House, Democrats, liberals and the media, both legacy and social, come up with an idea that is patently absurd. Then they, using doublethink, twist it until it becomes a critically needed public policy.

It is now clear that Biden, his administration and Democrats, with the support of RINO Republicans, are doublethinkers par excellence.

The Biden administration has a malignant case of doublethink. For example, Biden says his Build Back Better agenda will cost $0 but in fact it has already cost $ trillions, e.g. Democrats infrastructure Bill. Watch as Joe Biden stands firm over debunked zero-cost, 3.5T BBB spending plan. Of course it takes a reporter from Communist Vietnam to explain it to us.

This is doublethink, coupled with circular reasoning, at its best. Biden begins with a fallacy that his agenda costs nothing, when logic says it must cost something. Biden’s Orwellian pragmatic defect.

Biden’s Build Back Worse Agenda

In the below tweet by Biden’s nominee for Comptroller of the Currency Saule Omarova states, “There will be no more private bank deposit accounts and all of the deposit accounts will be held directly at the fed.”

White House Press Secretary Psaki said, “Our view is that the rise in gas prices over the long term makes an even stronger case for doubling down our investment and our focus on clean energy options so we are not relying on the fluctuations and OPEC and their willingness to put more supply and meet the demand in the market.”

Finally back to Saule Omarova saying that in order to save the planet we must bankrupt the fossil fuels industries. Watch Omarova state, “We want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change.”

Finally here is Al Gore wanting “big brother” to watch you if you oppose Biden’s climate change agenda. Watch Al Gore’s latest ‘solution’ to Climate Change is mass surveillance:

This is pure Democrat Doublethinking. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984 double think: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Build Back Better Makes U.S. Income Tax Rate Highest in Developed World

Disaster! Millions of Americans made the worst mistake of their voting life, when they voted for Joe Biden thinking they would get a moderate. Now America is paying the price. Literally. How do President Trump’s tweets look now?

Build Back Better would make US income tax rate highest in developed world

By New York Post, November 17, 2021

President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda would hike the average top tax rate on personal income in the United States to the highest level in the developed world, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

The $1.75 trillion proposal currently before the House of Representatives would end up raising the average top tax rate on personal income in the US to a whopping 57.4 percent, the highest in the 38-member Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to the analysis.

That’s up from the US’ current nationwide average top tax rate of 42.9 percent, which lands squarely in the middle when compared with the other OECD countries, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington, DC-based think tank.

The new rate under Biden’s proposal would push the US top tax rate even higher than Japan’s notoriously cumbersome


Biden’s Build Back Better top tax rate would overtake Japan, Denmark, and France – currently the three countries with the highest tax rates in the OECD.

The top tax rate in a handful of blue states, including New York, California and New Jersey, would be even higher than the nationwide average at 66.2 percent, 64.7 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively, according to the analysis.

But under Biden’s plan, even residents of low-tax states like Wyoming, Washington and Texas will still face a top income tax rate of at least 51.4 percent due to the federal levy, the analysis shows.

A few different factors would drive the average top income tax higher, according to the analysts at the Tax Foundation.

First, under current law, the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income is scheduled to increase from 37 percent to 39.6 percent starting in 2026, according to the Tax Foundation.

The US has a marginal tax rate, meaning that tax rate only applies to earnings above the top threshold, which is above half a million dollars a year per household.

Analysis shows that low-tax states like Wyoming and Texas will still face a top income tax rate of at least 51.4 percent under President Biden’s plan.

On top of that, the wealthiest US households would face a 5 percent surcharge on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $10 million, plus a 3 percent charge on MAGI above $25 million, according to the analysis.

The plan would also close provisions that allow some wealthy taxpayers to avoid the 3.8 percent Medicare surtax on their earnings by strengthening a net investment income tax for anyone earning more than $400,000 a year.

Overall, these factors would push the top marginal tax rate on personal income at the federal level to 51.4 percent, according to the Tax Foundation, and that’s before state income tax.

It’s still unclear if the contentious cap on state and local tax deductions will be lifted in the Build Back Better plan, but if it is, then the average top marginal income tax rate would fall slightly to 54 percent, according to the foundation.


Under Build Back Better, even low-tax states would face major rate hikes.

“As policymakers explore options to raise revenue, they should keep in mind how the US compares to other countries and what the economic effects might be,” the analysis said.

