“We’re Going To Lose A Major War”: US Navy Deletes Photo Of Ship Commander Shooting Rifle With Backwards Scope
Cmdr. Cameron Yaste, the Commanding Officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), was recently photographed shooting a 5.56×45mm M4 carbine with the optics installed backward.
The now-deleted image and press release on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service website featured Yaste shooting the M4 with the Trijicon VCOG scope installed backward while pointed at a giant target balloon.
Here’s what the press release said before it was deleted:
Cmdr. Cameron Yaste, the Commanding Officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), fires at the “killer tomato” during a gun shoot. The ship is in US 7th Fleet conducting routine operations. 7th Fleet is the US Navy’s largest forward-deployed numbered fleet, and routinely interacts and operates with Allies and partners in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific Region.
How could this have passed muster by any Navy Personnel? Scope backwards, fore-grip in an almost totally unusable position, entirely ridiculous! My 6 year old grandson knows better than this!
It’s no longer about markets. It’s about identity.
The historian Prof. Gary Gerstle maintained that the neo liberal order was coming to an end, that free movement of goods, money, ideas and talent characterized the neo liberal order and that it was in the process of losing ascendancy. Losing ascendancy does not mean disappearing, it means losing ascendancy. Peter Zeihan says much the same and locates the issue in the guarantee offered by the US Navy since WW2 to police the sea lanes of the world. Also large diesel engines and cheap fuel may have as much to do with trade as any deliberate policy measures. I digress.
Somewhat to my surprise I agreed with the leftist professor of history.
The neo liberal order got going about the time of Reagan and Thatcher and was characterized by reliance upon, and praise for, the market. In the period under discussion, various US Presidents, of whom Clinton is prominent, also pursued neo liberal promarket policies. This illustrates the tendency for large movements of policy to continue despite changes in the party holding the presidency. Canada obtained free trade with the US, and many liberalizing trade measures were adopted throughout this period roughly 1970-2000.
The next assertion of the professor was that the dominance of neo liberalism was coming to an end. I also agree with that assertion, perhaps for different reasons than those of the learned professor.
The effects of the neo liberal order were various and I shall try to point out the major features. This is obviously me talking, not Professor Gerstle.
off shoring of domestic North American manufacturing, which led to the gutting of manufacturing towns, increasing despair and drug addictions (viz Angus Deaton on deaths of despair in the working class) and much cheaper goods at the stores
Industrialization of much of the rest of the world. When did you first notice that clothing you wore came from Cambodia, Indonesia, or Vietnam?
Very significant increase of the national share of wealth to the top 1% and eventually the top 1% of the 1% as the economy became more monetary and intangible and less a matter of things produced. Software firms worth more than Boeing or Ford for instance.
Oxycontin plagues and mass drug addictions
Very high rates of non white immigration of peoples to Europe and North America. You are not supposed to notice this, by the way. But assimilation is not proceeding too well in many European countries and the same process is well underway in the United States.
The remainder of Professor Gerstle’s talk concerned Trump, Orban and Bolsonaro and the supposed authoritarianism of same and the threat to democracy. I should say “democracy” because clearly the word has become code for something other than changes of governments in a populist direction. These are held to be threats to “democracy” which seem to consist of changes of history of which leftists disapprove.
Here is where I depart from Professor Gerstle’s alarmism about populist changes to governments.
He was also concerned with the January 6th insurrection on the hill and the menace it portended to the continuity of American institutions. I was once very alarmed by January 6th riots until I began to believe the entire event was a police -infiltrated and significantly police-inspired stunt to disgrace Trump. It has worked.
Prof. Gerstle along with many other Democrats believes that democracy is under attack.
Let me try to set forth the reasoning of many on the Trumpist right, if “right” is the term to be applied. Here we get to territory that will summon forth political disagreement.
For many of us, a combination of events has persuaded us that democracy is already in grave danger from the following, which is largely drawn from the US experience.
