HOW THE RICH BENEFIT FROM THE RECORD HIGH FEDERAL DEBT

The federal debt was $1 trillion in 1980 and now is $40 trillion due to Republican tax cuts and increased military spending. Wealthy individuals and corporations pay less in taxes and get lots of interest from government bonds. The rest of us are hurt by high inflation and interest rates.

SUMMARY: The federal debt has grown from $1 trillion in 1980 to a record $40 trillion today. President Trump has added $12 trillion to the debt. The causes of the dramatic growth of the debt are quite clear: Republican tax cuts and increased military spending. Wealthy individuals and corporations benefit by paying less in taxes and collecting over $360 billion a year from interest on government bonds. High government debt hurts average Americans by increasing inflation and the interest rates they pay on all types of debt. This all leads to high and growing economic inequality.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The federal debt has grown from $1 trillion in 1980 to a record $40 trillion today. President Trump has added $12 trillion to the debt in six years as President (despite his promises to reduce it); that’s almost a third of the debt that’s accumulated over the last 45 years. And it’s now growing at a rate of about $2 trillion a year. The debt has grown very fast in recent months, in part because Trump’s tariffs were declared illegal and had to be refunded. [1]

The causes of the dramatic growth of the debt over the last 45 years are quite clear:

Republican tax cuts under Presidents Reagan, G. W. Bush, and Trump that primarily benefit wealthy individuals and corporations,
Increased military spending including the costs of wars, primarily fueled by Republican Presidents, and
At a less dramatic level, one-time emergency spending in response to the Covid pandemic and the economic crash of 2008.

The G.W. Bush and Trump tax cuts gave the richest 20% of Americans 65% of the benefits, while the top 1% got 22% of the benefits. It’s estimated that these tax cuts’ reductions of the federal government’s revenue have added about $11 trillion to the debt since 2001.

Wealthy individuals and corporations benefit from this in two ways. They are:

Paying less in taxes, and
Collecting a big share of the $1 trillion a year in interest the government is paying for the money borrowed to cover the debt.

Wealthy individuals and corporations used to help fund the government by paying more in taxes. However, top income tax rates for wealthy individuals have fallen from 91% in the 1950s to 37% today. Corporate tax rates have fallen from 50% to 21%. Today, the 400 richest Americans pay an average effective tax rate of only 24%, including federal, state, local, and corporate taxes. Many of them have years where they pay no federal income taxes, including Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos. [2]

This loss of government revenue means the government spends more than it takes in. Therefore, it must borrow money to cover the difference. So, wealthy individuals and corporations now fund government spending by loaning it money (by buying government bonds) and then collecting interest on those bonds.

The federal government is now paying $1 trillion a year in interest on the $40 trillion debt that is covered by selling government bonds to investors. While 30% of the bonds are owned by foreign investors and governments, 70% are owned by domestic investors. These investors include individuals, mutual funds, pension funds, and companies such as banks and insurance companies. The richest Americans own a disproportionate share of financial investments, with the richest 1% of Americans owning 36% of all financial assets. Therefore, a reasonable estimate is that at least 36% of the $1 trillion the government pays in interest, $360 billion a year, is paid to the richest Americans. [3]

The $1 trillion in annual interest payments are $1 trillion that the government doesn’t have to spend on other programs and services. This amount is roughly equal to what is spent on Medicare in a year or what is in the annual Defense Department budget.

Government borrowing of large amounts of money increases interest rates. The rapid current borrowing has pushed the interest rate the government has to pay to get investors to buy its mainstay 30-year Treasury bonds to 5.5%, the highest level in 25 years. As a result, interest rates Americans pay on mortgages, credit card debt, car loans and leases, and student debt are all increasing. The cost of borrowing money for businesses is also increasing. This all increases the rate of inflation. [4]

So, while wealthy individuals and corporations are pocketing billions of dollars due to lower tax rates, they are also collecting billions in interest on their investments in government bonds. Meanwhile, average Americans are paying more on any kind of debt they have, are facing inflation in the prices of the goods and services they need, and are getting less support from the federal government because of reduced spending due to less revenue and more that has to be spent on paying interest on the debt. All of this leads to very high and growing economic inequality in the U.S. (See this previous post for more details.)

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Johnson, J., 8/20/26, “Economists blame $40 trillion debt milestone on two things: GOP ineptitude and tax cuts for the rich,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/economists-trump-40-trillion-debt)

[2] Reich, R., 8/20/26, “Who’s raking it in as the national debt explodes?” Robert Reich blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/who-gets-paid-as-our-national-debt)

[3] Reich, R., 8/20/26, see above

[4] Kuttner, R., 8/19/26. “How the cost of money spikes inflation,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/08/19/how-cost-of-money-spikes-inflation/)

RESIST GOVERNMENT USE OF ID.me FOR IDENTITY VERIFICATION

xr:d:DAFZCzzlxfU:13,j:46031831340,t:23012914

SUMMARY: Our governments should not be requiring us to provide personal identity information to a private, for-profit company in order to access government programs and information. Yet, that’s what’s happening. It’s a dangerous example of privatization that is redundant and costs taxpayers money, and, in this case, their privacy. I urge you to boycott this if you can and to contact your elected officials to protest. Furthermore, the U.S. needs to better regulate the collection and use of our personal data by the private sector, as Europe has done since 2018.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Providing citizens access to government agencies and information is an essential government function. Verifying people’s identity for such access shouldn’t be contracted out to a for-profit company. Yet, that’s what the federal government is doing.

Since 2016, some federal agencies have contracted out identity verification for access to their programs and databases to ID.me. ID.me is a hundred-million-dollar, for-profit company. Recently, Medicare and the U.S. Treasury have been added to the list of ID.me users that includes the IRS, Social Security, and Veterans Affairs (which requires it to access family members’ old military records that are public information). As-of 10/29/26, the U.S. Treasury Department will require use of ID.me to access account information. ID.me has contracts for identity verification with 20 federal agencies, as well as at least 50 state agencies, notably those providing unemployment benefits. [1]

ID.me requires you to provide your date of birth, Social Security number, a photograph of your driver’s license or passport, and a picture of your face taken with your cellphone. This puts a biometric facial recognition image in the hands of a private company with little oversight or control over how it uses the data. ID.me also provides identity verification services to dozens of private companies, including Apple, Amazon, Bank of America, Ford, and JPMorgan Chase. ID.me claims it doesn’t sell data and that it makes its money by charging fees for its services, but I find it hard to believe that it isn’t finding ways to monetize the data it holds on hundreds of millions of Americans.

I urge you to resist by refusing to use ID.me if you can. I also urge you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators to ask them to block the use of ID.me (or at least the expansion of its use). (You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.)

If a login ID and password, along with verification by email, text, or phone message, is secure enough for our access to our bank and other financial accounts, it’s good enough for access to Medicare, Social Security, and other federal data and programs. Furthermore, you can apply for and collect Social Security benefits without going through ID.me and you can sign up for Medicare without it. So, why should it be required to access one’s information at Social Security, Medicare, or the U.S. Treasury? There has been no demonstrated need for this additional security.

Moreover, the U.S. government has its own very similar enhanced security program called Login.gov. So, ID.me is redundant. (Note: I don’t even want to use Login.gov as it puts a biometric facial recognition image in the hands of the Trump regime and I don’t trust how it might use such data.)

ID.me has persuaded government agencies to use its ID verification services through aggressive lobbying and marketing. For its unnecessary services, ID.me has, to date, billed the government (i.e., taxpayers) over $1 billion! ID.me is worse than unnecessary and redundant, it’s another example of privatization taking (stealing?) money from taxpayers. Moreover, once in place, it’s very hard to terminate its use and, eventually, the government may just give in and drop its own capability to perform identity verification. This would mean the end of the historically relatively easy and secure access of citizens to government agencies and programs without giving sensitive personal data to a private entity.

It’s bad enough that for-profit businesses are capturing our personal identity information whenever we interact with them directly. They capitalize on it by using it to tailor their marketing and pricing (aka surveillance pricing; see more here). They also make money by selling our data or sharing it with others. They capture our data through preferred customer and frequent flyer programs, through our activity on social media platforms, through product warranty and purchase registrations, etc.

There should be better government regulation of personal data collection and use by the private sector. For example, regulations should require disclosure of when and what personal data companies are capturing, and how they’re using it. We should have better options for opting out of personal data collection and use, and the ability to require companies to delete our data. Europe has done a much better job than the U.S. of regulating personal data collection and use through its 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It protects individuals when their data is captured and used by private and public entities. There’s a nice overview of it here and more on its legal background here.

What for-profit companies are doing when we interact with them is egregious, but the public sector – our government – should not be abetting the capture, use, and abuse of our personal data by requiring us to provide personal identity information to a for-profit company in order to access government programs and data. However, this is what’s happening with governments’ use of ID.me for login identity verification.

I urge you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and ask them to oppose the use of ID.me by the federal government. (See above for links to find contact information for your US Representative and Senators.) You can also contact state officials – your Governor and legislators – and ask them to oppose the use of ID.me at the state level.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Kuttner, R., 10/6/26, “Identity crisis,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/10/06/identity-crisis-federal-government-access-id-me/)

ENDING SURPRISE HEALTH CARE BILLING COSTS LOTS OF MONEY

The 2020 No Surprises Act set up an arbitration process so patients didn’t get huge surprise medical bills. The result was profits for corporate capitalists and huge health care costs and waste. Patients pay for this through increased premiums with no improvements in health care quality or outcomes.

SUMMARY: The federal No Surprises Act was passed in 2020 and set up an arbitration process where insurance companies and providers would negotiate the payment for out-of-network charges so patients didn’t get huge surprise bills. What happened is a classic example of how for-profit corporate capitalism creates huge costs and waste in our health care system. Ultimately, patients are paying for all of this through increased premiums, while the cost of our health care system spirals upward with no improvements in quality or outcomes.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

You probably remember the surprise health care billing problem that made headlines in 2019 and 2020 where patients were getting huge bills for “out-of-network” medical services over which they had no control, such as in the emergency room or for anesthesia or radiology. As a remedy, the federal No Surprises Act was passed in 2020 and set up an arbitration process where insurance companies and providers would negotiate the payment for out-of-network charges, so patients didn’t get huge surprise bills.

Although the Act did succeed in keeping patients from getting surprise bills, what happened is a classic example of 1) how for-profit corporate capitalism dominates and has corrupted our health care system, and 2) how the lack of a single payer system wastes time and money. With a single payer system, the surprise billing problem would never have happened in the first place because there would be no such thing as “out-of-network.”

The arbitration system created to “solve” the surprise bill problem has become another layer of bureaucratic waste. It has created two new sets of middlemen, arbitrators and consultants, who manipulate the system to maximize their own profits on the backs of our already expensive health care system. [1]

The arbitration system primarily has huge insurance companies on one side who want to pay less for medical services. On the other side, in many cases, are private equity-owned medical staffing companies trying to maximize billings and profits. The No Surprises Act instituted an arbitration system using an independent dispute resolution process (IDR).

The in-network rate for medical services is supposed to be used as a guideline for determining payments, but it is not a mandated standard. Policy makers estimated there would be 20,000 arbitration cases a year nationally, based on experience with a similar system that mandated in-network rates as the standard.

However, in 2025 there were 2.2 million arbitration cases and payments were triple those of the previous year. Providers won roughly 85% of the cases and some outrageous payments were made. For example, there were 25 payments for over $10 million each for procedures that had an in-network cost of $100 to $2,000.

One of the new middlemen, the arbitrators get a flat fee per case and took in $1.3 billion. Given their flat rate, they have a perverse incentive to want to stimulate more cases as the only way to increase their revenue. The way to incentivize more cases is to make high payment awards that create an incentive for providers to file more cases. These high payments establish precedents that are cited in subsequent cases, so the payment awards just spiral upward. By the way, five of the certified arbitrators have private equity backers.

The other new middlemen are consultants to providers and their private equity owners. One of these consultant companies, HaloMD, filed 20% of all the arbitration cases and earned over $1 billion in fees in 2025. These consultants, of course, have an incentive to maximize the payment awards and they brag about getting eight to thirteen times the typical in-network payment rate for their clients.

The insurers are fighting back in unusual ways. Across the 2.2 million cases in 2025, in roughly one million cases they simply gave up and defaulted to the providers’ requests. In another 380,000 cases, they offered to pay $1 or less. Clearly, they are not participating in the arbitration system in good faith. It appears their strategy is to fight in court to get cases thrown out en masse rather than having to fight case by case – although the No Surprises Act bans judicial review of individual billing disputes. Or their strategy may be to have the arbitration system spiral so far out of control that the insurers can argue in court that the whole system should be thrown out. A piece of the court-based strategy may be to delay payments. In some cases, providers are reporting that insurers are simply refusing to pay. A trade association for emergency medical services providers has reported that about 60% of awards were not paid within the 30-day period mandated by the No Surprises Act.

Ultimately, patients are paying for all of this – the outrageous payments for the services and the billions of dollars of administrative overhead costs. Individual patients aren’t getting huge surprise bills, rather we are all paying through increased premiums for our health insurance. And the cost of our health care system spirals upward with no improvements in quality or outcomes – just more capitalists making more money. (See this previous post for a more general overview of how capitalism has corrupted our health care system. See this previous post for how a universal, single-payer health care system would save lots of money and lives.)

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Dayen, D., 8/13/26, “Congress face-plants on surprise health care bills,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/08/13/congress-trump-no-surprises-act-health-care-bills-insurance/)

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SAVES LOTS OF LIVES AND MONEY

SUMMARY: A universal, single-payer U.S. health care system could save over 100,000 lives and $1 trillion every year. However, because capitalism has corrupted our health care system, which now puts profits before patients, the potential benefits, both in quality and in savings, won’t occur unless the corporate giants in the system are broken up or strongly regulated. Six corporations dominate Big Medicine with over $2 trillion in revenue and $34 billion in profits in 2025.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

A reformed U.S. health care system providing universal coverage could save over 100,000 lives and $1 trillion every year according to a study from the Yale School of Public Health. A universal U.S. public health insurance program, such as Medicare for All, would save over $1 trillion a year even after including roughly $300 billion for the additional care received by currently uninsured or underinsured people. [1]

The five major sources of savings are:

Reduced administrative overhead. At least 15% of U.S. health care spending, about $800 billion annually, is administrative waste. Peer countries and Medicare spend 1% to 4% on administration.
Lowered drug costs due to regulation and negotiation of drug prices.
Reduced fraudulent billing from for-profit entities working to maximize profits.
Fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations due to earlier and less expensive treatment of medical conditions.
Standardized and capped prices for health care services.

Universal health insurance would, of course, undo the coverage cuts and other health policy changes implemented by the Trump administration since 2025. This alone would prevent about 51,300 deaths a year. Universal comprehensive and affordable health coverage would benefit the over 45 million adults who are underinsured – where deductibles and co-pays make needed care unaffordable. This would save another 29,600 lives a year. Finally, universal health insurance would, of course, insure the uninsured saving an estimated 33,300 additional lives. So, in total over 114,000 deaths per year would be averted.

The Yale study builds on and confirms estimates in a less comprehensive 2020 study that concluded that a single-payer, universal health care system in the U.S. would save at least 68,000 lives and $450 billion a year. [2]

However, capitalism has corrupted the U.S. health care system. The pursuit of profits has become the priority, rather than care for patients. Costs are high and growing fast, while outcomes are poor. (See this previous post for more details.) Big corporations (aka Big Medicine) dominate health insurance, drug manufacturing, hospitals, and doctors’ practices. Middlemen skim off profits at many points in the system. Private equity firms (vulture capitalists) pocket profits at the expense of patients, doctors, and others. Practitioners are burned out and leaving clinical practices in record numbers leading to shortages of doctors in primary care and many specialties, especially mental health. [3]

Therefore, a universal, single-payer, Medicare-for-All type system won’t achieve all its potential benefits, both in quality and in savings, unless the corporate giants in the health care system are broken up or strongly regulated. [4]

Six corporations dominate Big Medicine: huge insurer / provider conglomerates UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna, along with mega-wholesalers McKesson, Cencora, and Cardinal Health. They are six of the fifteen largest corporations in the U.S. They have been built by mergers and acquisitions over the last 16 years; only one of them was among the fifteen largest corporations in 2010. They had over $2 trillion in revenue and $34 billion in profits in 2025. For example, McKesson, Cencora, and Cardinal Health are the three largest wholesale drug distributors, controlling 98% of the market, giving them, as middlemen, monopolistic leverage over drug manufacturers, providers, and consumers. (See this previous post for more on corporate consolidation and concentration in health care.)

Big Medicine now employs 80% of doctors. This exemplifies the major changes in our health care system since the early 1980s when 80% of doctors owned their own private practices. Big Medicine (as with big retailers and big tech) also pushes manufacturing of drugs and medical supplies to low-cost sources overseas. This makes supply chains brittle and results in shortages if there’s any disruption.

For patients, Big Medicine means unaffordable coverage, doctor shortages and long wait times, longer trips to doctors and hospitals, administrative barriers to care and payments, worse health, and medical debt for 40% of American adults. For doctors and other practitioners, it means decreased pay and benefits, increased pressure to produce billings, decreased time with patients, delayed payments for services, and worsening working conditions. Big Medicine has pushed both patients and practitioners into frustration and anger, and, as a result, only 28% of patients trust the health care system and practitioners are leaving the field at unprecedented rates.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Kristoffersen, M., 8/13/26, “Universal health coverage could save $1 trillion and 114,000 lives every year, Yale study projects,” Yale School of Public Health (https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/universal-health-coverage-could-save-one-trillion-dollars-and-114000-lives-every-year/)

[2] Galvani, A. P., et al., 2/15/20, “Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA,” The Lancet (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/abstract)

[3] Freer, E., & Harper, M., August 2026, “Break up Big Medicine: A health care agenda to restore power to patients and practitioners and save families $6,000 a year,” American Economic Liberties Project (https://www.economicliberties.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/AELPHealthcareAgenda.pdf)

[4] Dayen, D., 8/27/26, “Health care reform needs more than universal coverage,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/08/27/health-care-reform-universal-coverage-medicare-for-all/)

CAPITALISM HAS CORRUPTED HEALTH CARE

Capitalism and its pursuit of profits have corrupted our health care system, resulting in the most expensive system in the world, but one that delivers poor outcomes. Three elements have driven this corruption: corporate consolidation, private equity, and privatization.

SUMMARY: Capitalism and its pursuit of profits have corrupted our health care system. Oligarchs have been allowed to reap huge rewards resulting in the most expensive health care system in the world but one that delivers poor outcomes. Three essential elements that have driven this corruption are corporate consolidation, private equity, and privatization. Some remedies are clear but require dramatic changes in our federal elected officials.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Capitalism has corrupted our health care system. My previous two posts described more generally 1) how corporate America’s current brand of capitalism is corrupt and undermines democracy, while abetting oligarchy and fascism; and 2) how large, profitable corporations avoid paying taxes while paying their employees so little they have to rely on government assistance to survive.

The U.S. health care system does not provide high-quality health care and is not accessible and affordable because it has been corrupted by the pursuit of profits. As a result, Americans have the worst health outcomes among peer countries. Moreover, they face high costs for insurance and care, resulting in huge amounts of medical debt and many bankruptcies. Individual health care providers are burned out and have low morale because their managers are focused on maximizing profit.

The U.S. health care system has been corrupted by the “free market” revolution that began in the 1970s, took off under President Reagan in the 1980s, and has dominated the U.S. economic system ever since. This laissez-faire, deregulated, no-holds-barred brand of capitalism has been championed by wealthy “conservatives” and Republicans, and abetted by some Democrats. It has been dubbed neo-liberalism. It is a turbocharged version of capitalism that promotes deregulation of business and privatization of public goods and services. [1]

Oligarchs have been allowed to reap huge rewards from our health care system through financial manipulation, mergers and acquisitions, and what amounts to bribery of elected officials. The result has been huge mega-hospitals and vertically integrated insurers / providers, along with pharmaceutical giants and a mind-boggling number of middlemen. All these entities are focused on squeezing as much profit as possible out of the health care system, while patient outcomes and the well-being of individual providers are sacrificed.

The result is the most expensive health care system in the world but one that delivers poor outcomes.

There are three essential elements that have driven this corruption of our health care system: [2]

Corporate consolidation: Deregulation and lack of antitrust enforcement over the last 40 years have led to huge health care corporations that have monopolistic power, which allows them to maximize profits at the expense of patients and individual providers. Almost every component of our health care system is rated as “highly concentrated.” [3] For example, 90% of dialysis is performed by just two companies, while 90% of hospital markets, 74% of health insurance markets, and 65% of specialized physician services are rated as highly concentrated.
Private equity: Private equity firms (which I referred to as vulture capitalists [see background here]) invaded health care starting in the 2000s. In the decade from 2010 to 2020, private equity firms spent $750 billion buying health care entities. While these purchases have produced big returns for the private equity financiers, the results for patients have been higher prices, poorer quality, and less access due to the closing of facilities, while doctors and other personnel are disempowered and discouraged. (This is consistent with the standard practice of private equity firms in all sectors of our economy. See more here.)

Steward Health is perhaps the poster child for private equity’s harmful impact on health care. Among other negative outcomes, it delivered poor care as it cut corners to maximize profits. By filing for bankruptcy, patient malpractice awards (among other debts) won’t be paid or will be paid with pennies on the dollar, while executives and private equity owners walked away with fortunes.
Privatization: Privatization and profits are the hallmarks of our neoliberal health care system. Notably, Medicare, which provides health insurance coverage for 65 million seniors and people with disabilities, is being increasingly privatized to the detriment of taxpayers and patients. A growing portion of Medicare enrollees are being seduced by slick advertising and short-term benefits to sign up for privatized Medicare Advantage plans, which now have 55% of the population.

The only long-term advantage of the plans is to the profits of private insurers, such as the giants UnitedHealthcare and Humana, which between them have 46% of all Medicare Advantage enrollees. Recently, these two corporations announced plans to boost their profits by dropping some “under-performing” markets and kicking more than a million seniors off their insurance plans.

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans cost the government over $500 billion a year and more per person than non-privatized, traditional Medicare, despite serving a healthier population. MA companies are notorious for denying payments for necessary care and for overbilling the government. Nonetheless, the Trump administration recently approved a substantial increase in payments to MA plans. [4]

Not surprisingly, another result of this corruption of our health care system has been that trust in the system has dropped dramatically from 79% in 1975 to 28% in 2026. [5]

Some of the remedies for our health care system’s dysfunction are clear but obviously would require dramatic changes in our federal elected officials:

Strong enforcement of antitrust laws (as the Biden administration started to do for the first time in 40 years). The high concentration in many parts of the health care system will require breaking up some of the huge, monopolistic corporations that have been created.
Banning private equity ownership from our health care system.
Regulating drug prices, as they are in every other peer country.
Implementing a single-payer, Medicare for All type system, like those in every other peer country.
Establishment of a new patient bill of rights.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] McDonough, J. E., 8/30/26, “The little-understood roots of the American health care catastrophe,” The Boston Globe

[2] McDonough, J. E., 8/30/26, see above

[3] Highly concentrated is defined in the merger guidelines of the Federal Trade Commission. More on its application to health care is in this American Medical Association publication: https://www.ama-assn.org/health-care-advocacy/access-care/95-us-health-insurance-markets-are-highly-concentrated

[4] Johnson, J., 9/10/26, “To boost profits, Medicare Advantage giants move to kick over a million seniors off their plans,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/medicare-advantage-benefit-cuts)

[5] McDonough, J. E., 8/30/26, see above

CORPORATE AMERICA IS WRECKING CAPITALISM

SUMMARY: The Trump regime has cut a corrupt deal with corporate America, which most of the corporate elites have readily gone along with despite its corruption and undermining of democracy. This is what oligarchy and fascism are all about. Everyday citizens pay financially and with their freedom as these corrupt government and business people get richer and richer, as well as more and more powerful. Recently, Gerard Baker, editor-at-large (and former editor-in-chief) of The Wall Street Journal wrote two columns that make a powerful statement about the damage America’s corporate elites and their style of capitalism have done.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The Trump regime has cut a corrupt deal with corporate America, which the corporate elites have all too readily been happy to accept. It is based on greed and corruption by both these parties: the government will let the corporations and their executives do whatever they want to grow their profits and wealth as long as they pay homage to Trump and his regime verbally and financially. That everyday Americans will suffer from unaffordable costs of daily living and from poor pay and working conditions does not concern either of these parties.

What’s surprising is that so few members of the corporate elite have been willing to call out the corruption and the undermining of democracy. A group calling themselves Patriotic Millionaires has been highlighting the harm of the high and growing levels of economic inequality for some time. They have been promoting policy solutions through changes in tax and employee pay laws. Patriotic Millionaires has proposed “The Money Agenda,” a set of policies that would reduce economic inequality and “permanently stabilize the economic lives of working people, stimulate wide-spread economic growth, and ensure prosperity and stability.” (See this previous post for more details.)

Recently, Gerard Baker, editor-at-large (and former editor-in-chief) of The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote two columns that make a powerful statement about what America’s corporate elites and their current style of capitalism have done wrong. I don’t imagine that I have to tell you that the WSJ and Baker previously have been stanch proponents and, when necessary, defenders of American capitalism. Baker’s recent columns in the WSJ (paywall) are titled How to Cure What Ails American Capitalism (8/17/26) and Socialism Is the Wrong Answer, but the Questions Are Real (8/10/26). Robert Reich provides a nice summary of Baker’s points in this blog post.

Baker writes that, “The widespread popular dissatisfaction with the working of modern American capitalism may be the product of some real, objective problems in the way American capitalism is working.” The problems he notes include the high level of economic inequality, the unaffordability of daily life for many, and the corruption and lack of accountability of the political and corporate elites. He points out that this is harming social solidarity and leading to demands for a radical replacement of American capitalism.

Baker further writes that, “Most of the causes of America’s economic dysfunction are the result of a capitalism that has mutated into a system run by and for large corporate interests.” The dysfunction he highlights includes oligopoly-level concentration in almost every business sector; regulation, legislation, and policy that benefit big companies; and a privatized healthcare system that operates to generate profits for providers, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies while producing poor outcomes for patients and very high costs. He states that the overall result is a concentration of “market, economic and political power by a business-political class that promotes its own well-being at the expense of competition, the market and ultimately the people.”

The fact that this is coming from a career-long proponent and advocate for American capitalism is striking and underscores how poorly capitalism is working. It also highlights how shocking it is that other supposed leaders in corporate America aren’t standing up both to call this out and to support remedies – not to mention speaking out against the corruption and undermining of democracy.

The current Trump regime and its allies among the corporate elite are what oligarchy and fascism are all about. There’s a corrupt deal among government and business people that “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.” Everyday citizens pay financially and with their freedom as these corrupt government and business people get richer and richer, as well as more and more powerful.

Some of the remedies are clear but obviously require a seismic change in our elected officials:

Strong enforcement of antitrust laws (as the Biden administration started to do for the first time in 40 years). American capitalism has gone so far down the road of eliminating actual market place competition by allowing monopolies and oligopolies that remediation will requiring breaking up some (if not many) of the huge corporations that have been created.
Strong worker protection laws and agencies, including support for unions and unionization.
Strong consumer protection laws and agencies for all consumer goods and services, especially financial services.
A total revamping of our health care system to remove the corrupting profit motive that puts profits before patients. A single payer Medicare for All system is the remedy, like what every other peer country has.
Dramatic reform of the American campaign finance system to prevent wealthy individuals and corporations from effectively buying elected officials and policies. Matching public funds for small campaign contributions from people within a candidate’s district, tied to strict limits on other campaign funding, are the most immediate solution in the context of the Citizens United and related Supreme Court decisions. New York City and State and numerous other jurisdictions have such systems in place and they’ve produced very positive results. (See previous posts here and here for more information.)

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

BIG CORPORATIONS AVOID TAXES WHILE EMPLOYEES STRUGGLE

SUMMARY: Eighty-eight large corporations with over $105 billion in profits paid no federal income tax in 2025. Moreover, they got almost $5 billion in tax rebates! Many large and profitable companies also pay their employees so little that they rely on government-subsidized Medicaid for health insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for food. The hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes dodged each year, as well as the cost of government benefits for employees, contribute significantly to the annual federal budget deficit.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

At least 88 large, profitable corporations paid no federal income tax in 2025. Corporate tax dodging has increased in recent years in large part because of the two tax cut laws enacted by Trump and congressional Republicans: the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill in 2025 and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in late 2017.

These 88 corporations had over $105 billion in profits, paid no income tax, and got almost $5 billion in tax rebates! Given the federal corporate income tax rate of 21%, they dodged $27 billion in taxes. Based on the 35% income tax rate in place before the two tax cut laws, these corporations had their taxes cut by $41 billion in 2025 alone. [1]

Note that this analysis includes only corporations that have filed their 2025 tax returns and are one of the 500 largest U.S. corporations. It does not include thousands of other corporations or any privately owned companies.

Here are some of the most profitable and well-known corporations that paid no 2025 federal income tax and their 2025 profits:

Walt Disney $8.3 billion in profits
Cheniere Energy $7.0 billion in profits
CVS Health $6.6 billion in profits
Tesla $5.7 billion in profits
Citigroup $4.5 billion in profits
United Airlines $4.3 billion in profits
Amer. Elec. Power $3.7 billion in profits
PG&E $2.5 billion in profits
3M $1.8 billion in profits
Coinbase (crypto) $1.6 billion in profits
Palantir Tech. $1.6 billion in profits
PayPal Holdings $1.4 billion in profits
Biogen $1.2 billion in profits
Yum! Brands $1.0 billion in profits (KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, etc.)

State corporate income taxes are typically based on federal income tax laws. As a result, these 88 corporations that paid no federal income tax also paid very little state income tax; their effective state tax rate was only 1.4%.

One of the main ways corporations reduce their federal income taxes is through special tax breaks written into federal laws. These include:

Accelerated depreciation, which allows corporations to reduce taxes by the full amount of infrastructure expenditures in one year even if the infrastructure will last for many years. This tax break has been used to spur recovery from recessions in the past but is now a permanent part of tax law due to the two tax cut laws identified above.
Research and development tax credits.
Tax deductions for stock options given to employees.

In 2025, corporations have so far reported taking $204 billion in federal income tax breaks. This represents a huge giveaway of 18% of total corporate income taxes paid to the federal government, which were about $1,130 billion in 2025 and were paid by hundreds of thousands of corporations. [2]

Six corporations claimed $83 billion of these tax breaks (41%). These are record-breaking amounts.

Microsoft $19 billion
Alphabet (Google’s parent) $18 billion
Amazon $17 billion
Meta (Facebook, Instagram) $14 billion
JPMorgan Chase $ 8 billion
Nvidia (chip maker) $ 7 billion

These corporations do not need tax breaks because they are struggling; they collectively have roughly $500 billion in cash on hand. Previously, the largest one-year tax break claim had been $5 billion by JPMorgan Chase in 2024.

Meanwhile, many large and profitable companies pay employees so little that they must rely on government assistance to survive. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently analyzed data from eleven states on Americans who use government-subsidized Medicaid for health insurance (about 28 million adults) and/or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for food (about 20 million adults). Roughly half of them worked at least part-time in 2024 and of these, two-thirds worked full-time. Most of them worked for private employers in transportation, food, or retail sales jobs. Of the approximately 150 employers across the eleven states studied that had employees enrolled in Medicaid or SNAP, seventeen were among the 50 largest corporations in the country by number of employees. The following companies were among the 25 employers with the greatest number of employees using Medicaid and/or SNAP in multiple states: Walmart, Amazon, McDonald’s, FedEx, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Target, Walgreens, and CVS. [3]

The hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes dodged each year, as well as the cost of government benefits for employees, mean that large, profitable corporations contribute significantly to the annual federal budget deficit and to the growing cumulative federal debt that just hit $40 trillion. The wealth of these corporations and their executives and shareholders gives them substantial political and economic power, which they have been wielding in their self-interest and to the detriment of all of the rest of us.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Gardner, M., & Marasini, S., 4/14/26, “At least 88 profitable U.S. corporations paid zero federal income tax in 2025,” ITEP (https://itep.org/88-profitable-corporations-paid-zero-income-tax-in-2025/)

[2] Buttikofer, S., & Gardner, M., 8/14/26, “Six companies reaped $83 billion in federal tax breaks in 2025,” ITEP (https://itep.org/six-companies-83-billion-in-federal-tax-breaks/)

[3] U.S. Government Accountability Office, 6/22/26, “Federal social safety net programs: Millions of workers, including many employed by large employers, continue to rely on Medicaid and SNAP,” (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108703)

TRUMP AND HIS REGIME DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU

SUMMARY: President Trump and his regime don’t care about you and aren’t protecting your health, safety, or financial security. Here are some examples of actions they have taken that put you at risk.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Trump and his regime don’t care about you, your health or safety, or protecting you from financial fraud and crime. They demonstrate this in many ways. Here are some examples.

The Trump regime is NOT protecting you from financial fraud and abuse. Since its first days in office, it’s been weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Most recently, the Trump-controlled CFPB announced it would no longer make consumer complaints public. Failure to make complaints public will protect financial companies from scrutiny and transparency, hiding corporate misconduct from the public. It removes the incentive companies have to avoid, fix, and respond to problems that comes with public awareness and publicity. Furthermore, the CFPB recently purged its backlog of complaints and canceled a policy requiring refunds to consumers who had been overcharged. [1]

Consumer complaints filed with the CFPB have doubled in 2025 to 6.6 million (from 3.2 million in 2024). Since 2011, the CFPB has received and made public more than seventeen million complaints. Nearly six million consumers have received some form of relief in response to their CFPB complaints over its 16 years of operation. The CFPB has gotten consumers over $20 billion in compensation based on complaints involving loans, bank accounts, credit reports, and other financial matters.

