#1,038: Everything's in the Mouse Print

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

While I haven’t the slightest idea how many print, radio or TV ads and commercials the average person sees, hears or reads each and every day, it’s got to be in the dozens. For the most part, the purpose of each and every one is to sell us something; that if only we will purchase their product, inform our physician that they really should be prescribing a particular medicine, or sign up for their weight-loss program or pre-payday-no interest- loan, we will be happier, healthier and wealthier; we’ll all have smiles as we sit around the family table for dinner . . . mother, father, 2 children and a dog. The use of false or misleading advertising is probably as old as the earliest cave paintings of the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Whether or not our earliest ancestors used what today we call “fine” or “mouse” print to hide important details, terms, and conditions that might contradict the main message is, of course, both unknowable and an obvious use of tongue-in-cheek humor on my part.

For those not familiar with the term, “Mouse print” is defined as “The fine print in advertising, in a contract, or on a product label, often buried out of easy sight. In the worst cases, the mouse print changes the meaning of, or contradicts the primary claims or promises being made. Sometimes, the catch is not even disclosed. Mouse print can also be verbal. We all have heard commercials containing the 11-words-per-second rat-a-tat-tat delivery of John “Motormouth” Maschitta who, in less time than it takes to pop a tab on a Coors Lite, could undermine everything said or promised in the commercial he was starring or featured in. Then too, there are all those medicine commercials which, by law, must contain verbiage that discloses some - not all - of the adverse events (bad side effects) which taking said medicine could cause. Frequently, those disclosures are not delivered verbally; they are contained in Mouse print at the bottom of the screen. And unless you have the ability to either tape or freeze that part of the commercial, you will never know what the possible risks are.

TV commercials and print ads are by no means the only places where Mouse Print can make what amounts to obfuscatory appearance (i.e. intending to conceal the truth by confusion). And here, I am referring specifically to Congressional legislation. For endless generations, members of both the House and Senate have larded appropriations measures with so-called "riders” (also known as stealth legislation or Christmas Tree bills) that serve to benefit an individual representative’s or senator’s district or state. A Christmas tree bill consists of many riders. The amendments that “decorate” the main legislation often provide special benefits to various groups or interests; a new post office, a bridge named for an individual, etc. The term refers to allowing each member of Congress to hang their pet decoration on the proposed legislation. Then there are other riders, known as “wrecking” or “poison pill” bills, which are used not to actually be passed, but merely to prevent the passage of the parent bill or to ensure its veto by the president. And while both houses have rules regarding the “Germainess” of an amendment or rider, there are always ways to get around them. (n.b. Riders are more commonly associated with the Senate, while the House just has to use fancier footwork in order to append their “gifts.”)

A staggering example of an omnibus bill larded with riders, “Christmas Trees” and “poison pills” is the recently-passed (and childishly-named) One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This 1,000+ page monstrosity, which passed by a single vote (215-214) and is now headed for the Senate where its future is uncertain, represents a major step forward on IT’s agenda. The bill combines tax breaks, spending cuts, border security funding and assorted surprises. Through this bill, Republicans look to make permanent the individual income and estate tax cuts passed in 2017 during Pumpkin Punim’s first term, plus enact promises he made during the 2024 campaign to not tax tips, overtime and interest on auto loans.

Buried deep down in the welter of legislative verbiage are a minyan’s-worth of what we might term “sleeper provisions”, including:

More Savaging of Migrants. The bill adds $45 billion to build immigration jails—more than 13 times ICE’s current detention budget. The bill would allow indefinite detention of immigrant children. It also adds several fees intended to harass. The measure charges families $3,500 to reunite with a child who arrived alone at the border, and a person seeking asylum will have to pay an “application fee” of at least $1,000.
Terminating the Tax Status of Nonprofits. The reconciliation text gives the administration the power to define nonprofits as “terrorist-supporting organizations” and expedite the ending of their tax status. This is ostensibly directed against pro-Palestinian groups, but could be used to suppress the free speech and activism of climate organizations and others.
Blocking State Regulation of AI. The bill prohibits any state or subdivision from passing “any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.” It requires the repeal of any such laws already on the books. According to The Lever, the language could be stretched to block efforts by local governments to regulate private equity firms and other landlords using AI software to jack up rents.
Weakening the Child Tax Credit. The bill nominally increases the current Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $2,500 per child. But it also lowers the eligibility income threshold, making millions of children ineligible. The bill also excludes from the credit 4.5 million children who have a parent without a Social Security number but who pays taxes with a tax identification number. These children are predominantly U.S. citizens with an immigrant parent.
Expanding School Vouchers. The bill gives $20 billion in the form of tax credits to donors who give money to voucher schools. It also creates a tax shelter from paying capital gains taxes to donors who give appreciated stock to voucher schools. These two provisions amount to a direct federal subsidy to voucher schools using wealthy individuals as a pass-through. This government support for voucher schools comes at a time when Department of Education support for public schools is being slashed.
Stealth Cuts in the Affordable Care Act. The bill allows tax credits that subsidize ACA premiums to expire at the end of 2025. The result will be that out-of-pocket costs for insurance under the ACA will become more expensive and millions of people will lose coverage, and one in particular which is perhaps the most dangerous of all:
Crippling Courts. The bill, hiding behind the premise that it is an appropriations measure, prohibits any funds from being used to carry out court orders holding executive branch officials in contempt. This is designed to enable Felon47 and his officials to continue defying court orders. It is almost certainly unconstitutional if (and it’s a mighty big IF) courts have the בּיצים (bay-tzeem) to say so.

What this means - if it escapes unscathed - is that federal judges will have their power to hold people in contempt severely limited, thus potentially shielding Pumpkin Punim and members of his regime from the consequences of violating court orders. Do yourself a favor: read that last sentence again: “Federal judges will have their power to hold people in contempt severely limited, thus shielding both POTUS and members of the regime from the consequences of violating court orders.” If that doesn’t send an agonizing shiver up and down your spine you have either imbibed far too much Kool-Aid, or are afflicted with CACIP (Channelopathy-Associated Congenital Insensitivity to Pain).

In tucking this provision into what is supposed to be an appropriations bill, Republicans are seeking to use their major policy bill to weaken federal judges. Under the rules that govern civil lawsuits in the federal courts, federal judges are supposed to order a bond from a person seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. The amount of the bond, as I understand it is supposed to be set at what “the court considers proper” to cover any costs that might be suffered if that injunction is later found to have been incorrectly issued. But up till now, federal judges have wide discretion to set their bonds, and often refrain from doing so. According to Samuel L. Bray, a law professor at Notre Dame, many judges do not order injunction bonds in cases where people are seeking to stop government actions that they claim are unconstitutional. “It doesn’t wind up getting used when people sue the federal government,” he said in a recent interview.

The language in the House-passed bill would block federal judges from enforcing their contempt citations if they had not previously ordered a bond. Democrats have argued that House Republicans’ measure would rob the courts of their power by stripping away any consequences for officials who ignore judges’ rulings. That’s the whole point of the House Republicans’ planting their legislative IED in the midst of a tax-cut measure.

I find room for optimism in the fact that the bill - even with all its warts, wens and necrotic vesicles - passed by a single vote, and that already, several Senate Republicans have excoriated both the House and White House for proposing and passing such an “immoral bill.” For those who live in states with Republican senators (like Florida, which has 2), please be prepared to do some emailing, texting and the leaving of voice messages at either their Capitol Hill or district offices and urge them to vote against this measure. Remind them to read (or have a staff member read and report to them) about what the bill contains . . . especially the hidden mouse points that would hamstring the federal courts from doing its constitutionally mandated job.

For mice - whether four-footed or rhetorical - are deadly creatures.