SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In addition to accelerating efforts to reduce global carbon emissions to reverse global warming, governments must urgently adopt strong, permanent protections for the entire Arctic Ocean.
On World Ocean Day, and the eve of the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France opening Monday, the Arctic Ocean ecological crisis needs to be top of the list for attention by governments.
Given the well-documented, catastrophic decline of the Arctic Ocean sea ice ecosystem in recent decades due to climate change, coupled with the increasing threats and impacts from industry and military activity in the region, it is imperative that governments establish an International Arctic Ocean Sanctuary to preserve this extraordinary ecoregion as a global commons for peaceful, non-commercial, scientific purposes.
Covering approximately 5.4 million square miles, the Arctic Ocean is one of the most extraordinary and vibrant regions of the global ocean, and plays an important role regulating Earth’s climate.
Combined with the effects of climate change, industrialization and militarization would further accelerate the ecological and social collapse of the struggling Arctic Ocean region.
The Arctic marine ecosystem is globally unique, productive, and remains relatively unexplored. The ocean biome supports more than 7,000 identified species, many of which are found nowhere else on Earth—polar bears, walrus, several kinds of ice seals, narwhals, beluga whales, bowhead whales, some of the largest populations of seabirds in the world, and many unique fish and invertebrate populations. It hosts cold seeps, hydrothermal vents, stunning benthic habitats, a rich pelagic ecosystem that remains surprisingly active during winter darkness, and supports the subsistence cultures of coastal Indigenous Peoples.
However, this unique polar marine ecosystem is now one of the most endangered regions of Earth’s biosphere, suffering effects of climate change more severely than anywhere else. Arctic sea ice has declined by more than half in the last 50 years, losing about 1 million square miles in both summer and winter, has thinned from an average of four meters to about one meter, and could disappear entirely in summer by 2035. Multiyear sea ice has all but vanished. This remarkable decline has been caused by global carbon emissions from human activity, mainly fossil fuel use.
The loss of Arctic sea ice over the last half-century constitutes one of the largest declines in ecological habitat on Earth, rivaling the loss of tropical rainforests. The resultant Arctic Ocean ecological crisis is now severe, and predicted to get much worse in coming decades.
In addition to devastating impacts of climate change in the Arctic Ocean, commercial interests are clamoring to exploit ice-free offshore areas for oil and gas, methane hydrates, minerals, commercial fishing, shipping, and tourism. And Arctic coastal nations have made Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) seabed claims (pursuant to U.N. Law of the Sea, Article 76) beyond their 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), a dangerous territorial expansion into international waters with an eye toward resource extraction.
As Arctic nations and others (China, India, etc.) advance their own parochial interests across the region, there is a growing competitive race to exploit Arctic offshore resources and to project military power across the region to secure these competing national interests. As such, the risk of military confrontation across the Arctic Ocean is escalating. Combined with the effects of climate change, industrialization and militarization would further accelerate the ecological and social collapse of the struggling Arctic Ocean region, and would clearly compromise the ability of the bioregion and its people to survive the 21st-century climate crisis.
In fact, the resource and political tensions in the Arctic Ocean today are remarkably similar to the Antarctic after World War II, that were resolved then by the leadership of U.S. (Republican) President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposing and negotiating the historic 1959 Antarctic Treaty. The international Treaty, now with 58 nation-state members, permanently protects the extraordinary 5.5 million square-mile Antarctic continent as a global commons for peaceful, scientific purposes, free from nuclear testing, military operations, economic exploitation, and territorial claims. The Antarctic Treaty remains the single greatest conservation achievement in history.
The same opportunity now presents itself with the Arctic Ocean. In addition to accelerating efforts to reduce global carbon emissions to reverse global warming, governments must urgently adopt strong, permanent protections for the entire Arctic Ocean to give this region and its people the best chance possible to survive the 21st-century climate crisis. Given the pace of decline, this may be our last best chance to do so.
While Arctic nations have begun protecting some areas off their coasts, still less than 5% of Arctic Ocean waters are in permanently protected status. This is clearly insufficient.