The Trump regime is also NOT protecting us from drug and human trafficking as well as financial fraud because it has stopped blocking the money laundering necessary for these criminal enterprises. It has terminated the shell company [2] registry of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in the Treasury Department. Congress created the registry in 2021 through the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). It was a response to the reporting of investigative journalists who documented that between 1999 and 2017 U.S. banks had processed more than $2 trillion in potentially laundered money for criminals using shell companies and operating out of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria. At the time, Senator Rubio, now Trump’s Secretary of State, called the CTA “the most significant anti-corruption and money laundering law in decades.” [3]

To combat this extensive money laundering, the CTA requires every individual owning at least 25% of a shell company to register their legal name, date of birth, and residential street address; and provide an image of an official identification document with a unique identifying number. The Trump regime has now (probably illegally) stopped enforcing this law. [4] The termination of the shell company registry also facilitates oligarchs’ ability to hide their money and avoid taxes. Trump’s Treasury Department also destroyed the registry’s data that had been previously collected.

Law enforcement, national security experts, and small business owners are alarmed. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has called this lack of enforcement of the CTA “a gift to cartels, criminals, and U.S. adversaries.” [5]

On a different front, Trump’s Justice Department has reduced or stopped investigations and prosecutions of crimes like tax evasion, drug trafficking, and sex trafficking. The number of personnel assigned to these crimes has declined because of staffing shortages, funding cuts, and the reassignment of agents to immigration enforcement. [6]

The Trump regime is also NOT protecting your health. Measles in the U.S. is at levels not seen in many years and children have died from it. Nonetheless, Trump issued an executive order demanding states revise their recommendations for childhood vaccinations in ways that will reduce vaccinations for measles, as well as for mumps and rubella. Although the executive order does not change the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations or insurance coverage, it will increase confusion over and distrust of vaccinations that Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services Kennedy has been fomenting. This will result in more diseases, disabilities, and deaths. [7]

Foodborne illnesses in the U.S. are at very high levels. This year’s 10,500 cases to-date are almost ten times the annual rates in 2021 – 2025. A major contributor is the Trump regime’s cuts of more than 40% to food safety detection systems, including reduced funding for federal agencies to conduct food inspections and for grants to state and local health departments that track outbreaks. [8]

To add insult to injury, the Trump regime is also reducing access to health insurance and raising its cost for millions of Americans. In late June 2026, its own Department of Health and Human Services reported that at least five million people lost public health insurance in the first six months of the year, a drop of about 13%. For those remaining on public plans, premiums have spiked, more than doubling for some, while deductibles have increased by about $1,000 a person for many as they chose cheaper policies. [9]

The Trump regime announced in June plans to cancel 53 of 66 active grants from the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program. TPP was created by bipartisan legislation in 2009 and has been credited with contributing to reducing the unwanted teen pregnancy rate by 65%. The Trump regime wants to end the comprehensive sex education of TPP programs and focus on abstinence promotion, despite evidence that abstinence only sex education is ineffective. A federal judge recently paused the regime’s attempt to put limits on the TPP grants’ sex education programs. [10]

Other examples of Trump regime actions that may hurt you:

Canceled the rule requiring airlines to compensate you for canceled flights (after United and Delta donated a million dollars to Trump).
Ended the IRS’s free tax return filing program (after the TurboTax tax return prepration software’s parent company gave a million dollars to Trump).
Weakened gun laws including restrictions that have been in place since 1934 on sawed-off (and therefore easily concealed) shotguns and silencers.
Promote cryptocurrency. But that’s a whole other story.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Conley, J., 8/14/26, “In gift to abusive Wall Street firms, Trump CFPB moves to suppress consumer complaints,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/cfpb-complaint-database)

[2] Shell companies are legal entities that don’t have any physical presence or operations but are used for moving money and processing financial transactions.

[3] Baratta, J., 8/14/26, “Trump makes crime legal,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/08/14/trump-makes-crime-legal-corporate-transparency-act-treasury/)

[4] Cox Richardson, H., 8/15/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-15-2026)

[5] Baratta, J., 8/14/26, see above

[6] Cox Richardson, H., 8/13/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-13-2026)

[7] Cox Richardson, H., 8/13/26, see above

[8] Cox Richardson, H., 8/20/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-20-2026)

[9] Cox Richardson, H., 8/20/26, see above

[10] Conley, J., 8/19/26, “Federal judge blocks Trump and RFK effort to get more teens pregnant,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/teen-pregnancy-programs)

PROGRESSIVES ARE WINNING ELECTIONS BY FOCUSING ON AFFORDABILITY, FAIRNESS, AND CORRUPTION

SUMMARY: Strong progressive election results are continuing. Voters are making it clear that their top issues are the unaffordability of daily life, corruption in our politics, fairness in our economy, and strong, effective opposition to the Trump regime.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Strong progressive election results are continuing. My earlier post noted wins by progressives in June and early July elections, and my hope that national Democrats were hearing the voters’ clear message. Many still seem too entrenched with big-money backers to hear the grassroots voices. Voters are signaling that everyday unaffordability, as well as corruption in politics and the economy, are the issues that matter most to them.

In the past two weeks, elections were held in Alabama, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Progressives won repeatedly, including in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race, and even democratic socialists won, although the democratic socialist in Wisconsin’s governor race lost narrowly.

Incumbent House Democrats’ losses to more progressive primary challengers suggest that Democratic voters want representatives who will more aggressively confront the affordability crisis, demand fairness, and take on the Trump regime’s corruption and bad policies on the economy, the war, ICE, the climate crisis, and protections for individual rights and the rule of law. [1]

While attention was focused on Democratic primaries, Republican primaries also produced notable results. Several Trump-endorsed candidates have lost, including Mike Lindell (the MyPillow guy) in Minnesota’s governor’s race, as well as Amir Hassan in Michigan and Andy Ogles in Tennessee in U.S. House races. In South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, Darline Graham was pushed into a runoff despite Trump’s endorsement. [2]

In Missouri, voters strongly rejected two Republican ballot initiatives. One would have eliminated the state income tax and replaced it with a higher sales tax (defeated 83% – 17%), even though supporters outspent opponents by more than two to one (with many proponent groups keeping their donors’ identities secret). This and other election results may indicate that the era of tax cuts as the supposed path to economic growth and jobs may be ending. [3] Missouri voters also rejected (80% – 20%) a GOP-backed effort to make it harder to pass initiative petitions. Both ballot questions passed in all eight Missouri congressional districts. [4]

These candidates and issues are winning, even when being outspent, because voters are no longer being fooled by messaging from a corrupt campaign financing system, including candidates’ disingenuous economic promises (e.g., tax cuts whose benefits will trickle down) that have resulted in economic inequality and the unaffordability of everyday life.

What unites these candidates is a shared focus: improving everyday life and making society fairer. They call out the greed and power of the American oligarchy and their control of the economy and policymaking. They make the case that for our private enterprise system to survive government must put a stop to huge monopolistic companies and dramatic wealth and income inequality. They argue that regulation and fair taxes are needed to curb monopolies and stop price-gouging (including by major food and gas and oil companies). They call for an end to private for-profit control of essential public services, such as healthcare, education, mail delivery, utilities, and transportation. [5]

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Hubbell, R. B., 8/6/26, “The polls were wrong in Michigan – by a mile! Why that matters,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/the-polls-were-wrong-in-michiganby)

[2] Hubbell, R. B., 8/13/26, “Don’t underestimate the ability of Democratic voters to get it right,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/dont-underestimate-the-ability-of)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 8/5/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-5-2026)

[4] Hubbell, R. B., 8/5/26, “The misleading narrative of Democratic disunity,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/the-misleading-narrative-of-democratic)

[5] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-26-2026)

THE TRUMP FAMILY’S SAUDI ARABIAN CONNECTIONS Part 3

The Trump family’s relationships with Saudi Arabia and its ruler involve billions of dollars of investments and real estate deals. These conflicts of interest and apparent corruption are unprecedented. There are many accessories, and there should be many investigations and prosecutions.

SUMMARY: The Trump family’s relationships with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) involve billions of dollars of investments and real estate deals. These conflicts of interest and apparent corruption by a president and his family are unprecedented in American history. The acquiescence and enabling behavior by Republicans in Congress, other officials in the Trump administration, and by the Supreme Court make them accessories. If there were a functioning, independent Department of Justice or Congress, there would be more investigations and prosecutions than one could count.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The third facet of the Trump family’s friendly relationships with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is the one that financially benefits Trump himself, his family, and the Trump organization. Therefore, it presents huge conflicts of interest that may well be the core explanation for Trump’s friendly relationship that has benefited Saudi Arabia and MBS with deals for nuclear, AI, and military infrastructure and capabilities. As noted in my previous posts (here and here), these deals by the Trump administration represent significant changes in U.S. policies and, in many experts’ views, present serious national security risks.

In President Trump’s first term, he appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a senior advisor and Director of the Office of American Innovation. Kushner was involved in various policy initiatives, including peace negotiations with Israel and Arab nations, despite a total lack of public policy, international relations, and diplomacy experience. This role presented conflicts of interest due to his past and current business dealings with Arab leaders and investors. In 2018, it was reported that multiple foreign governments had discussed manipulating Kushner and the Trump administration through Kushner’s financial dealings. MBS bragged to other Arab leaders that he had Kushner in his pocket. [1]

Just as the first Trump presidential term was winding down late in 2020, Kushner founded an investment management firm, Affinity Partners. Kushner had no investment management experience and his sales pitch was described as very amateurish as he worked to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his firm to manage. A key target was the nearly $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. Kushner, in overseeing the Trump administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East, along with his father-in-law, President Trump, had cultivated a relationship with the Saudis and in particular with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS).

The Saudi officials screening investment opportunities recommended not investing with Affinity Partners because of its lack of investment management experience and lack of a clear strategy, among other factors. However, MBS overruled them and invested $2 billion with Kushner’s firm. United Arab Emirates and Qatar invested about $1.5 billion. Along with other mostly foreign investors, Affinity Partners raised over $6 billion. This generated over $100 million in fees for Kushner and his partners based on a fee structure the Saudi analysts had called excessive. [2]

In Trump’s second term starting in 2025, Kushner was again involved in Mideast negotiations as well as negotiations with Russia on Ukraine. (Trump’s and Kushner’s Russian connections are, of course, a whole other story.) In 2025, Kushner privately brokered the $55 billion Saudi purchase of the huge video game company Electronic Arts. (MBS reportedly loves video games and has played them with Kushner.) In 2026, even as the U.S. war on Iran was on-going and Kushner was serving as a negotiator, he was meeting with the Saudis to secure additional billions of dollars for his Affinity Partners investment firm. [3]

In February 2025, the Saudi’s sovereign wealth fund, known as its Public Investment Fund (PIF), sponsored its third annual investment conference in Miami. President Trump was again the headline speaker. Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr., were also present to schmooze with Saudi officials and businessmen. PIF has made billions of dollars of investments in the U.S., including in Kushner’s Affinity Partners, Trump’s golf resorts, and with other former Trump administration officials, such as former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. [4] One commentator noted that you don’t need an army to have power and influence in the world, you just need to have a sovereign wealth fund with a trillion dollars as the Saudis do. By the way, the proposed purchase of CNN and Warner Brothers Discovery by Paramount (which is owned and run by Trump’s friends the Ellisons) is funded by the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar. If the deal goes through, those three countries’ funds would own 49.5% of the new company with the possibility that their share might grow to controlling majority interest. [5]

In January 2026, less than two months after hosting MBS at the White House, Trump announced $7 billion in private real estate development projects by the Trump organization in Saudi Arabia. Previously, in late 2024, shortly after Trump’s election as president, his son, Eric, who is leading the Trump organization, had announced a separate $3 billion real estate project in Saudi Arabia. The Trump organization also has real estate projects in Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). [6]

President Trump’s son Donald, Jr., also has an investment firm. It’s called 1789 Capital and has extensive investments in defense companies. Don Jr. was intimately involved with vetting candidates for Pentagon jobs in 2025. Shortly thereafter, at least four companies 1789 Capital was invested in got Pentagon contracts. Trump sons, Don Jr. and Eric, are also the officers of a shell company that has invested in mining interests, including one that has a $1.6 billion U.S. government contract to obtain tungsten from Kazakhstan. [7]

The billions of dollars in business deals described above present conflicts of interest for and apparent corruption by the President and his family that are unprecedented in American history. These examples are just an overview. There’s much more, such as the Trump family’s crypto businesses.

This post and my previous two posts (here and here) highlight some dramatic government and private actions by Trump, his family members, and his administration that present mind-boggling conflicts of interest. One commentator stated that Jared Kushner is effectively on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Although President Trump and his family are the primary culprits, the acquiescence and enabling behavior of Republicans in Congress and other officials in the Trump administration, as well as of the Supreme Court, make them accessories. If there were a functioning, independent Department of Justice or Congress, there would be more investigations and prosecutions than one could count.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1] Michel, C., July-August 2026, “They went to Jared,” Mother Jones (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/06/jared-kushner-affinity-partners-fund-saudi-arabia-qatar-uae-israel-middle-east-deals-nepotism-iran-war-gaza-peace-deal-diplomat-steve-witkoff-donald-ivanka-trump/)

[2] Michel, C., July-August 2026, see above

[3] Michel, C., July-August 2026, see above

[4] Human Rights Watch, 2/19/25, “Saudi Arabia: Public Investment Fund meeting whitewashes abuses,” (https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/19/saudi-arabia-public-investment-fund-meeting-whitewashes-abuses)

[5] Meyerson, H., 7/21/26, “When the anti-Sharia law demagogues fall silent,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/07/21/anti-sharia-law-republicans-paramount-warner-bros-chip-roy-keith-self-tommy-tuberville/)

[6] Kile, M., 1/13/26, “Trumps announce $7B in new Saudi Arabia projects – including mansions ‘where winners reside’ – after Crown Prince’s White House visit,” People (https://people.com/trump-international-announces-saudi-arabia-projects-weeks-after-crown-prince-white-house-visit-11884610)

[7] Makdisi, N., 7/26/26, “The business of war: Trump’s critical minerals grift,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-minerals-grift)

THE TRUMP FAMILY’S SAUDI ARABIAN CONNECTIONS Part 2

Trump’s friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler is evident in his administration’s sales to them of military equipment and artificial intelligence (AI) technology, and his visits to Saudi Arabia. Trump’s extravagant military spending and sales have been called the “Bloody New Deal.”

SUMMARY: Trump’s (and his family’s) friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is evident in his administration’s huge sales to Saudi Arabia of military equipment and artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Other signs of the close relationship are that the first foreign visits of each Trump presidential term have been to Saudi Arabia and that MBS was given the royal treatment on his visit to the White House. Trump’s extravagant military spending and sales have been called the “Bloody New Deal.”

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

One example of Trump’s friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its leader Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is his administration’s huge sales of military equipment and of artificial intelligence (AI) technology to Saudi Arabia. (See more below.) Another example of the close relationship is Trump’s recent deal to provide nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia described in my previous post. Trump, and his family, have maintained and built this friendly relationship despite Saudi Arabia being an autocratic, Islamic country whose leader, MBS, is widely believed to have ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, and whose members were the planners and most of those who executed the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on the U.S.

Evidence of Trump’s close relationship with the Saudis was made clear in that his first foreign visit of his first term was to Saudi Arabia, not a geographically close ally as is traditional. In May 2017, Trump and Jared Kushner met with Saudi King Salman, then Saudi defense minister MBS, and other Saudi leaders. Trump signed a $110 billion arms deal (growing to $350 billion over ten years) with Saudi Arabia, representing a substantial expansion of the U.S. – Saudi relationship.

Later in 2017, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, went to Saudi Arabi for a private meeting with MBS, who had just become the Crown Prince and was taking control of the Saudi government. From late 2017 through January 2019, MBS undertook a purge and shakedown of the Saudi government, ruling royalty, and wealthy Saudi businessmen under a claim of ending corruption. Roughly 500 people were detained: some were beaten and tortured, at least 17 required hospitalization, and some ended up in prison. Assets of up to $800 billion were surrendered or seized. Trump indicated his support for MBS and lack of concern about the purge, shakedown, and their victims. (On June 30, 2026, PBS’s Frontline program aired a 90-minute report, The Crown Prince and the President, which documents many examples of the Trump family’s close relationship with MBS. It’s available on multiple streaming services.)

In 2019, President Trump vetoed multiple efforts to block U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia for its war on Yemen and the Houthis, despite strong evidence of significant civilian casualties.

In May 2025, President Trump’s first major international trip of his second term was to Saudi Arabia. The four-day visit focused primarily on securing business deals and investments. He met with Crown Prince MBS and King Salman and participated in a Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum.

In November 2025, MBS visited the White House, receiving the lavish treatment usually reserved for a head of state. (Note: MBS is the Crown Prince not the King, although he is effectively ruling Saudi Arabia. This was his first visit to the U.S. since the murder of Khashoggi in 2018.) The Trump administration approved the sale of an estimated $1 billion worth of advance artificial intelligence (AI) chips – up to 35,000 of them – to Saudi Arabia. This was a major reversal of U.S. policy which had previously restricted export sales of these chips to protect U.S. technology and national security. In particular, there is concern that this AI technology would be obtained by China due to Saudi Arabia’s existing economic and technological cooperation with China. Saudi Arabia’s state-backed AI company has signed contracts with nearly a dozen U.S. firms for AI technology and data centers in Saudi Arabia. [1] During this visit, MBS announced that Saudi Arabia would be investing up to $1 trillion in U.S. investment firms and infrastructure projects.

In March 2026, the Trump administration approved a $142 billion sale of military equipment and support to Saudi Arabia. This included 48 of the U.S.’s most advanced stealth fighter jets, the F-35. This represents a significant shift in U.S. arms export policy as only Israel had previously been able to obtain these fighter jets. This has raised national security concerns due to the sensitive technology in these jets, in particular because of Saudi Arabia’s connections with China. [2]

In July 2026, the Trump administration approved $2 billion in sales of Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems to Saudi Arabia, including 20,000 missiles.

Saudi Arabia is the largest purchaser of U.S. military equipment and second only to Israel in the technology and sophistication of the weapons systems it buys. The sale of these advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly making Israel uncomfortable.

The hundreds of billions of dollars in military sales to the Saudis, the tens of billions of dollars in ordnance being used in the Iran War, and Trump’s request for a $1.5 trillion defense budget and an $80 billion supplemental appropriation for the Iran War are making the defense industry very happy. This unprecedented funding of the military-industrial complex has been called the “Bloody New Deal.” [3]

My next post will review the real estate and financial deals between Trump family members and Saudi Arabia.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1] Graham, E., 11/20/25, “U.S. greenlights AI chip exports to Gulf tech giants after Saudi Crown Prince’s Wahington visit,” CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/20/us-approves-ai-chip-exports-to-gulf-after-saudi-crown-prince-visit.html)

[2] Kumar, A., 3/30/26, “U.S. approves F-35 stealth fighter jet sale to Saudi Arabia under strategic defense deal,” The Defense News (https://www.thedefensenews.com/US-Approves-F-35-Stealth-Fighter-Jet-Sale-to-Saudi-Arabia-Under-Strategic-Defense-Deal/)

[3] Manning, S., 3/23/26, “Trump’s proposed military spending would be a ‘Bloody New Deal’,” Union of Concerned Scientists (https://blog.ucs.org/sean-manning/trumps-proposed-military-spending-would-be-a-bloody-new-deal/)

THE TRUMP FAMILY’S SAUDI ARABIAN CONNECTIONS Part 1

SUMMARY: The Trump administration’s recent deal to support Saudi Arabia’s development of a nuclear energy program represents a major shift in U.S. policy and risks accelerating the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and globally. It is in stark contrast with Trump’s position on neighboring Iran’s nuclear energy program. It has again put a spotlight on the Trump family’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). This friendly relationship highlights the hypocrisy of Trump’s and other Republicans anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The Trump administration’s recent deal to support Saudi Arabia’s development of a nuclear energy program has again put a spotlight on the Trump family’s friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). President Trump, son Eric, and son-in-law Jared Kushner have conflicts of interest, present national security risks, and face ethical dilemmas in their relationship with MBS and Saudi Arabia.

It’s important to give this relationship some context. Saudi Arabia is an autocratic, Islamic country that uses Sharia law for parts of its society and places severe restrictions on women. MBS is also widely believed to have ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist. Saudi Arabians were the planners and most of those who executed the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on the U.S.

Trump’s friendly relationship with MBS and Saudi Arabia highlight the hypocrisy of his anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies. The silence of other Republicans in the face of this nuclear technology deal, sales of military hardware, and other dealings with Saudi Arabia highlight their hypocrisy in their vilification of Muslims and vocal opposition to supposed efforts to implement Sharia law in the U.S.

This most recent example of the cozy relationship between Trump and MBS is an unprecedented, 30-year agreement to support Saudi Arabia’s development of nuclear energy and related technology. The deal gives a monopoly worth billions of dollars to U.S. companies, benefiting Westinghouse in particular (which was bailed out by Trump after it filed for bankruptcy in 2017). Notably, the deal does NOT include monitoring and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that nuclear fuel isn’t enriched into weapons grade material, despite MBS’s statement that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will too. The agreement must be approved by Congress, although a veto-proof two-thirds majority in both the House and Seante would be required to reject it, which is unlikely.

The deal’s transfer of nuclear technology presents a clear risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and a stark contrast with Trump’s position on neighboring Iran’s nuclear energy program, which Trump has gone to war to destroy. Saudi Arabia and Iran are long time Middle East rivals, and this deal will strengthen Iran’s claim that it should have nuclear technology. The agreement, whose text has not been made publicly available, is being described differently by different parties (which is not unusual with Trump’s deals) and may allow Saudi Arabia to build and operate its own uranium enrichment facilities. Such facilities, which Iran has, can enrich nuclear power fuel to make weapons grade nuclear material. [1] Note: A day after the Saudi Arabia nuclear deal was signed, President Trump apparently added a new condition: that Saudi Arabia normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia has clearly stated in the past that it would not do so without a path to a Palestinian state, something Israel has rejected. [2]

Providing nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia is a major shift in U.S. policy, a reversal of 50 years of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts, and risks accelerating the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and globally. Other U.S. allies are likely to ask for similar arrangements, in particular the ability to enrich nuclear fuel on-site, which the U.S. has prohibited for decades. It also opens the door for China and Russia to share nuclear technology with their allies because the U.S. has done so. [3]

Back in 2016, Trump’s campaign rhetoric included support for building nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia. At that time, son-in-law Kushner and others formed a company to engage in such a project. During Trump’s first term as president, White House ethics and national security officials warned that selling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia might violate the Atomic Energy Act and that it presented national security risks. [4]

My next posts will review U.S. sales of military equipment and artificial intelligence (AI) technology to Saudi Arabia. They will also describe the real estate and financial deals between Trump family members and Saudi Arabia.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1] Hjelmgaard, K., 7/23/26, “Saudi Arabia gets nuclear deal. Iran gets bombed. What’s in the pact?” USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/07/23/us-saudi-nuclear-deal-iran-raises-regional-arms-race-fears/91020032007/)

[2] Sanger, D. E., & Demirjian, K., 7/24/26, “Trump makes Saudi-Israel ties a must for nuclear deal,” The Boston Globe from the New York Times

[3] Schwartz, F., Wu, J., & Ewing, G. R., 7/22/26, “Trump’s Saudi nuclear deal risks igniting a Middle East arms races, lawmakers warn,” Politico (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/22/saudi-nuclear-pact-fears-regional-enrichment-01009142)

[4] Cox Richardson, H., 7/22/26, Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-22-2026))

Is Trump the Real Communist in American Politics?

SUMMARY: Trump is the only politician calling for and taking government control of private companies and resources. At his direction, the government has taken stakes in at least nine companies. On the other hand, democratic socialists in the U.S. today are in the mainstream of our history, not outliers, let alone communists.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Despite Trump and the Republicans calling Democrats communists, – especially the progressive ones and the ones who identify as democratic socialists – Trump is the actual communist. Really. [1] Let’s review definitions of socialism and communism, and then look at Trump’s actions.

Democratic socialism was eloquently defined by Senator Bernie Sanders in the fall of 2015 when he was running for president. You can watch and listen to his two-minute definition here. (My post about Sanders’ speech with more detail is here.)

His definition builds on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (FDR) proposed economic bill of rights and notes that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security. Democratic socialism includes:

Decent jobs at decent pay with time off and the ability to retire with dignity;
The ability to have adequate food, clothing, health care, and housing;
A right to a good education; and
The opportunity for small businesses, including farmers, to operate without domination by large corporations.

Sanders noted that Martin Luther King, in 1968, echoed FDR’s call for economic rights and stated that the US provides “socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.” By the way, while “socialism” may be a politically negative label to older Americans, 67% of young Americans have a positive or neutral association with the word “socialism” compared to 40% who are positive or neutral about “capitalism.”

Historian Heather Cox Richardson states that the democratic socialists in the U.S. today are in the mainstream of our history. Their policy proposals echo the 1860s, when the Republicans established public colleges; the 1900s, when Theodore Roosevelt called for public health insurance; the 1930s with FDR’s New Deal and proposed economic bill of rights; Eisenhower Republicans of the 1950s; and Republican President Nixon in the late 1960s and 1970s. (See my previous post for more details.)

Cox Richardson notes that today’s American democratic socialists are not communists or even hardcore socialists. [2] Communists and some hardcore socialists advocate for eliminating all private property. Today’s American democratic socialists call for a robust system of private ownership and enterprise, alongside government control of essential societal functions required for people to survive and for the economy to work for the good of everyone. (See my previous post for more details.)

Communism calls for government or communal ownership of all resources as well as all means of production, meaning the state, rather than private individuals or corporations, owns factories, farms, mines, etc. None of the Democratic or Democratic Socialist candidates is proposing anything akin to this.

The only politician calling for state takeover of private industries and resources is Trump. At his direction, the government has taken stakes in at least nine companies at a cost of at least $10 billion in taxpayer money. These companies are in the steel, minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductor industries. [3] Trump claims he’s done this for national security reasons, but increasing his power, control, wealth, and influence seem to be the real reasons. Notably, the arrangements his regime has made leave power and control, as well as money, in his hands, not under the control of some group or entity that is committed to the public good. Trump has used tariffs (and exemptions from them), regulatory actions (e.g., approval or denial of mergers and acquisitions), and trumped-up lawsuits (no pun intended) to coerce business leaders into complying with his requests for control of their businesses.

For example, in August 2025, the Trump administration converted $9 billion in federal grants to Intel into a 10% ownership share in the company. The grants were made under President Biden’s 2022 CHIPS and Science Act to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research. The U.S. government is now Intel’s biggest shareholder. Intel had been struggling financially and this, along with other actions by Trump requiring other companies to buy Intel products or invest in it, bailed Intel out. (Imagine what Trump and Republicans would have said if the Obama administration had converted its bailouts of Wall Street and automakers in the 2008 Great Recession into government ownership of those companies!)

Apple got an exemption from Trump’s 100% tariffs on semiconductor imports (essential to iPhones and many other Apple products) by promising to buy Intel chips and collaborate with it.

Nvidia got Trump’s approval to sell its artificial intelligence (AI) chips to China (which he had said and others believe is a national security risk). Nvidia agreed to give 25% of the profits from Nvidia’s China sales to the government and to invest $5 billion in Intel.

The U.S. government has also become the largest shareholder in MP Materials, the only rare earth mining company in the country, after a $400 million investment of taxpayers’ money.

When the Japanese company, Nippon Steel, acquired U.S. Steel in 2025, Trump conditioned government approval on his receiving a “golden share” in U.S. Steel. This golden share allows him to veto key business decisions including decisions on changing U.S. Steel’s name, moving its headquarters out of Pittsburgh, or closing production facilities. [4]

These actions are not capitalism. Establishing government control over private companies is nationalized socialism or communism. Nothing at all close to this has happened in U.S. history except during the true national emergency of World War II. This is oligarchic communism in that it’s making Trump and wealthy executives and investors in these companies even richer. And it’s concentrating ever more power over a broader range of the U.S. economy and society in Trump’s hands. That’s authoritarianism.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1] Sonnenfeld, J.A., Pepper, J., Mulcahy, A., George, B., and Tyson, L.D., 8/21/25, “MAGA’s march toward a command economy,” Yale Insights (https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/magas-march-toward-command-economy)

[2] Cox Richardson, H., 7/5/26, Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-5-2026)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-26-2026)

[4] Kimball, S., 11/24/25, “Trump appoints two Commerce officials to oversee U.S. Steel under ‘golden share’ agreement,” CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/24/trump-us-steel-nippon-golden-share.html)

ARE THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATS LISTENING?

SUMMARY: I hope the national Democrats are listening. The grassroots are yelling and voting based on the unaffordability of daily life and the corruption in our politics and economy. In recent elections across the country, progressive, grassroots candidates are beating incumbents and winning even in conservative, Republican districts. Many of these candidates are young, female, multicultural, and/or new to politics.

(Personal note: I didn’t post the last two weeks because of the combination of a scramble to get signatures to put a question on the November ballot and a ten-day visit by an out-of-town grandson.)

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

I hope the national Democrats are listening. The people and the voters are sending a loud, clear message. I worry that many of the Democrats in Washington are too entrenched with the oligarchs who spend big money to support their campaigns to hear the grassroots voices. The grassroots are yelling and voting based on the unaffordability of daily life and the corruption in our politics and economy.

In recent elections across the country, from Maine to Florida, from New York to Ohio to Colorado and Montana, from Arizona to California to Washington State, progressive, grassroots candidates are winning. They are beating incumbents and winning even in conservative, Republican districts. [1]

These candidates are winning by calling out monopolistic, corporate America, by attacking the political corruption of big money, and by addressing the everyday problems of ordinary Americans. [2] They are advocating for:

Guaranteeing health care for everyone
Making housing and child care more affordable
Increasing the minimum wage and easing the path to union membership
Reforming the corrupt campaign finance system
Requiring that wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share in taxes
Addressing climate change
Ensuring AI benefits all of us and not just the oligarchs
Ending wars and bloated military spending

The majority of the American people support these policies in poll after poll – and now in election after election. The public is sick and tired of status quo politics and corrupt campaign finance and economic systems that benefit only the rich and powerful.

Many of these winning candidates are young, female, multicultural, and/or new to politics. Some of them are Democrats and some are Democratic Socialists – not that many voters know what that means or care. What unites these candidates is that they are committed to making people’s everyday lives better and our society fairer. They are calling out the greed of the American oligarchy and their control of our economy and policy making. They make the case that our private enterprise system cannot survive unless the government ends huge monopolistic companies and dramatic wealth and income inequality through regulation and taxation. They call for an end to monopolistic price gouging like that of the food and gas and oil companies. They oppose private for-profit ownership of societal functions that people need to survive and that should serve the public good, such as health care, education, mail delivery, utilities, detention facilities, and roads, bridges, and public transportation. [3]

Ironically, Republicans supported many of these policies from the 1950s through the 1970s – ones they are now calling dangerous socialism or communism (without knowing or caring what those terms really mean). (More on the meaning of these terms in a future post.)

In 1969, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which would have provided a universal basic income to all families, effectively ending poverty. But it didn’t get enacted. In 1971, Congress passed legislation creating a universal, federally subsidized child care system that President Nixon was about to sign until pressured by right-wing political forces to veto it. In 1974, Nixon proposed universal health care with cost controls and financial assistance for those who couldn’t afford insurance. This also didn’t get enacted.

Back in the 1950s, Republicans and President Eisenhower supported workers, unions, and increasing the minimum wage; the expansion of social security and unemployment insurance; as well as improved housing and health care. The Republican Party platform called for equal pay for equal work and the elimination of discrimination in employment. [4]

It’s amazing to review how American politics and policies have changed over the last 75 years. What were centrist policies, supported by Republicans, in the 1950s through 1970s, are now called far left, socialist (or even communist) policies.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here, here, and here.

[1] Sanders, B., 7/1/26. “Last night in Colorado,” (https://www.facebook.com/reel/1517611133169096)

[2] Reich, R., 7/6/26, “Why is he using the communist trump card,” Blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/trumps-communist-trump-card)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, “Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-26-2026)

[4] Cox Richardson, H., 6/26/26, see above

AI NEEDS STRONG REGULATION

SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence (AI) needs strong regulation because its effects are far-reaching and powerful. U.S. Representative Khanna states that a robust federal agency is needed to regulate AI and has put forth seven principles for a new social compact to address the issues of AI and inequality.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

My previous post provided an overview of the need for strong regulation of Big Tech companies and focused on artificial intelligence (AI). It also shared an innovative proposal from U.S. Senator Sanders to regulate the AI industry through public ownership of 50% of the big AI companies. This post will go into more depth on the need to regulate AI and principles for ensuring that AI produces public benefits rather than solely private wealth.

AI needs strong regulation because its effects are far-reaching and powerful. AI is having dramatic impacts on the news we get, the entertainment we enjoy, and the social media we consume. It’s affecting our jobs, sometimes to the point of getting laid off and replaced by AI. It’s having negative effects on education and mental health. Its data centers are affecting local communities and increasing costs for electricity and water, as well as having serious negative environmental impacts. The paper-wealth AI is generating is skewing our society and politics, while also creating a financial bubble that could burst with serious negative effects on financial markets and our economy. Some of AI’s worst aspects may be in its use by the military and its ability to generate pornographic images.

