#government

In March 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the first Italian Fasces of Combat (FIC) at the beginning of the so-called Red Biennium, a two-year long social conflict between the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and the liberal and conservative ruling class. Mussolini's Fascists suffered a defeat in the election of November 1919, winning no seats in the Italian parliament.

During the "two red years", there were numerous strikes, protests against rises in the cost of living, occupations of factories and land by industrial workers or agricultural laborers, and other types of clashes between socialists on one side and landowners and business owners on the other side.

Local elites felt themselves vulnerable and established an alliance with the small Fascist movement, which contained many veterans of World War I and had a reputation for violence, in the hope of using Fascist paramilitary squads to destroy socialist organizations.

Since 1919, Fascist militias, known as squadristi or "Blackshirts" due to their uniforms, had frequently attacked socialist politicians and militants. In August 1920, the Blackshirt militia was used to break the general strike which originated at the Alfa Romeo factory in Milan

Local elections in 1920 were won by the socialists in many towns, cities and villages across Italy, and in response Fascist militias attacked union organizers and municipal administrators, making it difficult for local governments to function.

A local deputy from the town of Budrio sent a telegram to the prime minister in October 1921 to report that the Fascists had effectively taken over, that "unions and socialist clubs [were] ordered to dissolve themselves within 48 hours or face physical destruction" and that the "life of the town is paralysed, authorities impotent".

within the National Blocs of Giovanni Giolitti, an anti-socialist coalition of liberals, conservatives and fascists. The Fascists won 35 seats and Mussolini was elected in the Parliament for the first time.

After a few weeks, Mussolini withdrew his support for Giolitti and his Italian Liberal Party (Partito Liberale Italiano, PLI) and attempted to work out a temporary truce with the Socialists by signing the so-called "Pact of Pacification" in the summer of 1921.

the Pact with the Socialists was nullified during the Third Fascist Congress on 7–10 November 1921, during which Mussolini promoted a nationalist program and renamed his movement National Fascist Party (PNF), which enrolled 320,000 members by late 1921.

In August 1922, an anti-fascist general strike was organized throughout the country by the socialists. Mussolini declared that the Fascists would suppress the strike themselves if the government did not immediately intervene to stop it, which enabled him to position the Fascist Party as a defender of law and order.[13] On 2 August, in Ancona, Fascist squads moved in from the countryside and razed all buildings occupied by socialists.[13] This was then repeated in Genoa and other cities.[13]

Then, with the support of local business owners, they took over local government and expelled the elected socialist administration from the town hall

The Italian national government in Rome did nothing to react to these developments, and its inaction prompted Mussolini to plan a march on Rome.[13] From their new power base in Milan, the Fascists gathered the financial support of large companies who were determined to fight against "strikes, bolshevism and nationalization".

Also a few days before the march, Mussolini consulted with the U.S. Ambassador Richard Washburn Child about whether the U.S. government would object to Fascist participation in a future Italian government and Child gave him American support.

Squadrismo (Italian: [skwaˈdrizmo]) was the movement of squadre d'azione (English: action squads), the fascist militias that were organised outside the authority of the Italian state and led by local leaders called ras (a noble Ethiopian title). The militia originally consisted of farmers and middle-class people, who created their own defence from revolutionary socialists. Squadrismo became an important asset for the rise of the National Fascist Party, led by Benito Mussolini, and systematically used violence to eliminate any political parties that were opposed to Italian fascism.

The violence was not only an instrument in politics but also a vital component of squadrismo identity, which made it difficult for the movement to be tamed. That was shown in the various attempts by Mussolini to control squadrismo violence with the Pact of Pacification and later the Consolidated Public Safety Act. Squadrismo, which ultimately became the Blackshirts, served as a source of inspiration for Adolf Hitler's Sturmabteilung.

The Blackshirts, formally established as the Squadrismo in 1919, comprised numerous disgruntled demobilized soldiers. It was given the task of leading fights against their bitter enemies—the Socialists.

For some reason in the US we constantly assume government is useless and corporations create all innovation. Yet the evidence repeatedly demonstrates that the two are often deeply intertwined...

The emergence of firms like SpaceX and Blue Origin has made space a leading example of how private enterprise drives innovation, marking what many see as a sharp break between Old Space and New Space. Yet little systematic evidence documents when the transition to this new phase of space innovation occurred and which firms drove it. We use patent data to provide this measurement and find that the largest surge in space innovation occurred in the 1990s, coinciding with demand-side market creation, and preceding the entry of high-profile startups after 2005.