“Raising the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income to the highest in the OECD will damage US competitiveness. It will also reduce incentives to work, save, invest, and innovate, with broad implications for the U.S. economy.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Hypnotised by race and gender, politicians have forgotten the working man

We need a labour market which supports families, argues Oren Cass, in a brilliant policy book.

Over the last two years, the overwhelming focus on the pandemic has obscured many other issues. It is easy to overlook the growing dissatisfaction with the economic status quo which existed prior to Covid.

Explanations for why there has been a populist revolt generally revolve around issues of immigration and cultural change, with debates over economic policy playing a supporting role.

Clearly, politics is changing. On issues like trade or government spending, the leftward shift by the Republican Party under Trump and the Conservative Party under Johnson has helped attract new voters in lower socio-economic groups.

Elsewhere, even though socialists and social democrats should be happy with the new mood in favour of greater state intervention, their electoral appeal is limited by the cult-like obsession with issues of race and gender, and so political coalitions are gradually being remade without any major shifts in policy taking place.

When it comes to explaining what has gone wrong in this area over recent decades, one book that really stands out is The Once and Future Worker by Oren Cass.

Cass’s influence in American policy circles has grown in recent years (Yuval Levin wrote that the book stands “in the very top ranks of sustained efforts to make some policy sense of the political realities of our era”) as the old “country club” element in Republican politics withers away, and he now runs his own think tank.

His central thesis is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are at fault for what Cass calls their “economic piety” – an approach which places too much emphasis on achieving growth in GDP as a means of enlarging (and then redistributing) the economic pie.

Politicians have emphasised the desires of the consumer over the interests of the producer, including when it comes to issues like immigration or trade policy, and their policies have necessitated the development of an ever-more expansive welfare state.

To counteract this, Cass puts forward a “Working Hypothesis,” which states “that a labour market in which workers can support strong families and communities is the central determinant of long-term prosperity and should be the central focus of public policy.”

Much of the book is devoted to explaining the difficulties which the current policies have created. As a direct result of government decisions when it comes to environmental policies and the minimum wage, it is now more expensive to employ low-skilled workers.

Those same workers find themselves competing against large numbers of low-wage workers from other countries, and the decline of America’s once-powerful trade unions and their increasing focus on liberal political causes  have left workers badly disadvantaged.

Cass reminds his readers that the symptoms of this serious condition were evident long before the Great Recession, as wages for less-skilled workers had stagnated to the point where a man with only a high school degree could no longer support a family.

In this environment, huge numbers of able-bodied citizens dropped out of the workforce and came to rely on government assistance. The baleful consequences of this extended far beyond the realm of employment.

Readers familiar with the literature in this area will recognise some of the key works which the author cites.

Charles Murray’s Coming Apart showed how the white working class was transformed between 1960-2010, with labour participation rates, marriage rates and religious participation rates all plummeting; while Angus Deaton and Anne Case’s Deaths from Despair and the Future of Capitalism highlighted the rapid increase in fatalities from alcoholism, drug addiction and suicide in recent years.

Virtually everyone acknowledges the problem, but the consensus around “economic piety” means that the Left has neglected production and focused too much on redistribution, often by way of an expanded welfare state.

Cass rejects the view that this is beneficial, and points to statistics showing how social spending has exploded in recent decades.

Since President Lyndon Johnson launched his Great Society initiative in the 1960s, the safety net has grown to the point where the US government spends US$20,000 annually for every person living in poverty, all to little avail.

Cass also takes aim at the increasingly-fashionable viewpoint that the way to fix this is by introducing a Universal Basic Income, lamenting that we “have reached a point where the rich think paying everyone else to go away represents compassionate thinking.”

In place of economic piety, Cass proposes a system he calls “productive pluralism” and lays out a proposal for what this would involve.

“Rather than taxing low-wage work to cut other tax rates and expand entitlements, we can do the reverse: we can provide a subsidy for low-wage work, funded with higher tax rates and reduced transfer payments,” he writes.

“Instead of organised labour piling burdens atop the ones that federal regulators already place on employment relationships, we can repurpose unions to help workers and employers optimise workplace conditions.

“We can expand the demand for more of the work that more Americans can actually do if we place the concerns of the industrial economy on an equal footing with those of, say, environmentalists. We can prepare Americans to work more productively if we shift some attention and resources from the college track to other tracks down which most people actually travel.”

In each area, Cass describes the steps which would need to be taken.

Wage subsidies paid by the government, for example, would help those on low incomes without leading to a reduction in the demand for labour – which is often the effect of minimum wage hikes.