A key ingredient of AI’s implementation has been the combination of huge databases (including our personal information) and massive computing power. In many cases, it isn’t the algorithms and their “intelligence” that are new, but simply AI’s use of them with huge databases and computing power. In many ways, this is a brute force approach that is reflected in the industry’s need for huge data centers using massive amounts of electrical power to operate and of water for cooling.

The result is an amazing ability to manipulate us, for example, our shopping and our addiction to social media. It also gives the AI and related companies or governments, incredible power to surveil us – to know where we are and what we’re doing. Make no mistake, we and our data are the product, and we are very much for sale.

If AI were being implemented with the best of intentions, as a beneficial innovation, the amount of misinformation would be declining and not growing; faked images, text, and speech would be detected and not disseminated; and inflammatory rhetoric and hateful content would be identified and blocked. AI certainly has the capability to do these things if they were the goals of its creators and implementers. However, the industry’s goals are clearly to maximize profits and wealth. Many experts who are deeply involved with and knowledgeable about AI are sounding warnings about possible catastrophic results. [1]

To counter the growing public unease with AI, the AI companies and their incredibly wealthy founders and investors are spending tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars on election campaigns and lobbying. As a result, there often is support for the industry among policymakers. The Trump regime is promoting the U.S.’s AI world leadership as a national security priority. Trump issued an executive order directing his Attorney General to sue states that try to regulate AI. His key policy makers for AI have substantial conflicts of interest through investments in AI companies. [2] There have been significant government investments in AI for its initial development and its deployment. There are government subsidies at the federal, state, and local levels for the construction of AI’s data centers, for the chips needed for AI computing, and even for the exports of AI companies. There’s a $1 billion federal government loan for the restarting of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant to provide electricity for a data center. This is oligarchic crony capitalism at work.

U.S. Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) states that a robust federal agency is needed to regulate AI and has put forth seven principles for a new social compact to address the issues of AI and inequality, which AI will exacerbate if not well regulated. Here are his principles: [3]

Ensure AI augments human capabilities and doesn’t just eliminate jobs.
Require that workers benefit from AI-driven productivity gains through higher wages, profit sharing, and a shorter work week. Americans should also get paid for the data they generate that AI uses.
Fix our tax system that currently subsidizes robots with accelerated depreciation and disadvantages human workers via payroll taxes.
Provide AI-displaced workers jobs in public service, as FDR did during the Great Depression.
Require data centers to serve the communities that host them, from supporting schools and libraries, to supporting local businesses, to avoiding increases in electricity and water costs, as well as negative environmental impacts.
Require social media platforms to stop AI algorithms from spreading hate and other harmful content. Require them to support interoperability so users are not trapped by monopolistic control but can switch and connect across platforms.
Regulate AI with a robust federal agency so it’s used to enhance humanity and not harm it.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Khanna, R., 4/8/26, “AI for the people,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/society/ro-khanna-ai-democracy-blueprint/)

[2] Glickman, S., Kak, A., & Myers West, S., 4/8/26, “The great AI grift,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/ai-crony-capitalism-grift/)

[3] Khanna, R., 4/8/26, see above

BIG TECH NEEDS STRONG REGULATION

SUMMARY: The Big Tech companies need strong regulation because of their potential for great benefits but also great harm. This is especially true for the artificial intelligence (AI) industry. An innovative approach to regulation of AI is to have the federal government seize 50% of AI companies’ stock with the shares put in a sovereign wealth fund to benefit all Americans.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The Big Tech companies need strong regulation. There are various definitions of Big Tech, but I include all the technology companies that have a significant influence on people’s daily lives – on the information they get, the ads they see, the virtual interactions they have, the online shopping they do, and the entertainment they enjoy. This includes the big social media platforms, online services providers (including app stores and search engines), and artificial intelligence (AI) companies. All of them have a degree of monopolistic control in their markets through a combination of high market share and features that make it difficult for their customers to switch to a different company.

This post focuses on the big AI companies, which are:

Meta: owner of Llama AI (as well as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp)
Alphabet: owner of Gemini AI (as well as YouTube and Google)
Microsoft: owner of Copilot AI (as well as LinkedIn and a dominant seller of computer software and services)
OpenAI owner of ChatGPT (OpenAI is 27% owned by Microsoft)
Anthropic AI owner of Claude
xAI owner of Grok (xAI is part of SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk along with X, formerly Twitter)

AI presents the possibility of great benefits to society but also the potential for great harm. It has also made a small number of individuals and their companies extremely wealthy. Previous posts (here and here) have discussed how such highly concentrated wealth is a threat to democracy, if not actually incompatible with it.

Strong federal regulation of AI is essential because AI presents serious threats to individuals’ well-being, national security, and jobs. It is changing how people get, process, and use information and misinformation. Its use in military applications is dangerous and potentially catastrophic. The bubble that AI is creating in our financial markets could well lead to a major economic crash if it bursts in dramatic fashion. AI’s chatbots are harming children and adults. Education is being transformed at all levels. Making sure AI-related changes are beneficial for students presents challenges. AI-generated sex abuse and pornographic images may well be the worst of what AI has delivered to-date. [1]

AI’s intelligence is built on the accumulation of human knowledge, products, and experiences, including publications, music, and art that is fed to it to train it. Typically, the authors and creators of this material have not been asked for permission to use their products nor were they compensated. And they are typically not compensated nor even acknowledged when AI shares the information and art they have produced through hard work, time, effort, and cost. This is plagiarism.

Regulation should require that creators of material used to train and inform AI, and then shared by it, should be compensated both when their material is fed in and when it is shared as part of outputs. Furthermore, creators should be acknowledged when their material is shared, just as sources must be cited in academic publications, books’ footnotes, adaptations of music, use of people’s voices, publications of photographs, and other situations.

Regulations should ban and establish liability for spreading misinformation, harmful content, and altered or faked images, speech, or writing. Regulations should require companies to disclose data about their AI models: how they are trained, how they are tested, how they are used, and the effects they have, such as discriminatory hiring decisions and harms to mental health.

Regulation has been slow in coming especially given the exploding reach and impact of AI. Although strong national regulations and standards are needed – and would make sense in creating one set of regulations and standards for companies to comply with – Congress is largely gridlocked and the Trump regime is sympathetic to and supportive of the AI oligarchs and their companies. [2]

Some states have and are attempting to regulate AI. However, it is a new and multi-headed monster that moves and shape-shifts quickly, making it hard to regulate effectively. Therefore, these states’ efforts are sorely needed and should be encouraged and supported. Given the federal government’s gridlock, the last thing Congress should do is preempt state regulation, as current federal legislation proposes. The federal government should set a minimum floor for regulations and standards, and welcome states raising the bar higher to protect their residents. [3]

An innovative approach to federal regulation of AI is being proposed by Senator Sanders (I-VT): have the federal government seize 50% of AI companies’ stock. This would give the federal government power through its ownership share and resultant representation on the companies’ Boards of Directors. The government could block decisions and practices that harm Americans and America, while pushing for actions that would be beneficial. This would give the public, through our government, a say in determining the development and use of AI in the future.

The government’s shares of the AI companies would be put in a sovereign wealth fund that would benefit the American people. Alaska created such a fund from its oil extraction revenue that pays an annual dividend to all Alaskans. Norway created a similar fund from oil drilling off its coast. Middle Eastern countries have sovereign wealth funds based on their fossil fuel wealth. [4]

As Senator Sanders points out, AI tools were built using the collective knowledge and products of human intelligence, therefore, their use should benefit all of humanity. He notes that the idea of public ownership of AI is not his original idea. It has been proposed by independent scholars and even some in the AI industry. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has spoken in support of a public wealth fund based on ownership in AI companies to give the public a stake in AI-driven economic growth. Anthropic’s CEO Amodei similarly proposed a sovereign wealth fund with investments in AI companies. Sanders proposes that the proceeds from the wealth fund could provide direct payments to the American people (as Alaska’s does) and could support the federal government’s safety net, providing a decent and dignified standard of living for everyone. [5]

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Trahan, L., 6/12/26, “Why Congress must lead on AI standards,” The Boston Globe

[2] Levy, M., 6/15/26, “Trump tried to block AI rules; states forge ahead,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[3] Carson, B., 6/12/26, “Congress shouldn’t freeze state AI safeguards.” The Boston Globe

[4] Fayyad, A., 6/14/26, “Should the government own AI companies?” The Boston Globe

[5] Sanders, B., 6/1/26, “The public should own half of the big A.I. companies,” (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/op-eds/the-public-should-own-half-of-the-big-a-i-companies/ ) an Op Ed in the New York Times

THE COLD CIVIL WAR AMONG THE STATES Part 3

SUMMARY: Democratic states need to push back more effectively against Republican states’ efforts to impose their right-wing policies on the whole country. Democratic states need to use their policies and economic leverage to improve the well-being of their states’ and the country’s people. This will make a distinction for voters that will persuade some voters and non-voters to vote for Democrats.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

As my previous post described, Republican (“red”) states are aggressively using the courts and vigilantism in efforts to impose their policies on Democratic (“blue”) states. In thispolicy-driven cold civil war among the states, red states are using right-wing judges, condoning violence against political enemies, and protecting vigilantes from punishment to inflict their policies on blue states and municipalities. [1]

Blue states need to exercise their powers more fully and effectively, and to coordinate their actions. Blue states can push back by using their economic leverage, as well as their own policymaking and lawsuits.

The seventeen solidly blue states, where Democrats control the legislature and hold the Governor’s office, are 47% of the U.S. economy. There are 23 solidly red states, but they are only 37% of the country’s economy. One key source of economic leverage is the investment of pension fund assets; these seventeen blue states have about twice as much money in their pension funds as the 23 red states. [2] (This previous post described how Texas has used its pension fund assets to leverage its policy goals.)

In direct opposition to what Texas has done, blue states could explicitly permit or even require companies that their pension funds invest in to support environmental, social, and good governance (ESG) goals. They could require companies to be worker, union, and tenant friendly. They could avoid companies in the fossil fuel industry and favor companies involved with clean energy. They could make investments in housing and particularly affordable housing, as well as other public infrastructure and public goods. Blue state pension funds could even require companies they invest in that operate in red states to conform to blue state standards. [3]

Blue states could purchase medicines such as insulin and abortion drugs in bulk and make them available at low prices to residents and even non-residents who travel to blue states. Blue states could actively recruit teachers, health care workers, and others from red states by highlighting better pay, better working conditions, and a better life in general, including respect for LGBTQ+ and transgender individuals, support for ethnic and religious minorities, comprehensive reproductive health care, less gun violence, etc. Stronger safety nets and policies to address affordability challenges could and do present a better quality of life in blue states.

Blue states could and should create regional alliances on climate action, reproductive freedom, housing, education and training programs, and support for immigrants.

The goals of these strategies are not only to improve the well-being of the state’s and the country’s people, but also to make a distinction for voters of what Democratic policies do versus Republican policies. Hopefully, this would convince some voters and non-voters of the importance of voting for Democratic candidates. Furthermore, these blue state policies, by making it more desirable to live in blue states than red states, could attract people and businesses to locate in blue states, building vibrant economies that provide greater opportunity.

I encourage you to keep an eye out for opportunities in your state to promote policies that improve people’s well-being and to oppose right-wing policies that do harm. Contact your state elected officials, from your Governor to your local state representative, and encourage them to enact policies that improve the quality of life of residents of your state as well as for those of the country as a whole. Also, if your state or municipality is blue, urge your local officials to actively resist and push back on red state efforts to impose right-wing policies on you.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2] Gerney, A., & Knight, S., 10/18/24, “Playing hardball,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/18/2024-10-18-playing-hardball/)

[3] Kuttner, R., 10/17/24, “Leveraging the money power,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/17/2024-10-17-leveraging-money-power/)

THE COLD CIVIL WAR AMONG THE STATES Part 2

Some Republican states and right-wing activists are using the courts and vigilantism in efforts to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states.

SUMMARY: Some Republican states and right-wing activists are using the courts and vigilantism in efforts to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

As my previous post described, Republican (“red”) states are aggressively striving to enact extreme right-wing policies and trying to impose these policies on Democratic (“blue”) states. The result is a policy-driven cold civil war among the states. [1] The policy battles include access to abortion, gun laws, school vouchers, support for the fossil fuel industries, voting, treatment of immigrants, and support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and businesses’ environmental, social, and good governance (ESG) initiatives.

Right-wing and red states’ tactics include use of the courts and vigilantism.

For decades, the Republicans and their right-wing supporters have actively worked to transform the federal court system by getting right-wing judges appointed. Nowhere is their success more evident than at the Supreme Court where the six radical, reactionary, right-wing justices are ignoring the Constitution, as well as precedent in content and procedure. They consistently make political and ideological rulings, not rulings based on the law as the rule of law, as well as precedent and tradition, would dictate. Although judge shopping (i.e., steering a case to a judge or court that appears to lean in favor of the plaintiffs), is not a new practice, the right-wing activists have taken it to a new level – taking full advantage of the right-wing judges that have been appointed. Hedge funds and private equity firms, among other companies, have set up offices in Texas specifically to be able to take advantage of the supportive judges there.

Republican states have made it a practice to file court challenges to federal laws and regulations their political leaders object to in order to block their implementation nationwide. Texas alone filed 29 suits against Biden administration policies. Coalitions of red states have challenged policies discharging student debt, helping citizens register to vote, and requiring investment advisors to act in the best interest of their clients (rather than in their own self-interest).

Most dramatically, the Amarillo division (one of five locations) of the Northern District of Texas federal district court has only one judge, the notoriously right-wing ideological and political judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Many major cases with national implications have been filed in this court because the plaintiffs know that Kacsmaryk will be the judge. He has unfailingly ruled in favor of Republican positions and right-wing policies. He has allowed right-wing lawsuits to go forward that many lawyers consider meritless. For example, in 2023, he presided over a lawsuit regarding the abortion drug mifepristone and issued a preliminary ruling suspending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s approval of the drug and its use nationwide. This was the first time a court had invalidated the approval of a drug without the FDA’s concurrence. [2]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the federal district courts in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It is also known for its right-wing leanings. Consequently, 63% of all U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawsuits challenging federal regulations have been filed in the Fifth Circuit, even though the Chamber of Commerce has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The court has ruled for the plaintiffs and against the government in 22 of 26 cases in the three-month window studied.

Vigilantism historically meant taking the law into one’s own hands and punishing someone for breaking a law even though one does not have the right or official power to do so. More broadly, and in the current context, it includes threats or use of force to enforce one’s own perception of social norms, one’s rights, and what is “right” or “fair” regardless of whether it is the law or not.

Right-wing politicians, now including the President, condone violence against political enemies and protect vigilantes from being punished for threats or violence against political enemies. The January 6 attack on the Capitol was vigilantism attempting to overthrow election results that were perceived to be “wrong.” National right-wing election-result-denying and voter suppression groups encourage vigilantes to patrol ballot drop boxes and polling places. Elected officials have been hounded out of their jobs by vigilantism, including Republican election administrators for example. Government officials have been effectively acting as vigilantes or encouraging vigilantism in their efforts to force states and communities to adhere to Trump regime values and policies. [3]

So-called stand your ground laws allow vigilantes to use violence to attack and kill people they perceive as a threat. Texas created abortion vigilantism by empowering anyone to sue and collect a bounty for reporting someone aiding or abetting an abortion. The threats, intimidation, and attacks on LGBTQ+ and transgender individuals, sometimes forcing them out of public institutions and public life, is vigilantism.

States, local communities, and others need to provide protection and support to targets of vigilantism. Law enforcement and in particular states’ Attorneys General need to establish units specifically to monitor and respond to vigilantism. States and local communities need to enact laws prohibiting the sharing of information or providing of assistance to out-of-state vigilantes, both individuals and other state governments.

My next post will present more strategies for blue states and cities to use in resisting and pushing back against the right-wing policies of Republicans.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2] Ali Kanu, H., 10/15/24, “America’s judicial divisions,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/15/2024-10-15-americas-judicial-divisions/)

[3] Michaels, J. D., & Noll, D. L., 10/10/24, “The political violence spilling out of red states,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/10/2024-10-10-political-violence-spilling-out-of-red-states/)

THE COLD CIVIL WAR AMONG THE STATES

Some Republican states, with Texas in the lead, are trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. The federal government is fanning the flames of this divisive extremism. Abortion, gun laws, public school funding, and even private companies’ behaviors are targets.

SUMMARY: Some Republican states, with Texas leading the way, are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. The federal government is currently fanning the flames of this divisive extremism. Abortion, gun laws, public school funding, and even private companies’ behaviors are targets of these efforts.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

As my previous post documented, states’ policies have very significant effects on people’s well-being, including health and health care, safety from gun violence, economic well-being, civil rights, and even their longevity. It also documented the very significant differences in policies and outcomes between Democratic-controlled (“blue”) states and Republican (“red”) states.

As politics and policies have become more polarized between Republicans and Democrats, these state-level differences are becoming more dramatic. This trend has been exacerbated over the last 45 years because the federal government has abandoned its role of working to provide a consistent national economic safety net and to reduce economic disparities among states.

As partisanship has grown, right-wing policy extremism has become a goal of red states in and of itself. The federal government is currently fanning the flames of this extremism. Furthermore, red states are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. This has created a cold civil war among the states. [1]

Red states, with Texas leading the way, are enacting aggressive and extreme right-wing policies and actively encouraging other states and communities to follow their lead. There’s even a competition of sorts among red states to enact the most aggressive and extreme right-wing policies. [2]

Texas and other red states are even trying to impose these policies on Democratic governments and private individuals beyond their borders. Abortion has been one focal point of these efforts. Texas and other red state haven’t been satisfied with banning abortions in their states; they have attempted to criminalize travel to other states to obtain an abortion and to ban the provision of abortion drugs across state lines. Texas has deputized its citizens by allowing them to sue anyone who aids or abets an abortion. Alabama has threatened felony charges against health care providers assisting patients with obtaining an out-of-state abortion. [3]

Gun laws have been another focus. Red states and red communities within blue states have asserted themselves to be “Second Amendment sanctuaries” where federal gun laws don’t apply. When their residents travel to other states, they have tried to make other states honor their laws that allow individuals to carry guns in public.

Red states have been expanding the funding for school vouchers, which allow parents to use public funding to pay tuition for a child attending a private school, including a religious school. They, and right-wing activists, have been pressuring the federal government to divert its education funding, including its funding for schools serving large populations of children from low-income families, to provide vouchers to parents to use for tuition at any school of their choice. [4]

Texas has used its economic leverage to coerce private companies. Its leverage comes from investing almost $400 billion held in various state-controlled pension funds and tens of billions more in various investment funds. It has pressured companies not to embrace policies or investment strategies supporting environmental, social, or good governance (ESG) goals. It has barred state investment in companies that encourage alternatives to oil and gas production and use.

The Texas Attorney General has sued other states to overturn their election results. He has sued hospitals in other states for allegedly providing telehealth services to transgender Texans.

Texas has also usurped some powers of the federal government. For example, it has evicted the federal border patrol from parts of the Mexico border and taken over border enforcement itself. It has invited other states to send law enforcement personnel and national guard troops to help it patrol the border. It, along with Florida, has shipped immigrants to blue states and cities, as much for political showmanship as anything else.

My next post will discuss how red states are using vigilantism and violence in the effort to spread their policies. It will also discuss the role of the judicial system and how blue states and cities can resist and push back.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2] Hooks, C., 10/8/24, “Texas will mess with you,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/08/2024-10-08-texas-will-mess-with-you/)

[3] Janssen, E., 10/9/24, “Red-state abortion tactics push into deep-blue Illinois,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/09/2024-10-09-red-state-abortion-tactics-deep-blue-illinois/)

[4] Berkshire, J. C., 10/11/24, “Breaking the public schools,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/11/2024-10-11-breaking-public-schools/)

YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE

SUMMARY: State policies and programs make a real difference in people’s lives and even in their longevity. They’re more important than ever given the dysfunction of our federal government. There are stark differences between the policies and programs of Republican-controlled states and Democratic ones that affect access to healthcare, workers’ incomes, and overall well-being.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

States’ policies have very significant effects on people’s health, safety, financial security, and even their longevity. With our federal government so dysfunctional right now, there’s a lot of very valuable work that can and is being done at the state and local levels including:

Blocking the impact of big money in elections by enacting campaign financing systems that match small donations with public funds (see this previous post for more details), and
Tackling the affordability crisis by reducing wage theft, increasing the minimum wage, supporting unions, making taxes fairer, subsidizing child care and health care, and enacting paid family leave (see this previous post for more details).

As politics and policies have become more polarized between Republicans and Democrats, a natural experiment has been taking place among the states. Over the last 30 years, a state government’s partisan control has become an increasingly strong indicator of the policies it will adopt or not adopt. This trend has been amplified by the decreasing number of states where government control is or has been shared between Republicans and Democrats. Gerrymandering of state legislative districts is partly to blame. Aggressive and extreme policy proposals from right-wing funded think tanks and advocacy groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have also contributed to the widening differences among states’ policies. [1]

The federal government used to work to narrow differences among the states but now is fueling a widening of the gaps among states. From the New Deal in the 1930s through the 1970s, the federal government worked actively and effectively to shrink the significant economic gaps between richer and poorer states. It provided financial assistance to state governments and residents, including supporting a safety net for low-income families and workers who fell on hard times. However, starting in 1980 and with the election of Republican president Reagan, the federal government reversed its role and has been fostering a widening of the gaps among the states.

Democratic controlled states tend to have stronger worker protections and safety nets than Republican controlled states. They also have better health and well-being among their residents. Republican states have, for example:

Higher rates of residents without health insurance, the ten worst health care systems in the country, and lower life expectancies.
Ten of the twelve states with the highest rates of smoking-related cancer.
Ten of the twelve states with the highest rates of obesity.
Eight of the ten states with the most Covid deaths.
Lower minimum wages. Of the twenty states that have the lowest minimum wage (i.e., the federal $7.25 per hour), thirteen are Republican.
Weaker gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun deaths.
Weaker protections for civil rights, including for LGBTQ individuals.

On the other hand, the thirteen states with paid parental leave all have Democrats in control. Notable differences between Republican controlled states and Democratic controlled states are evident in environmental, labor, tobacco, and, of course, voting and election policies.

As partisanship has grown, right-wing policy extremism has become a goal in and of itself. And Republican states, now abetted by the federal government, are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. In effect, the U.S. now has a cold civil war among the states. [2] (More on this is a subsequent post.)

A case study comparing Oklahoma and Connecticut serves to highlight the differences in policies and outcomes. [3] In 1959, Oklahoma (OK) and Connecticut (CT) had nearly identical life expectancies and political and policy climates that weren’t that far apart. Between 1970 and 2014, researchers found that Democratic CT had passed the most progressive policies among the states, while Republican OK had passed the most conservative ones. Connecticut invested in healthcare expansion, paid leave, and tax credits for working families. Oklahoma cut taxes and its social safety net. Its 2024 state budget was 12% less than in 2000 after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

As a result, today, the gaps are dramatic:

Metric Oklahoma (Republican) Connecticut (Democratic)

Life expectancy [4] 61.2 years (47th in nation) 65.9 years (7th in nation)

Medicaid expansion Rejected until voters demanded it First to expand after federal law passed

Minimum wage $7.25 $16.94

Paid family leave Not available Enacted

Paid sick leave Not available Enacted

Earned Income
Tax Credit Not available Enacted

Child well-being
ranking (2024) 46th among the states 8^th among the states

Food-insecure children 24% 17%

Despite one of the highest rates of child food insecurity in the country, in 2024, OK rejected $48 million of federal funding to provide food to low-income children in the summer when free meals at school are not available. (Twelve other Republican states also rejected this federal assistance.)

OK has a part-time legislature, which has fewer staff now than in 1979. Therefore, it often relies on industry lobbyists to draft legislation and on model legislation from conservative advocacy groups like ALEC. For example, ALEC’s proposed bills to cut or ban health care services and other programs have been passed.

The comparison of OK and CT provides a stark example of the differences in state-level policies being promoted by Republicans and Democrats and the real and serious effects of these differences. It also underscores how important state policies and programs are, and reminds us all to set aside some time and energy to advocate for good state (and local) policies and programs. After all, they directly affect access to healthcare, paychecks, safety, and affordability.

For lots of good news, much of it at the state and local levels,see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, see above

[3] Thomhave, K., 10/7/24, “The chasm between Oklahoma and Connecticut,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-chasm-between-oklahoma-connecticut/)

[4] World Population Review, retrieved from the Internet on 5/14/26, “Life expectancy by state 2026,” (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/life-expectancy-by-state)

TAX CUTS OFTEN INCREASE ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

Small government advocates have worked to shrink government by cutting taxes. The results have been exploding economic inequality and federal budget deficits. They are now working to cut state income taxes and local property taxes. This will only expand economic inequality and feed the oligarchy.

SUMMARY: For over 40 years, small government advocates have worked to shrink government by shrinking its revenue, i.e., by cutting taxes. Despite their claims of strong economic growth benefiting everyone, the reality has been exploding economic inequality and federal budget deficits. Now, they are turning their focus to cutting state income taxes and even the local property tax. If they succeed, it will only expand economic inequality and feed the oligarchy that is trying to take over our democracy.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

For over 40 years, small government advocates, historically conservative Republicans, have worked to shrink government by shrinking its revenue, i.e., by cutting taxes. At the federal level, they have succeeded in dramatically reducing income taxes on corporations and high-income households.

Year Corporate tax rate Top personal income tax rate
1950s 50% 90%
1970s High 40% 70%
1980s 34% 50%
2026 21% 37%

Republicans and so-called supply-side economists promised that tax cuts would spur economic and job growth resulting in prosperity for all (aka trickle-down economics), but the reality has been exploding economic inequality. Everyday working Americans are struggling with the affordability of the cost of living and many middle-class Americans have seen their dreams and economic security vanish. Meanwhile, the wealth of the wealthy has skyrocketed. Note that if tax cuts did indeed stimulate economic growth, based on the tax cuts documented above, our economy should have been soaring for the last 50 years.

Despite Republicans’ and supply-side economists’ claims that tax cuts would actually increase government tax revenue due to strong economic growth, their tax cuts and increases in military spending have caused the federal budget deficit to explode. The annual budget deficits have grown from under $74 billion in 1980 to almost 30 times that or $2 trillion in 2025. The accumulated federal debt has grown from under $1 trillion in 1980 to $38.5 trillion in 2025. Although Republicans have offset their tax cuts’ increases in the deficit somewhat by cutting social spending, these efforts have met with limited success because of the need for and public support of a social safety net that includes unemployment benefits, food assistance, and subsidized health care when workers fall on hard times.

Republicans and their supply-side economists have also been trying to get states to cut taxes. The focus has typically been on personal and corporate income taxes and they’ve had significant success. Since 2021, twenty-six states have cut their personal and/or corporate income taxes. [1] Massachusetts will likely have two tax cut measures on the November 2026 ballot.

They are proceeding with these tax cut efforts despite the dreadful experience a decade ago in Kansas. In 2012, Kansas dramatically cut its personal and business income taxes based on the supply-side promises of booming economic growth. However, by 2017, state revenue was down hundreds of millions of dollars, economic growth was below average, and the state was having to cut funding for schools and roads. The Republicans in the state legislature voted to repeal the tax cuts, the Republican Governor who’d sponsored the cuts vetoed the repeal, and the Republican legislature voted with an over two-thirds majority to override the Governor’s veto.

Furthermore, in part because not every state has an income tax, the Republicans and their supply-side economists are now targeting the source of 70% of local government revenue, the property tax. They claim that state governments will step in to make up local government shortfalls through sales taxes and other state revenue sources.

Almost inevitably, tax cuts on personal or business income, as well as to property taxes, disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. Although middle- and lower-income individuals may see some benefits, the larger benefits go to the well off. This expands the already growing economic inequality in the U.S. For example, one of the Massachusetts proposals would cut the state’s base income tax rate from 5% to 4%. While the proponents state that on average families would get a $1,300 tax break, low-income families would get about $70, those with incomes of roughly $1 million would get $1,000, and the wealthiest families would get $35,000 or more. Similar effects would occur with cuts to, let alone elimination of, property taxes as the wealthiest families have the properties with the highest values.

Note that replacing this lost income or property tax revenue with sales taxes or gambling revenue means using very regressive taxes to replace often progressive ones. Moreover, the loss of government services and supports due to loss of revenue will hit the lowest income families the hardest.

Therefore, these tax cut strategies that Republicans and their supply-side economists are pushing will further increase economic inequality, which will only strengthen the oligarchy that is working to take control of our democracy. If someone tries to tell you they can cut your taxes without cutting the services you get from government, such as schools, roads, public safety, and a safety net for hard times, don’t believe them. There is no such thing as a free lunch. And if they tell you you’ll save a little money, ask them how much the millionaires will save and what you’ll lose from your government in the bargain.

I encourage you to contact your state and local elected officials, as well as your U.S. Representative and Senators, to ask them to support progressive tax policies that support everyday working Americans. [2] Such policies include progressive income tax rates, wealth and unearned income taxes, and fair business taxes. (See this previous post for more on fair taxation.)

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Curry Wimbish, W., 4/8/26, “Live tax-free and die,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/04/08/apr-2026-magazine-live-tax-free-and-die/)

[2] You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

BILLIONAIRES ARE ALREADY BUYING THE 2026 ELECTIONS

SUMMARY: Billionaires are already spending record amounts of money on 2026 election campaigns. Most of this money flows through Political Action Committees (PACs) and goes to Republicans. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and state Democratic committees should ban PAC money from their primary elections because it distorts election results, perverts governments’ policies, and drowns out the voices of working people.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

One of the problems with great economic inequality in a democracy is that the wealthy will find a way to buy policy decisions and enforcement that favor them. It can be through outright bribes. Or it can be more subtle. Our campaign finance system effectively lets the wealthy buy candidates. First, candidates without access to wealthy people’s money generally don’t even bother to run because they don’t have a chance. Second, during the campaign, wealthy donors fund and support candidates who will do their bidding once elected. Once in office, those elected want to get re-elected, so they curry favor with wealthy donors by supporting policies donors favor to ensure their funding for re-election campaigns.

Although U.S. campaign finance laws limit the amount an individual can give directly to a candidate or a political party, the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision allows unlimited spending by super Political Action Committees (PACs). PAC spending is supposed to be independent of the candidate being supported, but the rules on independence are ignored and unenforced.

Therefore, much of the billionaires’ money flows through PACs. Nine of the eleven richest PACs fund Republican campaigns. Trump’s MAGA Inc. PAC leads the way with $89 million from billionaires. Musk’s America PAC is second at $45 million. The Senate and House PACs for Republicans have received a combined $66 million while those for Democrats have received $37 million. The other five richest PACs all fund Republicans and have between $15 and $10 million.

Billionaires are willing to spend lots of money on campaigns (or bribes) because the return on their investment is huge. A few million dollars can buy them tax cuts worth billions as the Republicans 2017 tax cut bill and the 2025 so-called One Big Beautiful Bill did. The wealthy’s campaign spending also buys them deregulation or contracts for their businesses that are worth billions. In the 2024 federal elections, billionaires accounted for almost 20% of all campaign spending. [1]

Grassroots organizing that gets lots of people to vote and educates them to distrust the advertising they see and hear from wealth-backed candidates can beat billionaires’ money, but it takes lots of work. Public matching funds for small donations to campaigns coupled with links to limits on donation size also make a huge difference as Mayor Mamdani’s campaign in New York City demonstrated. (See this previous post for more information.) Democracy is NOT a spectator sport. It takes work, participation, and voters who are paying attention and not believing the lies of wealth-backed candidates like Trump.

American billionaires are already spending big on the 2026 elections. As of March 1, the 50 highest spending billionaire families had already spent over $400 million on 2026 election campaigns. At this rate they will exceed the record for a non-presidential election and spend over $1 billion by election day. Not surprisingly, 80% of this money is going to Republican candidates or groups because Republicans have been the ones at the forefront of pushing policies that favor the wealthy. This is obscene and undemocratic. This is why we have an oligarchy running our government. [2]

Twelve of the top thirteen billionaire families have given money exclusively to Republicans. The Musk family leads the way at $71 million followed by the Yass family at $55 million and the Brockman family at $25 million. The next ten families have given between $10 million and $16 million each with the one Democratic donor at $13 million.

This is why we must change our tax laws to reduce the wealth of billionaires. (See this previous post for specifics.) They are so rich that they can afford to spend essentially unlimited amounts of money to corrupt our democracy to serve their interests, i.e., to make it an oligarchy. High levels of wealth lead inexorably to concentrated political power. [3] As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote almost 100 years ago, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Please contact your U.S. Representative and Senators to ask them to support a fairer tax system that taxes wealth and transfers of it. [4]

In addition to the billionaires, special interest groups are also already spending big money on the 2026 elections. Some of these special interest PACs split their money between Republicans and Democrats because they want to buy influence with both parties. A current example is the crypto industry. Its primary PAC, called Fairshake, has already raised $133 million. The vast majority of this comes from two billionaire-backed companies, Ripple and Coinbase. The crypto industry also spent heavily in the 2024 elections and some of the corrupt influence its spending bought is readily apparent. The Trump administration dropped thirteen charges for security law violations against Binance, the largest cryptocurrency exchange and pardoned its billionaire founder. The crypto industry has been pushing Congress, successfully so far, to leave the crypto industry largely unregulated and the beneficiary of tax loopholes.