The proposed circumpolar Arctic Ocean Sanctuary must fully protect not only international waters beyond coastal state 200-mile EEZs across the 1.1 million square mile Central Arctic Ocean (as is currently proposed), but also the highly productive waters within the EEZs of Arctic coastal nations—Canada, Norway, Denmark and Greenland, Russia, and the U.S., where most ecological activity, human impact, and threat occurs. The sanctuary should permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing, mineral leasing, commercial fishing, military activities, improve shipping safety, reduce pollutants, and enhance scientific research.
To be sure, it is a big ask of the five Arctic coastal nations to contribute some of their claimed territory into a globally protected area, but this was the right thing to do in 1959 in the Antarctic, and it is the right thing to do now for the Arctic.
While the current federal administrations in the Russia and U.S. habitually oppose any and all environmental conservation proposals, perhaps presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump might see this as a historic legacy in the midst of the environmental havoc they have caused, a chance to be remembered as Eisenhower is today for his leadership in negotiating the Antarctic Treaty. And just to note, former President Joe Biden ignored this request entirely, enacted no comprehensive permanent protections in the U.S. Arctic Ocean off Alaska, and made no effort to begin discussions on the International Arctic Ocean Sanctuary.
Global society has a historic choice to make with the imperiled Arctic Ocean. Should we continue our competitive industrial and military expansion into one of the last wild areas of the world, further degrading a region already unraveling due to human-caused climate change? Or should we protect and sustain this magnificent place for all time, giving it and its inhabitants, human and non-human, the best chance possible to recover from climate change this century?
How we answer this question will tell us a lot about ourselves and our future.
The GOP’s current push to extend tax cuts is just the latest round of the party’s 90-year campaign to eliminate government programs based on a misguided belief that the private sector can take care of just about everything besides the military.
Taxes are complicated. That’s why every spring I hand everything over to my accountant.
Federal tax policy is even more complex. Trying to figure out how the Republicans’ current plan to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act they passed in 2017—which blew a $1-trillion to $2-trillion hole in the federal deficit—would impact taxpayers is beyond even my trusty accountant.
There are federal agencies and nonprofit think tanks that have done a good job crunching tax cut extension numbers, but most people are not aware of their work. They have to rely on the news media for that information, and to be sure, news outlets have accurately reported that the GOP tax cut extension—which expires after this year unless Congress acts—favors the uber wealthy. Most reporters also have cited the Congressional Budget Office or another reputable source that have calculated that the tax cuts would cost the government $4.6 trillion in lost revenue over a decade, bolstering the GOP’s trumped-up rationale for dismantling “unaffordable” federal agencies and programs. For the most part, however, the news media have failed to spell out the damning details.
This column is going to provide those details—and they’re going to piss you off.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has been tracking the ebb and flow of the Republican tax cut extension plan. It posted its most recent updated analysis on April 11, which included a very informative bar graph. But the center buried some pertinent data in an end note at the bottom of that chart, so I asked an information designer to create a chart that clearly shows how households in different income brackets would be affected.
If the Republican-controlled Congress succeeds in extending the tax cuts, which everyone received to some extent due to the original 2017 law, income taxes would stay roughly the same, providing a windfall for the 1 percent of households that make more than $1 million a year. If the GOP fails to extend the cuts, taxes would go back to where they were before. That would especially hit the wealthiest Americans, whose taxes would help replenish government coffers and short-circuit the Republicans’ longtime goal of privatizing most government functions.
What the numbers plainly show is that the 1 percent of households that make more than $1.14 million annually would continue to receive an average tax break of more than $77,000, while households making between $66,800 and $119,200 would receive an average tax cut of only $1,120. Households making less than $66,800 would on average save only $500, while the poorest households—those earning less than $34,600 a year—would be rewarded with an average tax break of a measly $120. (At the same time, Trump’s tariffs could cost the average household $4,700 a year, according to new analysis by the Yale Budget Lab, wiping out the tax break for as many as 90 percent of households.)
Many Democrats, including Joe Biden when he was in the White House, wanted to extend the tax cuts, but only for households making less than $400,000 a year. At a House Rules Committee hearing on February 24, Jim McGovern (Mass.), ranking Democrat on the committee, offered amendments to cap the tax cut extensions at various income levels—first for households earning less than $400,000 per year, then less than $1 million, $100 million, and $1 billion per year.