A politicized leftist judiciary and prosecutorial apparatus
A politicized federal police
A politicized intelligence apparatus
An almost certainly manipulated if not stolen presidential election
Uncontrolled immigration of people, some of whom are in the United States with subversive intentions
The immigration of 20 or 40 millions is not being controlled because the Democrats want to achieve permanent electoral supremacy by endowing the illegals with votes
A minor but serious plague has been used as a pretext for a massive repression of personal liberties both of trade and movement on the basis of compulsory vaccination by radical mRNA therapies that have been insufficiently tested, and which appear to be causing a serious increase of deaths in the general population
which plague was engineered by experiments in gain of function (increased lethality) research funded by US sources in Chinese laboratories (RFK I pushing these buttons as a central part of his electoral campaign)
A push by all global leaders and bureaucracies to reduce energetic throughputs, the basis of wealth creation, in the name of a spurious climate agenda.
A fundamental attack on sex roles being carried on as the focus of the next personal liberation struggle.
So yes, the people, rightly or wrongly, are unhappy with the state of their governments and what these governments have so clearly indicated they wish to do.
Consequently, as a result of governments being so badly misaligned with their electorates, and so apparently ready to call opposition to their intentions as “far right” “fascist” “transphobic”, and so ready to denigrate the white settler populations of which the electorate is still mostly composed, the neo liberal order is coming to an end. This is occurring not because of trade issues, or income inequality, but because of fundamental challenges posed by left wing governments to the people who still compose the electorates.
To what do we belong? To the nation, or to various sexual and cultural minorities?
Trump has a clear answer. Biden, if he has an answer at all, says that most Americans belong to an illegitimate race. And if he cannot say this, his minions state it or insinuate it.
The neo liberal order is coming to an end because the issues have decisively moved on from trade and markets to identity and belonging.
* * *
Sign up for The Bombthrower mailing list to get unacceptable opinions written by fringe extremists – straight into your inbox. You’ll also receive The Crypto Capitalist Manifesto – The Great Reset is a Monetary Regime Change: Join today »
Late on Tuesday, the financial world was swept up by a report from Bloomberg according to which an unknown trader had put on single record-sized trade, betting that today’s CPI print would come in dovish, and forcing the Fed to cut sooner. It did not work out quite as expected.
For those who missed it, a significant block trade in US short-term interest-rate futures, specifically in December 2024 SOFR futures, took place during market hours on Tuesday, marking the largest trade of its kind. This trade – which was widely publicized by Bloomberg – contributed to driving gains in the Treasury market. After all, nobody would gamble tens of millions if they didn’t know something.
The trade, likely initiated by a buyer, coincided with expectations of benign March consumer price index data, potentially leading to a revival in expectations for Fed rate cuts. Confidence in this outlook was reinforced by State Street Global Advisors predicting an aggressive half-point Fed rate cut by June and remarks from US President Joe Biden’s economic aide, Lael Brainard. As of the time of the trade, the swaps market was pricing in approximately 65 basis points of Fed rate cuts by year-end. The December 2024 SOFR futures were trading slightly higher than the block trade’s price, indicating continued market activity and investor interest in hedging or speculating on interest rate movements.
In retrospect, it turned out that the trader really didn’t know anything, and on Wednesday the trade blew up in spectacular fashion after a stronger-than-expected reading triggered a market rout.
According to Bloomberg calculations, moments after the CPI print, which came in hot on every possible metric, the position was roughly $50 million in the red, based on price moves in the underlying December 2024 futures.
As duly noted earlier, after Wednesday’s red hot report, expectations for the first full quarter-point rate cut this year wilted and shifted to November from September, with the market now pricing in less than two 25 basis-point moves for all of 2024.
While it’s not known who placed the record futures bet, or whether it was made in conjunction with other trades, the scale of the block trade — with a $2MM DV01, or $2 million in gains or losses per basis point move — suggests it was made to offset a separate underlying position, possibly a bearish stance although it is unclear. Separate data released Wednesday from the CME suggested the trade was a new wager or hedge, rather than short-covering of an existing position.
The unknown trader was not the only casualty of today’s red hot inflation number: on Tuesday, State Street predicted a half-point cut as soon as the June meeting; instead swaps are now pricing in just 3 basis points of cuts for the FOMC meeting. If State Street had put money on the trade, it is now gone… all gone.
Utility bills – for electricity, natural gas, water, and garbage – have by long-standing tradition been based on customer usage, measured in kilowatt-hours of electricity, therms or Btu of natural gas, hundred cubic feet of water, or number of garbage cans.
Every residence and business has electric, gas, and water meters that measure utility usage.
But changes are afoot in the utility business as federal and state governments urge Americans to convert from fossil fuels to electricity for home heating, appliances, and transportation. From this transition will undoubtedly follow changes in utility rate-setting models.