Billionaires and special interest PACs spend money in Democratic primaries, often to defeat candidates who strongly oppose their policy interests and sometimes to support candidates who support their interests. The crypto industry has done this frequently, as have the AI industry and pro-Israel interests.

This is why my previous post called for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and state Democratic committees to ban super PAC and dark money (i.e., money where the true donor is unidentified) from their primary elections. A coalition of four Democratic Senators (Merkley [D-OR], Warren [D-MA], Welch [D-VT], and Van Hollen [D-MD]) and Independent Sanders (VT) are pushing Democrats and the DNC to ban money from billionaire- and corporate-backed PACs from Democratic primary elections. They noted in a letter to the DNC that unlimited PAC spending will “distort our elections and drown out the voices of working people.” [5]

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Johnson, J., 3/25/26, “‘Modern-day royalty’: 50 billionaire families have already pumped over $430 million into midterms,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/billionaire-spending-2026-midterms)

[2] Americans for Tax Fairness, 3/25/26, “No Kings – No billionaire kingmakers either,” (https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaire-kingmakers/)

[3] Bivens, J., 11/17/25, “Raising taxes on the ultrarich,” Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-taxes-on-the-ultrarich-a-necessary-first-step-to-restore-faith-in-american-democracy-and-the-public-sector/)

[4] You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[5] Prager, S., 4/27/26, “Bernie Sanders lead Senators in demand to end super PACs in Democratic primaries,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/sanders-dnc-dark-money)

WHAT DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE DOING

Democrats should be taking steps now to lay the ground work for electoral successes and policy making in the future. Running against Trump is not enough; Democrats need to state what they are for. They should ban super PAC and dark money from their primaries and support progressive policies.

SUMMARY: Democrats should be taking steps now within the national party and at the state level to lay the ground work for electoral successes and for policy making in the future. Running against Trump is not enough; Democrats need to clearly state what they are for. Americans support progressive policy solutions. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and state committees should ban super PAC and dark money from their primary elections.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

While Democrats have very limited influence on national policy right now, there’s a lot they should be doing now within the national party and at the state level to lay the ground work for electoral successes and for policy making in the future. My previous two series of blog posts on fair taxation and the affordability crisis identified policies that Democrats should be supporting at the national and state level, and enacting now at the state level.

Electorally, running against Trump is not enough; Democrats need to clearly state what they are for. Sure, Trump is a convicted criminal and unpopular, but nobody cares about that if they cannot afford basic needs and they think Trump and the Republicans will address the affordability crisis better than Democrats. That’s what happened in 2024 in a nutshell.

Voters will not believe Democrats are serious about addressing the affordability crisis if they don’t unequivocally embrace progressive remedies, as Senators Warren (D-MA) and Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), among others, have been doing. Opponents, including Democrats, call their policies “too progressive,” which is code for opposition to any policy that favors working Americans over the oligarchs.

The real split among Democrats is between (a) Democrats on the take from the oligarchs of the crypto industry, Big Tech and AI businesses, and Wall Street; and (b) Democrats who are standing up for working Americans and against the oligarchs and their monopolistic companies. It’s that split that deprives Democrats of unity and of a consistent message that resonates with the real frustrations of everyday Americans. Democrats need to acknowledge the failures of our rigged economic system and clearly advocate for structural changes to the status quo that would: [1]

Boost pay including by raising the minimum wage
Build more affordable homes and crack down on corporate landlords
Increase Social Security checks
Provide universal child care
Block price gouging
Strengthen unions
Establish universal health care
Tax the wealthy and giant corporations
Stop members of Congress from buying and selling stock and crypto assets (i.e., insider trading)

For years, polling data have repeatedly shown that Americans support progressive policy solutions to the challenges they face in their daily lives. For example, over 70 percent of Americans support Medicare for All, which would make health insurance more affordable and health care more accessible and less fraught. Seventy percent believe our tax system is unfair, while 66% support universal free child care. More broadly, 66% of Democrats now view socialism favorably, while only 42% view capitalism favorably. [2]

To enact this policy agenda and to get Democrats to unequivocally support it, billionaires must be stopped from buying our elections and our policy making process. A Democratic Party that worries more about offending wealthy donors than enacting policies that support working Americans will not succeed. Democrats should refuse campaign money from organizations and individuals opposed to basic workers’ rights and a strong social safety net.

As a first step, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and state committees should ban super PAC and dark money (i.e., money where the true donor is unidentified) from their primary elections. Unfortunately, the DNC recently voted for a resolution that simply condemned the influence of dark and corporate money in Democratic primaries. It needs to go further and ban such money, which it can do, given that it sets the rules for its own primary elections. Corporate and Republican-linked super PACs and dark money organizations spent over $200 million in 2024 Democratic primaries. Their goal, sometimes successful, was to defeat progressive Democrats, particularly ones opposing Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinians. [3] The Israel, crypto, and AI interests have been, and will in 2026, skew Democratic primaries and candidates to ones supporting their interests, which are not the interests of mainstream Democrats and Americans.

A ban on super PACs and dark money would force Democrats to turn to smaller donations from regular people, as Senators Warren (D-MA) and Sanders (I-VT) and New York City Mayor Mamdani have successfully done. This is what democracy, as opposed to oligarchy, looks like.

I encourage you to contact your state and local elected officials, as well as your U.S. Representative and Senators, to ask them to support policies that support working Americans. If any of these officials are Democrats, I urge you to point out that just running against Trump isn’t enough, as we saw in 2024, and that they need to run on what they stand for. [4]

If you’re frustrated that the Democrats aren’t unequivocally supporting working Americans, you might want to look at and perhaps support the Working Families Party. They’ve put forth a platform, their Working Families Guarantee, which is reminiscent of FDR’s economic bill of rights. It includes:

A home you can afford
Healthcare you can rely on
A good job to support your family
Childcare when and where you need it
Paid family and medical leave
Taxing the rich, and
Getting big money out of politics.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Warren, E., 1/12/26, “The Democratic Party is at a crossroads,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/elizabeth-warren-democrats-2026-midterms/)

[2] Meyerson, H., 1/7/26, “The Democratic base is social democratic,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/01/07/democratic-base-socialist-democratic-zohran-mamdani-medicare-for-all/)

[3] Wilkins, B., 4/10/26, “DNC half-measures condemning dark money won’t cut it, says Sanders as he demands total ban,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/bernie-dark-money-ban)

FAIR TAXATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR DEMOCRACY Part 3

Democracy requires fair taxation. The current U.S. tax system is unfair. Given the huge inequalities in wealth, wealth and transfers of it need to be taxed directly. Wealth taxes are essential to re-establishing a fair tax system and reducing economic inequality.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Democracy requires fair taxation. The current U.S. tax system is unfair. My previous post focused on increasing the progressivity of individual and business income tax rates as one essential piece of re-establishing a fair tax system and reducing economic inequality. This post focuses on taxing wealth.

Wealth inequality has grown even more dramatically than income inequality. U.S. billionaires’ wealth has doubled since 2019. [1] Wealth inequality is so great that the only way to reduce it is to tax wealth and transfers of it directly. To re-establish a fair tax system and reduce economic inequality, we must: [2]

Tax existing wealth to slow and ultimately reverse the huge growth in wealth inequality and because the wealthy can (and do) maintain their extravagant lifestyles without having income. They borrow money and use their wealth as collateral for the loans. Therefore, they pay little or no income tax.
Tax increases in wealth even if assets aren’t sold. These increases in wealth are effectively income even when not sold.
Tax the intergenerational transfer of wealth because otherwise America will have a perpetual class of reigning, oligarchic families.
Give the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the resources to enforce U.S. tax laws and dramatically reduce the hundreds of billions of dollars a year of tax dodging by wealthy individuals and businesses, i.e., not paying the taxes they legally owe.

A wealth tax makes sense and is fair because, among other reasons, the main source of wealth for the middle class – their home – has a wealth tax on it, i.e., the property tax. Therefore, taxing other forms of wealth that the wealthy own is fair and reasonable. There are many proposals on the table to tax wealth at the state and local levels, [3] as well as at the federal level. At the federal level, the Billionaires Income Tax Act would tax the increase in value of assets (e.g., stocks) even if they aren’t sold. There are also two different wealth tax proposals, one from Senator Warren (D-MA) and Representative Jayapal (D-WA), the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, and another from Senator Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Khanna (D-CA), the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. There is also the Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act that would shift some of the income tax burden from low- and moderate-income households to those with incomes of over $1 million.

In California, a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires is being proposed. Bob Reich explains why this makes sense in this 3-minute video. California’s 200 billionaires would pay $100 million a year for the next 5 years. This would allow the state government to provide health and food assistance benefits to millions of residents who would otherwise lose them due to federal funding cuts.

Current federal laws allow wealthy parents to pass their wealth on to their children with little or no tax being paid, including on assets that have increased in value while the parents owned them. At least 90 billionaires died over the last ten years and left their beneficiaries a total of $455 billion. Roughly $250 billion of that was increases in the value of assets during the time the deceased person held them (e.g., stock in a corporation). There was no capital gains tax paid on that $250 billion because current laws allow it to be transferred at its current value; this is the so-called “stepped up basis” tax loophole. This loophole should be repealed.

The estate tax has been cut in recent years and should be increased to decrease economic inequality, increase fairness, and curb the perpetuation of an oligarchic class in American society. The For the 99.5% Act proposed by Senator Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Gomez (D-CA) would reduce the size of an estate that is exempt from taxation from $30 million per couple to $7 million. It would also apply progressive tax rates based on the size of an estate (as opposed to the current flat rate of 40%). [4]

The IRS has been attacked and vilified by Republicans and the oligarchs for decades, presumably because they and their supporters don’t want to pay taxes, including by dodging taxes they owe. They’ve cut its funding and therefore its staffing, particularly for enforcement, leaving hundreds of billions of dollars owed by wealthy individuals and companies uncollected each year. President Biden and Democrats in Congress provided $80 billion in additional funding to the IRS to address understaffing and weak enforcement. For every dollar spent auditing the wealthy, the government recovered $26.

As soon as the Republicans and Trump returned to power, they began cutting tens of billions from the IRS’s funding and reducing its staffing. In 2025, about 22,000 employees left the IRS, about one-quarter of its workforce. Seven former IRS Commissioners, going back to President Reagan, co-wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times in February criticizing the cuts to funding and staffing at the IRS. [5] The IRS workers’ union, the National Treasury Employees Union, pushed back against some of the Trump administration’s cuts. So, in February 2026, the Trump administration terminated the union’s collective bargaining agreement.

To better serve taxpayers, the IRS introduced Direct File in 2024, which enabled many taxpayers to file simplified income tax returns for free – saving taxpayers an estimated $23 billion a year in tax preparation costs. Nearly 300,000 taxpayers used it in 2025. However, tax preparation and software companies have long opposed it because it reduces the demand for their services. So, the Trump administration has terminated it. In addition to its lobbying, the tax preparation industry’s opposition included, for example, Intuit, the parent company of Turbo Tax, donating $1 million to Trump.

I encourage you to contact your state and local elected officials, as well as your U.S. Representative and Senators, to ask them to support a fairer tax system that taxes wealth and transfers of it. Also ask your members of Congress to support funding for the IRS so it can enforce our tax laws. You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Collins, C., 4/5/26, “Tax the rich across the land!” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/how-to-tax-the-rich)

[2] See this previous post on reducing economic inequality, which includes information on tax reforms proposed by the Economic Policy Institute and in the Money Agenda proposed by a group called Patriotic Millionaires.

[3] Meyerson, H., 3/12/26, “Democrats get serious about taxing the rich,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/03/12/democrats-get-serious-taxing-rich/)

[4] Conley, J., 12/13/24, “Why can’t we fund universal public goods? Blame the tax-dodging billionaire nepo babies,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/what-billionaires-avoid-taxes)

[5] Sorapuru, J. E. J., 4/8/26, “Smaller IRS still pressured by Trump,” The Boston Globe

FAIR TAXATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR DEMOCRACY Part 2

Democracy requires fair taxation. The current U.S. tax system is unfair. Increased progressivity of individual and business income tax rates, especially on income from wealth (versus work), is one essential piece of re-establishing a fair tax system and reducing economic inequality.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The American democracy described in the Declaration of Independence and further detailed in the preamble to the Constitution requires fair taxation linked to meaningful representation to produce a government of, by, and for the people. (See this previous post for more detail.)

Fair taxation requires individuals and businesses to pay their fair share. The current U.S. tax system is unfair based on common sense,an historical perspective, and the current experiences of everyday Americans. It has allowed wealth and income inequality to grow dramatically in the last 45 years, both among individuals and among businesses. To re-establish a fair tax system and reduce economic inequality, the U.S. must: [1]

Increase the progressivity of individual and business income tax rates, especially on income from wealth (versus work), such as interest, dividends, and capital gains on the sale of assets that have appreciated (i.e., increased in value).
Tax increases in wealth even if assets are not sold. These increases in wealth are effectively income even when the assets are not sold.
Tax existing wealth to slow or reverse the huge growth in wealth inequality and because the wealthy can (and do) maintain their extravagant lifestyles without having income by borrowing money and using their wealth as collateral for the loans. U.S. billionaires’ wealth has doubled since 2019 and in 2024 alone, the 19 richest billionaires added one trillion dollars to their wealth, an average of over $50 billion each. [2]
Tax intergenerational transfers of wealth because otherwise America will have a class of reigning, perpetual oligarch families.
Close loopholes in tax laws to prevent tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporations.
Establish an international tax system to prevent tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporations through the shifting of wealth and income streams to low-tax countries. [3] [4]
Give the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the resources to enforce U.S. tax laws and dramatically reduce the hundreds of billions of dollars a year of tax dodging by wealthy individuals and businesses when they do not pay the taxes they legally owe.

Progressive income tax rates are fair (i.e., percentage tax rates that increase with increases in income) because the value of $1,000 of additional income to a millionaire is far less than it is to someone with a $50,000 or $100,000 income. Or from the perspective of taxes, a tax of $100 (10%) on that $1,000 of additional income has much less impact on the millionaire than the lower income individual.

What tax rates are fair across the income range is, of course, a matter of judgment. However, for a starting point, a relatively small increase in the top marginal personal income tax rate (i.e., the tax rate on the last dollar of income) back to its pre-2017 level (i.e., from 37% to 39.6%) would generate revenue of over $30 billion a year for the government to use to deliver public goods that people need or want. (Note: In 1980, the top rate was 70% and it was over 90% in the 1950s and the wealthy and the economy, nonetheless, did quite well.)

Returning the tax rate on large corporations to 35% (where it was before the 2017 Republican Tax Cut Act reduced it to 21%) would make sense, be fair, and generate over $250 billion a year in revenue for the government.

I encourage you to contact your state and local elected officials, as well as your U.S. Representative and Senators, and ask them to support enacting a fairer tax system with progressive income tax rates for wealthy individuals and businesses. You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

My next post will discuss taxing wealth and the intergenerational transfer of it. It will also discuss the IRS and its role in enforcing a fair tax system.

[1] See this previous post on reducing economic inequality, which includes information on tax reforms proposed by the Economic Policy Institute and in the Money Agenda of a group called Patriotic Millionaires.

[2] Collins, C., 4/5/26, “Tax the rich across the land!” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/how-to-tax-the-rich)

[3] Johnson, J., 11/19/24, “Tax dodging by super-rich, big corporations costs nations half a trillion per year: Study,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/global-tax-dodging)

[4] Conley, J., 11/19/24, “G20 leaders reach ‘landmark commitment’ for global tax on ultrarich,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/global-wealth-tax-2669945403)

FAIR TAXATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR DEMOCRACY

Democracy requires a government that fosters people’s freedom. Its resources must come from fair taxation. Oligarchs cut taxes and undermine democracy to consolidate their power. Economic inequality has bred discontent and distrust of government and democracy, an opening for authoritarianism.

Democracy requires a government that fosters people’s freedom based on their experiencing safety, economic security, liberty, and happiness. To do these things, it must have the resources that come from taxation. The taxes must be perceived as fair and government perceived as reasonably efficient at fulfilling its role. High and growing economic inequality has bred discontent and distrust of government – and of democracy. This has opened the door for demagogues and acceptance of authoritarianism.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The American democracy, as announced in the Declaration of Independence, would ensure the right of the people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The government it envisioned would “effect their Safety and Happiness.” The preamble to the Constitution expands on these principles and states that “We the People [are forming a government to] establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.”

For a government to do these things, it must have the necessary resources. Taxes are what provide government with its resources to honor these principles and achieve these goals. They are the life blood of a democratic government of, by, and for the people. As Deval Patrick, former Governor of Massachusetts put it, “Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society.”

Historian Heather Cox Richardson had a 42-minute conversation with Dr. Vanessa Williamson of the Brookings Institution about the relationship between taxes and democracy, based on Williamson’s 2025 book, The Price of Democracy: The Revolutionary Power of Taxation in American History. I strongly encourage you to listen to all or part of it, however, I’ll share a summary of and commentary on this conversation here. (Williamson gives a 1-minute summary of the relationship between taxes and democracy at the Patriotic Millionaires conference Money. Message. Millionaires.)

American history indicates that the people are willing to pay taxes if they are perceived to be fair and the government is fostering their freedom based on their experiencing safety, economic security (aka general welfare), liberty (aka justice under the rule of law), and happiness.

The public wants government to do and provide things often referred to as public goods that include schools, roads, law and order, clean air and water, national parks, and a safety net for when things in life go wrong. These things allow people the freedom to pursue their dreams and achieve their goals. The effectiveness of governments and, therefore, their support by the people, comes from their ability to act and get things done. Revenues from taxes are, of course, essential to giving governments the capacity and power to act and deliver these public goods.

It’s important that taxes be perceived as fair and government perceived as reasonably efficient at fulfilling its role. That way the people feel they’re getting a fair return on their investment. The American Revolution occurred, in part, because of taxation without representation and the perception that the government wasn’t delivering what the people wanted. However, the Boston Tea Party was actually a protest over the King giving the East India Tea Company, a huge corporation in its day, a monopoly on the sale of tea in the colonies.

Paying taxes means that taxpayers have a personal stake in their government (aka skin in the game) and, therefore, in participating in democracy, in elections, and with their representatives in government. It’s everyone’s civic duty to make their contribution to democracy by paying their fair share of taxes and being engaged to have their say in the governing process. When governments are capable of and accountable for acting in the interests of the people (aka for the public good), this reinforces democracy and the connection between taxation and representation.

In the 1980s, the Republicans, President Reagan, and the American oligarchy (although we didn’t call them that at the time) promoted efforts to undermine the relationship among taxation, representation, and democracy. They pushed the notion that government wasn’t efficient, that taxes were bad, and that they could cut taxes and still deliver the public goods that people wanted. Basically, they promised a free lunch. They claimed their tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited wealthy individuals and corporations, would “trickle down” to everyone because the economy would boom. Actual experience, with multiple tax cuts over the last 45 years, has definitively shown that this does not happen. The results of their individual and corporate tax cuts have been sharply growing economic inequality and huge, monopolistic corporations.

High and growing economic inequality, along with the loss of economic security and upward mobility for working Americans, has bred discontent and distrust of government – and of democracy. This has opened the door for demagogues and acceptance of authoritarianism.

Throughout American history, oligarchs, from southern plantation owners to the robber barons to today’s corporate executives and investors (including private equity financiers), have worked to cut taxes and undermine a fair tax system. Not only does this make them wealthier, but it also undermines the power of government and democracy to stand up for the people and constrain the oligarchs’ power. If the government can’t and doesn’t deliver the public goods the public wants, the people won’t support it. Oligarchs want to shrink government, make it ineffective, and as one of them said, make it small enough to drown in a bathtub by starving it of the tax revenue it needs to get things done for the people. This undermines support for the government and faith in democracy, creating a reinforcing destructive cycle for government of, by, and for the people while cementing the oligarchs’ power.

Oligarchs want their power to be uncontested and unconstrained. They don’t want to be subject to government regulations or even the rule of law. They want to undermine the voice and representation of the people, as well as their faith in government and democracy. In addition to undermining a fair tax system, they use their wealth to effectively buy politicians and government policies. And they work to undermine voting and faith in elections.

My next post will discuss what a fair tax system would look like and what it will take to get there.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

TACKLING THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS Part 3

The U.S. affordability crisis is caused by low pay, high prices, economic inequality, and public policies skewed to favor wealthy individuals and corporations. Here are some strategies for tackling the affordability crisis.

THANK YOU to all of you who participated in or supported a No Kings rally (pro-democracy and anti-Trump) on March 28 in one way or another. Protests are a critically important strategy for tackling affordability and saving our democracy.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The U.S. affordability crisis will require multiple strategies to effectively remedy it. My previous post discussed some longer-term strategies and an earlier post some short-term strategies. Here are some additional longer-term strategies. Generally, they require action by the federal government and, therefore, aren’t likely to happen soon.

Here are some strategies for addressing high prices:

Implement a windfall profits tax. The federal government should enact a windfall profits tax to stop price gouging by monopolistic businesses and by ones taking advantage of unusual market conditions. A windfall profits tax would tax away excessive growth in profits and, therefore, discourage price gouging because increased profits would be significantly reduced. However, if businesses continue to charge high prices and generate big profits, the tax revenue from the windfall profits tax could be used to provide assistance to working families facing economic hardship due to those increased prices.

With the spike in fossil fuel prices due to the Iran war, fossil fuel companies are likely to realize windfall profits. Other businesses may use the smoke screen of high fuel and energy prices as a pretext for raising prices beyond what’s justifiable and, therefore, generate windfall profits. The federal government should be prepared to tax those windfall profits and take other actions to keep prices down and protect consumers. [1]
Regulate surveillance pricing. With AI and high-powered computers, businesses gather extensive data on consumers and can then engage in sophisticated and opaque price manipulation to maximize what a consumer will pay (aka personalized or surveillance pricing). Sellers should be required to post prices clearly and provide the same prices to all consumers. This will prevent price gouging, discrimination, and bait and switch strategies that rip off consumers. Junk fees and other abusive pricing techniques should be banned.

For example, Uber and Lyft shouldn’t be allowed to charge you more (as they do) when your phone’s battery is low and they know you are in a hurry to book your ride. And landlords shouldn’t be allowed to collude through a large database of rental properties and AI analysis to jack up rents.

Here are some strategies for addressing affordability in general:

Eliminate the poverty wage business model. At least 16 U.S. billionaires owe their wealth to running corporations that pay workers poverty wages so the workers have to rely on taxpayer-funded public assistance to survive. Eight of these billionaires are associated with Walmart, two each with Amazon and Tyson Foods, and one each with Best Buy, Chipotle, Home Depot, and Starbucks. Large numbers of employees at these firms rely on Medicaid for health care and SNAP for food assistance. [2] Increasing the minimum wage would be one step in ending this public subsidy of corporate profits and shareholder wealth.
Reform the U.S. campaign finance system. Government policies are skewed to benefit the wealthy because of the way we allow election campaigns to be financed. The unlimited spending and lack of disclosure of who is contributing large sums of money have produced politicians and policies that favor the wealthy and their large corporations. This results in lower wages for workers and higher profits through higher prices that benefit shareholders and corporate executives. (See this previous post for more detail and ways to address this problem.)
Reduce economic inequality. Reducing economic inequality would tackle the affordability crisis in multiple ways. Extreme inequality destabilizes democracy, the economy, and society. Shifting some of the tax burden from low- and middle-class households to the wealthy could both reduces taxes for households struggling with affordability and increase the ability of the government to provide supports for working families such as affordable child care, paid family leave, housing subsidies, affordable health care, and a safety net when people hit hard times including unemployment benefits and food assistance. [3] Reduced economic inequality would also reduce the premiumization of the economy that drives prices up. (See this previous post for more detail.)

Many proposals to tax the wealthy are being considered at the state and local levels, [4] as well as at the federal level. At the federal level, the Billionaires Income Tax Act would tax the increase in value of assets (e.g., stocks) even if they aren’t sold. There are also two different wealth tax proposals, one from Senator Warren (D-MA) and Representative Jayapal (D-WA), the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, and another from Senator Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Khanna (D-CA), the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. There is also the Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act that would shift the income tax burden from low- and moderate-income households to those with incomes of over $1 million.

Reduced inequality benefits democracy and, when coupled with campaign finance reform, would produce politicians and policies that are more responsive to the needs of every day Americans, thereby addressing the affordability crisis. “Highly concentrated wealth leads naturally to concentrated political power.” [5] As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote almost 100 years ago, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Every politician, at every level, local, state, and federal, who’s serious about addressing the affordability crisis should embrace these strategies. I encourage you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and ask them to endorse them. You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Reed, B, 3/25/26, “Dems call for prosecution of corporations using Trump’s illegal Iran war as cover to hike prices,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/iran-war-price-gouging)

[2] Anderson, S., & James, R., 3/25/26, “Meet the 16 billionaires making bank by underpaying their workers,” Inequality.org (https://inequality.org/article/billionaires-low-wage-workers/)

[3] Meyerson, H., 12/3/25, “The $79 trillion heist,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/03/79-trillion-heist-worker-pay/)

[4] Meyerson, H., 3/12/26, “Democrats get serious about taxing the rich,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/03/12/democrats-get-serious-taxing-rich/)

[5] Bivens, J., 11/17/25, “Raising taxes on the ultrarich,” page 5, Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-taxes-on-the-ultrarich-a-necessary-first-step-to-restore-faith-in-american-democracy-and-the-public-sector/)

TACKLING THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS Part 2

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and has been growing for 45 years, caused by low pay and high prices. Here are longer-term strategies for tackling low pay and high prices. Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s policies are exacerbating the crisis. Please join a protest on March 28.

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and has been growing for 45 years, caused by low pay and high prices. There are many strategies for tackling the affordability crisis; some are presented below. However, many (most?) of the Trump administration’s policies are exacerbating the crisis. Therefore, one longer-term strategy for tackling affordability would be to participate in a No Kings rally (pro-democracy and anti-Trump) on Sat., March 28. Find an event near you here.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and caused by low pay and high prices. My previous post discussed short-term strategies that would increase low pay including: [1]

Reduce wage theft.
Raise the minimum wage.
Enact family-friendly policies including subsidies for child care and paid family leave.
Strengthen unions and union organizing.
Reform tax systems.

These strategies can be undertaken at the state and local levels now but would benefit from or require changes in federal laws or enforcement to be most effective. This probably won’t happen until Democrats take control of Congress and the presidency. Therefore, they and the other strategies in my previous post are also longer-term strategies.

There are other longer-term strategies for addressing low pay. Generally, they require action by the federal government and, therefore, aren’t likely to happen soon. They include:

Trade treaties that include standards for workers. These standards could include standards for working conditions, the ability to unionize, and minimum wage levels. Such standards would prevent unfair overseas competition for U.S. workers, which undermines pay and working conditions here in the U.S.
Antitrust law enforcement so there is more competition for workers among employers.

There are many strategies for addressing high prices. Some are potentially short-term but given that they typically require action by the federal government, they aren’t likely to happen soon. They include:

Rescinding tariffs.
Enforcing antitrust laws so there’s competition based on the price and quality of goods and services, as well as on customer service. Poor customer service is not only frustrating but a tax on our time. We’ve all spent hours on the phone, much of it often waiting for a real person, trying to resolve a credit card problem, a denial of coverage for health care, or a problem with a purchase.
Reforming our health care system so the costs of insurance, services, and drugs are at levels comparable to those in every other wealthy country, which are dramatically lower than they are here.
Ending the vulture capitalism of private equity financing. Saks Fifth Avenue is the latest in a long list of retailers that have gone bankrupt after being pillaged by private equity financiers. The list includes Sears, Toys ‘R’ Us, Kmart, Sports Authority, RadioShack, RJR Nabisco, Barneys, Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor, Hudson’s Bay, Payless, Joann Fabrics, Party City, Red Lobster, and on and on. The loss of retailers due to private equity vulture capitalism raises prices, costs workers their jobs, undermines communities, and reduces government tax revenue. [2]

The private equity financiers’ model is to buy a company using lots of debt; sell off its assets (often real estate) and pocket the money; charge the company exorbitant management fees, rent, interest, and other expenses; fire employees, slash pay, and cut their benefits including gutting their pensions; and file for bankruptcy while walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars. The private equity financing model is only possible because of loopholes in securities and bankruptcy laws, as well as the unlimited tax deduction allowed for interest payments on debt.

Senator Warren’s (D-MA) Stop Wall Street Looting Act would put an end to the private equity model by stopping these abusive practices and making the private equity financiers personally liable for damages and losses. [3] Private equity financiers are buying up and bankrupting or charging exorbitant prices (while often degrading quality and service) in health care, nursing homes, trailer parks, pest control, veterinary practices, youth sports facilities, fire truck manufacturing, restaurant chains, prisons and detention facilities, and anything else out of which they can squeeze a profit.

Stopping corporate investor purchases of housing. Corporate investors (as opposed to residents or community members) own nearly 450,000 single family homes, more than 2.2 million apartments, and more mobile home communities than anyone else. In 2025, they bought nearly one out of every six homes sold. Consequently, costs for residents go up (e.g., rents and fees) while maintenance often goes down. Evictions go up. Meanwhile the investors take advantage of federally backed mortgages meant for home owners and other federal tax breaks at taxpayers’ expense. Senator Warren’s (D-MA) American Homeownership Act would end these abusive practices and invest in building homes that working families can afford. It has just been passed in the Senate with a large, bipartisan vote, 89 to 10. [4]

Every politician, at every level, local, state, and federal, who’s serious about addressing the affordability crisis should embrace these strategies.

I encourage you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and ask them to endorse these strategies for tackling the affordability crisis. You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

My next post will discuss additional strategies for tackling the affordability crisis.

[1] Meyerson, H., 12/3/25, “The $79 trillion heist,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/03/79-trillion-heist-worker-pay/)

[2] Kuttner, R., 1/20/26, “Private equity Saks another retail outlet,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/01/20/private-equity-saks-another-retail-outlet/)

[3] Warren, E., 10/10/24, “Warren, Lawmakers Renew Legislative Push to Stop Private Equity Looting,” (https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-lawmakers-renew-legislative-push-to-stop-private-equity-looting)

[4] Kuttner, R., 3/13/26, “Elizabeth Warren’s Amazingly Progressive Housing Bill,” (https://prospect.org/2026/03/13/elizabeth-warrens-amazingly-progressive-housing-bill/)

TACKLING THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS

The U.S. affordability crisis has been growing for 45 years due to low pay and high prices. Here are some strategies for tackling it by increasing low pay that can be done at the state and local levels now. Unfortunately, Trump administration policies are exacerbating the crisis.

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and has been growing for 45 years, caused by low pay and high prices. There are many strategies for tackling the affordability crisis, some are presented below. However, many (most?) of the Trump administration’s policies are exacerbating the crisis. Therefore, one longer-term strategy for tackling affordability would be to participate in a No Kings rally (pro-democracy and anti-Trump) on Sat., March 28. Find an event near you here.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and caused by low pay and high prices. (Previous posts have discussed the factors leading to low pay and the reasons for high prices.) This post will discuss short-term strategies for increasing low pay. Many of these strategies would benefit from or require changes in federal laws or enforcement to be most effective. This probably won’t happen until Democrats take control of Congress and the presidency.

Here are some short-term strategies for increasing low pay that can be undertaken at the state and local levels now. [1] Every politician, at every level, local, state, and federal, who’s serious about addressing the affordability crisis should embrace these strategies. The first five should be core policies of the Democratic Party and every Democrat.

Reduce wage theft. Every year, over $15 billion is stolen from U.S. workers by employers who don’t pay the minimum wage, don’t pay required overtime pay, or don’t pay for all hours worked, as well as by ones who steal workers’ tips or don’t give workers their final paycheck. States can reduce wage theft through better enforcement of existing laws and strengthening laws, including by increasing penalties for violations. [2]
Raise the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour. If it had kept pace with workers’ increased productivity since the late 1960s, it would be over $24 an hour. The highest minimum wage in the U.S. is in Tukwila, WA, where it is $20.29. In D.C., it’s $17, while in Washington State it’s $16.28, $16 in California and $15 in Massachusetts. State and local governments can and should increase their minimum wages now.
Enact family friendly policies. Subsidies for child care are provided by the federal government and several states but typically fall well short of making child care affordable for many low- and moderate-income families. Some states and Mamdani in New York City are working to make child care free or at least affordable for all families. These policies have substantial economic benefits as they allow parents to remain in the workforce.

Paid family leave for the birth of a child exists in thirteen states and D.C., although not at the federal level. The U.S. is one of less than half a dozen countries in the world – and the only wealthy one – that does not have paid family leave.

Many wealthy countries provide a family allowance (i.e., cash benefits) for each child in a family. Proposals have been put forward in the U.S. for a $5,000 per year per child allowance. This could be achieved by increasing the child tax credit and making it fully refundable (i.e., a family who owes less in taxes than the amount of the credit would get a cash payment).