All of McGovern’s amendments were voted down along straight party lines. Five of the nine Republicans on the committee who rejected the amendments are millionaires. The richest, Ralph Norman (S.C.), has a net worth of $66 million. The next wealthiest Republican on the committee, Virginia Foxx (N.C.), has $6.9 million. Two of the four Democrats on the committee who voted in favor are millionaires—McGovern himself, with a net worth of $3.4 million, and Mary Gay Scanlon (Pa.), with a net worth of $9.35 million.
Norman, Foxx, McGovern and Scanlon are hardly outliers. Roughly half of all members of Congress are millionaires, including about two-thirds of senators. By contrast, only 6.6 percent of Americans have that kind of money. Do wealthy legislators protect their class interest? A number of them do.
For example, the committees that drafted the tax bills the House and Senate recently passed (with no Democratic support) setting the stage for extending tax cuts are studded with Republican millionaires, according to a February report by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF). Besides the tax cut extension, the bills would lower corporate tax rates, exempt tips from taxes, and allow new car buyers to deduct their auto loan interest payments. All told, the Trump tax package could cost between $5 trillion and $11 trillion over the next decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
ATF found that the average net worth of the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee is nearly $15 million. More than two-thirds of the 26 Republican members of the House committee and nearly two-thirds of the 13 Republicans on the Senate committee are millionaires, and nine of the 36 GOP members on the two tax-writing committees are worth more than $10 million. The wealthiest Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, Vern Buchanan (Fla.), is worth $249 million. The richest Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Ron Johnson (Wis.), has a net worth of $54.6 million.
“The multimillionaire Republicans in charge of these key committees cannot properly represent average Americans’ tax and spending interests,” said ATF Executive Director David Kass in a statement. “Their prioritization of extending Trump’s tax scam demonstrates their disconnect from middle- and working-class constituents’ needs.
“While wealthy Democrats also serve on these committees,” he added, “they aren’t promoting continuing the entire Trump tax legislation which primarily benefits rich individuals like them and giant corporations—legislation that would add trillions to the deficit and threaten funding for Social Security, healthcare, education, housing and other vital public services.”
The GOP’s current push to extend tax cuts is just the latest round of the party’s 90-year campaign to eliminate government programs based on a misguided belief that the private sector can take care of just about everything besides the military.
In the 1930s, the GOP tried to kill Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in its crib. Thirty years later, it opposed Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, notably Medicare, Medicaid and federal education funding. Richard Nixon cut funds for anti-poverty programs. Ronald Reagan rolled back welfare, public housing and food assistance programs, declaring that government is the problem, not the solution. George W. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security. Does this all sound familiar?
Now that the Republicans have slim majorities in both houses of Congress, a vengeful Donald Trump in the White House, and Elon Musk’s swat team, they will do all they can to fulfill their dream of destroying the programs and agencies they never supported. Why? To pay for more tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, which includes them. Is that American exceptionalism or what?
This column was originally posted on Money Trail, a new Substack site co-founded by Elliott Negin.
Democracies can survive and overcome the rise of authoritarian threats when they employ comprehensive and bold actions that balance justice with pathways for societal reintegration.
In 1937 after establishing the Estado Novo, or New State, socialist President Getúlio Vargas, faced with 500,000 fascists, the Integralists, on his doorstep, took radical action to prevent a fascist takeover, eventually leading to a democratic transition in 1945. Less than three decades later, socialist President João Goulart faced a resurgence of fascist sentiment, and after failing to take action, was promptly toppled, with American help.
Today, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Brazilian democracy face the same threats as Vargas and Goulart. Once again, radical action is the only thing standing between progress, and fascism.
Recent events in Brazil underscore the existential threat facing an increasingly fragile democracy. The indictment of former President Jair Bolsonaro and 36 military leaders, including former ministers, by the Polícia Federal, for an alleged coup and assassination plot, reveals a coordinated and escalating strategy by the fascist right. Bolsonaro and his movement venerate the military dictatorship, and the core tenets of fascist ideology, including militarism, destroying leftist opposition and “decadence,” hyper-masculinity, and authoritarianism. This is a dangerous insurgency against democracy, freedom, and progress.