Fixed Fees Coupled with Usage-Based Electricity Rates
Some electric utilities currently charge customers a flat, fixed fee as well as usage-based charges, both on the same monthly bill. The fixed fees, often called “customer charges” or “meter-reading charges,” are imposed irrespective of energy usage. These fees assure revenue stability and offset the overhead expenses of running electric utilities. Energy usage-based charges, which can vary seasonally, are designed (and regulated) to recover the cost of the electricity sold.
Economists refer to this pricing strategy as a two-part tariff in which the consumer must pay a fixed fee for the right to buy a product or service (energy in the case of electric utilities). This pricing model effectively maximizes revenue for sellers that have some monopoly pricing power in their respective markets because of the way they have structured their businesses. Electric utilities are, of course, regulated monopolies that serve designated geographic areas.
Other Examples of Two-Part Tariff Pricing Strategy
Disneyland charges high entrance fees to its theme parks, but prices for individual rides are just sufficiently high to cover the marginal cost of operating the rides. A family that has traveled from Kansas to California or Florida Disney venues will likely not balk at paying high admission fees combined with low per-ride ticket prices.
Popular retailer Costco charges annual membership dues that allow customers to buy large product packages at relatively low unit prices. While Costco isn’t strictly considered a monopoly among warehouse stores, its unique membership and marketing methods effectively give it monopoly status with great cachet.
Country clubs typically charge high membership fees that offer members the right to buy greens fees and participate in social activities with other like-minded, equally affluent members.
Bars levy admission cover charges combined with fees per drink once patrons are inside.
The strategy works when sellers can easily identify different buyer groups and prohibit individual buyers from selling to nonmember buyers.
For example, country club members cannot resell greens fees or social activities to nonmembers. Disneyland visitors cannot resell ride tickets to those who have not paid the entrance fee. And electric utility ratepayers cannot resell to others who don’t have accounts with the utility.
Income-Based Fixed Charges
But what if utilities based their fixed fee on customers’ income levels rather than a flat uniform fee for every customer?
California, home to 10 percent of the total US population and often considered a state laboratory where policies begin before adoption across the nation, offers a glimpse into the future of utility rate setting as the two-part tariff pricing model has now taken on a new wrinkle.
In 2022 the supermajority Democrat state legislature passed and the governor signed Assembly Bill 205 (AB 205), which ordered the California Public Utilities Commission to authorize a “fixed charge” on residential electric bills by July 2024. Customers of the three large investor-owned utilities (IOUs)—Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric—would pay this charge regardless of their electricity usage and in addition to that usage. The basis of the fixed charge is to be determined by each IOU utility, subject to approval by the California Public Utilities Commission.
The legislation also required the utilities to reduce their rates for electricity usage in order to assist low-income customers as electricity prices continue to rise. This represents not only a major shift in the standard rate-setting model from usage orientation to fixed charges but also a new emphasis on income and wealth redistribution from high-income customers to low-income, somewhat akin to a progressive income tax.
There is no precedent for such redistribution in utility rate regulation.
AB 205 was intended to ensure that the IOUs’ new two-part pricing strategy be revenue-neutral – that is, continue to make sufficient revenue to invest in needed infrastructure for long-distance transmission (picture large pylons across the landscape) and distribution (local power lines delivering power to retail customers). The three IOUs own the vast majority of California’s energy infrastructure (poles and wires), construction and maintenance of which are so vital to greater electrification of homes and transportation as California focuses on transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
A further intent of the legislation, moreover, was to raise additional revenue to pay for burying power lines that might otherwise ignite wildfires and constructing facilities to carry solar and wind-generated energy to large urban areas. Higher-income customers would pay a disproportionately high share of these construction and maintenance costs, even if they don’t use more power.
It all sounded like a win-win for progressives:
Rich people pay more for energy, poor people pay less, and everyone makes progress on global warming.
Until, that is, questions arose on possible fallout from this new rate-setting model:
How to determine ratepayers’ income levels without invading their privacy?
How might higher income-based fixed charges, coupled with lower kilowatt-hours usage rates, reduce financial incentives to conserve energy usage?
How might lower usage rates affect desirable future sales of rooftop solar installation?