Strengthen unions and union organizing. Labor laws and enforcement of them need to be changed to make it easier to form a union and to require employers to sign a contract with unionized workers within a set time limit (e.g., 90 days) or to go to compulsory arbitration. Penalties on employers for violations of labor laws must be swift and significant. Much of this needs to happen at the federal level but states can act too. There’s strong support for unions among the public; they receive 70% approval ratings in polls.
Reform our tax systems. This is something that needs to happen at the federal level, but also at the state and local levels. Income taxes on wealthy individuals and businesses, particularly multi-national corporations, need to be increased. They have been declining for decades and dramatically so in President Trump’s two terms. Incomes should be taxed in a progressive manner (i.e., higher tax rates for higher incomes). Furthermore, there is no reason income made through gains on the sale of assets (i.e., capital gains) should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned from work, as is the case today. This is a tax break for the wealthy that was probably never fair and is inexcusable given the current economic inequalities and the affordability crisis for low- and middle-income households.

Wealth (not just income) needs to be taxed, including increases in wealth, which are functionally income even if assets are not sold. Inheritances and transfers of appreciated assets (which currently avoid any tax on their increased value) should be taxed. The most common form of middle-class wealth – a home – has what is effectively a wealth tax – the property tax. So, it only seems fair that other forms of wealth, held primarily by the wealthy, should also have a wealth tax.

Corporate income tax rates should be restored to pre-Trump levels at a minimum, and additional steps should be taken to counter multi-national entities’ sheltering of income offshore in low-tax jurisdictions. Stock buybacks should be banned as they were prior to 1980 as illegal manipulation of a stock’s price.

State and local governments can and should reform their tax laws now. For example, California is considering a wealth tax. In NYC, Mayor Mamdani has proposed a 2% surtax on individuals with incomes over $1 million and an increase in corporate income taxes. Massachusetts voters passed a 4% surtax on income over $1 million in 2022. It’s generating over $2 billion a year for education and transportation spending and, contrary to the scare tactics of opponents, millionaires are NOT moving out of the state. Nonetheless, the 5% of households with the highest incomes still pay a lower percentage of income in all state and local taxes in MA than the other 95% of households – 8% versus 10%.

Ban non-compete and mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts so workers aren’t prevented from moving to better paying jobs and/or jobs they would prefer. This can be done at the state and local levels, as well as at the national level.
Clarify the standard for who is considered an employee and increase penalties for misclassifying and mistreating workers as contractors rather than employees. This can be done at the state and local levels, as well as at the national level.

I encourage you to contact your state and local elected officials to ask them to increase the low pay of many workers by reducing wage theft, increasing the minimum wage, supporting unions, making the tax system fairer, and enacting or enhancing child care subsidies and paid family leave.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

My next post will discuss additional strategies for tackling the affordability crisis.

[1] Meyerson, H., 12/3/25, “The $79 trillion heist,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/03/79-trillion-heist-worker-pay/)

[2] National Institute for Workers’ Rights, retrieved from the Internet on 3/7/26, “Wage theft: Employers stealing workers’ wages,” (https://niwr.org/state-policy-clearinghouse/spc-wage-theft/)

STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY AND PUSH BACK AGAINST FASCISM

Our democracy needs millions of Americans to stand up for it and to push back against the fascism [1] of the Trump administration and all the Republicans who are supporting it. PLEASE support and participate in a No Kings event on Saturday, March 28, in whatever way(s) you can. You can find an event near you here.

We need to stand up and push back against:

The cruel, illegal, and inhumane actions and detentions by ICE
The inhumane and un-Christian policies targeting immigrants, including refugees and asylees
The illegal and unconstitutional war against Iran and other acts of war
The implementation of and refusal to refund unconstitutional tariffs
The undermining of the United Nations, treaties, and alliances, while supporting and cooperating with authoritarians and dictators
The corruption of President Trump, some of his cabinet members, and his cronies who are putting millions if not billions of dollars in their own pockets
The violations of the rule of law including illegal firings of government employees, the failure to spend funds as authorized by Congress, the attempts and threats to prosecute political opponents, the pardoning of political supporters, the failures of transparency including on the Epstein files, etc.
The unqualified appointees who are harming Americans every day
The voter suppression and efforts to undermine our elections
The racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, and LGBTQ+ bigotry of Trump, his administration, and his supporters
The oligarchy that uses the government and public policy to enrich itself while cutting support for low- and moderate-income households, including cutting access to food assistance and health care
The lies and disinformation the Trump administration spews out daily
The condoning of political violence
The divisiveness and lack of civility of the Trump administration and the Republicans supporting it
All the ways the Trump administration and Republicans are making the affordability crisis worse

The egregious behavior of the Trump regime and the Republicans who support it will stop when enough of us stand up and say “NO!” Please say “NO” by being a part of a March 28^th No Kings protest and in whatever other ways you can.

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here and here.

My next post will return to the discussion of the affordability crisis and present some strategies for tackling it.

[1] Fascism is defined as “a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime … that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism)

THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS Part 4

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and has been growing for 45 years, caused by low pay and high prices. Many factors have been depressing workers’ pay including the failure to raise the minimum wage, the weakening of unions, globalization, gig work, and reduced competition for workers.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and caused by low pay and high prices. (Previous posts have discussed the reasons for high prices.) This post will discuss the factors leading to low pay.

Over the last 45 years, workers’ pay has barely kept up with the increase in prices (i.e., inflation). And the pay increases there have been, have gone disproportionately to high earners. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that between 1979 and 2019 the annual wages (adjusted for inflation) of the lowest-income 90% of workers increased by 26%, while the wages of those in the top 1% rose by 160%. The next richest 4% of workers saw their wages increase by 75%. CEOs now make about 300 times what their typical employee makes, while in 1960s they only made 20 times as much as the typical worker.

Good, middle-class blue- and white-collar jobs have been lost to globalization, while the compensation for the remaining jobs has declined due to the purposeful undermining of unions and global pay competition. The result is a crushing affordability crisis for many current and formerly middle-class households, as well as for lower income households.

According to a Brookings Institute analysis, 43% of American families can’t afford to pay for housing, food, health care, child care, and transportation. This figure is 59% for Black families and 66% for Latino families. The shift in income from workers to executives and investors has been dramatic: in 1947 workers received 70% of total national income, while today they get only 59%. Unlike the previous 35 years, after 1980, workers did not receive wage increases that were in line with their increases in productivity: from 1979 to 2025 workers’ productivity increased by 87% but their compensation only increased 33%. According to a Rand Corporation analysis, in 1975, the 90% of workers at the bottom of the income spectrum received 67% of national income, while in 2019 (the latest data it had) they received just 47% of national income. This highlights again the skewing of income to the top 10%. It calculated that if, in 2023, the 90% of workers with the lowest incomes had received 67% of national income (as they did in 1975), they would have earned an additional $4 trillion or, on average, each worker would have made $28,000 more than they did. Over the period from 1975 to 2023, if these workers had received 67% of national income, they would, in aggregate, have received $79 trillion more in income. [1]

There are many factors that have been depressing workers’ pay. They include:

Failure to raise the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is only 29% of a typical worker’s wage today; in 1968, it was 53% of the typical wage. If the minimum wage had been raised at the same pace as productivity growth since the late 1960s, it would be over $24 an hour today.
Dramatic weakening of unions by the emasculation of pro-union government policies and of the enforcement of labor laws, as well as by the monopolistic power of huge employers. These have resulted in a huge shift in power from workers to employers over the last 45 years. Union membership has declined from roughly a third of workers in the 1950s to under one-tenth of workers today and only one-sixteenth of private sector workers.
Globalization, which shipped jobs overseas and put downward pressure on the pay for the remaining jobs.
Gig work and the misclassification of workers as contractors and not employees, which reduces wages, removes the protections for employees that are in labor laws, and typically means they get no benefits (e.g., health insurance, sick or vacation time, and retirement benefits). A 2021 study estimated that nine million American workers, from Amazon and FedEx delivery personnel to Uber and Lyft drivers, earn between 15% and 30% less than they would as employees.

The gig work-based companies, using AI with vast amounts of personal data and tremendous computer processing power, can tweak the pay of gig workers instantaneously so each worker gets the minimum pay for which they’re willing to do a job. For example, Uber pays drivers based on their past behavior. If a driver is hungry for work, perhaps because they badly need the income, and therefore always grabs the first job that is offered, Uber will pay them less because it knows they’ll take the job. On the other hand, Uber will offer more to a driver that waits for a better paying option.
Reduced competition for workers among employers due to fewer, very large employers and the widespread use of non-compete clauses in workers’ contracts (which prevent workers from moving to similar work for another company, down to and including other franchisees of the same fast-food chain). The Federal Trade Commission under President Biden banned non-compete agreements but the Trump administration undid this.

Capitalism in the U.S. is out of control. Competition has been stymied and monopolistic power is widespread. This has happened because of the failure to enforce antitrust laws for 45 years (except for four years under President Biden).This means the invisible hand of a market economy and the economic “rules” of supply and demand do not work to give fair compensation to workers. The rules of the economic game have been rigged to favor large employers. One indicator that clearly confirms this is that corporate profits are at very high levels in terms of percentage of revenue. In 1980, 80% of corporate income was paid to workers; in 2025, that percentage was under 72% with the difference largely going to profits.

Regulators have been compromised (aka captured) by the large employers through the political influence garnered by campaign spending and lobbying, as well as the revolving door of personnel between government regulatory positions and private industry jobs. As a result, many aspects of corporate behavior have undergone deregulation, which allows companies to increase profits by, for example, blocking increases in the minimum wage, shipping jobs overseas, gig work, breaking existing unions, blocking union organizing, failing to negotiate in good faith with unions, and frequently preventing new unions from ever getting a contract. In 2018, 63% of new unions, each of which had been voted for by a majority of workers, failed to get their employer to agree to a contract within a year. Amazon workers at a New York City warehouse voted decisively for a union in April 2022, but as of December 2025, Amazon had refused to even begin contract negotiations with them. This reflects a lack of effective labor laws and a lack of enforcement of them.

My next post will discuss steps to take to tackle the affordability crisis.

[1] Meyerson, H., 12/3/25, “The $79 trillion heist,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/03/79-trillion-heist-worker-pay/)

THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS Part 3

The affordability crisis in the U.S. is multifaceted and has been growing for 45 years, due to low pay and high prices. Many factors are pushing up prices well beyond normal inflation, including premiumization of markets, profit-taking middlemen, and the failure to enforce antitrust laws. The Trump administration is doing nothing that affectively addresses the affordability crisis, while many of its actions exacerbate it.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

My last post discussed profit-taking by middlemen and privatization of public goods and services as drivers of high prices. The previous post presented an overview of the affordability crisis in the U.S., its 45 year history, and discussed monopolistic price gouging, tariffs, and personalized (aka surveillance) pricing as factors leading to high prices.

This post will discuss:

The premiumization of markets, meaning that products and prices target consumers with high incomes.
Efforts to reduce pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs) inflation of drug prices.
The failure of the Trump administration to enforce antitrust laws, which allows unjustifiable increase prices by Live Nation / Ticketmaster and others.

The so-called premiumization of markets is happening because high economic inequality leads to consumer spending patterns that make things more expensive for everyone. Consumer spending represents roughly 70% of all economic activity in the U.S. and therefore drives the economy. However, given the high levels of economic inequality, the wealthiest 10% of Americans are now doing almost half of all consumer spending. As a result, retailers target their products and prices to those high-income consumers. Products often become more upscale and their prices go up. Lower priced options tend to disappear, or their prices go up because key consumers can afford to pay more. Sometimes the higher prices are “justified” by adding frills or fancier packaging. Sometimes those with money bid up the price of goods or services with a limited supply, such as housing, raising prices for everyone.

Moreover, the middle class, striving for upward mobility (or at least the appearance of it) and to “keep up with the Joneses,” feels coerced into spending like the top 10%. Fancy clothes and cars, expensive parties and weddings, and so forth are what some feel they need to buy to maintain their status with peers. Easy access to debt, including buy now, pay later (BNPL) plans, facilitate living beyond one’s means. For example, a quarter of BNPL consumers have used BNPL to pay their rent, a third have used it to pay for medical or dental expenses, and nearly 40% have used it to pay off another debt, such as a credit card. [1]

One example of premiumization is the market for workout gyms and health clubs. The market is bifurcating in many locations and the middle-priced facilities are disappearing. The remaining options are the bare bones gym at $15 to $50 a month, which is often quite crowded at peak times, and the upper-end health clubs at over $200 a month, featuring plush locker rooms, personal trainers, and sometimes jacuzzies, saunas, and a spa. [2]

Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) were supposed to reduce drug costs, saving insurers and consumers money, but they have morphed into rapacious profit makers. (See this previous post for more details.) Three huge, monopolistic PBMs (Cigna’s Express Scripts, CVS Health’s Caremark, and United Health’s Optum RX) manage 80% of the prescription drug business in the U.S. It’s estimated that 42 cents of every dollar paid for prescription drugs now goes to a PBM. [3] The spending bill passed by Congress in early February includes an effort to rein in PBMs and reduce drug prices. Starting in 2028, PBMs will be paid a flat fee rather than a percentage of a drug’s price, which will eliminate the incentive to push high-priced drugs even when cheaper alternatives are available. Increased disclosure by PBMs will be required and kickbacks from drug manufacturers will have to be passed back to the PBMs’ customers. [4]

As with the PBMs, other monopolistic middlemen can manipulate the market to make unjustifiably large profits. As this previous post highlighted, Live Nation (parent company of Ticket Master) is a prime example of a monopolistic middleman. [5] It handles the ticket sales for over 80% of the country’s prime concert venues, owns or controls over 330 venues, and manages over 400 top-of-the-line artists. However, the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) appears to be about to agree to a lenient settlement of the antitrust case against Live Nation. This is happening despite Trump’s executive order in 2025 supposedly cracking down on price gouging for event tickets. And even though 40 state Attorneys General are also parties to the suit against Live Nation / Ticketmaster. Some of them are likely to continue the suit, but the federal settlement will make it harder. By the way, the Federal Trade Commission also sued Live Nation last September for deceptive ticket pricing. [6]

Trump-connected lobbyists have apparently overpowered the DOJ’s own antitrust division and gotten Trump and Attorney General Bondi to overrule the antitrust division once again. As a result, the head of the antitrust division, Gail Slater, resigned a few days after her second in command, Mark Hamer, had resigned. Back in August, the previous number two person, Roger Alford, was fired for resisting sweetheart settlements of antitrust cases. Trump friend, Mike Davis, is the lobbyist for Live Nation and he had previously gotten a $1 million “success fee” for getting the DOJ to drop its challenge to Hewlett Packard’s merger with Juniper Networks. (Several state Attorneys General are challenging the approval of this merger.) He also earned at least $1 million for getting the DOJ to approve the merger of the country’s two largest real estate brokers, Compass and Anywhere Real Estate, over the objections of antitrust division lawyers. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said the settlements of these antitrust cases “looks like corruption. … MAGA-aligned lawyers and lobbyists have been trying to sell off merger approvals … to the highest bidder.” [7]

The Trump administration’s failure to enforce antitrust laws allows monopolistic companies to increase prices, overwhelm small businesses, and put a damper on innovation. Overall, the Trump administration is doing nothing that affectively addresses the affordability crisis, while many of its actions exacerbate it.

My next post will discuss the income side of the affordability crisis and the factors that lead to low pay.

[1] Janssen, E., 12/1/25, “Selling the poor on spending like they’re rich,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/01/premiumization-plutonomy-middle-class-spending-gilded-age/)

[2] Fonseca, C., & Hecht, B., 2/13/26, “Slimmer pickings on midrange gym options,” The Boston Globe

[3] Curry Wimbish, W., 12/5/25, “Meet the connectors,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/05/meet-the-connectors-middlemen/)

[4] Abelson, R., & Robbins, R., 2/5/26, “Congress looks to diagnose cause of high drug prices,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

[5] Dayen, D., 4/30/24, “Live Nation strikes up the band in Washington,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/04/30/2024-04-30-live-nation-strikes-up-band-washington/)

[6] Dayen, D., 2/12/26, “Trump Justice Department poised to preserve Ticketmaster monopoly,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/02/12/trump-justice-department-ticketmaster-live-nation-monopoly/)

[7] Johnson, J., 2/13/26, “Warren says Trump DOJ ouster of antitrust chief ‘looks like corruption’ as lobbyists, Wall St rejoice,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/warren-gail-slater-antitrust)

THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS Part 2

Cost of Living Crisis theme done in a Posterised style. Inflation – Economics, cost, shopping basket, supermarket

The affordability crisis (aka cost of living crisis) in the U.S. is multifaceted and has been growing for 45 years, due to low pay and high prices. There are many factors pushing up prices well beyond normal inflation, including profit-taking middlemen and privatization of public goods and services.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

My previous post presented an overview of the affordability crisis (aka cost of living crisis) in the U.S., its 45 year history, and began a discussion of why prices are so high. It covered:

Monopolistic price gouging,
Tariffs, and
Personalized (aka surveillance) pricing driven by artificial intelligence (AI).

This post will discuss:

Profit-taking by middlemen (aka intermediaries) from ticket sellers to drug benefit managers that increases costs for consumers, often unjustifiably and even illegally.
Privatization and the fraud that often accompanies it leave consumers and taxpayers with higher costs and often degraded quality.

Middlemen, also referred to as intermediaries, are entities that operate between consumers and the producers of goods or services. Ostensibly, they make the market operate more efficiently by linking consumers and producers, while making transactions easier and smoother. However, given their need to make a profit, they often end up more focused on profit-making than helping markets operate efficiently. They add a layer of costs to consumers’ purchases, pushing up prices. [1]

Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) are a classic example of middlemen. The original intent was to reduce drug costs, saving insurers and consumers money, but that has morphed into rapacious profit making by manipulating the market and increasing drug costs for consumers. PBMs manage drug benefits for insurance companies and largely determine which drugs are available to insurees and how much they will pay for them. There are three huge, monopolistic PBMs that manage the great majority of drug benefits for private insurers, which is a $600 billion global market. They have found that they can be very profitable by negotiating kickbacks from drug manufacturers (that may be half the cost of a drug) for the drugs they include in an insurer’s formulary, i.e., the list of insured drugs and how much consumers must pay for them. They also sign contracts with pharmacies that tend to reward the big chains and make it very hard for independent pharmacies to exist. It’s estimated that 42 cents of every dollar paid for prescription drugs now goes to a PBM. Meanwhile, the PBM industry spends over $10 million a year lobbying the federal government to block regulation. [2]

As with the PBMs, other monopolistic middlemen often find ways to manipulate the market to make big profits by not only increasing prices for consumers but also lowering the prices they pay to producers. Amazon, once it gained monopolistic control of various e-commerce sectors, has shown itself to be a master at squeezing producers to minimize costs, while also figuring out ways to maximize its revenue from consumers.

Live Nation (parent company of Ticket Master) is another example of a monopolistic middleman. It dominates ticket sales for entertainment events and jacks up prices and adds junk fees to boost its profits. It has increased its monopolistic power by also managing thousands of performers and purchasing many entertainment venues. [3]

Middlemen, from Wall St. asset managers and stock traders to real estate agents, eBay, and the apps that deliver food to your door, add their costs and profits to transactions, thereby increasing prices for consumers. Some have been found to engage in illegal or at least unethical ways to increase their profits.

Meat packers are middlemen that buy meat from ranchers and farmers, process it, and sell it to consumer outlets, e.g., supermarkets. There are four giant meat packers that engage in monopolistic practices, both in the buying and the selling of meat. This, and illegal collusion, has led them to be very profitable as prices for consumers have increased dramatically while the prices they pay to meat producers have fallen. In October 2025, the meatpackers settled two separate price-fixing lawsuits for almost $300 million for illegally jacking up the prices of beef and pork.

As with middlemen, the privatization of goods and services typically delivered by government is presented as a way to make markets more efficient. There are many examples such as privatization of Medicare, roads and bridges with private tolls, and electricity, water, and sewer systems operated by private entities. Often, the profit motive leads to increased costs for consumers and decreased quality of the goods or services delivered.

For example, the federal government has allowed the privatization of the delivery of Medicare health care services to seniors through what are called Medicare Advantage plans. They are run by private insurers and are very profitable because they make it hard to get some health care services (especially expensive ones) and because they cheat the federal government. They cost more than traditional, publicly provided Medicare and deliver worse outcomes. It is estimated that Medicare would save at least $75 billion a year by eliminating Medicare Advantage plans. Because taxpayers pay for Medicare, they are driving up the taxes we all pay for Medicare’s health care. [4] (See this previous post for more detail on the Medicare Advantage rip off.)

Another example is Connecticut’s largest water system, which serves over 200,000 homes and businesses, and is privately owned by Eversource, the large New England utility corporation. It’s asking for a 42% rate increase ($88 million a year) or to allow it to be sold for $2.4 billion to a nonprofit, quasi-public entity. Many experts believe such a sale would lead to higher costs for consumers and weaker regulation. [5] This highlights the complexity and risk of having a public good such as water in private hands.

My next post will discuss the premiumization of markets, meaning that products and prices target consumers with high incomes, and factors that are keeping wages low.

[1] Curry Wimbish, W., 12/5/25, “Meet the connectors,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/05/meet-the-connectors-middlemen/)

[2] Curry Wimbish, W., 12/5/25, see above

[3] Dayen, D., 4/30/24, “Live Nation strikes up the band in Washington,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/04/30/2024-04-30-live-nation-strikes-up-band-washington/)

[4] Johnson, J., 1/28/26, “A $1.2 trillion ‘rip off’: Report spotlights massive scale of Medicare Advantage fraud,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/medicare-advantage-fraud)

[5] Associated Press, 12/18/25, “Connecticut’s largest water company seeking 42% rate increase,” The Boston Globe, Business Talking Points

THE MANY FACES OF THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS

The U.S. affordability crisis is multifaceted and has been growing for 45 years, driven by low pay and high prices. Many factors push up prices including monopolistic price gouging, tariffs, personalized pricing driven by AI, profit-taking middlemen, privatization, and premiumization of markets.

The American affordability crisis is a multifaceted beast that has been growing for 45 years, driven by low pay and high prices. There are many factors pushing up prices well beyond normal inflation, including monopolistic price gouging, tariffs, personalized (aka surveillance) pricing driven by AI, profit-taking middlemen, privatization, and premiumization of markets.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The American affordability crisis is a multifaceted beast that has been growing for 45 years. It’s driven by low pay and high prices. Over the last 45 years, many workers’ pay hasn’t kept up with the increase in prices. What pay increases there have been have gone disproportionately to high earners. Good, middle-class blue- and white-collar jobs have been lost to globalization, while the pay for remaining jobs has shrunk due to the purposeful undermining of unions and global wage competition. The result is a crushing affordability crisis for many current and formerly middle-class households, as well as for lower income households. [1]

According to a Brookings Institute analysis, 43% of American families can’t afford to pay for the housing, food, health care, child care, and transportation they need. This figure is 59% for Black families and 66% for Latino families. There’s been a dramatic shift in income from workers to executives and investors: in 1947 workers received 70% of total national income, while today they get only 59%. Unlike the previous 35 years, after 1980, workers did not receive wage increases that reflected their increases in productivity: from 1979 to 2025 workers’ productivity increased by 87% but their compensation only increased 33%. According to a Rand Corporation analysis, in 1975, the 90% of workers at the bottom of the income spectrum received 67% of national income, while in 2019 (the latest data it had) they received 47% of national income. It calculated that if those workers in 2023 had received 67% of national income (as they did in 1975), they would have earned an additional $4 trillion or, on average, each worker would have made $28,000 more than they did. Over the period from 1975 to 2023, if workers had received 67% of national income, they would, in aggregate, have received $79 trillion more in income. [2]

There are many factors that have been depressing workers’ compensation. They range from the failure to raise the minimum wage to the dramatic weakening of unions to the monopolistic power of huge employers. I’ll address these issues in future posts. This post will begin a discussion of why prices are so high.

There are many factors pushing up prices well beyond normal inflation. They include:

Monopolistic price gouging by huge companies due to a lack of antitrust enforcement, a lack of regulation, regional concentration, and other factors.
Tariffs. The best estimates are that they have added about 1% to the inflation rate so far.
Personalized (aka surveillance) pricing driven by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that squeeze every dollar possible out of consumers.
Profit-taking by middlemen (aka intermediaries) from ticket resellers to drug benefit managers.
Privatization and the fraud that often accompanies it.
Premiumization of markets, meaning that products and prices target consumers with high incomes.

Capitalism is out of control in the U.S. Competition has been stymied and monopolistic power is widespread in the U.S. economy. This means the “invisible hand” of a market economy and the economic “rules” of supply and demand do not work to keep prices down and quality up. The rules of the economic game have been rigged to favor large corporations, financial manipulation, and wealth. One indicator that clearly confirms this is that corporate profits are at historically very high levels in terms of percentage of revenue.

Many sectors of our economy are dominated by a small number of large companies that have monopolistic power, especially when the companies serve different, concentrated geographic areas. This has happened because of the failure to enforce antitrust laws for 45 years (except for four years under President Biden). This has allowed dominant companies to buy up competitors or put them out of business, often using illegal business practices that weren’t stopped or punished.

Regulation has been compromised (aka captured) by large companies through their political influence garnered by campaign spending and lobbying, as well as the revolving door of personnel between government regulatory positions and private industry jobs. As a result, many aspects of corporate behavior have been deregulated, allowing companies to increase profits through, for example, price gouging, high interest rates on loans and credit cards, high fees for overdrafts and late payments, and junk fees on entertainment tickets, hotel rooms, and airline fares (among other things).

Companies with monopolistic power (sometimes through illegal collusion with the few other large companies in an industry) can raise prices almost at will, generating abnormally high profits. They can also degrade service and product quality because there is no competition that can offer consumers a better deal. For example, Amazon, through extensive surveillance of both buyers’ and sellers’ behaviors, can manipulate the market to extract high prices from consumers and low prices from suppliers, generating huge profits for itself. HP (and others) won’t let you use replacement parts (such as ink cartridges) made by a competitor. Companies from Apple to John Deere to car makers won’t let third parties repair their devices or machines. And Monsanto won’t let farmers save seeds from their crops to use for planting next season; it requires them to buy new seed from it.

Technology companies and others, using AI with vast amounts of personal data and tremendous computer processing power, can tweak prices instantaneously so each consumer pays the maximum they’re willing or able to pay at a specific moment in time. For example, Uber will charge you more when it knows your phone is running low on battery power and you need to quickly accept your ride. It will also charge you more based on your past behavior: for example, if you always grab the first option that is offered. If it knows you’re a shopper and will wait for a better offer, it will offer you a better price to get your business. It may even charge you more if it knows you recently had a pay day. It also pays drivers differing amounts based on a similar calculus. If a driver always grabs the first job that shows up, it will pay them less than a driver that waits for a better paying option.

Airlines have engaged in some degree of individualized pricing for some time, e.g., the person sitting next to you probably didn’t pay the same price you did. Hotels have been found to offer different prices depending on where you’re located – more if you’re in a pricey suburb than if you’re in a lower income city neighborhood or rural community – assuming your location is an indication of how much you’re able and willing to pay.

My next post will discuss the effects on prices of profit-taking intermediaries, privatization and related fraud, and premiumization. After that, I’ll discuss the factors keeping workers’ pay low.

[1] Kuttner, R. 12/1/25, “Sources of America’s hidden inflation,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/01/sources-of-americas-hidden-inflation/)

[2] Meyerson, H., 12/3/25, “The $79 trillion heist,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/03/79-trillion-heist-worker-pay/)

REINING IN ICE Part 2

The revulsion at the violence, cruelty, lawlessness, and killings by ICE and CBP is growing. Please contact your U.S. Senators and Representative NOW and ask them to block funding for ICE, CBP, and DHS until major reforms make them compliant with the rule of law and the best practices of policing.

The revulsion at the violence, cruelty, terrorizing, lawlessness, and killings by ICE and CBP continues to grow. I urge you to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative NOW and ask them to block funding for ICE, CBP, and DHS until a full house cleaning and a total revamping of their operation make them compliant with the rule of law and the best practices of policing. Also, put March 28 on your calendar for the next No Kings protest.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

THANK YOU to the people of Minneapolis and Minnesota for showing us all how to stand up to ICE with dignity, strength, non-violent protest, and community support for vulnerable people. The broad, nationwide revulsion at violence, cruelty, terrorizing, lawlessness, and killings by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and their parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to grow. They, Trump, and his administration continue to lie about what they’ve done, are doing, and who they target and detain, as well as to smear and defame their victims.

Everyone, and especially every Republican in Congress and elsewhere, who is not standing up, condemning, and calling for an end to this domestic terrorism in service to an authoritarian president is complicit in this heinous behavior.

My previous post provided an overview of ICE and CBP actions and noted that the cruelty is the point and that the lawlessness is a feature not a bug. It encouraged you to contact your U.S. Senators to ask them to block the budget for ICE until changes were made. The Senate has now passed most of the federal government’s budget for the rest of the year (through Sept. 30), but funded DHS (including ICE and CBP) for only two weeks to allow negotiations over funding amounts and stipulations for full-year funding.

I strongly urge you to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative NOW and to ask them to block the budget for ICE and CBP until major reforms are made. You can call them or email them through their congressional websites. A bill will have to be passed by both the Senate and the House to fund DHS, including ICE and CBP. The level of funding for ICE and CBP should also be dramatically cut from the combined $36 billion a year currently budgeted. [1]

(Contact information for your US Representative is at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators is at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.)

ICE and CBP should meet the standards of any other police force in the country at a minimum. Additional requirements are also appropriate due to their past behavior and unique role. Here’s a list of some, but not all, of the things Congress should demand before funding ICE and CBP. It’s a long list, as the problems run deep, so pick a few items that resonate with you to mention when you contact your Senators and Representative. Also, feel free to put them in your own words. Let your elected officials know how upset or angry you are. Furthermore, tell them that strong enforcement mechanisms should be included because the track record of ICE, CBP, DHS, and the Trump administration has been to ignore Congress’s funding and policy directives.

Here are options for your message to your elected officials. Do NOT fund ICE or CBP until:

Thorough, credible investigations by local law enforcement of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti are underway with cooperation from all federal officials and agents.
All deaths and violence at the hands of ICE and CBP are and will be credibly investigated. In the last seven months, at least eight people have died and others have been shot in ICE and CBP actions. Furthermore, at least 35 people have died in ICE detention. These are minimum numbers as the Trump administration is obviously working to hide the extent of the violence and deaths. [2]
ICE and CBP agents are prohibited from wearing masks and carrying guns. (If they need armed law enforcement support, they should contact local or state police.)
- ICE and CBP agents are required to wear personal identification. (As police officers do.)
- ICE and CBP agents are required to have warrants from judges to arrest someone or search their home or vehicle. (As local and state police officers do.)
- ICE and CBP agents are required to wear body cameras at all times and to activate them whenever they are engaged in enforcement activities.
- ICE and CBP agents are required to pass background checks and have training equivalent to what a local or state police officer receives. Current agents who don’t meet these criteria are fired but allowed to reapply under these standards.
- ICE and CBP commit to the same standards of behavior, operation, discipline, and investigation of officers as state and local police. Among other things, this would stop racial / ethnic profiling and performance quotas.
- It’s made clear that ICE and CBP agents do NOT have immunity from prosecution under state laws.
- Arrests at sensitive locations are banned, such as courthouses, hospitals, schools, daycare providers, shelters, and places of worship.
- Detention and deportation of legal residents is ended.
- Detention and deportation of undocumented residents is ended unless they have a serious criminal conviction. This comports with what Trump and his administration say they are doing.
- Detention of caregivers of children and of children is ended. In these situations, federal agents should contact and coordinate with state child welfare agencies.
- ICE and CBP agents are only allowed to operate away from the border when they have a judicial warrant for the arrest of a specific individual.
- Targeting cities and states for political reasons is banned.
- Strong oversight and humane conditions at detention facilities are required.
- Requests or agreements that state or local police perform ICE or CBP duties are banned.
The leaders of ICE and CBP, starting from the top with DHS Secretary Noem, should resign or be impeached, and should be disciplined or prosecuted for their illegal actions. For example, for the detentions of U.S. citizens and those with no criminal record; for illegal deportations, violence, and forced entries into people’s homes; and for violations of judges’ orders.

As this list makes clear, the problems at ICE, CBP, and DHS are very serious and deep-seated. Please encourage your Senators and Representative to demand a full house cleaning and a total revamping of ICE and CBP to make them compliant with the rule of law and the best practices of policing.

A major, nationwide protest of ICE, CBP, and the Trump administration is being planned for No Kings Day 3 on Sat., March 28. A general strike may be organized in conjunction with this day of protest. Please put March 28 on your calendar now and plan to participate in and support the protest however you can.

[1] Hubbell, R., 1/29/26, “The people have put their lives on the line to resist ICE; Senate Democrats must now do their part to reform ICE from the ground up,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/the-people-have-put-their-lives-on)

[2] Curry Wimbish, W., 1/29/26, “A running count of how many people ICE has killed and injured,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/01/29/ice-trump-killed-injured-list-dhs-cbp-border-patrol-renee-good-alex-pretti/)

REINING IN ICE

ICE’s lawlessness, cruelty, and violence are well documented. PLEASE contact your U.S. Senators NOW. Ask them to block ICE’s budget until thorough, local investigations of ICE killings are underway and unless it includes strong accountability and transparency measures.

The Trump administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency’s record of lawlessness, cruelty, and unnecessary violence is well documented. Its budget is under consideration in Congress now. I urge you to contact your U.S. Senators NOW and ask them to block the budget for ICE until thorough, local investigations of the recent killings are underway and unless it includes strong accountability and transparency measures.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency’s record of lawlessness, cruelty, and unnecessary violence (aimed at detainees, protesters, peaceful monitors, and bystanders) is well documented. It and the Trump administration routinely lie about what it’s done and who it targets and detains. Increasingly, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which historically operated on the border, is joining ICE in its actions well away from the border. Both ICE and CBP are agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed by Secretary Kristi Noem. It’s clear that for ICE, CBP, and DHS:

Cruelty is the point (for intimidation and political purposes), and
Lawlessness is a feature not a bug, i.e., intentional and not a mistake.