Whereas the current emphasis on increasing GDP requires large scale unskilled immigration, Cass insists that we need to improve labour-market outcomes for low-wage workers, which would probably mean a reduced inflow.

Education policy is particularly important to Cass, as politicians (particularly left-leaning ones) suggest that more spending in this area and a “college for all” strategy will ameliorate much of what is wrong with the current socio-economic system.

As Cass explains, this has failed the broad swathe of workers who have not acquired college qualifications and probably never will. His remedy involves a renewed focus on educational tracking with increased vocational opportunities from the mid-teens on, and to bring this about he calls for a large reallocation of financial resources towards apprenticeships and other such programs.

Clearly, the author does not believe that poverty can be eradicated entirely, and he proposes ideas for how to improve social supports while also strengthening the mediating institutions which have been so weakened in recent times.

Cass praises Catholic charities which operate on the ground and make the necessary careful judgements about individual needs when supplying assistance to the underprivileged, while helping them to make the right steps to achieve independence.

The influence of Catholic social teaching is shown elsewhere in Cass’s work, as when he quotes Pope John Paul II’s words in describing how associations of workers as essential “not only in negotiating contracts, but also as ‘places’ where workers can express themselves.”

Cass’s views are far from dominant within the American Right, but they are growing in influence, and his allies such as the Catholic Senator Marco Rubio are increasingly adopting similar positions focusing on the importance of dignified work.

This is important, as this is ultimately an American book, focused on the American context.

The same can be said of important books by Yuval Levin, Charles Murray, Robert Putnam and many others, and it is unfortunate that the sort of detailed social and economic analysis which these authors provide is not to be seen in political debates in Europe and elsewhere.

The Once and Future Worker has universal implications, however, in that it charts a viable course for those who accept that the current economic and social system is untenable while also recognising that the socialist alternative is undesirable, and usually involves steps which would ignore the real root causes and exacerbate social ills.

Too many people have neglected the importance of fulfilling and gainful work to human flourishing. Oren Cass’s book is a wake-up call, and should be a blueprint for reform in the coming years.


James Bradshaw

James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… More by James Bradshaw.

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Glasgow Gas Emissions Fiasco!

Todays blog comes from Chris whose work you all seem to like! Please share as always!

I predicted two weeks ago the Glasgow climate conference wouldn’t amount to much, and I was right. It was billed as the “last chance” to save humanity, but it ended with China and India teaming up to water down language calling for phasing out the use of coal. The final language talks about how coal will be ‘phased down’, not ‘out’.

So there were two skunks at this garden party, but it was all completely foreseeable when you remember both China and India are building coal-fired power plants like crazy.  Estimates vary, but China is building at least 95  new coal plants and India is building 28.  You can add to that 23 more in Indonesia and dozens elsewhere.  Add it all up and you get 195 new coal plants being built around the world, as we speak.

China already has over a thousand coal plants.  India ranks second with 281, the U.S. third with 252, and 475 in the next nine countries combined.  No wonder U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said in January the U.S. could go to zero carbon emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make any difference, not when 90 percent of global emissions come from outside the U.S.

Speaking of John Kerry, we were treated during the conference to the pathetic spectacle of him desperate to get a deal, any kind of deal, with China.  The dealhe got is big on hifalutin talk about ‘thinking big’ and ‘shouldering responsibility’, but short on specifics.  China pledged to decrease its coal use.  Good luck with that when China’s 95 new coal plants come on line.  If we didn’t know Kerry’s ‘deal’ was worthless when it was announced, we certainly knew it when China and India watered down the final conference agreement.  And for this worthless piece of paper Kerry explicitly stated he was willing to overlook China’s use of slave labor to produce solar panels.  Swell guy.

Did the conferees act like climate change is a crisis?  No.  In addition to watering down the final language, the conferees made more worthless pledges to double the amount rich nations will pay poor nations for climate change.  Which doesn’t mean a whole lot when you consider developed countries reneged on a previous pledge to deliver $100 billion in climate payments per year to developing countries by 2020.  Meanwhile, the actions promised at the conference are insufficient to meet the conferee’s own goal of keeping the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.   No matter.  John Kerry declared mission accomplished, peace with honor, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I’ve said many times I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they act like it’s a crisis.  They’re not acting like it and, therefore, have failed to make the case it really is a crisis.   Yet Kerry & Friends want to turn the U.S. upside down to tilt at windmills.  Kerry says the U.S. won’t have coal-fired power plants by 2030.  Looks like former President Obama’s ‘war on coal’ has resumed.  One of Joe Biden’s nominees said she wants coal and oil companies to go bankrupt to fight climate change.