Because of these imponderables and because the California Public Utilities Commission has not approved any of several possible methodologies to implement AB 205, one legislator has now introduced Assembly Bill 1999 to repeal the fixed-charge mandate. Another legislator who voted for AB 205 now confesses that the legislation was long and confusing and was called up for a vote very shortly after its text was available to read.
Blame is being passed around.
Is the original AB 205 merely a profit-grab by the three large IOUs? Were legislators remiss in approving it too quickly in their zeal to mandate climate goals? Who originally decided to incorporate the income-based fixed charge into the legislation?
Addressing these questions may be a challenge, something akin to solving an algebraic problem with more variables than equations, which leaves only an indeterminate solution. Too many conditions must be satisfied: revenue neutrality, protecting customer privacy when determining their income levels, energy usage rates low enough to protect low-income customers, usage rates high enough to encourage energy conservation and future installation of rooftop solar, sufficient revenue to invest in infrastructure for wildfire prevention, and additional grid capacity to support electric vehicle recharging stations and home heat pumps.
It is possible to solve such problems using linear programming, maximizing a linear function subject to the various constraints. But it is unlikely that California Public Utilities Commission staff could grapple with such a solution in time to approve income-based electric utility two-part tariffs in time for July 2024 implementation.
Whether this two-part tariff income-based pricing model might migrate to utilities in other states is unclear at this point, but its success or failure in California will probably determine its ultimate fate. In the meantime, perhaps the original legislation AB 205 is so poorly written that it should be repealed outright, consigning another well-intentioned governmental intervention effort to the proverbial dustbin of history.
U.S. innovation fuels our economic strength and is vital for our national security. Released last earlier this month, the National Science Board’s congressionally mandated State of U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators report shows that an accelerating science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) talent crisis is imperiling America’s economy and security.
Let’s start with a bit of perspective. The U.S. STEM workforce is now one quarter of the total U.S. workforce – 38 million people at all degree levels who use STEM skills in their jobs, including 19 million skilled technical workers without a bachelor’s degree. That number will only rise as companies expand their STEM workforce and their R&D investments in response to rising global competition. The CHIPS & Science Act is now funding one response to global competition and national security risk — the reshoring of our semiconductor production.
Meanwhile, key technological sectors, including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity, face major challenges in filling urgently needed job openings, and making the promise of economic development a reality. Let’s be clear –China is gaining on us, and it has articulated plans to increase its R&D investment even further. Indicators data show that China recently surpassed the United States in research publications and patent applications, and China’s growth in high impact articles is outpacing its overall growth in publications. These overall trends are also true for the specific field of artificial intelligence – a field that is critical to national security. We cannot risk falling behind.
We must address this crisis now. How?
First, we must increase the flow of domestic talent into the STEM workforce. To start, Congress must fully fund the remaining parts of CHIPS & Science Act – investing in developing the STEM workforce, from preK-12 education through skilled technical workers and college STEM graduates to doctoral-level researchers in industry and academia. Sadly, the spending bill that Congress just passed cuts some of our most important science federal agencies, like the National Science Foundation, moving us backwards.
Second, we need new policies that double-down on one of our nation’s greatest strengths: attracting and retaining top STEM talent from around the world, including from countries that are emerging science partners. We must do more to entice and enable science and engineering students to work in the U.S. after they receive their degrees.
Third, we need a modern-day National Defense Education Act (NDEA) to spur private and public collaboration and provide the specific skills and talent needed by American industry.
An NDEA that would: invest in preK-12 STEM education and increase our STEM teacher supply across the country. Build capacity for the gateways into STEM training across the country: community colleges, technical schools, and other geographically and financially accessible institutions. Expand graduate fellowship programs, with a focus on critical and emerging technologies. Create national service programs like the Defense Civilian Training Corps and increase scholarships for low-income individuals. Increase options for foreign-born STEM talent to stay after their education and training and reduce barriers for doing so.
This is a national call-for-action. We need all-hands on deck – no group alone can solve this problem. Business, government, and academia must come together in a collaborative partnership and commitment far beyond the scale in which we are investing now. Otherwise, we risk ceding U.S. science and engineering leadership to China, with deep and lasting negative effects on our national security and our economic competitiveness.
Dr. Dan Reed is a former Microsoft Executive and currently serves as the chair of the National Science Board (NSB). Reed previously served as Provost at the University of Utah where he now is Presidential Professor of Computational Science and Professor of Computer Science and Electrical & Computer Engineering.