The American public strongly supports reining in ICE, both in terms of its scale and scope, as well as its violent and lawless behavior. It’s critical, and past time, that Congress do everything it can to rein in ICE. Its budget is under consideration in Congress now. The House narrowly passed its budget with no significant provisions to rein in ICE. I strongly encourage you to contact your U.S. Senators NOW and ask them to block the budget for ICE until:

Thorough investigations by local law enforcement of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti are underway with cooperation from all federal officials and agents.

And to oppose any ICE budget that doesn’t include strong accountability and transparency measures including:

Prohibiting ICE agents from wearing masks and carrying guns. (If they need law enforcement support, they should contact local or state police.)
- Requiring them to wear personal identification. (All local and state police officers do.)
- Requiring them to have warrants from judges to arrest someone or enter someone’s home. (As local and state police officers do.)
- Clarifying that ICE agents do NOT have immunity from prosecution under state laws.

(Contact information for your US Senators is at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.)

ICE’s budget should be cut. It has grown faster than can be responsibly implemented and spent, while also being inappropriately larger than other agencies. The Trump / Republican budget bill in July doubled the ICE budget to $19 billion a year with an additional $17 billion a year for CBP. For the sake of comparison, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) got less than $1 billion a year, and the FBI’s budget is just $11 billion.

ICE’s leaders, starting from the top with DHS Secretary Noem, should be impeached or disciplined for their illegal actions. For example, for the detentions of U.S. citizens and those with no criminal record; for illegal deportations, use of violence, and forced entries into people’s homes; and for violations of judges’ orders.

Here are a few figures that highlight the scale of ICE and its actions: [1]

As of August 2025, over 60,000 people were in ICE detention and 70% of them had no criminal convictions.
Roughly 200,000 people have been deported in 2025 through August. Over 50,000 of them were children under twelve and over 20,000 of them were under 5 years old.
Under Trump, the overall number of monthly detentions has tripled to roughly 45,000. Fifteen thousand of them had criminal records (up 50% from under Biden), 15,000 had pending criminal charges (but no convictions) (up 200%), while 15,000 had no criminal record (up 1,400%). Clearly, the Trump administration’s rhetoric about detaining only serious criminals is a lie. Under President Biden, ICE detained about 15,000 people per month. Ten thousand had criminal records and 5,000 had pending criminal charges, while 1,000 or fewer had no criminal record.
ICE is clearly targeting states for political reasons (i.e., where Democrats are in control and not those with Republicans in control). For example, Texas, with an estimated 1.7 million undocumented immigrants and Florida with about one million have the 2^nd and 3^rd largest numbers of undocumented immigrants (after California with about two million). However, there have not been big efforts by ICE to detain immigrants in Texas and Florida. However, Minnesota, with fewer than 100,000 undocumented immigrants and Maine with 5,000 are currently experiencing large ICE detention campaign.

By the way, there is lots of good news, on the ICE front as well as elsewhere! For example, Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here and here include:

Spotify has stopped running ICE recruitment ads.
Avelo Airlines has stopped deportation flights. (They say it’s part of ‘streamlining its network’ but I believe that protests and boycotts are a big reason.)
Six federal prosecutors and an FBI agent have resigned due to the Justice Department’s failure to appropriately investigate the shooting of Renee Good.
Minneapolis residents in huge numbers are protesting, as well as organizing and volunteering to support immigrant members of their community. Truly inspiring!!
A judge ruled that ICE and DHS can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters.
Clergy occupied Target headquarters in Minneapolis and got a meeting with the CEO to ask him to stop letting ICE in their stores.
57% of Americans now view ICE unfavorably and a slight plurality favor abolishing it.
58% of Americans now say that Trump’s second term has been a failure.
Facing backlash, the Trump administration restored over $2 billion in mental health and addiction funding, just one day after announcing cuts.
Congress, in its work on the budget, is quietly rejecting almost all the deepest cuts to federal programs that Trump requested, rebuking his efforts to slash funding for foreign aid, global health, scientific research, the arts, and more in a bipartisan repudiation.
A federal judge in California became the second one to dismissa Justice Department case seeking to force state officials to give the department an unredacted list of the state’s voters.
CBS Evening News’ audience is down 23% probably due to its new, right-wing slant.
Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) filed articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Noem for obstruction of Congress, violation of the public trust, and self-dealing. Over 50 House Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.
The Washington National Opera will move its performances out of the Kennedy Center, in perhaps the largest rebuke yet to Trump’s renaming of the Kennedy Center with his name.
Democratic and Republican Senators agreed unanimously to mount a plaque honoring the Capitol police officers who fought Trump’s insurrection mob at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Republican House Speaker Johnson has refused to mount the plaque, which is required by law.
More than 1,000 companies are suing the Trump administration over tariffs, demanding refunds.
A major Catholic newspaper called Vice President JD Vance a “moral stain” and accused him of having a “twisted and wrongheaded view of Christianity”.

[1] Mother Jones, Nov./Dec. 2025, “American gulag,” (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/10/american-gulag-immigration-police-state-ice-deportation-detention-centers-trump-miller/)

BLUNTING THE IMPACT OF BIG MONEY IN ELECTIONS

Big money is corrupting our elections and elected officials. There are ways to blunt its impact that can be taken now by Democratic Party officials and by state and municipal governments. Contact them and encourage them to act now to blunt the impact of big money in our political system.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The U.S. economy is not working well for regular, working Americans. It is, however, working quite well for wealthy Americans and extremely well for the very wealthy. But for regular people, the affordability of every day life is often challenging and economic inequality is unfair. This is the result of government policies, including those for labor, taxes, health care, financial services, antitrust, corporate regulation, social services (e.g., child care and elder care), and the safety net.

The major reason that policies are so skewed to benefit the wealthy is the way we allow election campaigns to be financed. We now allow unlimited spending, unlimited contributions, and a lack of disclosure of who is contributing large sums of money. Citizens United and related Supreme Court decisions have greatly exacerbated the problem and made it difficult to tackle without a constitutional amendment – which is nowhere on the near-term horizon.

Here are three campaign finance reforms that can be done now and would dramatically reduce the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in our elections:

Democrats should ban super Political Action Committee (super PAC) money and dark money (where the true donor is hidden) from their primaries. The Democratic Party sets its own rules for its primaries, so it could do this without legislation or any outside action. Eight Democratic Senators have called for such a ban. The Arizona Democratic Party has passed a resolution banning super PAC money in primaries. [1] Please see the case study of AIPAC’s spending in Democratic primaries below for an example of why this is important.
States and municipalities should enact campaign finance systems that use public funds to match small (e.g., less than $250) campaign contributions from residents of the election district. This previous post describes New York City’s public campaign financing system and its impact. And this post describes the role such campaign finance systems can play in supporting democracy.
States should remove corporations’ power to contribute to political campaigns and PACs. States, and only states, not the federal government, charter corporations. Corporations have no powers until a state grants them some and they only have those powers granted to them by their state charters. Delaware, where more corporations are chartered than any other state, does not, for example, grant private foundations the power to spend money on elections. Although the lack of power to spend money on elections has not been a feature of most corporate charters, there appears to be no reason that it couldn’t be. In Montana, an amendment to the state constitution will be presented to voters this November that would eliminate the power to spend money on elections from the powers of corporations chartered or operating in Montana. [2] It would apply to local, state, and federal elections, as well as to spending on ballot questions. [3]

The influence of PAC money in our elections is tremendous. In the sixteen years since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, PAC spending has grown from roughly $150 million to over $4 billion. In addition, dark money spending has grown to hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. (There’s no exact figure because much of this money is unreported and intentionally hidden.) However, most of the dark money spending is done by non-profit corporations organized under Section 501(c)(4) of federal tax law, which could have their power to spend on elections eliminated. [4] (For an overview of how money is corrupting our elections and elected officials, see this previous post.)

The campaign spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a case study of the impact of PAC money in Democratic primaries. AIPAC unequivocally supports Israel and demands that the politicians it gives money to do so as well. In the 2023-24 election cycle, more than 80% of the members of Congress received money from AIPAC. It spent roughly $100 million (mostly raised from big Republican donors) targeting Democrats it deemed insufficiently supportive of Israel. It spent $15 million to successfully beat incumbent U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) in his Democratic primary. Bowman’s offense was that he cosponsored a resolution banning the use of U.S. funding for Israel from being used to harm Palestinian children. AIPAC also targeted Cori Bush (D-IA) for criticizing Israel’s crimes against humanity. She lost in her Democratic primary. The bottom line is that AIPAC, a single-issue lobbying and campaign donation group, using money primarily from Republican donors, has succeeded in muting, if not silencing, Democratic criticism of Israel, despite the atrocities and horrors of Israel’s war against the Palestinians. On the other hand, AIPAC has supported politicians with white supremacist views as well as ones who deny that Biden won the 2020 presidential election because of their unequivocal support for Israel. [5]

Big money has far too much influence in our elections to have a true democracy. I urge you to contact national and state Democratic Party leaders and elected officials and to ask them to ban PAC and dark money in Democratic primaries. I also urge you to contact your state legislators and statewide office holders, as well as municipal officials, and ask them to create a campaign finance system that matches small in-district contributions with public funds, as New York State and City have done. While you’re talking with them, ask your state officials to remove corporations’ power to contribute to election campaigns, including ballot question campaigns if you have those in your state.

[1] Corbett, J., 6/17/25, “8 Senators demand Super PAC, dark money ban in Democratic primaries,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/super-pac)

[2] Reich, R., 1/24/25, “How to get rid of ‘Citizens United’,” (https://substack.com/@robertreich/p-177418904)

[3] Moore, T., 9/15/25, “The Corporate Power Reset That Makes Citizens United Irrelevant,” (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-corporate-power-reset-that-makes-citizens-united-irrelevant/)

[4] Moore, T., 9/15/25, see above

[5] Conwright, A., Nov. 2025, “The Congressional Black Caucus’s silent partnership with AIPAC,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/society/congressional-black-caucus-aipac-gaza/)

DEMOCRATS AND ELECTIONS

Two key questions for 2026: Will we have fair and honest elections? What do the Democrats need to do to win – and win big? I encourage you to contact your state election officials, as well as national and state Democratic Party leaders and elected officials. Answers and messages are provided below.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The elections in 2026 are going to be very important for the future of our country and our democracy. In this post, I’ll focus on two key questions:

Will we have fair and honest elections in 2026? Not completely, but if state officials and the courts stand up for the Constitution, which gives the states the power to run elections, the elections should be OK. I encourage you to contact your state election officials and ask them to refuse to give the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) your state’s voter database. (See more below.) [1] [2]
What do the Democrats need to do to win – and hopefully to win big, i.e., take control of both the U.S. House and Senate, as well as expand their control or power in state governments? Unequivocally embrace support for working Americans, i.e., a progressive, populist economic agenda. I urge you to contact national and state Democratic Party leaders and elected officials with this message. (See more below.) [3] [4]

Question 1: There are serious threats to the integrity of our elections because Trump and the Republicans know they won’t win if voting is fair and participation is high. The threat is NOT from voter fraud (as Trump and the Republicans like to claim), which is incredibly rare. The threat is voter suppression: keeping people from being able to register, wrongfully purging them from voting rolls, or keeping them from voting through obstacles to casting their vote, intimidation, or negative campaigning that makes them feel that their vote doesn’t matter.

Most notably, the DOJ has demanded access to at least 40 states’ voter databases. Although the Constitution clearly gives states control over election administration, the DOJ appears to be trying to claim that state voter databases are inaccurate and then to demand that states purge significant numbers of voters. If state officials refuse to purge voters as requested, the DOJ apparently plans to prosecute state officials and/or get court orders to force them to purge voters. The Trump administration has also attempted to usurp states’ constitutional power to administer elections by imposing voter ID requirements and taking control of the choice and certification of voting equipment, among other things.

The bottom line is that the DOJ will continue to make (largely unconstitutional) demands on state (and municipal) election officials. Many of them will resist and the DOJ will take them to court. Hopefully, the courts will uphold the Constitution and the states’ control of elections. Some of these cases may make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a track record of supporting the Trump administration and undermining voting rights. The good news is that the Supreme Court would not have time before the 2026 elections to review all the cases that would occur in the lower courts. Nonetheless, it has done significant damage to voting rights and could do more.

There’s also gerrymandering, which selectively amplifies the influence of some voters and dilutes the influence of others. Through sophisticated analyses of detailed demographic data using powerful computers, Republicans have taken gerrymandering for partisan purposes to a whole new level over the last 15 years. Although past gerrymandering will favor Republicans in the U.S. House races in 2026, the recent, very blatant gerrymandering efforts by Trump and the Republicans have mostly fizzled due to some Republican resistance (e.g., in Indiana) and Democrats responding in-kind to neutralize Republican efforts.

Question 2: There’s an on-going debate among the upper echelons of the Democratic Party about what it needs to do to win elections: should it unequivocally stand up for working Americans and unions, and against wealthy individuals and businesses that support oligarchy? Or continue to hedge its support for working Americans and unions in order to garner big-dollar campaign contributions and support from wealthy special interests?

Recent election results and the reception that economic populism gets in polls (over many years) and in politicians’ speeches make it clear that the affordability of living and the economic inequality in the U.S. are powerful issues that motivate voters, especially working Americans. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez, on their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour that loudly calls for economic populism, have gotten enthusiastic responses from large crowds – even in very Republican parts of the country. Most recently, New York City Mayor Mamdani is getting powerful, enthusiastic responses to his message of economic populism, i.e., making life affordable for everyday New Yorkers.

If the New York City and other election results aren’t enough to convince the leaders of the Democratic Party that they need to return to the Party’s roots in economic populism, perhaps polling results will convince them. An Economist/YouGov poll released on December 30, 2025, showed that 80% of Americans believe that “political institutions have been captured by the rich and powerful,” 82% believe that “elites are out of touch with the realities of everyday life,” and 74% believe that “leaders who come from ordinary backgrounds better represent people like me.” [5] Furthermore, 65% of Americans are worried about the cost of food and 61% about housing costs. Well over 50% of Americans want Medicare for All and 70% believe corporations pay too little in taxes. [6]

Mamdani, in his inauguration speech, underscored a new politics that the Democratic Party should embrace to generate enthusiasm and support and that led to his victory. It focuses on “freedom to” rather than “freedom from.” For most Americans, government regulation and investment in education, infrastructure, and a safety net provide freedom to live and enjoy life that is not limited by economic insecurity and other obstacles imposed by policies that favor wealthy individuals and their companies (the Democrat’s so-called donor class). However, Republicans (and some Democrats) have for 45 years been calling for shrinking the government’s role, for reducing regulations and taxes, in order to increase Americans’ freedom from constraints. [7] This primarily benefits the wealthy and their businesses.

If Democrats want to win elections, they have to be unequivocal about addressing the affordability crisis, which requires embracing economic populism and progressive remedies including increasing the minimum wage; ensuring affordable food, health care, housing, and child care; stopping monopolistic companies from ripping off consumers and employees; and requiring wealthy individuals and companies to pay their fair share in taxes. I urge you to contact national and state Democratic Party leaders and elected officials to give them this message.

[1] Kuttner, R., 12/23/25, “Will we have free and fair elections in 2026?” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/12/23/will-we-have-free-fair-elections-2026/)

[2] Atkins Stohr, K., 12/25/25, “Why Trump’s Justice Department is coming for your voter data – and your vote,” The Boston Globe

[3] Sunkara, B., Sept. 2025, “Democrats keep misreading the working class,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/working-class-democrats-mamdani-jeffries-schumer/)

[4] The Nation, Nov. 2025, “People are furious with Democrats. Bernie Sanders knows why.” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-mamdani/)

[5] Cox Richardson, H., 1/2/26, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-2-2026)

[6] Caiazzo,J., 11/13/25, “How Democrats can build a party worth believing in,” The Hill (https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5602181-rebuilding-democratic-party/)

[7] Cox Richardson, H., 1/2/26, see above

GOOD NEWS TO START THE NEW YEAR

2025 was a horrible year for American democracy. However, many good things did happen; here are some of them. Let’s keep up the activism and resistance in 2026. And let’s get out to vote and get everyone we know out to vote. That will make it a much better year than 2025 was. Happy New Year!

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

2025 was a horrible year for American democracy. However, there were glimmers of hope and many good things did happen. Let’s start 2026 by looking at some of the good things that happened in 2025.

Many increases in the minimum wage, put in place in 2025 or earlier, will go into effect in 2026. On January 1, 19 states will increase their minimum wage, on average from $13.90 to $14.57. (Note: The federal minimum wage is $7.25.) Over eight million workers will benefit. Three more states and D.C. will increase their minimum wage later in 2026. Furthermore, roughly 50 counties and municipalities will increase their minimum wage in 2026. [1]

Bob Reich presents his 2025 top ten biggest wins in domestic politics in a 3.5-minute video from Inequality Media. They include the growing pushback and protests against Trump and his administration from the public at the No Kings rallies and through other actions. He notes Democratic election wins for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia, for Mayor in Miami, New York, and Seattle, and for supreme court seats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, among others. He highlights positive actions by voters and legislators in several states in support of school meals and universal child care, in opposition to huge data centers and consumer price manipulation, and in blocking junk fees and private equity firms’ ownership of health care providers. He also celebrates the resurgence of unions and worker solidarity, including the strike by Starbucks workers.

Medea Benjamin at Common Dreams identifies “10 good things that happened in 2025” in the arena of justice and peace here in the U.S. and abroad. They include the growing protests against ICE and support for immigrants, which have led to the release of a number of ICE detainees. The growing resistance to war and the use of the military by theTrump administration also make the list, along with the growing opposition to the horrors of the ongoing war on the Palestinians.

Jess Craven, in her Chop Wood, Carry Water blog, posts good news at a very granular level every Sunday. In addition to touching on many of the topics mentioned above, her 12/28 edition also highlighted the Supreme Court ruling disallowing the Trump administration’s deploying of the National Guard in Chicago, the growing resistance to ICE, and increasing opposition to the Trump administration’s military actions. She also notes the freeing of Abrego Garcia from ICE detention and Arizona’s elimination hundreds of millions of dollars of medical debt for its residents. And much more. In her 12/21 edition, she highlighted the growing production of clean energy (despite the Trump administration’s opposition), resignations at the Heritage Foundation (the source of Project 2025), the success of a discharge petition in the U.S. House requiring a vote on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies, a judge blocking the corrupt sale of a private equity-owned nursing home chain (to escape liability for patient negligence claims), and a judge’s nullification of the Trump administration’s termination of some federal employees. And much, much more.

Let’s keep up the activism and resistance in 2026! And let’s get out to vote and get everyone we know out to vote. That will make it a much better year than 2025 was. I’m raring to go and I hope you are too!

Happy New Year!

[1] Wilkins, B., 12/31/25, “‘A national disgrace’: 19 states to raise minimum wage but federal rate stuck at $7.25,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/minimum-wage-increase-2026)

ALTERNATIVES TO THE HUGE, BILLIONAIRE-OWNED NEWS AND MEDIA COMPANIES

The huge, billionaire-owned news and media companies are not providing voters with the balanced, factual information needed for a well-functioning democracy. I urge you to abandon these biased, corporate news sources, or, at the least, complement them with independent, typically viewer / reader supported, non-profit sources, such as those listed below.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The huge, billionaire-owned news and media companies are not providing voters with the balanced, factual information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy. In particular, they are not reporting on Trump, his administration, and his allies in a way that provides accurate, important information and context. In large part this reflects the bias of their owners toward conservative or right-wing, capitalist points of view. Can you imagine their reporting if President Biden had fallen asleep in cabinet meetings? Or had had an MRI and wouldn’t reveal what was scanned or why? Or once misspoke or blatantly lied as Trump does multiple times in every speech he gives?

My previous post identified seven ways to compensate for or correct this bias in the mainstream media, two that are things we can do as individuals, while the other five require institutional action.

The first individual step, which we all can and should take, is to patronize independent, reader / viewer funded news media. Your time spent reading / viewing them, your subscriptions to them, and, if you can, your financial support of them boosts their viability. Furthermore, share their content; comment on and like their reporting.

There’s so much information and so many sources of it that it’s overwhelming. Skimming is definitely required; only read, watch, or listen to pieces that particularly interest you or that are truly important. Keep in mind that a lot of the “news” from Trump and his administration is insignificant; it’s meant to divert attention and to confuse and overwhelm the media and all of us.

Here are some suggestions. First, do pay attention to (i.e., skim and read selectively) your local and state news. They are important and the foundation of democracy and grassroots activism.

Pick a local news source or two in your community to follow (assuming they exist).
Pick a state or regional news source or two to follow. For me, that’s the Boston Globe.

For national political news, analysis, and commentary (which is my focus), pick a couple of sources to follow (i.e., skim and read / watch selectively) from the options below or others. For visual news and information, here are three recommendations:

Watch or listen to your local PBS TV and/or radio station.
Watch the short videos (typically 4 – 6 minutes) from Robert Raich at Inequality Media. They are informative, yet entertaining and easy to understand, They cover current news and explanations of how our economy and democracy work or should work.
Watch or listen to Democracy NOW! programming on your TV, radio, computer, or other device. It airs an hour long current international news program recorded each weekday at 8 a.m. Eastern Time. It is available on the Internet, via its website, and on more than 1,400 radio and television stations. It combines worldwide news, investigative journalism, and progressive political commentary.

If you like text (to read or skim) here are some recommendations:

Robert Hubbell publishes a daily online newsletter, Today’s Edition Newsletter, that covers current political news, providing analysis and commentary, particularly from a legal perspective. He is upbeat and optimistic. He includes specific opportunities to take grassroots action to fight for our democracy. You can also listen to the newsletter as a podcast.
Heather Cox Richardson publishes a daily online newsletter, Letters from an American, that covers current political events and provides analysis and context, and often a historical perspective.
Common Dreams distributes daily or weekly emails with summaries of and links to its relatively short articles covering current political news that is often underreported by the mainstream media.
Robert Reich publishes a daily online newsletter that provides analysis of and commentary on current political events and policies. He identifies policies that have led to our current situation and ones that would remedy it.
Mother Jones provides broad reporting, including progressive political commentary and investigative journalism. It’s available in print (every two months), online, and via videos, e-newsletters, and podcasts.
The Nation covers politics and culture with a progressive bent both online and in print (monthly). It has a variety of focused email newsletters one can sign up for as well as podcasts.
The American Prospect magazine (every 2 months) and website is the best and most comprehensive source for progressive policy analysis and proposals, in my humble opinion. It also has a variety of e-newsletters one can sign up for.
ProPublica does incredible and impactful investigative journalism with great depth and breadth, including national, regional, and local investigations. Its products are available online. It has e-newsletters one can sign up for. It also maintains a searchable database of the annual returns filed by non-profit organizations.
Chop Wood, Carry Water, Jess Craven’s daily blog on politics, includes messages to deliver to your members of Congress. She posts every Sunday a good news post that’s a very welcome source of hope and encouragement in these dark times.

Other sources that I use on occasion include the Economic Policy Institute, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Brennan Center for Justice, Open Secrets (on money in elections), The Guardian (which includes international news), and The Atlantic. A longer list by topic is available here from Project Censored. (Note: Project Censored’s primary goal is to highlight stories un- or under-reported by the mainstream media, i.e., effectively censored by them.)

Huge billionaire-owned news and media companies are dangerous, harmful, and biased. They control and skew the information we receive and not infrequently deliver disinformation. They are not providing voters with the balanced, factual information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy.

I urge you to abandon the biased, corporate news sources, or, at the least, complement them with independent, typically viewer / reader supported, non-profit sources. There are plenty of options for good news and information that better serve voters in a democracy.

FIXES FOR HUGE, BILLIONAIRE-OWNED NEWS AND MEDIA COMPANIES

Huge news and media companies are dangerous and harmful. They control the information and disinformation we receive. They are not providing voters with the information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy. Here are steps to rein in and compensate for their dangers and harm.

Huge news and media companies owned by billionaires are dangerous and harmful. They control the information and disinformation we receive. They are not providing voters with the complete, balanced, factual information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy. Therefore, we need, individually and through government policy, to take steps, such as those below, to rein in and compensate for their dangers and harm.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

My previous post focused on the dangers of huge, for-profit, billionaire-owned news and media companies in the TV, radio, print, and social media markets. It noted how their profit motive drives divisive content and a focus on culture war issues. And how this skews our politics and the focus of politicians and the public, while it undermines democracy.

This post focuses on how we can respond to this corruption of our news and media both personally and through government and institutional actions, including the following: [1] [2]

Most immediately, patronize independent, reader / viewer funded news media. In particular, support local media, including local Public Broadcast System (PBS) radio and TV, as well as local print and on-line news sources. Your time spent reading / viewing and subscriptions to these outlets and, if you can, your financial support boosts their viability. Share their content; comment on and like their reporting. (Here’s a link to a previous post that identifies eight sources of news and analysis that I recommend. Much longer lists by topic are available here from Project Censored. Note: Project Censored’s primary goal is to highlight stories un- or under-reported by the mainstream media, i.e., effectively censored by them.)
Enhance media literacy for ourselves, our families, friends, and colleagues. Build critical thinking skills so we and everyone we know can distinguish truth from misinformation, disinformation, lies, and fiction, i.e., real news from fake news. Encourage schools and adult learning programs to include courses on critical thinking and media literacy. More information is available from PBS here.
Expect and, where possible, require news and media companies to clearly and fully disclose conflicts of interest and biases. When they don’t, call them out with comments, posts, letters to the editor, etc. Media watchdogs and professional associations should lead the way on this. Ultimately, ownership of news and media companies by individuals and entities with other business interests should be banned. This would prevent many conflicts of interest and biases. It would also insulate the news and media companies from being manipulated by government officials or others through leverage via other business interests. For example, Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post and also Amazon, which has significant government contracts and is affected by many government labor regulations. Similarly, Elon Musk owns X and has many interests via government contracts and regulations on his other companies. Therefore, they are both susceptible to manipulation by President Trump.
Viewers’ and readers’ personal information should be protected (e.g., ban its collection) and it should be illegal to use it to tailor individual’s news feeds. Personal information is currently used to feed audiences one-sided and slanted information, including disinformation, to spark their emotions and therefore their engagement. This is divisive for society and undermines democracy by failing to provide voters with complete, balanced, factual information.
Regulate social media with a combination of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards and public utility regulations. These would require them to serve the public interest and to stop harming children. They should be liable for failures to moderate content for accuracy, to prevent hate speech and other inflammatory messages (e.g., calls for violence), and to prevent harm.
Reinstate rules on fairness and accuracy in broadcast media that the FCC repealed in the 1980s. Require that news divisions operate independently of executives, advertising, and shareholders, as they did prior to the 1980s. The relicensing of TV and radio stations for their use of the public airwaves should enforce these standards and serious fines should be levied for violations of them.
Use antitrust laws and anti-monopoly regulations to stop any further consolidation in the news and media industry. Ultimately, the huge conglomerates should be broken up. The FCC should change its rules and lower the number of news and media outlets any one entity is allowed to own in local, regional, and national markets.

Huge news and media companies are dangerous and harmful. They control the information and disinformation we receive. Their billionaire owners have biases, including politically. They are not providing voters with the complete, balanced, factual information they need to maintain a well-functioning democracy.

This situation is not inevitable. Personal and institutional actions, including public policies of governments, can change it. Steps, such as those above, need to be taken to rein in and compensate for the dangers and harms of huge news and media companies with billionaire owners.

[1] Reich, R., 11/26/25, “The billionaires destroying our media system and what to do about it,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/billionaire-ownership-media)

[2] Reich, R., 12/2/25, “The monetization of rage,” (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-monetization-of-rage)

THE DANGERS OF HUGE FOR-PROFIT NEWS AND MEDIA COMPANIES

The dramatic consolidation under billionaire owners in the news and media industry over the last 40 years includes TV, radio, print, and social media. Their profit motive drives them to promote divisive and culture war messages that they have found are most effective at attracting attention and viewers. It also pushes them to minimize local reporting and homogenize news to national topics. All of this undermines local civic engagement, perverts politics and politicians, and harms democracy.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

My previous post focused on the huge billionaire-owned companies in the news and media industry that dominate national information dissemination: in TV and streaming: Paramount (with CBS, etc.), Warner Brothers (with CNN, etc.), Fox, Netflix, and Amazon; in social media: Meta and X; and in print media: the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. It noted the dangers of monopolistic power, particularly in the news and media industry, including resulting in news that is biased, including politically.

In the broadcast TV market, the three biggest companies (Sinclair, Nexstar, and Gray) own 40% of all local TV stations (about 100 each) and cover 80% of the U.S. [1] In the broadcast radio market, iHeartMedia is the country’s largest owner of radio stations, owning almost 900 AM and FM radio stations across the U.S. It was formerly Clear Channel Communications, which was founded in 1972 and taken private in 2008 by venture capital firms Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners in a leveraged buyout (i.e., one using substantial amounts of borrowed money). iHeart has gained its dominance through many acquisitions, mergers, and reorganizations over its 53 years.

The presence of huge billionaire-owned companies in the news and media industry goes much deeper than TV and radio. In the newspaper market, Gannett now owns one-sixth of all local daily papers. Venture capital firms like Alden Global Capital have been actively buying and consolidating (or closing) local print media. In some cases, the local newspapers have been struggling financially, but in any case, the purchasers typically slash jobs and the quality of the journalism. They often strip the papers of their assets (e.g., land and buildings), and then often close them or drive them into bankruptcy after collecting dividends and “management” fees. This is the standard venture capital business model (which I often refer to as vulture capitalism). (See this previous post for a summary of this business model and this post for an example of Alden Global Capital’s operation. Both posts are from 2018, so this has been an issue for quite some time.)

To minimize costs, outlets that remain in business typically run homogenized national or regional news instead of local reporting. The loss of local reporting means the loss of coverage of local community activities, events, and organizations, including local government and local candidates for local, state, and even national offices. This can be particularly damaging in rural communities. [2]

With the demise of local reporting, fewer Americans know who their local elected officials are and voter turnout in local elections declines. The ability to hold those in power accountable, especially in local offices, can be decimated and misinformation (or disinformation) often fills the void. This weakens local civic engagement and democracy.

Furthermore, research shows that while Americans are most affected by government policies and programs on economic and affordability of living issues, over the last 40 years the news and media industry’s coverage of government and politics has shifted to the so-called culture war issues, such as race, crime, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and guns.

The harms of huge billionaire-owned companies dominating the news and media industry are exacerbated by their single-minded focus on maximizing profits. Beginning in the 1980s, with talk radio, cable TV, and Fox News, coupled with a more competitive and profit-focused industry, news and media companies became more and more focused on attracting attention and audience at any cost. As a result, sensationalism and rapid, first-to-report became more important. These outlets also discovered that conflict and divisive culture war issues were most effective in getting attention and audiences, and even in attracting viewers who normally didn’t watch the news. They had discovered, as the advertising industry had too, that emotions are more easily aroused, are more powerful motivators, and are more malleable than rational, intellectual messages and attempts at persuasion.

Studies have found that audiences who watch more cable news give greater importance to culture war issues. This influences our politics and politicians, who have responded with more culture war focus and messaging. This makes culture war issues more salient in voters’ minds and in elections. Fox “News” has been found to be the most powerful contributor to this evolution to a focus on culture war issues. One analyst summed this up in these words: “the companies that abuse our attention for profit are the real winners of American politics.” [3]

President Trump and his administration, with the support of his allies in the “news” and media industry, are taking this strategy to new heights, or perhaps new depths would be more appropriate. The consolidation of news and media companies under billionaire ownership dangerously aids and abets this political perversion of the information delivered to the American public.

My next post will focus on what can be done about media consolidation under billionaire owners and alternative sources of news and information.

[1] Martin, G.J., Mastrorocco, N., McCrain, J., & Ornaghi, A., 9/6/24, “Media consolidation,” Stanford University (https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/media_consolidation.pdf)

[2] Agrawal, N., 3/3/25, “The fight against media consolidation: Uplifting local journalism to improve civic engagement,” The Lambert Post (https://thelambertpost.com/opinions/the-fight-against-media-consolidation-uplifting-local-journalism-to-improve-civic-engagement/)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 12/9/25, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/december-9-2025) page 2

THE DANGERS OF MEDIA CONSOLIDATION AND BILLIONAIRE OWNERS

The creation of huge mega-companies is harmful, in part because they have monopolistic powers. It is particularly concerning in the media and news industry because they control the information we receive. Recent and proposed mergers and acquisitions in the media industry have heightened concerns about politically slanted “news” due to billionaire owners. A citizenry that’s well informed is essential to a well-functioning democracy and there’s a growing danger that these huge media companies and their billionaire owners are not providing citizens and voters with the information they need.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The consolidation of companies through mergers and acquisitions to produce huge mega-companies is harmful for consumers, workers, small businesses, innovation, our economy, and our country. Huge companies have monopolistic powers over prices, product quality, and jobs because of limited competition.

Huge companies, owned by billionaires, are particularly concerning in the media and news industry because they control the information we receive and, therefore, what we know. A citizenry that’s well informed with important and truthful information is essential to a well-functioning democracy. Disinformation and a lack of information are what allow authoritarians and dictators to rule.