The inmates are running the asylum.  They’re chasing unicorns starting with the whole bogus notion of human-induced climate change, but this is what they’re really talking about: cutting your energy use by 90 percent, stopping economic growth entirely, keeping you from traveling, cutting your food by a third, and only allowing you to buy 9 pounds of clothing a year.  Is that what you want?

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, this isn’t about the climate.  It’s about making you poor and keeping you under their thumb.  Obama said he would give upa lot of his lifestyle to fight climate change.  OK, you go first.  When Obama and Kerry follow the climate crowd’s advice to own nothing and be happy about it, I will gladly follow suit.   Until they do, they should just stop flapping their gums.  It’s annoying.

Visit The Daily Skirmish

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

REPORT: Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Would Raise Taxes On Middle Class Households

When the Left say tax the rich, the American people should watch their bank accounts. The absurdity that only Americans who are making over $400k/year would see an increase in taxes, under the Biden Administration’s “Build Back Better” spending bill.

President Trump warned that the Biden Administration’s economic policies would be a disaster for America. Sadly, millions of Americans voted for Joe Biden because they disliked President Trump’s demeanor. Well, this is their reward. Americans can expect high taxes and high inflation over the next 3 years.

Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Would Raise Taxes On Up To 30% Of Middle Class Households: Report

By Daily Wire, November 13, 2021

The Biden administration’s “Build Back Better” spending bill would raise taxes on many middle-class families, according to a report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, despite the president’s promise to not raise taxes on anyone making more than $400,000 per year.

The report found that in the year 2022, when looking at direct taxes only — that is, individual income taxes and payroll taxes — most American families in all income groups except the top 1% would see a tax cut. But when all of the major tax laws are taken into account, TPC reports that “roughly 20 percent to 30 percent of middle-income households would pay more in taxes in 2022.” Those increases would be small, with most low and middle-class families paying about $100 more in taxes.

However, Tax Policy Center notes that, beginning in 2023, things would begin to change.

The bill’s extension of the child tax credit would extend only through 2022. In addition, the corporate minimum tax, which TPC passes on to households by virtue of family members working for and investing in corporations, would not take effect until 2023.

“In general, the combined effects of these changes would result in many households paying higher taxes in 2023 than in 2022. They would shrink the average 2023 tax cuts for low-income households, raise taxes slightly for moderate-income households, and increase taxes significantly for the highest-income households,” the report said.

Americans’ taxes would also rise in later years, the report indicated, because the tax cuts on individuals made by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire at the end of 2025. TPC estimated that those increases would be small, only about $70 per household for middle-class families.

Notably, the TPC report seems to conflict with the Biden administration’s promise not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.

The report also comes as an analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce showed that the reconciliation bill contains a number of accounting gimmicks which would mean the final cost of the spending bill would amount to $4.1 trillion in new spending, far more than the proposed $1.75 trillion cost being publicly announced. The bill notably includes short-term tax increases, but after 2026, would see tax increases for the next five years.

The Democrat Party has also planned a $2.9 trillion tax hike that would substantially increase taxes on 85% of Americans.

Some Americans in almost every tax bracket would see tax increases by 2023, and the burden would fall mainly on the middle class, since 95% of small businesses are organized as “pass-through entities” that pay the income tax. The bill would also increase the corporate tax rate from 21% to 26.5%, which would affect more than 1.4 million small businesses operating as C-corporations.

The report also comes as the hidden tax of inflation significantly impacts their pocketbooks. The Daily Wire previously reported that both the Consumer and Producer Price Indexes have jumped to record annual highs for the period from October 2020 to October 2021. The Chamber of Commerce report also indicated that the reconciliation bill’s spending provisions would significantly increase inflationary pressure, furthering the strain on Americans’ pocketbooks.


RELATED VIDEO: FEMA Whistleblower Exposes Great Reset Agenda.


‘Feels Like Joe Biden Is Jimmy Carter’: Ted Cruz Says ’Skyrocketing Inflation’ And ‘Gas Lines’ Make It Feel Like The 197os Again

5 Times The Biden Administration Laughed At Your Pain

‘Build Back Better’ Could Cause Revolt Among Independent Tax Payers

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Biden Bolshevik Banking Nominee: ‘No More Private Bank Accounts’

The only way out of this is paper ballots.

That or guns.

Biden Banking Nominee – “No More Private Bank Accounts”

Biden Banking Nominee – “No More Private Bank Accounts”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.