Dr. Darío Gilis the IBM Senior Vice President and Director of Research and a member of the NSB.
Inflation Check: Doctors Making $350,000 Per Year Can’t Find Homes In Long Island As Prices Surge 50%
While every news anchor and talking head in the world of finance continues to congratulate the Fed despite inflation still not being under control, prices are telling another story.
Specifically, housing prices. In fact, a new report from Bloombergis now detailing how even doctors making $350,000 per year are “struggling” to find places to live in locales like Long Island.
The report cites the region’s “chronic housing shortage” and detailed the story of Paul Connor, who helps run Stony Brook’s Eastern Long Island Hospital.
“The single most difficult impediment to get around right now is the housing prices,” he said of the area.
Long Island’s North Fork, including Greenport, epitomizes New York’s severe housing crunch, with home prices surging by 50% to nearly $1 million, and available listings plummeting by 60% for its 50,000 residents, the report says.
This crisis mirrors a broader state issue, characterized by a mismatch of job growth to housing availability, leading to historically low rental vacancies in New York City and skyrocketing rents – and spitting in the face of the narrative that inflation is cooling.
Upstate areas like Buffalo and Syracuse also face soaring property prices, compounded by restrictive zoning in the suburbs and mortgage rates nearing 7%, making homeownership increasingly unattainable. Suffolk County’s meager housing growth rate, one of the lowest in the state, further underscores the acute challenge of expanding the housing supply to meet demand.
Rachel Fee, Executive Director of the New York Housing Conference added: “It’s a huge concern. It’s not just a New York City issue anymore. Affordability is an issue across the state.”
“Part of the squeeze with the North Fork is the spillover effect from the Hamptons because prices have risen so rapidly that the North Fork became this cheaper alternative — until it wasn’t,” added Jonathan Miller, President of Miller Samuel.
Connor concluded: “Whether you’re a cardiologist or you work in one of the local restaurants, it’s to the advantage of everyone in our community to have people who live and work locally.”
Amidst a whirlwind of controversy swirling around Sean “Diddy” Combs, the mogul behind the Empower Global project, at least 18 brands have severed ties with his e-commerce platform. Empower Global, which champions black-owned businesses, has faced a significant setback with the departure of notable partners, including Tsuri, Nuudii System, No One Clothiers, Fulaba, and House of Takura., according to a report by Rolling Stone.
Annette Njau, the force behind House of Takura, cited Cassie Ventura’s lawsuit against Sean Combs as the pivotal moment that guided their decision. Ms. Njau emphasized their stance, stating, “We take the allegations against Mr. Combs very seriously and find such behavior abhorrent and intolerable. We believe in victims’ rights, and support victims in speaking their truth, even against the most powerful of people.”
In a statement regarding No One Clothiers’ decision to leave the platform, spokesperson Lenard Grier addressed the complexities involved in such a move: “While this decision was difficult due [to] the reverence we once held for Mr. Combs as a leader in business and entertainment, it was clearly the correct choice.”
Ashli Goudelock, at the helm of skincare brand Tsuri, discussed their impending exit, underscoring an unyielding commitment to gender equality and dignity. Ms. Goudelock remarked: “As a company owned and led by women, we refuse to dwell in ambiguity regarding the mistreatment of our gender.”
Rebecca Allen, founder of the eponymous shoe brand, said: “We enjoyed working with the team but have not seen meaningful sales, so we were already planning to terminate our relationship at the end of this year. These harrowing allegations have expedited our decision, and we ended our partnership with Empower Global earlier this month.”
In a bid to salvage his reputation, Mr. Combs took to Instagram on Dec. 6 to assert his innocence and vow to defend his name against what he perceived as baseless attacks. Denying accusations of sexual assault, trafficking, and abuse leveled against him by Cassie Ventura, Mr. Combs declared his unwavering resolve to combat what he views as a concerted effort to besmirch his character and legacy.
“For the last couple of weeks, I have sat silently and watched people try to assassinate my character, destroy my reputation and my legacy. Sickening allegations have been made against me by individuals looking for a quick payday. Let me be absolutely clear: I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”
Meantime, the company is facing a period of uncertainty as it addresses these challenges. The future of Empower Global remains unclear.