Because of consolidation and limited local competition, the costs of Internet access and cable TV have been going up. Costs have been increasing too for content providers and streaming services because of consolidation in those areas as well.

Recent and proposed mergers and acquisitions in the media industry have heightened concerns, not only about competition and prices, but also about politically slanted “news” as directed by billionaire owners. There are concerns about Trump’s influence on the owners and bias in reporting on him and his administration. For example, Paramount, owner of CBS and lots of other media companies, and its new billionaire CEO David Ellison have already installed a right-leaning journalist with limited experience as editor in chief of CBS news. Ellison has also gutted CBS’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and installed a right-winger as “ombudsman” to (supposedly) ensure the fairness of news coverage. Paramount and Ellison are bidding to acquire Warner Brothers, which owns CNN among other entities, and are reportedly soliciting money from the Saudis and other Mideast sovereigns to help fund their bid. Ellison’s father, Larry Ellison, billionaire owner of Oracle and the world’s second richest person, has reportedly told President Trump that Paramount would fire CNN personnel that Trump doesn’t like if a deal for Warner Brothers is made and Trump’s regulators approve it. [1]

Billionaire owners of media companies generally have strong biases that are likely to affect the news and information (or disinformation) their companies report and spread. For example, billionaires (and other wealthy people) want public policies that allow them to make and keep great wealth. They often view democratic governance as a threat because it holds equal opportunity and equity as foundational principles. Billionaires may well want to suppress information on and criticism of their great wealth and the actions of their companies, or the private sector and unregulated markets in general. They may want to hide the ways they influence public officials and public policies, as well as the favorable policies they get.

The goals of billionaire media owners are not to provide valuable information to the citizens of a democracy, but rather to enrich and protect themselves. They also know that President Trump can and will support their companies (e.g., with government contracts and subsidies, by approving their proposed acquisitions) if they are on good terms with him. However, if they have a bad relationship, he can wreak havoc on their companies with regulations, tariffs, selective law enforcement, suits, penalties, or by using antitrust laws to block their acquisitions. [2]

Billionaire media owners include:

Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, who bought the major social media platform, Twitter, and rebranded it, X. He has allowed and encouraged it to become a purveyor of right-wing disinformation, hate speech, and dangerous rhetoric.
Larry Ellison, the second richest person, who, with his family, owns Paramount, CBS and many other media companies as described above. They are big supporters of Trump and Republicans. CBS paid Trump $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit and canceled Stephen Colbert’s show because he was often critical of Trump. (Some senior CBS staff, including at 60 Minutes, resigned because of presumably because they were told to treat Trump favorably.) The Trump administration then approved a multi-billion-dollar merger of Paramount and Skydance.
Mark Zuckerberg, the third richest person, who owns Meta, which includes Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. He has allowed his companies to spread disinformation, hate speech, and messaging dangerous to the health and safety of children. He has also been a Trump supporter.
Jeff Bezos, the fourth richest person, who owns The Washington Post and Amazon, including all its media entities. He blocked the publishing of an editorial endorsing Kamal Harris in 2024 and has directed the Post’s editorial and opinion writing to support “personal liberties and free markets.” (The billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times also blocked an editorial endorsing Kamal Harris.) Bezos is a Trump supporter and paid Melania Trump (the President’s wife) a staggering $40 million for the right to make a documentary about her.
Billionaire Rupert Murdoch and his offspring, who own Fox, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. It’s widely recognized that Fox spreads disinformation favorable to Trump and Republicans, up to and including false election fraud disinformation that led to a court decision requiring Fox to pay nearly $800 million for defamation of an electronic voting machine company.

It’s impossible to know how these billionaires have skewed coverage of President Trump and his administration, as well as the criticism and protests of them, but it’s hard to believe they haven’t had considerable influence. There is a growing danger that these huge media companies and their billionaire owners are not providing citizens and voters with the information they need to have a well-functioning democracy.

More on the effects of billionaire ownership and media consolidation in my next post, as well as what can be done about it.

[1] Myerson, H., 11/20/25, “Ellisons tap Saudis to fund news media takeover,” Today on The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/11/20/ellisons-tap-saudis-to-fund-news-media-takeover/)

[2] Reich, R., 11/26/25, “The billionaires destroying our media system and what to do about it,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/billionaire-ownership-media)

PUBLIC POLICIES TO REDUCE ECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN AMERICA

Economic inequality is at record breaking levels in the U.S. The American oligarchy is powerfully wielding its economic and political power. Public policies can stop and reverse the growing economic inequality. See examples below. If Democrats or others want to garner support and votes, they should support policies to reduce economic inequality and create a secure economic future for working Americans.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Economic inequality is at record breaking levels in the U.S. America now has 916 billionaires whose combined wealth is $8 trillion (yes, trillion). Their wealth has increased by over $1 trillion in the first nine months of 2025. Since the passage of the Republican tax cut bill in 2017, it’s increased from $3 trillion to $8 trillion. For comparison, the least wealthy 167 million Americans (half the population) have combined wealth of just $3.6 trillion. In other words, the combined wealth of 167 million Americans is less than half the wealth of the 916 billionaires. The rise in billionaires’ wealth reflects the transfer of profits of economic activity away from workers and to owners and investors.

A big part of this is the increase in the value of the stocks of companies these billionaires own and in which they invest. Provisions in the 2017 Republican tax cut bill (that were continued by the GOP’s Big Ugly Bill in July 2025) give huge tax breaks to corporations. For example. Alphabet (Google’s parent) gets $17.9 billion, Amazon gets $15.7 billion, and Microsoft gets $12.5 billion.

With their great wealth, these billionaire oligarchs have great political power, especially given the laws and court decisions allowing unlimited spending in political campaigns. This basically allows them to buy our elected officials, as Elon Musk bought Trump with the over $250 billion he spent on Trump’s campaign. “Highly concentrated wealth leads naturally to concentrated political power.” [1] As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote almost 100 years ago, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

The oligarchs have been wielding their political power very effectively for the last 45 years, and especially in the last ten years. They’ve succeeded in getting policies enacted that enrich themselves and leave American workers not just short changed, but shafted. Public policies to provide economic security for working Americans will never happen if the oligarchs retain their political and economic power. (This previous post presented policies to increase workers’ incomes and this post highlighted policies to reduce the cost of living for them.)

Therefore, the policies that allowed economic inequality to grow over the last 45 years, and to explode in the last 25 years, need to be changed. A group called Patriotic Millionaires has proposed “The Money Agenda,” a set of policies that would reduce economic inequality and “permanently stabilize the economic lives of working people, stimulate wide-spread economic growth, and ensure prosperity and stability for America’s next 250 years.”

The Money Agenda includes four pieces of legislation. Here’s a quick overview of them:

The Equal Tax Act
- Increase tax rates on income from wealth (e.g., capital gains) so they are the same as the tax rates on income from work
- Close the loophole that allows the wealthy to give away appreciated assets and dodge anyone having to pay tax on their increase in value (i.e., the stepped-up basis loophole)
The Anti-Oligarch Act
- Phase 1: Stop the growth of economic inequality by putting a reasonable tax on the true income of the wealthy (e.g., including increases in wealth) and on the intergenerational transfers of wealth
- Phase 2: Reduce economic inequality by implementing a wealth tax on the ultra-rich
The “Cost of Living” Tax Cut Act
- Establish a Cost of Living Exemption of about $45,000 in order to eliminate income tax on income up to a reasonable cost of living for a single adult without children
- Pay for the lost revenue by putting a surtax on incomes over $1 million
The “Cost of Living” Wage Act
- Raise the minimum wage to a living wage for a single adult with no children, or about $21 per hour (roughly $45,000 per year for full-time work) and index it to inflation
- Protect workers from loss of income due to automation or AI

The Economic Policy Institute recently issued a report titled “Raising taxes on the ultrarich: A necessary first step to restore faith in American democracy and the public sector.” It states that if “policymakers are unwilling to raise taxes on income derived from wealth, the tax system can never be made as fair as it needs to be.” Its recommendations echo the provisions of The Equal Tax Act and The Anti-Oligarch Act above.

It also proposes:

Replacing the estate tax with a progressive income tax on those receiving an inheritance.
Raising the top marginal income tax rate back to its pre-2017 level (i.e., from 37% to 39.6%). This would generate revenue of over $30 billion a year. (Note: In 1980, the top rate was 70% and it was over 90% in the 1950s.)
Returning the corporate tax rate to 35% (where it was before the 2017 Republican Tax Cut Act reduced it to 21%). This would generate over $250 billion a year in revenue.
Closing tax loopholes that the ultrarich and corporations use to evade taxes.
Strengthening the IRS’s capability to enforce tax laws. The IRS estimates that $600 billion in taxes that are owed are not paid each year. However, in recent decades it has lacked the resources to enforce the laws and collect those taxes because Republicans have underfunded it.

If Democrats, or another party such as the Working Families Party, want to garner support and votes, they should support these policies to reduce economic inequality and the economic and political power of the American oligarchy. These and related policies would also provide economic security for working Americans. Democrats should be unequivocal in embracing economic populism and stop cozying up to the oligarchy and their PACs for campaign contributions. [2] To consistently win elections, Democrats need to loudly and unequivocally promote a vision of a more economically secure future for working Americans.

[1] Bivens, J., 11/17/25, “Raising taxes on the ultrarich,” page 5, Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-taxes-on-the-ultrarich-a-necessary-first-step-to-restore-faith-in-american-democracy-and-the-public-sector/)

[2] Reich, R., 11/3/25, “What the Democrats must do. Now!” (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/what-the-democrats-must-do-now) /

WHAT EVERYDAY AMERICANS WANT FROM GOVERNMENT Part 2

Many Americans are worried about the cost of living. Government policies can reduce or control the costs of everyday expenses. If Democrats or others want to garner support and votes, they should aggressively promote such policies. Some examples are presented below.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Many Americans are worried about the cost of living. The affordability of the cost of living has two components: 1) the amount of money people make and the benefits they get from their employer, and 2) the costs of everyday expenses from food to housing to health care to utilities. If Democrats, or another party such as the Working Families Party, want to garner support and votes, they should focus on the affordability of day-to-day life. They need to promote a vision of and policies for a more economically secure future for working Americans. This means embracing economic populism, including reducing economic inequality. [1]

This previous post discussed the first component, workers’ compensation. This post discusses ways public policies and government action can reduce, or at least control increases in, the cost of living, i.e., inflation. Over the last 45 years, the cost of everyday necessities has increased faster than workers’ wages, including for food, housing, child care, utilities, health care, and medicine.

Here’s an overview of some government policies that would reduce or control the cost of living. [2]

Rescind Trump’s tariffs. As even President Trump is now acknowledging, his tariffs have and will drive up consumer prices. He recently rescinded some tariffs on beef, coffee, tea, fruit and fruit juice, cocoa, spices, tomatoes and other commodities. He acknowledged that his tariffs may have contributed to higher prices at the supermarket. Since the first day that Trump announced his intention to impose tariffs, every reputable economist has stated that tariffs increase prices for consumers. (Note: Tariffs can be good policies if implemented as part of well-planned, comprehensive jobs or national security policies. However, Trump’s tariffs clearly do not meet this criterion.)
Enforce antitrust laws. Forty-five years of failure by the federal government to enforce antitrust laws (except for efforts to revitalize them under President Biden) have allowed the emergence of huge companies with monopolistic powers. This has harmed everyday Americans in many ways as outlined below. If Democrats or others, such as the Working Families Party, want to attract support and voters, they should unequivocally call out these huge companies and their oligarchic executives and investors for their greed and monopolistic behavior. This does mean that Democrats will have to stop cozying up to the oligarchs to get campaign donations.

Stop price gouging. Monopolistic or near monopolistic size allows companies to raise prices on consumers who have few if any options. In the short term, governments should implement windfall profits taxes and/or price controls to stop price gouging. In the longer term, governments should enforce antitrust laws and break up or impose very large fines on companies that engage in price gouging and other unfair, monopolistic business practices. This applies to a wide range of consumer goods and services from food to rent to air travel to health care to drug prices. It also applies to the big tech companies, Amazon, Meta (Facebook, Instagram, etc.), Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, and Apple.

Restore competition. By stopping mergers and acquisitions that lead to monopolistic power, and by breaking up monopolistic companies, competition could be restored to consumer markets. Without competition, prices go up and quality goes down, and consumers suffer.

Restoring competition would also reduce employers’ power over workers. Although this wouldn’t reduce costs, it would improve workers’ compensation and therefore the affordability of the cost of living. Employers’ power over workers has grown in multiple ways. The huge and monopolistic size of many employers limits the options for employees and, along with globalization, has allowed employers to undermine unions and cut workers’ compensation. Furthermore, many employers, including some fast-food chains, require employees to sign non-compete employment contracts that limit their ability to move to other employers for better jobs and better pay. President Biden took steps to ban non-compete agreements, but President Trump stopped this effort.

Stop privatization of public services and public goods. Privatization is often sold to the public with claims that the private sector will deliver cheaper and better services or products. This rarely turns out to be true. Once the profit incentive is introduced, prices are likely to go up and quality is likely to go down.

Nowhere is this clearer than in our health care system. The privatized system in the U.S. is the costliest system in any of the well-off countries of the world and its outcomes are among the worst. All elements of the system are putting profits before patients. Medicare is much more efficient than any of the private health insurance companies. The health care industry vehemently resisted including a public, Medicare-like option in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because it knew the public option would deliver better care at lower prices. (See this previous post for more information on the failures of for-profit health care.)

Numerous other examples exist. Rail transportation in the rest of the world is more efficient, dependable, and convenient than the privatized system in the U.S. Internet service is cheaper and faster in Europe than in the U.S. (I’ve been criticizing privatization since way back in 2012. See this previous post and this one for more information.)

Stop the abuse of patents. Pharmaceutical companies abuse patent laws to keep cheaper generic versions of drugs from being introduced to the market. Classic cases of this are insulin and EpiPens. (See this previous post for more information.)
Enhance regulation. Regulations and enforcement of regulations need to be strengthened to protect consumers from fraud, price gouging, and unsafe food and products. Particularly where large companies have monopolistic power, strong regulation is needed. For example, millions of homeowners lost their homes in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis because large financial institutions were pushing fraudulent mortgages. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created to protect consumers from financial fraud and abusive practices, such as exorbitant late and overdraft fees. The Trump administration is trying to eliminate the CFPB so big financial institutions can maximize their profits by ripping off consumers. (See this previous post for more information on the Trump administration’s weakening of regulations and the scams that are likely to be the result.)

My next post will discuss economic insecurity and inequality and the government policies that are needed to address them.

[1] Reich, R., 11/3/25, “What the Democrats must do. Now!” (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/what-the-democrats-must-do-now) /

[2] Kuttner, R., 11/12/25, “A blessing in disguise?” Today on The American Prospect (https://americanprospect.bluelena.io/index.php?action=social&chash=9a32ff36c65e8ba30915a21b7bd76506.3779&s=6009966078bda0f5 056f960a346ead8a

WHAT EVERYDAY AMERICANS WANT FROM GOVERNMENT

Many Americans are worried about being able to afford the cost of living. Government policies can increase the amount of money they make and the benefits they get, as well as reduce the cost of everyday expenses. If Democrats or others want to garner support and votes, they should unequivocally advocate for policies that would improve the affordability of day-to-day life. Some examples are presented below.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Polls have shown for some time, and elections results on Nov. 4 underscored, that many Americans are worried about being able to afford the cost of living. This has two components: 1) the amount of money they make and the benefits they get from their employer, and 2) the cost of everyday expenses from food to housing to health care to utilities.

If Democrats, or another party such as the Working Families Party, want to garner support and votes, they should focus on the affordability of day-to-day life. They need to promote a vision of a more economically secure future for working Americans. They should embrace economic populism, including reducing economic inequality. [1]

Workers’ wages haven’t kept up with inflation over the last 45 years. The value of the federal minimum wage is 60% of what it was 45 years ago. Similarly, workers’ wages have not kept up with their increases in productivity. The result has been that investors and corporate executives have gotten rich, very rich, billionaire rich, off the big profits companies make on the backs of underpaid workers. Meanwhile, workers’ standard of living has been falling, and, for many, their economic security is gone. Government has helped, but its safety net is fragmented and full of holes. It prevents some workers, some of the time, from becoming destitute. Nonetheless, many workers are anxious, distraught, depressed, and even suicidal. Meanwhile, the government safety net is in effect subsidizing large companies that don’t pay their employees enough to live on. However, these big companies and their owners and investors don’t want to pay a fair share of the taxes needed to fund even this limited safety net.

Here’s an overview of some government policies that would increase workers’ compensation, including both wages and benefits. [2]

Increase the minimum wage. Government officials and candidates at all levels, national, state, and local, should work toward increasing the minimum wage. If Democrats want to continue the winning momentum from the recent elections and want to win back one or both chambers of Congress, they should run hard on increasing the minimum wage and put questions to do so on the ballot wherever they can. (Note: An enormous body of research on the effects of higher minimum wages has shown that past minimum wage increases have meaningfully raised pay for low-wage workers without causing significant increases in unemployment. Moreover, increases in the minimum wage often lower worker turnover, a major cost savings for employers, and can attract better workers.)
Support unions and unionization. Unions built the American middle class, but Republicans have been undermining unions and the ability to unionize for 45 years. (See Story #2 in this previous post and also this previous post for more background.) Democrats weren’t actively supporting unions either and were complicit in expanding global trade and the off-shoring of jobs, which undermined unions and workers’ wages here in the U.S. Elected officials and candidates need to stand up for unions and strengthen federal laws and agencies that support and protect workers right to unionize. For example, federal laws and regulators should not allow companies to do what Starbucks has done. It has been stonewalling its workers since the first votes to unionize in December 2021. It has refused to meet with union representatives and has failed to engage in any serious bargaining. It has shut stores where workers voted to unionize. While its workers face low pay, rising health care costs, and working conditions that are not worker friendly, Starbucks’ CEO made $96 million last year.
Other ways to increase workers’ incomes. The federal and state governments should take action to enforce labor laws and reduce wage theft. Wage theft occurs when employers don’t pay overtime as they’re supposed to, don’t pay workers for some of the time they spend on the job or in job-related activities, etc. It adds up to billions of dollars a year. In addition, overtime rules should be strengthened so employers can’t dodge overtime pay by claiming that low-level, low-pay workers are members of management who aren’t eligible for overtime pay.
Ways to increase benefits. The federal and state governments could increase unemployment benefits, strengthen regulations on employer offered health insurance, and enhance requirements for employer-supported retirement savings programs. They could require minimum amounts of paid sick leave and vacation time.
Enhance public supports and the safety net. The federal and state governments could expand food, heat, and utility cost assistance programs. They could also enhance subsidies for early education and child care, as well as implement paid family leave. They could increase support for renters and first-time home buyers, while also better regulating private owners of large rental properties and single-family homes, which are increasingly being bought up by investors. They could help alleviate the student debt crisis. Perhaps, most importantly, they could make health insurance and health care more affordable and accessible. Over half of Americans support creating a Medicare for All type universal health insurance program. These public supports and the safety net are underfunded today because wealthy individuals and corporations are not paying their fair share in taxes. More on this in my next post.

My next post will discuss policies that would tackle the cost of goods and services. It will also discuss economic inequality.

[1] Reich, R., 11/3/25, “What the Democrats must do. Now!” (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/what-the-democrats-must-do-now) /

[2] Dayen, D., 7/28/25, “Greg Casar is organizing to win,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/07/28/2025-07-28-organizing-to-win-greg-casar/)

EVERY REPUBLICAN WHO DOESN’T STAND UP SHARES THE BLAME

Every Republican, especially those in Congress, who does not resist the undemocratic and illegal actions and his administration shares the blame for what’s happening. The Republican Party of Trump is a dark shadow of its former self. Many past Republican leaders would be horrified.

Every Republican, especially those in Congress, who does not stand up and push back against the undemocratic, unconstitutional, and illegal actions of Trump and his administration shares the blame for what’s happening. They are enabling a Trump dictatorship or monarchy. Congressional Republicans are unilaterally surrendering their constitutional powers. The Republican Party of Donald Trump is a dark shadow of its former self. Many past Republican leaders would be horrified.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Although President Trump and his administration get blamed (and rightly so) for the undemocratic and illegal policies and actions they’re taking, every Republican, especially those in Congress, who does not stand up and push back is also to blame. This includes Governors, state Attorneys General, state legislators, Mayors, and others, as well as former elected Republican officials. If there was a loud chorus of Republicans, including current and former elected officials, standing up and criticizing Trump and his administration, it would make a dramatic difference.

Silent and acquiescent Republicans, particularly those in Congress, are enabling the dismantling of democratic norms, processes, and institutions. Congressional Republicans are unilaterally surrendering their constitutional powers to the Trump administration. They are ceding the separation of powers, which is the Constitution’s remedy for potential executive tyranny (and the tyranny of the King of England). They are enabling a Trump dictatorship or monarchy.

Congress by its inaction and, on occasion, by its actions is: [1]

Surrendering the power of the purse, i.e., the appropriation of funds and the requirement that the executive branch spend money as appropriated.
Surrendering the power to legislate and set policy, e.g., on immigration policies and enforcement, declarations of war and use of military force, tariff and trade policies, etc.
Surrendering meaningful scrutiny of Trump appointees and agencies.
Surrendering oversight of the President and his actions, i.e., any Congress with any integrity would have impeached and convicted Trump multiple times for his unconstitutional and illegal acts.

In the current budget crisis and government shutdown, Trump is refusing to meet with Democrats to negotiate a resolution, Republican House Speaker Johnson is refusing to even have the House in session to work on budget bills or compromises, and Republican Senate Majority Leader Thune is refusing to hold any meaningful negotiations with Democrats on a resolution to reopen the government. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is trying to withhold available funds for food assistance (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP]), which puts food on the table for 41 million Americans (roughly 1 out of every 8 residents).

Even before the government shutdown, the Trump administration was illegally withholding (aka impounding) funds appropriated by Congress. Head Start programs, which provide early education and child care, as well as other supports, to low-income children under school age and their families, have been forced to cut back and now, with the shutdown, some are closing. This jeopardizes young children’s growth, development, and health, and means parents can’t go to work because they don’t have child care. Foreign aid, research grants, and emergency response funds for natural disasters are other examples of illegally withheld funding.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is illegally using public and private funds to finance favored people and initiatives, such as paying military personnel, funding ICE, prosecuting personal enemies, deploying the National Guard and military personnel on American soil, and demolishing part of the White House and building Trump’s new ballroom. [2]

Republicans and Americans who are not standing up and calling out these undemocratic, unconstitutional, and illegal actions are unpatriotic and share the blame. These actions are hurting Americans and undermining our democracy.

The Republican Party of Donald Trump is a dark shadow of its former self. Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, and many other past Republican leaders would be horrified at the behavior of today’s Republicans and Republican Party.

[1] Nader, R., Fein, B., & Fisher, L., 10/31/25, “The spinelessness of Thune and Johnson is destroying American democracy,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/johnson-thune-congress)

[2] Hubbell, R., 10/27/25, “Democrats continue to stand strong,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/democrats-continue-to-stand-strong)(

A SUCCESS FOR DEMOCRACY: PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING

The campaign finance system in the U.S. is corrupt. It allows wealthy individuals and corporations to effectively buy and bribe candidates. One of the signs of resurgent democracy is the passing of campaign finance reforms in many states and municipalities. One very effective way to democratize campaign financing is a public matching funds system that amplifies the campaign contributions, and therefore the voices and power, of everyday Americans. New York City’s public financing system is credited with allowing Zohran Mamdani to run a competitive race for Mayor.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The campaign finance system in the U.S. is corrupt. It allows wealthy individuals and corporations to effectively buy and bribe candidates. This fosters oligarchy. However, as noted in this previous post, one sign of resurgent democracy is the passing of campaign finance reforms in many states and municipalities.

Making campaign financing more democratic is quite difficult, given that the Supreme Court has equated political spending with speech, including for corporations, and ruled that free speech rights, therefore, allow unlimited campaign spending by wealthy individuals and corporations.

However, there is one very effective way to democratize campaign financing and level the playing field between candidates with access to big sums of money and everyday people running for elected office: a public financing system. More than 14 states and 25 municipalities have enacted campaign finance reforms with some form of public financial support. The most effective of these systems gives a candidate the option of participating in a public matching funds system. If they do, it requires them to agree to restrictions on the size of donations and the use of their own funds. Without voluntary opting in, these restrictions would be prohibited by the Supreme Court’s rulings. [1] Public matching funds amplify the small campaign contributions, and therefore the voices and power, of everyday Americans. [2]

New York City’s public financing system, which has been in place since 1988, is credited with allowing Zohran Mamdani to run a competitive race for Mayor. He won the Democratic primary and is favored to win Tuesday’s final election. (He’s facing disgraced former New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, whom he beat in the primary. Cuomo, a lifelong Democratic, is running in the final election as an independent with backing from the oligarchy, including President Trump.)

Whether Mamdani wins the final election or not, this is a huge win for democracy. (See this previous post for more detail on public financing systems and their benefits for democracy.) It shows that a public financing system like New York City’s allows a serious candidate, but one who lacks access to big money, to run a competitive campaign against candidates with the backing of the big money oligarchs. It allows candidates to run and win without big money from private donors who want policy favors.

In New York City’s public financing system, small donations of up to $250 from constituents (i.e., residents of the City) are matched by public funds 8 to 1. Therefore, a $50 contribution is worth $450 to the candidate and a $250 contribution is worth $2,250. Mamdani raised over $4 million from over 40,000 contributors, making his average contribution amount under $100. He received over $13 million in public matching funds for his qualifying, private contributions.

Without these public matching funds, Mamdani probably would not have had the resources necessary to effectively reach out to enough New Yorkers to be competitive against the oligarch-funded Cuomo. As Mamdani said, “it allows … the amplification of the voice of ordinary New Yorkers, as opposed to the billionaires who have grown used to buying our elections.” [3]

The public financing of campaigns is not a new idea. It was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1907 as part of his effort to rein in the Robber Barons and their monopolistic trusts of the Gilded Age, as well as to rein in the political corruption they fostered. In 1974, after the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Nixon, a public financing system was created for presidential campaigns. The Senate passed legislation creating a public financing system for congressional elections, but it was not passed by the Democratic-controlled House. In the 1990s, after the savings and loan crisis and scandals, Congress passed public financing for congressional elections, but Republican President George H. W. Bush vetoed it. Democratic President Clinton promoted public financing legislation, but Republicans blocked it with a filibuster. Some presidential candidates opted out of the presidential public financing system because they found its spending limits constraining and too low. As the cost and spending of presidential campaigns escalated, the public financing system failed to keep up. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama opted out of the system, which was essentially its death knell.

Public campaign financing systems at the state and local levels will hopefully gain enough support so that eventually such a system will again be proposed for our national elections. Without public financing, many candidates face a wrenching choice: run a race standing up for everyday people and challenging the oligarchs but that fails to be competitive due to a lack of resources, or sell out to the big donors who are looking for policies to be shaped to their benefit. In the current big donor dominated campaign finance system, multiple studies and many, many anecdotes show that broadly popular policies don’t get enacted because policies are consistently formulated to benefit the wealthy and their companies.

[1] Brennan Center for Justice, retrieved from the Internet on 10/17/25, “Reform money in politics,” (https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics)

[2] Sirota, D., 10/22/25, “The real lesson from Zohran Mamdani’s ascent,” The Nation (https://thenationmagazine.substack.com/p/the-real-lesson-from-zohran-mamdanis)

[3] Sirota, D., 10/22/25, see above

CRYPTO AND AI PRESENT ECONOMIC RISKS

The crytpo and AI industries present serious risks to the U.S. economy. They may be economic bubbles whose bursting would have serious negative effects. Crypto is a Ponzi scheme. Both industries pose serious threats to the environment and are vulnerable to China’s control of rare earth minerals.

The crytpo and AI industries present serious risks to the U.S. economy. Crypto and AI may be economic bubbles that have the potential to burst with serious negative effects on the whole U.S. economy. Crypto is truly a Ponzi scheme. Both industries pose serious threats to the environment and are vulnerable to China’s dominance of rare earth minerals mining, processing, and subsequent use in manufacturing.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The crytpo and AI industries present serious risks to the U.S. economy. Both have grown quickly and dramatically. Both are supported by risky financing and high levels of investor speculation. Both are industries that many people and investors do not understand well and that are largely unregulated, especially under the Trump administration. [1] (I’m not an investment advisor and claim no special knowledge, but, at best, investments in these industries are likely to be quite volatile. At worst, they have a quite high risk of loss.)

Crypto and AI may be economic bubbles. If, or perhaps when, they burst, they have the potential to have serious negative effects on the whole U.S. economy. They have features that are reminiscent of the housing and mortgage bubble of 2008 whose bursting created the Great Recession and almost brought down the whole U.S. economy (which was saved from far worse by massive government bailouts for large financial firms). Before that, there were the dot-com bubble bursting in the late 1990s and the savings and loan housing and mortgage bubble bursting in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Another historical economic bubble bursting was the 1929 stock market crash.

Crypto is truly a Ponzi scheme. There is no underlying asset. The only thing supporting the value of any cryptocurrency is someone else’s desire to buy it. Its only real value is facilitating get rich quick schemes, money laundering, and money transfers among criminals. The cryptocurrency industry is trying to transform its image from that of a scandal-ridden and crime-enabling financial technology (aka fintech) experiment into that of a mainstream financial and commercial investment and transaction vehicle. The Trump administration is doing everything it can to support this perception transformation without doing anything to actually clean up the industry – and while Trump is enriching himself, his family, and his cronies with crypto investment schemes.

The crypto industry’s nine-month stock market rally has been fueled by optimism due to Trump’s presidency and support, as well as by a shaky financial foundation built on huge amounts of borrowed money. On October 10, Trump’s statement about big tariffs on China sent the crypto stocks plummeting, 12% to 30%, reducing the value of crypto assets by $19 billion. (See previous posts on the risks of the crypto industry here and here.)

The crypto industry is dependent on lots of computer processing and massive amounts of electricity. The associated risks will be discussed more below in an examination of the AI industry, which shares these vulnerabilities.

The threats and promises of the artificial intelligence (AI) industry are widely discussed and debated. Its appropriation of copyrighted information without compensation or attribution, both to train its software as well as to answer questions posed to it, is the subject of multiple copyright infringement lawsuits. Its ability to create and disseminate misinformation and disinformation, including by amplifying it via fraudulent chatbots on social media, are widely recognized as a threat to an accurately informed public, and therefore to elections and societal cohesion, among other things. It’s also recognized as a threat to workers by automating jobs and displacing human workers. Its chatbots that serve as personal companions or mental health counselors seem to help some people and harm others. Their overall value and safety are widely debated.

Perhaps the most immediate threats of the AI industry are to our economy and the environment. The stock market values of AI-involved companies have soared based not on profits or even revenue, but on hype and hope. This includes Amazon, Google, Meta (parent of Facebook, Instagram, etc.), Microsoft, Nvidia (a computer chip maker), OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI (a Musk company). AI-related companies account for about 75% of the increase in stock market values this year, yet 95% of these companies aren’t making profits from their AI activities. The Bank of England recently warned that AI stock values may be overvalued and at risk of a sudden loss of value that could have global effects.

The building of AI-related infrastructure, including chip manufacturing and data and computing center construction, has represented 90% of capital expenditures in the U.S. A good portion of this is taxpayer subsidized, not just through federal tax breaks, but hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax breaks for building facilities in at least 37 states. And, as with the crypto industry, a good part of this growth is built on a shaky foundation of borrowed money.

The data and computing centers required by both AI and crypto need large amounts of electricity to run them and large amounts of water to cool the computers. The availability of both electricity and water may be a constraint and will require large investments in public infrastructure, e.g., electricity generation and distribution. For example, as you may have heard, Microsoft is planning to reopen a Three Mile Island nuclear power reactor to provide electricity for its data processing centers. (As you may remember, Three Mile Island was the site of the most serious accident in the U.S. nuclear power industry, a partial reactor meltdown in 1979.)

Another vulnerability of both the AI and crypto industries is the need for chips and other electronics whose manufacture requires rare earth minerals. China is responsible for 70% of the mining of rare earth minerals, 90% of their processing, and 93% of the manufacturing of a key product. This is why Trump’s threat of tariffs on China and a possible trade war with China dramatically affected AI and crypto stocks. If China were to deny the U.S. AI and crypto industries access to rare earth minerals or the products that use them, or even increase their prices significantly, it would be a very serious blow to the companies. This in turn would be a very serious blow to the whole U.S. economy. [2]

The Trump administration has further weakened or removed even the weak regulations and restrictions that were in place on crypto and AI. Moreover, it has been opening the door to investments in crypto and AI by pension funds, individuals’ retirement and savings accounts (e.g., 401(k)s), and banks and financial institutions. This exacerbates the negative impacts of a serious downturn in either industry.

Economic bubbles typically make a few people rich, sometimes very rich, but many people lose money, sometimes lots of money, when the bubble bursts. If the overall threat to the economy is bad enough, the government will step in and provide a bailout, usually to the larger entities that often were at least partially responsible for the bubble. However, millions of Americans could lose their jobs, and, if they or their pension plans had been lured into investing in crypto, lose significant chunks of their savings.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog here and here.