Throughout this period and since, incumbent aerospace firms account for most of the space-related patenting, with entrants contributing a growing but minority share. The same geographic regions that dominated space innovation during the post-Apollo era remain dominant today. These patterns are consistent with directed technical change: incumbents direct R&D toward policy-created markets accessible from existing capabilities, while entrants bring science-based insights into domains requiring new paradigms.

Our findings suggest that New Space is more closely connected to Old Space than prevailing narratives imply, and that government's most consequential role in space innovation may lie in constructing appropriable markets.

In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.[1] Executive orders are only binding on the federal government's executive branch. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government's executive branch. The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself.

And we need to show New Yorkers that we’re able to not only address a generational fiscal crisis, but also able to advance a vision that makes it easier to live in the city, because, frankly, for a working class New Yorker, they measure their life not in the city’s deficit, but in the cost that they have to pay, and it doesn’t mean much to a tenant who’s struggling to pay their rent if the city is facing a $5.4 billion deficit. What means something is if you’re willing to hold a bad landlord accountable, and we’ve held enough bad landlords accountable to win more than $30 million in settlements, have more than 6,000 apartments be repaired, host more than 1,000 New Yorkers at these rental rip-off hearings. And what we’ve found oftentimes is the conditions that people have had to live with have been a part of their life, not just for weeks or months, but for years, sometimes decades, and within that kind of relationship to such impunity, comes a diminished faith in government.

I would say that she’s a good fit for our administration because she’s delivering on our administration’s commitment to make this a safer city and that I do not need to agree with every one of my commissioners or city workers at large about every single issue within their purview. I do, however, need to agree with the decisions that they make and the outcomes that those decisions create.

I would say it is very much the same in terms of being a democratic socialist and believing in government’s ability to transform working people’s lives. I did not think I would think this much about the weather and the relentless nature of it, but the job of a leader is to respond to the crisis, not to ask why the crisis picked them as the leader to respond to.

The president and I disagree on many things in public and in private. We do, however, agree on one thing, which is a love for New York City, and that love, it is one that allows for our relationship to be a productive one, and allows for the city to know that it will not simply be affected by threats, but rather one that, as the president said, the better this city does, the happier he is.

It’s productive, even though he’s “a fascist?” Yes.

I just want to clarify one thing that you said in the beginning, because you mentioned you will need as long as you’re mayor to make good on your three biggest promises. Is that two terms or one term? [Laughing]: Inshallah, it’s two terms.

From taxes to the environment to public broadcasting like PBS and NPR, the Senate has recently passed record levels of legislation and confirmed record numbers of nominations with senators representing less than half the people.

Using historical data, GovTrack found 56 examples of Senate votes on legislation that passed with senators representing a “population minority.” 26 of those 56 examples, nearly half, have occurred since President Donald Trump’s current term began.

Several of the second Trump administration’s most prominent members were confirmed by Senate “population minority” votes – including RFK Jr. (Secretary of Health and Human Services), Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard.

The oldest example GovTrack found of a “population minority” Senate vote is actually  famous: Clarence Thomas’s 1991 Supreme Court nomination by President George H. W. Bush. The Senate approved Thomas with 52% support, but 49% of the population.

He still serves on the Court today.

GovTrack found three other “population minority” Senate confirmations for Supreme Court justices, totalling four: Thomas plus Trump’s three first-term nominees. All four still serve on the Court.

Currently, Republicans hold a Senate majority: 53 to 47. However, based on the Census Bureau’s current estimates, it’s actually the other way around by population: Democratic senators represent a 53% majority of the states’ population, versus Republicans with 47%.

How is this possible? Because while the U.S. House is apportioned based on population, with larger states receiving more representatives, the U.S. Senate guarantees each state two senators regardless of size.

This was baked into the American system from the beginning, creating what political scientists call a “counter-majoritarian” institution.

In 2025, according to Census Bureau estimates, the most populous state (California) had about 67x the population as the least populous: Wyoming. Today, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together from senators representing just 17% of the population.

But that’s actually been the same for a while. Going back to 1900, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together with senators representing 16% to 20% of the population.

Instead, small states may be more politically aligned than they used to be and are voting together more often as a bloc.

Senators have recently taken advantage of old rules, and also changed some rules, to use lower vote thresholds. This means votes are more often succeeding with less support.

Both parties contributed to this.

In 2013, under President Obama, Senate Democrats changed the threshold for most nominations from three-fifths to a simple majority. They left it at three-fifths for the Supreme Court, though.

Then in 2017 during Trump’s first term, Senate Republicans changed the threshold for the Supreme Court, too, to confirm Justice Gorsuch by a simple majority. (This rule applied to all subsequent justices, too.)