In November, Mr. Combs temporarily stepped down as a co-chair of Revolt, a music-oriented digital cable television network that he co-founded. The company posted a statement on X reading, “While Mr. Combs previously has previously had no operational or day-to-day role in the business, this decision helps to ensure that Revolt remains steadfastly focused on our mission to create meaningful content for the culture.”
Police and media members gather outside the home of U.S. producer and musician Sean “Diddy” Combs in Los Angeles on March 25, 2024. Homes belonging to Sean “Diddy” Combs were being raided by federal agents, media reported on March 25, with the U.S. hip hop mogul at the center of sex trafficking and sex assault lawsuits. (David Swanson/AFP via Getty Images)
This comes as Mr. Combs has been accused in four separate civil lawsuits of sexual abuse. Legal action began on Nov. 17, 2023, when Casandra Ventura, Mr. Combs’ former girlfriend, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleged rape, sex trafficking, and physical abuse. The parties reached a settlement later that same day for an undisclosed amount.
Two additional women filed lawsuits alleging sexual abuse against Mr. Combs in late November of that same year. The lawsuits coincided with the expiration of the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law that provided a one-year window for victims of sexual abuse to file civil claims regardless of when the alleged abuse occurred.
Adding another layer to the legal saga, an unnamed woman lodged another lawsuit against Mr. Combs. This time, the allegations include rape and sex trafficking, with the plaintiff asserting that Mr.Combs and two accomplices gang-raped her when she was just 17 years old.
In addition, Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones filed a lawsuit against Mr. Combs in February, alleging sexual abuse and harassment.
In March, federal agents executed search warrants at the Miami and Los Angeles homes of the music mogul. These investigative actions are linked to a federal probe of allegations ranging from sex trafficking and sexual assault to the solicitation and illicit circulation of narcotics and firearms.
US Deficit Tops $1.1 Trillion For First Six Months Of Fiscal 2024 As Spending Hits 2024 High
It’s oddly fitting that in a time when the interest on US debt just hit a record $1.1 trillion, that the US deficit for just the first six months of fiscal 2024 is also $1.1 trillion.
According to the latest Treasury Monthly Statement, in March the US deficit hit $236 billion, some $40 billion more than the $196 billion expected, if below February’s $296 billion…
… which was the result of $332 billion in govt tax receipts – translating into $4.580 trillion in LTM tax receipts, and which was down 5% compared to a year ago…
… offset by the now traditional ridiculous monthly outlays, which in March amounted to $568 billion, up from $567 billion in February and the highest monthly spending total in calendar 2024, which translated into a 6 month moving spending average (for smoothing purposes) of $542 billion. Take a wild guess what will happen to the chart below during and after the next recession.
This, incidentally, is a reminder that the US does not have a tax collection problem – it has a spending problem, and no amount of tax changes will fix it; in fact all higher taxes will do is force more billionaires to move to Dubai where they pay zero taxes.
Putting the YTD deficit in context, in the first six months of fiscal 2024, the US deficit hit $1.065 trillion, just shy of the $1.1 trillion reached last year, which was the 2nd highest on record and only the post-covid 2021 was worse. Annualized, we expect total deficit to hit $2.2 trillion in fiscal 2024, a year when the US is supposedly “growing” at a nice, brisk ~2.5% pace. One can only imagine what the GDP growth would be if the US wasn’t set to have a wartime/crisis deficit…
… and we can’t even imagine what US deficit will be after the next recession/depression.
Meanwhile, as reported previously, total US interest continues to explode, and after surpassing total annual defense spending about a year ago, just the interest on US debt will soon become the single largest government outlay as it surpasses social security by the end of 2024, when according to BofA’s Michael Hartnett it hits $1.6 trillion…
… and surpasses Social Security spending as the single largest spending category in the US government.
Democratic dark money groups, megadonors, and unions are funding a massive spending effort aimed at reelecting President Joe Biden and advancing the Democratic Party’s power in Washington.
So far, nine major outside spending groups say they will together spend nearly $800 million to support the reelection of President Biden. This is in addition to the massive financial resources the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will likely pour into the rematch of the 2020 election.
The progressive organizations—American Bridge 21st Century, Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy, Climate Power, League of Conservation Voters, MoveOn, Republican Voters Against Trump, Service Employees International Union, Unite the Country, and VoteVets— have pledged to spend a total of $792 million on the 2024 election to boost President Biden and the Democratic Party.