Lula must take inspiration from Vargas’ bold action and learn from Goulart’s demise, leveraging the full weight of the state to dismantle the fascist infrastructure that threatens the country.
The insurgency’s leaders have shown themselves willing to use their supporters for violent anti-democratic action. Just last month, a failed terrorist attack in Brasília underscored the lengths to which these extremists are willing to go. The incident echoes the January 8 insurrection, where thousands of rioters, incited by Bolsonaro and his government, stormed the headquarters of all three branches of government, laying siege to Brazil’s democratic institutions. In Rio de Janeiro, militias backed by the Bolsonaro family have killed leftist politicians, and fascist supporters have attacked and intimidated Workers’ Party voters. These are not isolated incidents of political violence, but a clear signal that the threat is boiling over.
To navigate this moment, Lula must consider the lessons of Brazil’s history.
Brazil’s history provides two starkly contrasting examples of how leaders have faced fascist threats: Getúlio Vargas’ campaign against the Integralists and João Goulart’s failure to confront a brewing coup. These lessons are not merely academic—they offer a blueprint for President Lula as he navigates the current crisis.
In the 1930s, Vargas faced a powerful and organized threat from the Brazilian Integralist Action (AIB) front, a fascist movement inspired by European models like Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Adolf Hitler’s Germany. The Integralists were highly organized, funded, armed, and bolstered by significant public support, even gaining some seats in government and support in the armed forces.
Yet Vargas, after attempting to bring them into a big-tent state—similar to Lula welcoming anti-coup conservatives after his 2022 victory—recognized the threat Brazil faced. When the Integralists went to the Guanabara Palace and attempted to kill Vargas and take over the government in 1938, Vargas responded decisively, crushing their rebellion and ensuring that Brazil’s institutions would not be undermined by fascism. Despite first attempting to integrate the Integralists into a big-tent democracy, Vargas understood that in the face of an existential threat, bold action was necessary to safeguard the nation. Vargas’ actions were informed by his own socialist ideological roots—which manifested in his popular armed struggle which he led against the preceding military dictatorship and oligarchy.
Contrast Vargas’ actions with those of President João Goulart, also a socialist, who, in the early 1960s, faced a growing movement of reactionary military and political elites intent on removing him from power. Goulart hesitated, seeking compromise and reconciliation with forces that had no interest in negotiating in good faith. His inaction and failure to consolidate power allowed the right-wing military coup of 1964, with American support, to unfold, plunging Brazil into two decades of military dictatorship. Goulart’s downfall is a cautionary tale for Lula.
Lula must take inspiration from Vargas’ bold action and learn from Goulart’s demise, leveraging the full weight of the state to dismantle the fascist infrastructure that threatens the country. This is not a time for half-measures or concessions but for strategic and decisive leadership. The stakes could not be higher, and history is watching.
To neutralize the fascist threat, President Lula must first employ a two-pronged approach: holding the architects of the Brazilian fascist movement accountable while offering a path to redemption for those willing to abandon extremism. The message is simple: Support democracy, or get crushed.
The January 8 insurrection revealed the spectrum of actors involved in the coup attempt. Figures like Anderson Torres, Bolsonaro’s former justice and public security minister, were arrested for their roles in facilitating the attack. Torres’ failure to act on intelligence of impending violence—and the shocking discovery of a draft decree in his home to overturn the 2022 election results—made him a clear target for prosecution.
Meanwhile, many of the rioters, such as those who voluntarily turned themselves in and cooperated with authorities, were given opportunities to negotiate reduced penalties. This demonstrated that the government could balance accountability with reconciliation, dividing hardline extremists from those susceptible to redemption.
A similar carrot-and-stick approach is now needed on a larger scale. The masterminds behind the current wave of anti-democratic activities—military leaders plotting coups, politicians like Bolsonaro who fan the flames of extremism, and financiers who enable violence—must face swift and uncompromising justice. Their actions represent a clear and present danger to Brazil’s democracy and cannot go unpunished.