As for legislation, many of the recent “population minority” Senate votes used the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which lowered the usual Senate vote threshold from three-fifths to a simple majority for certain deregulation bills. The One Big Beautiful Act and the Rescissions Act were both voted on under other rules, which lower the vote threshold for certain spending-related bills.

So the three-fifths threshold is now gone for nominations and some types of legislation.

It might not stop there. Trump has called for the Senate to end the three-fifths threshold for all legislation, in order to enact certain Republican policies – particularly regarding election rules. If that happens, “population minority” Senate votes could become even more frequent.

Why does this usually benefit Republicans?

This discrepancy usually benefits the GOP, since they tend to represent smaller states.

This small-state Republican benefit also holds true at the presidential level. Indeed, two presidents in living memory won election despite losing the national popular vote, both Republicans: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.

The Congressional Review Act, which makes it easier for Congress to deregulate – and the rules for rescissions bills, which makes it easier to cut funding – also are more aligned with Republican goals than Democratic goals.

But for better or for worse, it’s clear that the Senate is diverging from popular opinion far more than ever before, at least in recent memory. Even if one believes the Senate is, in fact, “right” while popular opinion is “wrong.”

The big picture shows that spending has remained at similar levels. According to USASpending.gov, average monthly federal spending in the year leading up to January 2025 was $443.1 billion. In October 2025, it was $442.9 billion, down .05%.

In 2019, differences in diagnostic coding caused Medicare to pay MA plans $9 billion more than it would have spent if the same beneficiaries had been enrolled in FFS Medicare.

Excess payments to MA plans may benefit enrollees in the MA program (when used to increase the value of extra benefits offered rather than increase profits) but cost taxpayers more than if these enrollees were covered in FFS Medicare. Further, excess payments to MA plans increase fiscal pressure on the Hospital Insurance (Part A) Trust Fund as well as on the taxpayers, beneficiaries, and state Medicaid programs who pay premiums to finance the Part B program.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission We are a nonpartisan independent legislative branch agency that provides the U.S. Congress with analysis and policy advice on the Medicare program.

The consequences of getting caught in this expanding digital cage can be dire. In rural China, a family’s home is ringed by security cameras that alert authorities whenever they try to go to Beijing to complain about local officials. Near San Antonio, a driver is stopped as part of a secretive U.S. Border Patrol program that uses license plate readers to monitor millions of drivers and detain those whose travel patterns are deemed suspicious. In Gaza, AI-powered technology helps the Israeli military decide who to kill.

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but this appears to be misrepresentation of the situation. The "truck to transport supplies to a well" is not an operating cost. It's a capital expense since it is expense directly going into creating a long-term, income-producing asset (the well). Sticking with his fast-food example, "trucking ingredients from a distributor to the restaurant" to be eaten by patrons in a couple days is most certainly not a long-term, income-producing asset, so it is an operating cost.

Contrasting the expenses included in “intangible drilling costs” with intangible assets shows how intangible is a misnomer in the case of IDCs. An oil producer hiring a truck to transport supplies to a well is clearly not analogous to, say, a company buying up the intellectual property rights to a beloved children’s cartoon character, or the trademark of a fast-food brand. To stick with the fast-food company example, the analogous cost to trucking supplies to an oil well would be trucking ingredients from a distributor to the restaurant—an everyday operating cost of doing business.

Intangible drilling costs are called “intangible” to distinguish them from tangible drilling costs, namely drilling equipment, but it would be more accurate to call IDCs operating drilling costs. Allowing companies to fully expense operating costs is an uncontroversial feature of the tax code across industries, and IDCs are just how operating costs are categorized in the context of oil and gas extraction.

Over the past century, the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. How it all got started:

2013 Despite talk of everything being “on the table,” oil’s tax perks survive the fiscal-cliff negotiations. Congressional Democrats introduce five bills targeting tax giveaways for oil and gas companies. Their death is all but assured, especially in the Republican-controlled House. In April, Obama introduces his 2014 budget, which includes $23 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency over 10 years and permanent tax cuts for renewable power generation. It also would end “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” In contrast, the gop budget proposed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan targets “federal intervention and corporate-welfare spending” by cutting subsidies for renewables. Tax breaks for oil are left untouched.

The oil depletion allowance in American (US) tax law is a tax break claimable by anyone with an economic interest in a mineral deposit or standing timber. The principle is that the asset is a capital investment that is a wasting asset, and therefore depreciation can reasonably be offset (effectively as a capital loss) against income.