Former President Donald Trump, who is supported by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and its affiliates, is not seeing nearly as many commitments.
Groups pledging to back President Trump’s campaign or to hinder President Biden add up to less than a quarter of the amount pledged by the Democrat money powerhouse.
All told, about $160 million has been formally pledged to explicitly help President Trump’s campaign, and Republicans in general. One major group has said it will spend “eight figures” to go against President Biden.
An Epoch Times analysis of the financial records of the various groups shows many are a combination of federally regulated political action committees (PACs) and 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(3) nonprofits.
Under federal law, PACs must report regularly to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), disclose their donors, and declare their overall finances.
The nonprofits, which are classified as charitable organizations and social welfare organizations by the IRS, report much less often and aren’t required to name their donors. For this reason, 501s are frequently called dark money groups.
PACs that do share donor information are getting money from some of the most prolific donors and organizations in the United States.
American Bridge
American Bridge 21st Century, a group specializing in researching and publicizing negative information about opponents of the Democratic Party candidates, said it will spend $200 million on the 2024 election.
When American Bridge made its announcement in January, it said $85 million was already raised and committed.
American Bridge’s release said $140 million of its 2024 expenditure will go toward television, digital and streaming ads, radio, and direct mail placements in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It could extend its effort to North Carolina.
“These ads will feature the true stories of women voters and their families living in these key swing states and will use their voices to expose the truth about Trump’s agenda,” the release said.
American Bridge is registered with the FEC as AB PAC, a hybrid PAC. According to its latest financial statement filed with the FEC, it had about $5.9 million in cash on hand at the end of February.
Between January 2023 and the end of February 2024, AB PAC received numerous donations of more than $1 million.
The most prominent supporter was the super PAC, Democracy PAC, an entity largely financed by George Soros. Between January 2023 and February 2024, Democracy PAC gave about $4 million to AB PAC.
According to data collected by the watchdog organization OpenSecrets, Mr. Soros was the biggest spender in the 2021 to 2022 election cycle, spending about $178.8 million. Mr. Soros, the founder of the Open Society Foundations, is a prolific donor to Democratic and progressive causes.
In 2023, according to FEC records, Democracy PAC had only one donor: George Soros. In 2021 and 2022, according to FEC records, DemocracyPAC had two donors: Mr. Soros and the Fund For Policy Reform.
Fund For Policy Reform sent DemocracyPAC $25 million. Alexander Soros, George Soros’s son and the chair of Open Society Foundations, is a director of the Fund, according to its tax documents.
Additionally, Michael Moritz, a longtime partner at venture capital firm Sequoia Capital and now a senior advisor at Sequoia Heritage, gave AB PAC $2 million in June 2023, according to FEC records.
According to donor records maintained by OpenSecrets, Mr. Mortiz has sent $8 million to AB PAC between 2019 and 2023.
Two other Democratic Party megadonors are bankrolling American Bridge. FEC records indicate Reid Hoffman and Deborah Simon both sent $1 million or more to the hybrid PAC.
Ms. Simon, an heir to the Simon family real estate fortune, sent $2.5 million in 2023. Mr. Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn Corp., sent AB PAC $1 million in 2023.
OpenSecrets ranked Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Simon among the top 25 largest spenders on the 2021–2022 election cycle. Together, they sent $35.7 million to liberal causes in that period.
American Bridge is also tied to the 501(c)(4) nonprofit American Bridge 21st Century Foundation. According to its most recently filed tax returns, the Foundation had about $1.3 million in net assets at the end of 2022.
Representatives of American Bridge didn’t respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
Service Employees International Union
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) represents 2 million workers in the United States and Canada, according to the union. Its membership is primarily employed in health care, public services, and property services.
In a March 13 announcement, the union said it will spend $200 million—its most extensive campaign ever—to reach as many as 6 million voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
“The union will engage multiracial working-class voters who are less likely to vote or have never voted at all through field programs, relational organizing, earned media, and paid media, partnering with community groups who are trusted messengers in their communities,” an SEIU release said.
The SEIU operates a labor organization political action committee—Service Employees International Union Committee on Political Education (SEIU COPE)—and is linked to the super PAC United We Can.
According to Federal Election Commission records, both of the groups are financed by SEIU members and the SEIU’s local unions.