However, for the millions of Bolsonaro supporters and lower-level participants who may have been misled or coerced into action, unless they resort to violence, no action should be taken against them. The goal is to go after those spinning the wheels of fascism for their own gain, rather than the millions of victims, ordinary people, who fall prey to manipulative propaganda, mostly a byproduct of their own socio-economic and material conditions.
This would not be the first time a democracy has taken radical action to protect itself from existential threats. History is replete with examples of governments in advanced democracies acting decisively against internal dangers. Post-war Germany dismantled Nazi influence through denazification while offering paths to reintegration for lesser participants and followers, creating the Federal Republic of Germany. Spain transitioned to democracy after Francisco Franco’s death by implementing reforms, appointing a democratic head of government, and negotiating peace to stabilize the nation. France, similarly, purged Vichy collaborators before facilitating national republican unity. In post-dictatorship South Korea, democratic accountability was reinforced by prosecuting former fascist leaders while balancing this with pardons to promote reconciliation.
Similarly, in late 2022 in Peru, President Pedro Castillo’s attempt to dissolve Congress and establish autocratic rule was quashed Although Castillo’s power grab was less coordinated and less dangerous than the ongoing fascist threat in Brazil, Peruvian democratic authorities acted decisively, removing him from office and arresting him within hours.
These cases demonstrate that democracies can survive and overcome the rise of authoritarian threats when they employ comprehensive and bold actions that balance justice with pathways for societal reintegration.
After an appropriate targeting of coup plotters and insurrectionists is conducted, Lula can then use his democratic powers to engender key reforms to prevent a fascist coup from ever happening again.
While holding Jair Bolsonaro and his allies accountable is essential, the true force potential behind a coup lies with Brazil’s military leaders. Bolsonaro’s rhetoric and actions have long exploited military sympathies, and the January 8 insurrection demonstrated how quickly fascist elements can pivot to using violence against the state. Without addressing the military’s role in enabling these threats, any attempt to neutralize the fascist movement will fall short.
A critical step in this process is reforming Brazil’s Constitution, particularly Article 142. Bolsonaro and his supporters have misused this article, which ambiguously outlines the military’s role in ensuring “the defense of the country, for the guarantee of the constitutional powers, and, on the initiative of any of these, of law and order,” to justify anti-democratic actions. Bolsonaro himself has discussed the invocation of Article 142 to justify a military coup, including with his own cabinet and supporters. Reforming Article 142 is essential to removing this tool of democratic sabotage. The 1988 Constitution allows for these changes to be introduced by the president, and passed through Congress—though a public referendum could help circumvent this process.
Brazil must bring the military fully under civilian control to eliminate the persistent threat of coups. Currently, over 6,000 military officers hold office in the Brazilian state, and hold significant sway over the country’s democratic affairs, going against the very foundation of the Brazilian republic.
Democracies with politically influential militaries—such as Thailand and Pakistan—offer stark warnings. In both countries, military interference has led to repeated political instability, undermining democratic governance and creating cycles of authoritarianism. Both countries have faced repeated military coups, despite operating as democracies.
Thailand’s 2017 Constitution was almost entirely written by the military, reserving seats for officers in the Senate and including military support as a necessary sign-on for any legislation. Kemalist Turkey, Egypt and Myanmar are also powerful reminders that weak democracies can be brought back into dictatorship easily when military forces hold significant democratic power, performing coups whenever the military does not like democratic outcomes. Diminishing the military’s political power and promoting civilian oversight is essential to prevent these outcomes.
Implementing these principles does not weaken democracy; it merely strengthens it.
As the possibility of jail time looms for Jair Bolsonaro and other far-right leaders, their followers may become even more desperate, deciding to enact their violent plan for fascism. The arrest of Bolsonaro’s minister of defense, Walter Braga Neto, only solidifies this urgency. Time is not on Lula’s side. The longer he delays, the greater the likelihood that these actors will strike, pushing Brazil further into instability.
To preserve democracy and protect the progress Brazil has achieved, Lula must learn from his countrymen’s past failures and act swiftly to neutralize this fascist threat before it metastasizes into a full-blown fascist entity.