The allowance encouraged people who were taxed at a high marginal rate to invest in, perhaps risky, oil ventures. If the venture failed, then the costs would effectively reduce income, so the effective loss at a 90% marginal rate would only be 10% of the actual investment. Conversely if the venture was successful, an amount up to initial investment (under cost depletion, see below) would be tax free. Under the percentage depletion method the amount could potentially be even greater. The oil depletion allowance has been subject of interest because one method (percentage depletion) of claiming the allowance makes it possible to write off more than the whole capital cost of the asset.

Percentage depletion: With this method, a fixed percentage of the gross income is treated as deductible. The percentage is dependent on the nature of the resource being extracted. It is possible under this scheme for the total deductibles (or indeed the annual deductible) to exceed the original capital investment.

Over the nine decades of its existence since 1916, the oil depletion allowance has benefitted oil companies and the petrochemical industry by more than $470 billion as of 2014, everything else being equal.

Federal tax concessions for oil and gas are the largest of all incentives, amounting to over 70 per- cent of all tax-related allowances for energy. Regulation of prices on oil for stripper wells or new wells, and related incentives, comprises the second largest amount of incentives aimed at a partic- ular energy type. In the R&D category, nuclear energy received about 45 percent of the expenditures since 1950, coal about 23 percent, and renewables about 17 percent of the total. Some additional observations on the data:  Oil and gas received 54 percent ($554 billion) of federal spending to support energy since 1950. Oil alone received three-fourths ($414 billion) of this amount.

That’s the New York Times, CNN, CNBC, NBC, and the Guardian all confidently telling their readers that Trump can magically override state sovereignty with a memo. These aren’t fringe blogs—these are supposedly serious news organizations with actual editors who apparently skipped the day they taught how the federal government works. They have failed the most simple journalistic test of “don’t print lies in the newspaper.”

Executive orders aren’t laws. They’re memos. Fancy, official memos that tell federal employees how to do their jobs, but memos nonetheless. You want to change what states can and can’t do? You need this little thing called “Congress” to pass this other little thing called “legislation.” Trump can’t just declare state laws invalid any more than he can declare himself emperor of Mars.

But here’s where this gets kinda funny (in a stupid way): that “interstate commerce” language could backfire spectacularly. Almost all state laws trying to regulate the internet—from child safety laws to age verification to the various attempts at content moderation laws—might run afoul of the dormant commerce clause by attempting to regulate interstate commerce if what the admin here claims is true (it’s not really true, but if the Supreme Court buys it…). Courts had been hesitant to use this nuclear option because it would essentially wipe out the entire patchwork of state internet regulation that’s been building for years, and a few decades of work in other areas that hasn’t really been challenged. Also, because they’ve mostly been able to invalidate those laws using the simple and straightforward First Amendment.

The real story here isn’t that Trump signed some groundbreaking AI policy—it’s that the entire mainstream media apparatus completely failed to understand the most basic principles of American government. Executive orders aren’t magic spells that override federalism. They’re memos.

Instead of presenting a new indictment to the full panel after it rejected one of the counts, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan gave the grand jury’s foreperson an updated version — not seen by the other grand jurors — to sign.

The cities’ move to exempt the records from disclosure was a dangerous attempt to deny transparency and reflects another problem with the massive amount of data that police departments collect through Flock cameras and store on Flock servers: the wiggle room cities seek when public data is hosted on a private company’s server.

If a government agency is conducting mass surveillance, EFF supports individuals’ access to data collected specifically on them, at the very least. And to address legitimate privacy concerns, governments can and should redact personal information in these records while still disclosing information about how the systems work and the data that they capture.

Research by Harvard Business School Professor Alberto Cavallo illustrates the downward trend in the price levels for many retail goods, followed by an acceleration after tariff announcements. Prices on both imported and domestic goods have climbed modestly but steadily since March, even if the hike is still small relative to the size of the tariffs.

The researchers created indexes with daily prices collected by PriceStats, a private firm cofounded by Cavallo that provides online data for over 350,000 products sold by five major US retailers. The indexes allow them to track price changes in specific categories and from countries of origin. Overall, the prices of imported products have increased faster than those made in the US. An extended analysis, going back to January 2024, explores price changes of goods relative to their pre-tariff trend.

Current Tariff Rate: Consumers face an overall average effective tariff rate of 17.9%, the highest since 1934. After consumption shifts, the average tariff rate will be 17.4%. (If IEEPA tariffs are invalidated, the rate would be 9.1%.)

Overall Price Level & Distributional Effects: TBL assumes the Federal Reserve “looks through” the tariffs and allows prices to rise such that the tax burden is felt through prices rather than nominal incomes. The price level rises by 1.3% in the short run, representing a loss of $1,800 for the average household and $1,000 for households at the bottom of the income distribution. (Without IEEPA, the price level impact would instead be 0.6%.)