The two funds, led by SEIU COPE, collectively retained about $35.3 million in cash on hand at the end of February, according to their latest FEC disclosures.
In the 2020 election cycle, covering 2019 and 2020, together, the funds raised about $78.5 million. Those funds, according to the FEC, spent about $7.7 million to support President Biden.
Representatives of the SEIU didn’t respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
League of Conservation Voters
On March 19, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), an environmental group that typically promotes liberal candidates for federal office, announced its plans to spend $120 million on reelecting President Biden.
LCV is a complex organization composed of nonprofits and FEC-registered PACs. Its two federal PACs—LCV Victory Fund and LCV Voters Action Fund—had about $14.7 million on hand at the end of February, according to the groups’ FEC filings.
LCV also includes the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and the League of Conservation Voters Inc., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.
According to the FEC, most of the money raised by the PACs between January 2023 and February 2024 came from the League of Conservation Voters Inc. It sent LCV Victory Fund about $12.7 million during that period.
LCV has received funding from multiple organizations tied to Arabella Advisors. In 2020, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, one of the most politically active accounts, sent LCV about $3.5 million, according to its IRS records.
Representatives of LCV didn’t respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.
A popular study that claims ivermectin has shown no effectiveness against all-cause mortality contains false information but remains uncorrected.
The meta-analysis, published in 2021 by the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, explores how groups in randomized, controlled trials fared after receiving ivermectin compared to control groups.
Among five trials included for the portion on all-cause mortality, none showed an effect for ivermectin, the authors claimed.
Ivermectin “did not reduce all-cause mortality,” they wrote.
But the claim is wrong. One of the five trials was described as finding ivermectin recipients were more likely to die, but actually found that ivermectin recipients were less likely to die. “The risk base estimation … confirmed that the average mortality obtained in all of ivermectin treated arms was 3.3%, while it was about 18.3% in standard care and placebo arms,” the authors of that paper said.
Dr. Adrian Hernandez, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut’s School of Pharmacy, and other authors of the meta-analysis are aware of the false information. The group released their study as a preprint before the journal published it. The first version included the false information. A corrected version properly portrayed the trial’s results for all-cause mortality in a figure summarizing the results, but still falsely said none of the trials showed a benefit against all-cause mortality.
Dr. Hernandez and Clinical Infectious Diseases did not respond to requests for comment.
The lingering false information is in a paper that has attracted numerous citations in other studies, in the press, and on social media. Altmetric, which tracks engagement, scores it at 5,900. A score of 20 or means a paper is doing “far better than most of its contemporaries,” according to the company.
Morimasa Yagisawa of Kitasato University and other researchers pointed out the issue in a March review of ivermectin trials, saying they were “concerned about the spread of misinformation and/or disinformation” about trial results.
“The articles on systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often erroneous or misleading. This is perhaps because the authors were not involved in the clinical trials or patient care and only searched for and analyzed articles and databases on clinical trial results,” they wrote. The problems are “particularly serious” in the paper for which Dr. Hernandez was the corresponding author, the researchers said.
“Although it was a clear error, the wrong content of the preprint was published as a major article in Clinical Infectious Diseases, the official journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, without being changed,” they wrote. “Many comments were made questioning the insight of the reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief for publishing a paper with such inconsistencies, but the paper is still published without correction. Since this is a prestigious journal of a prestigious society, an early corrective action is required.”
“There have been several fraudulent meta-analyses, and this is a striking one,” Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief officer of the FLCCC Alliance and author of the book The War on Ivermectin, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“In this meta-analysis, they selected only 10 of the 81 controlled trials, 33 of which were randomized, on ivermectin that were available at the time. Eight of the ten they selected involved mild COVID-19. Typically, mild COVID does not lead to death. And here they were looking at death rates and, as expected, saw very few. The inclusion criteria they used were intended to show no effect. And they succeeded. Conflicted researchers have been doing this to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin since the beginning of the pandemic,” he added.
Issues in other meta-analyses include the improper inclusion of papers that did not describe clinical trial results, Mr. Yagisawa and his co-authors said.
They noted that a number of trials have found ivermectin recipients were better off. That includes trials cited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its position that ivermectin is not effective against COVID-19.
The FDA recently settled a lawsuit over that position, agreeing to take down several web pages and social media posts.