[1] Reich, R., 10/14/25, “Beware the oligarchs’ two bubbles,” Blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/beware-the-oligarchs-ai-bubble)

[2] Dayen, D., 10/14/25, “Why China can collapse the U.S. with one decree,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2025/10/14/why-china-can-collapse-the-u-s-with-one-decree/)

SIGNS OF A RESURGENCE OF DEMOCRACY AND PROGRESSIVE POLICIES

An American oligarchy has battled for control of our country since its founding. Today, there are signs of a resurgence of democracy and a third progressive policy era. These signs include a resurgence of unions, campaign finance reforms at the state and local levels, and the growing public and private protests and pushback against the Trump administration. We, the American people, must stand up for democracy. We can defeat the oligarchy.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

An American oligarchy based on wealth and privilege, with race and religion lurking behind them, has battled for control of our country since its founding. Two progressive eras have pushed back against oligarchy, heralded a resurgence of democracy, and made progress toward the founding principles of America. These efforts relegated and regulated the oligarchy to the back seat, putting we the people back in control of America. (See this previous post for more details.)

Today, there are signs of a resurgence of democracy and a third progressive policy era. After 45 years of dramatically increasing income and wealth inequality, shrinkage of the middle class, and workers’ wages not keeping up with inflation or increases in productivity, many Americans are ready to throw the oligarchy out. They recognize that:

Unrestrained capitalism is not good for consumers, workers, communities, or our planet.
Huge corporations tend to engage in monopolistic behaviors.
Oligarchs are anti-democratic and are focused on feathering their own nests.

One sign of surging democracy and progressive politics is the resurgence of unions. Collective bargaining by unionized workers levels the balance of power between oligarch business owners and workers. Unions improve workers’ compensation and working conditions. Evidence of the union resurgence includes:

The number of union elections has more than doubled since 2021.
Workers have won 70% of those elections, the highest win rate in 15 years.
Petitions for union elections increased by 27% in 2024.
Public support for unions is at 70%, the highest level since the 1960s.
60 million non-union workers (40% of the workforce) report they would vote to join a union if they got the chance.

Another sign of surging democracy and progressive politics is the passing of campaign finance reforms in multiple states and municipalities. Although reforms to enhance disclosure of campaign donations are very important, and election reforms to make it easier to register and vote are important, the most impactful reforms are ones that provide public financial support to candidates. There are multiple ways to do this, including giving vouchers or tax credits to voters to use to support the candidates of their choice. More than 14 states and 25 municipalities have enacted campaign finance reforms with some form of public financial support.

Perhaps the most effective way to level the playing field between candidates with access to big sums of money and everyday people running for elected office is a public financing system like the ones in New York City and more recently in New York State. These systems require the candidate to opt into the public financing system, which means the candidate agrees to restrictions on the size of donations and the use of one’s own funds that would otherwise be prohibited by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. (As you probably know, the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision equated the spending of money on election campaigns with speech. Therefore, freedom of speech means there can be no limits on campaign spending or donations.) [1]

In these public financing systems, small donations (generally less than $200) from constituents (i.e., residents of the candidate’s district) are matched by public funds (up to 8 to 1) for candidates who agree to limits on the size of donations and other restrictions. A candidate must qualify for public financing by garnering a certain number or dollar amount of small donations from constituents. Studies of campaign public financing systems find that they have many benefits including increased diversity of candidates (by class, race, and gender), increased civic engagement and voting, and increased focus of candidates on issues (as opposed to fundraising).

Another sign of the resurgence of support for democracy is the growing resistance to the Trump administration. Institutions from the mainstream media to colleges and universities to law firms are starting to stand up and push back. Elected officials at the state and local levels are pushing back more and more. Democrats in Congress are becoming more organized and effective in pushing back. The courts for the most part, except for the Supreme Court and certain other very right-wing judges, have been pushing back.

Various elections all around the country have also quite consistently shown that voters are standing up and voting against those who are undermining our democracy and supporting the oligarchy. We need to keep up this momentum in statewide elections in Virginia and New Jersey and state and local elections elsewhere this fall. And we need to continue to work to build a strong wave in support of democracy in the 2026 elections for Congress and other offices.

Most importantly, a growing segment of the public is standing up and pushing back. The millions of Americans who engaged in the Oct. 18 No Kings protests sent a strong, unequivocal message in support of democracy. The many, many other smaller protests that are occurring daily reinforce that message. The pushback on media executives, who were compromising freedom of speech by taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air, sent out shock waves that made those media executives change their minds. We’ll need to continue to do these things again and again to put democracy back in the driver’s seat.

Thank you for all you’re doing! Please keep up the great and important work to save our democracy! We, the American people, as citizens, consumers, and workers, must stand up for democracy. We can defeat the oligarchy, and its authoritarianism and fascism.

For lots of good news on the fight for democracy see Jess Craven’s 10/12 Chop Wood Carry Water post.

[1] Brennan Center for Justice, retrieved from the Internet on 10/17/25, “Reform money in politics,” (https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics)

THE AMERICAN STRUGGLE BETWEEN OLIGARCHY AND DEMOCRACY

An American oligarchy has battled for control of our country since its founding. In 1980, the American oligarchy re-emerged and has been undermining democracy and skewing government policy. Defenders of democracy are fighting back, including with growing protests against and resistance to King Trump and his administration. Please find and participate in an Oct. 18 No Kings protest near you.

SPECIAL NOTE: We need millions of Americans at the No Kings protests on October 18 in defense of democracy. Please support this however you can. You can find an event near you here.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

An American oligarchy based on wealth and privilege, with race and religion lurking behind them, has battled for control of our country since its founding. The southern plantation owners were the first American oligarchy. The businessmen and industrialists of the late 1800s and early 1900s, who were dubbed the Robber Barons, were the second American oligarchy.

The first American progressive era from the 1890s through 1945 pushed back against oligarchy and the Great Depression, which was caused by the greed of the oligarchs. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the growth of government and government power due to World War II relegated and regulated the oligarchy to the back seat. This put democracy and we the people in the driver’s seat and in control of America.

The period after World War II, from 1945 to 1980 was the second progressive era. An unwritten post-war social compact framed American society and the economy. It was based on three pillars:

Corporations served all stakeholders: workers, customers, communities, and shareholders;
Workers had a right to unionize and receive fair wages and safe working conditions; and
Government provided a safety net, managed capitalism, and leveled the playing field.

The result was an economy and society where, from 1945 to 1980, the rising tide did lift all boats. Economic inequality narrowed and America moved toward its promise of equal opportunity for all. Workers’ wages increased in accordance with their increases in productivity. The middle class grew along with economic security. Each generation was better off than the previous one. Democracy was working well.

In 1980, with the election of President Reagan, the American oligarchy re-emerged. For the last 45 years, it has been undermining democracy and skewing government policy in its favor. (See this previous post for more details.) Although Republicans have been the driving force, Democrats have contributed to this shift by supporting business deregulation and unconstrained globalization. Democrats also failed to support unions and failed to reform our campaign finance system. Moreover, they have come to rely on campaign contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations.

All this has led to 45 years of dramatically growing income and wealth inequality. The middle class has shrunk, and workers’ wages have increased much less than their increases in productivity. Many Americans have lost their economic security. The public’s faith in government and democracy has declined dramatically.

However, there are signs that a third American progressive era and a resurgence of democracy may be emerging. There is increasing acknowledgement and public awareness that:

Wealth and income inequality have grown to unacceptable levels.
Huge corporations tend to engage in monopolistic behaviors such as price fixing and price gouging; decreasing quality, choice, and customer service; and poor treatment of employees in terms of compensation and safety.
Unrestrained capitalism is not good for consumers, workers, communities, or our planet.
The oligarchs have rigged our economic system in their favor so that the rising tide is lifting only their yachts.
Oligarchy is anti-democratic and tends to turn into authoritarianism and fascism, i.e., white, male, Christian nationalism.

Bob Kuttner, a long-time, very astute and thoughtful observer and analyst of American politics and policies, has concluded that American democracy’s efforts to balance capitalism are doomed to fail. The incentives and power of huge corporations and huge wealth are too great and will inevitably overwhelm America’s brand of democracy. He concludes that significant public ownership of key sectors of the economy, i.e., democratic socialism, is necessary to keep capitalism in check. [1]

As Bob Reich recently wrote, “Capitalism is compatible with democracy only if democracy is in the driver’s seat. … [Otherwise] It fuels despotism.” [2] This is reminiscent of the quote from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis back in the 1930s: “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

In many sectors of our economy there’s a clear need for strong regulation or public ownership including in health care, communications (including media and the big technology platforms), utilities and energy, the transportation system, banking and finance, housing, and food and agriculture. In these areas, a publicly owned option would be more effective and efficient because it wouldn’t have to cover the costs of profits, big executive pay packages, and advertising. For example, in the health care sector, when the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obama Care) was being developed, health care providers and insurance companies vehemently opposed a public option in the health care market place (basically Medicare available to everyone) because they knew it would be more effective and efficient. This is also why they oppose Medicare of All and are working feverishly to undermine Medicare with their privatized Medicare Advantage plans. We need public Medicare for seniors and a public option for everyone else to stop the rapacious, for-profit health care businesses that put profits before patients. (See previous posts here, here and here for more details.)

The growing protests against and resistance to King Trump and his administration’s actions and policies are signs of a resurgence of democracy and an emerging progressive era. The successes are many, on the streets and in the courtrooms, sometimes small but nonetheless important, and are underreported by the mainstream media. Forcing media executives to put the Jimmy Kimmel show back on the air was a huge and very visible success. (For lots of current good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog here.)

In this vein, please find an October 18^th No Kings event near you here and participate and support it in whatever way you can. We, the American public, as citizens, consumers, and workers, must stand up for democracy, otherwise, we’ll continue down the slippery slope to oligarchy, authoritarianism, and fascism. We can stop the anti-democracy slide, as we did in the Jimmy Kimmel case.

We need millions of Americans engaged in the No Kings protests and in the many, many other smaller protests that are occurring daily. Thank you for all you’re doing! Please keep up the great and important work to save our democracy!

My next post will identify additional signs of a resurgence of democracy and the beginning of a third progressive era, including a surge in unionization, campaign finance reforms, and actions and elections at the state and local levels.

[1] Kuttner, R., 12/1/21, “Capitalism vs. liberty,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/politics/capitalism-vs-liberty/)

[2] Reich, R., 9/26/25, “Why are we so polarized? Why is democracy in such peril?” Blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-are-we-so-polarized)

STANDING UP TO TRUMP AND CORPORATE OLIGARCHS

Oligarchy Definition A small group of people having formal and informal power based on (1)wealth; (2) connections; and (3) privilege.

American oligarchs have spent 45 years and billions of dollars undermining democracy and skewing government policy in their favor. We need to stand up and make Trump and corporate CEOs understand that the long-term success of their companies and our country depend on the trust and support of us, their customers and voters. We did this in a big way with the reaction to media executives pulling the Jimmy Kimmel show off the air. We need to do it again and again.

SPECIAL NOTE: We need millions of Americans at the No Kings protests on October 18 in defense of democracy. Please support this however you can. You can find an event near you here.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

American oligarchs, i.e., wealthy individuals and their large corporations, have spent at least the last 45 years undermining democracy and skewing government policy in their favor by: (See this previous post for more details.)

Increasing, coordinating, refining, and hiding their spending of billions of dollars on election campaigns. They spent over $10 billion in the 2023-24 federal election cycle alone.
Spending billions of dollars on lobbying the federal government, currently to the tune of $4 billion a year.
Moving tens of thousands of people through the revolving door between jobs in their corporations and in the government agencies that regulate them.

These efforts have been very successful; their return on investment has been extraordinary. Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian, and fascist administration are the culmination of this work that has undermined our democracy and skewed government policies and our economy to favor the oligarchs. Examples of skewed government policies include the following.

The individual income tax rates on oligarchs’ incomes have been cut from 70% in 1980 and 92% in the 1950s to 37% today. Income taxes on income from wealth, i.e., long-term capital gains, have been cut from 28% in 1980 to 15% in 2012 but are back up to 24% today. Note that the tax rate on income from wealth (i.e., unearned income) has always been much lower than the tax rate on income from work (i.e., earned income). This benefits the oligarchs and entrenches and exacerbates wealth inequality. Furthermore, increases in wealth that aren’t cashed in aren’t taxed at all. As a result, the richest billionaires pay about 3.4% in income tax on their incomes while the average American pays 14.5%.

Corporate income tax rates have also been cut from 46% in 1980 to 21% today. Moreover, tax loopholes allow corporations many strategies to avoid taxes. In particular, multi-national corporations artificially shift profits to foreign countries with very low taxes. Corporations have also been allowed to move jobs to low-wage countries and to resist and undermine workers’ unions. Roughly one out of every three private sector workers was a union member in the 1950s; today it’s one out of every 15. [1]

Antitrust laws have basically been unenforced for the last 45 years. As a result, many sectors of the American economy are dominated by a few, large, monopolistic corporations. Reduced competition means corporations can raise prices, cut quality, and strong-arm employees. Deregulation has left consumers vulnerable to poor products and frustrating services.

All of this has led to 45 years of dramatically growing income and wealth inequality. The 50% of Americans with the least wealth now, collectively, have only 2.5% of national wealth (less than $23,000 each on average). The wealthiest 1% of Americans own 33% of national wealth (about $15 million each on average). Pay for CEOs is now 1,094% higher than in 1978, while a typical workers’ pay has only increased 26%. As a result, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio grew from 31 times a typical worker’s pay in 1978 to 281 times in 2024. [2] And CEOs now believe that their only responsibility is to maximize returns for shareholders; other stakeholders, including workers, customers, and communities, are not a matter for concern.

The oligarch’s successful assault on our democracy and public policies has resulted in many Americans losing their economic security, as well as their trust in government and democracy. Many of them don’t feel it’s worth voting because they don’t believe it’s going to make any difference. They believe government is controlled by special interests working to benefit themselves. These Americans are angry and fearful about the future. Therefore, they are willing to believe the lies that Trump tells them about bringing back their good jobs and wages. And they are willing to overlook his undermining of democracy.

We, American consumers, need to make corporate CEOs understand that the long-term success of their companies depends on the trust and support of us, their customers. We did this in a big way with the reaction to media executives pulling the Jimmy Kimmel show off the air in response to President Trump’s displeasure with him. We’ll need to do this again and again to wake up CEOs and to get them to focus on the long-term instead of pleasing the would-be dictator in the White House in the short-term.

The spinelessness of corporate CEOs in the face of Trump makes it clear that they “are poorly suited to be custodians of democracy or counterweights to presidential overreach.” [3] “Capitalism is compatible with democracy only if democracy is in the driver’s seat. … [Otherwise] It fuels despotism.” [4]

We, the American public, consumers and workers, must stand up for democracy and for its regulation of corporations and capitalism. Otherwise, we’ll continue down the slippery slope to oligarchy, authoritarianism, and fascism. We can stop this slide, as we did in the Jimmy Kimmel case.

I look forward to seeing millions of Americans engaged in the No Kings protests on October 18 and in many, many other smaller protests daily. Thank you for all you’re doing! Please keep up this great and important work to save our democracy!

Find an October 18^th No Kings event near you here and participate and support it in whatever way you can.

For lots of current good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog here.

[1] Economic Policy Institute, retrieved from the Internet 9/29/25, “State of Working America: Unions,” (https://data.epi.org/unions/union_members_historical/line/year/national/percent_union_members_historical/overall)

[2] Gould, E., Bivens, J., & Kandra, J., 9/25/25, “CEO pay increased in 2024 and is now 281 times that of the typical worker,” Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/blog/ceo-pay-increased-in-2024-and-is-now-281-times-that-of-the-typical-worker-new-epi-landing-page-has-all-the-details/)

[3] Edelman, L., 9/23/25, “Why corporate leaders are appeasing Trump,” The Boston Globe

[4] Reich, R., 9/26/25, “Why are we so polarized? Why is democracy in such peril?” Blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-are-we-so-polarized)

CORPORATE OLIGARCHS HAVE BEEN UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY FOR 45 YEARS

Trump is the culmination of decades of work by wealthy individuals and CEOs (America’s oligarchs) undermining democracy & skewing government policy. This has led to high income & wealth inequality. Many Americans have lost their economic security, as well as their faith in government & democracy.

Trump is the culmination of decades of work by wealthy individuals and corporate CEOs (i.e., America’s oligarchs) undermining democracy and skewing government policies. This has led to dramatic income and wealth inequality. Many Americans have lost their economic security, as well as their faith in government and democracy.

SPECIAL NOTE: We need millions of Americans at the No Kings protests on October 18 in defense of democracy. Please support this however you can. You can find an event near you at: https://www.mobilize.us/nokings/map/?tag_ids=27849.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

I’ve been surprised at how little spine corporate Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) (supposed “leaders”) have shown in the face of Trump’s behavior and attacks. They know that unpredictability and chaos in government, as well as uncertainty, polarization, and unrest in society (in America and globally), are bad for the economy and for their businesses, at least in the long run. They know that an autocrat’s lack of respect for the rule of law, for property rights, and for freedom of speech are bad for business.

However, the CEOs of large corporations (aka corporate oligarchs) tend to be pragmatic and short-sighted. They value having political power and influence to the point that they seem to care little about politicians’ ethics or actions on issues that don’t conflict with their corporate interests. They know their large corporations are dependent on the government for many things, e.g., approvals of mergers, government contracts, tax breaks and subsidies, and licenses to operate. And they know their corporations are affected by many other things government does, e.g., writing and enforcing regulations, tax laws, and export and import policies (e.g., tariffs). [1]

President Trump has been leveraging (generally illegally) these many interrelationships between the government and corporations to pressure CEOs to do what he wants them to do, to support his policies, and to support him personally (sometimes financially). CEOs know Trump is arbitrary, unpredictable, and vindictive. They know that if he is irritated by a company or its CEO that he will use the powers of the government in a punitive fashion against them. Therefore, they capitulate.

However, Trump and his anti-democratic, autocratic, and fascist behavior and administration are the culmination of decades of work by wealthy individuals and corporate CEOs (i.e., America’s oligarchs). They have been undermining democracy and skewing government policies and our economy in their favor for at least 45 years. They have quadrupled their political spending (after adjusting for inflation) over the last 40 years. [2] In the 2023-2024 federal election cycle, $5.3 billion was spent on the presidential race and $9.5 billion was spent on congressional races. The overwhelming majority of this money came from American oligarchs. One hundred billionaires alone spent $2.6 billion. The seven highest spending individuals spent $930 million, all for Republicans, with Elon Musk leading the way with $291 million in spending, almost exclusively for the Trump campaign.

In addition to spending on election campaigns, corporations are also spending over $4 billion a year lobbying the federal government. [3] Furthermore, they engage in an extensive “revolving door” cycle of personnel (tens of thousands of them) who move between government regulatory agencies and positions in corporations the agencies regulate. [4]

All of this is in the interest of skewing government policy to favor American oligarchs, i.e., wealthy individuals and their large corporations. They have been very successful; their return on investment has been extraordinary.

My next post will provide specific examples of their successes, along with the effects and implications of them.

In the meantime, please make plans to stand up for democracy and against the oligarchs. I hope you can participate in and/or support the No Kings protests on October 18 – and the many, many other smaller protests that are occurring daily. Thank you for all you are doing! Please keep up this great and important defense of democracy!

Find a No Kings October 18^th event near you here.

[1] Edelman, L., 9/23/25, “Why corporate leaders are appeasing Trump,” The Boston Globe

[2] Reich, R., 9/26/25, “Why are we so polarized? Why is democracy in such peril?” Blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/why-are-we-so-polarized)

[3] Open Secrets, retrieved from the Internet 9/29/25, “Lobbying data summary,” (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/)

[4] Open Secrets, retrieved from the Internet 9/29/25, “Revolving door overview,” (https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door/)

STRONG REGULATION NEEDED TO PROTECT US FROM META AND FACEBOOK

The harm that Facebook and other social media do to children and youth, our society and politics, and people and countries around the world is well documented. Clearly, the social media companies are far more committed to maximizing profits than they are to minimizing harm.

The harm that Facebook, Meta’s other platforms, and other social media do to children and youth, our society and politics, as well as to people and countries around the world, is well documented. The evidence continues to mount as new whistleblowers emerge and share inside information. Clearly, Meta (and other social media companies) are far more committed to maximizing profits than they are to minimizing harm.

SPECIAL NOTE: Please plan to participate in the next nationwide No Kings Day protest on Sat., Oct. 18. Find an event near you at https://www.mobilize.us/nokings/map/?tag_ids=27849.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The harm that Facebook, Meta’s other platforms, and other social media do to children and youth is well documented, as this previous post covered. However, the harm to our society and politics, as well as to people and countries around the world, goes well beyond that and is long-standing. (See previous posts from 2022 and 2020 on Facebook’s knowing spread of divisive disinformation and right-wing content.) It’s clear that Meta and other social media companies are far more interested in maximizing profits than minimizing harm, such as avoiding spreading misinformation while fostering social division and conflict that sometimes lead to violence.

Meta has been in the news recently because more whistleblowers and former employees have come forward to report (again) that Meta CEO and owner Mark Zuckerberg and other senior Meta executives have repeatedly lied about the negative effects of their platforms and their knowledge of the harms caused for children, from spreading misinformation, and from fostering social division.

Coincidentally, I just finished reading a book about Facebook, Careless People: A cautionary tale of power, greed, and lost idealism, by Sarah Wynn-Williams, who worked at Facebook from 2011 – 2018. Perhaps her most poignant revelation is that “most leaders at Facebook … severely limit [their] kids’ access to screens, let alone social media accounts. … which only underscores how well these executives understand the real damage their product inflicts on young minds.” (p. 103-104)

Wynn-Williams reports on sexual harassment in the largely male world of Facebook, which senior management ignores (to say the least). She also documents Facebook’s role in:

The 2016 Trump campaign when Facebook staff were embedded at the campaign, which some people credit with Trump’s winning the election. (p. 264)
The violence and undermining of democracy in Myanmar from 2014 – 2017 due to Facebook’s failure to monitor and moderate content. This culminated in tens of thousands of deaths, untold atrocities, and the slaughter of Muslims and particularly the Rohingya people. The U.N. report on these human rights violations devotes over twenty pages to the role Facebook played in spreading hate. (p. 357-358)
Working with the Chinese government on censorship and surveillance to get it to allow Facebook in China. So desperate was Zuckerberg to get into the Chinese market that he gave the Chinese government access to user data that he had refused to give to other governments and that Facebook “aggressively fought against providing to the US government, even after receiving National Security Letters demanding it in specific cases.” (p. 311) Furthermore, Wynn-Williams notes that “Facebook has said [many things] are simply impossible when Congress and its own government have asked – on content, data sharing, privacy, censorship, and encryption – and yet its leadership are handing them all to China on a silver platter.” (p. 313) Facebook was very concerned about all of this leaking because “if it leaks we [Facebook] won’t be able to keep doing what we’re doing. … [it would] highlight differences in what we say to the public vs what we do.” (p. 313) When preparing Zuckerberg for congressional testimony about Facebook’s plans for China, Wynn-Williams reports that “No one suggests telling the truth … There seems to be no compunction about misleading Congress. Presumably because the team assumes they’ll never be caught …”. (p. 319)
Censoring content in Russia, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Korea at the request of senior government officials, largely solely at Zuckerberg’s discretion. (p. 158-164)
Selling advertisers on Facebook’s capabilities to target emotionally vulnerable teens while publicly denying that it was doing so. Advertisers know that people buy more when they are feeling insecure, “and it’s seen as an asset that Facebook knows when that is and can target ads.” (p. 334) While “this sort of ad targeting is commonplace at Facebook … it pretends the opposite: ‘We have opened an investigation to understand the process failure and improve our oversight.’” A follow up statement was “a flat-out lie: ‘Facebook does not offer tools to target people based on their emotional state.’” (p. 336-337)

Wynn-Williams documents that time and again Zuckerberg and other Meta senior executives lie about and distort what Meta is doing, the harm it’s causing, and their knowledge of the harm. They lie to the media and the public, they lie in congressional testimony, and they lie internally to their own employees. They also attack government officials and human rights groups that oppose the expansion or advocate regulation of Facebook and Meta’s other platforms. (p. 206-212) She also writes that “Facebook’s leadership could be utterly indifferent to the consequences of their decisions.”, hence the book’s title Careless People. (p. 307) In 2017, one of the findings of worldwide consumer focus groups was that “The idea that Facebook cares about people’s privacy is not believable anywhere.” (p. 315)

In response to the recent murder of Charlie Kirk, Utah Governor Spencer Cox made the point that social media is designed to amplify hate and division. They do this because social media companies know that this is the most effective way to maximize profits. Social media algorithms are designed to feed you stories that alarm and upset you because that results in your spending more time on the social media platform. [1]

I encourage you to contact your Representative and Senators in Congress and ask them to support strong regulation of the social media platforms to stop them from continuing to harm our children and youth, our society, and our politics and elections.

You can find contact information for your U.S. Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your U.S. Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1] Hubbell, R., 9/15/25, “Leaning into resistance during troubled times,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/leaning-into-resistance-during-troubled)

CHILDREN AREN’T SAFE ON META’S VIRTUAL REALITY PLATFORMS

The harm that Meta Platforms’ Facebook and virtual reality programs do to children and youth is well documented. The evidence continues to grow as new whistleblowers come forward and share inside information. Clearly, Meta is far more committed to its profits than it is to protecting children.

The harm that Meta Platforms’ social media platforms, including Facebook and virtual reality programs, do to children and youth is well documented. The evidence continues to grow as new whistleblowers come forward and share inside information. Clearly, Meta (and other social media platforms) are far more committed to their profits than they are to protecting children.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

It’s been far too long since I wrote about Meta Platforms and its subsidiaries. Meta’s Facebook and virtual reality platforms are harming children. The harm that Facebook and other social media do to children and youth is well documented. It is equally clear that Meta and other social media companies are far more interested in maximizing profits than protecting children.

Three years ago, I wrote a blog post calling for federal legislation to protect children on social media. No legislation has been passed in those three years and no significant federal legislation regulating social media has been passed since the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). A lot has changed since 1998 and new federal legislation is sorely needed. In my September 2022 blog post, I called on Congress to pass two bills to protect children on social media. (Previous posts here and here document the harms to children and beyond of Facebook and other social media platforms, as well as ways to respond.)

The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSA) (a combined version of the two previous bills) passed the Senate with a strong, bipartisan vote (91 – 3) in July 2024. Heavy lobbying, led by Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and controlling stockholder of Meta, blocked action on it in the House. By the way, Europe has done a much better job than the U.S. of protecting everyone’s privacy and well-being on social media, including that of children.

The social media platforms’ business model is to hook kids at an early age, feed them addictive content to keep them engaged, amass extensive personal information about them and their online behavior, and then use these data to sell very targeted, personalized, and effective advertising. This is very lucrative for the social media platforms, however, the content and marketing to kids often presents toxic content that harms kids’ well-being and mental health. [1]

Advocates for children, including Fairplay, filed a request in May for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Meta for violating children’s safety and privacy on its virtual reality platform Horizon Worlds. Children, including ones under 13, are at risk for sexual predation, financial harm, bullying, and harassment on Horizon Worlds. Meta knows this, but it fails to protect children while it captures their data, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, to sell to advertisers and to make their platform as addictive as possible. The FTC complaint was supported by a sworn statement from Kelly Stonelake, the former director of marketing for Horizon Worlds at Meta.

Meta has been in the news this week because six whistleblowers and former employees have come forward to report (again) that Meta has been covering up and ignoring the harm they know their platforms are doing to children. The focus this week was on the virtual reality platforms that Meta offers. Current and former employees revealed that Meta is suppressing internal research on child and youth safety and is also turning a blind eye to children under 13 illegally using these platforms. Furthermore, Meta’s legal and communications teams work to communicate plausible deniable for its executives on company knowledge of negative effects on children. Zuckerberg and Meta have previously lied about the harmful effects of their platforms and their knowledge of those harmful effects on children. (Meta whistleblowers previously revealed similar misbehavior in congressional testimony in 2023 (Arturo Beja) and 2021 (Frances Haugen).)

Not surprisingly, therefore, the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSA) is again being considered in the U.S. Senate (S.1748) and there’s also a push to pass it in the House: It would:

Provide privacy protections for children and youth,
- Extend to 13 to 16-year-olds the prohibition on social media platforms capturing children’s personal information without their consent and require the platforms to delete any such information they collect if requested to do so,
- Limit individually targeted advertising (referred to as surveillance advertising),
- Require the social media platforms to put the interests of young people first,
Provide families with the tools and safeguards to protect children’s well-being and mental health,
Require transparency from the social media platforms about the data they are capturing and the algorithms they are using for promoting content and advertising, and
Establish accountability for harms caused by social media.

I encourage you to contact your Representative and Senators in Congress and ask them to support strong regulation of social media platforms to prevent them from harming our children and youth. Urge them to support the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA, Senate bill 1748) and similar legislation in the House.

SPECIAL NOTES:

Please plan to participate in the next nationwide No Kings Day protests on Saturday, Oct. 18.
Here’s a link to the most recent Jess Craven Chop Wood Carry Water post of good news: https://chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions.substack.com/p/extra-extra-914

[1] Corbett, J., 7/27/22. “ ‘Critical’ online privacy protections for children advance to Senate floor,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/07/27/critical-online-privacy-protections-children-advance-senate-floor-vote)

THE PERVERSION OF CAPITALISM BY TRUMP

President Trump is perverting capitalism and the free market by asserting unprecedented influence over the private sector. His actions are not a coherent economic policy and make the U.S. economy look like China’s. They’re all about centralizing power and control, while undermining the rule of law and democracy. This is what fascism and oligarchy look like.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

President Trump is perverting capitalism and the free market by asserting unprecedented personal influence over and taking government ownership in private sector companies. His actions do not reflect a coherent economic policy. It is the power grabbing of a tyrant and bully who wants to control others and wants them to be subservient. Trump is using largely illegal financial (e.g., import tariffs and export fees), regulatory, and court-based actions to do this. He wants to influence the decisions of other countries and American businesses, including media corporations, financial institutions, law firms, and universities. He wants countries and companies to come to him begging for exemptions from his actions and threats. [1] This is, of course, a breeding ground for corruption and bribery.

Nothing even approaching this level of government interference in the private sector has occurred since the emergency mobilization of the private sector for World War II. This government interference in private companies, which is a type of state-controlled capitalism, has until now always been anathema to Republicans and the business community. If any president prior to Trump had attempted any of this, Republicans, business executives, and the mainstream media would be screaming about it being socialism or communism. The actions by Trump are making the U.S. economy look like that of China, where the government owns a stake in companies or has considerable influence over their decision making. [2] [3] Or like Leninist capitalism where the Communist Party controlled the state’s ownership of businesses. [4]

This alignment of an authoritarian leader and a nominally capitalist economy is classic fascism. While Republicans and business executives are supportive or mute, the Wall Street Journal simply calls it inefficient. The business executives and other wealthy investors that facilitate and participate in Trump’s actions are the American oligarchy.

Examples of Trump’s actions include:

Allowed Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, makers of artificial intelligence (AI) computer chips, to export them to China on the condition that the companies pay the United States 15% of their profits. This poses risks to the U.S. AI industry and to U.S. national security (in part due to the chips’ use by the Chinese military). These payments are, for all intents and purposes, an export fee, which is unprecedented in U.S. history. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly bans export taxes (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5). [5]
Demanded that Intel’s CEO resign and then negotiated 10% government ownership of the company. This makes the U.S. government one of Intel’s largest shareholders. [6]
Proposed that the Defense Department take a 15% ownership stake in MP Materials, which mines minerals critical for chips and electronics.
Allowed Nippon Steel of Japan to take over U.S. Steel on condition that Nippon pay a “golden share” of the proceeds to the government and give Trump control over elements of corporate governance.
Reserved the right to personally direct some the $1.5 trillion in promised investments in the U.S. to be made by America’s trading partners as part of tariff negotiations.
Sued media corporations and negotiated approval of media corporation mergers to get money and influence over media content.

The government ownership in and influence over the private sector asserted by Trump has nothing to do with promoting the public interest, the well-being of American workers, or protecting national security. In fact, they undermine all these principles. They’re all about centralizing power and control in Trump’s hands as part of his efforts to undermine the rule of law and democracy. [7] Moreover, who holds the ownership stakes and who exercises the related rights is unclear.

Despite Trump’s bluster about being tough on China, his actions have been quite favorable to China. He has illegally extended the deadline for the sale of Chinese ownership of TikTok if it wants to do business in the U.S. He has shut down Radio Free Asia, which countered Chinese propaganda. He’s allowed the export of artificial intelligence computer chips to China, which was a key request from China in trade negotiations.

Please contact your members of Congress and ask them to assert their oversight of these deals Trump is making. Ask them to clarify who holds the ownership stakes, who is exercising ownership rights, and where the funds received are going. Ask them to ensure that the Trump administration’s economic policies and actions further the public interest, benefit workers, promote national security, and comport with the rule of law and democratic principles.

You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1] Dayen, D., 8/11/25, “Tariffs to import and fees to export,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2025-08-11-tariffs-to-import-fees-to-export-nvidia-chips-china/)

[2] Reich, R., 8/12/25, “Trump’s ‘state capitalism’,” Blog post (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/trumps-state-capitalism)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 8/11/25, Letters from an American blog post, (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-11-2025)

[4] Meyerson, H., 8/18/25, “When l’etat c’est Trump, the U.S. goes in for state capitalism,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/economy/2025-08-18-when-letat-cest-trump-us-goes-in-for-state-capitalism/)

[5] Dayen, D., 8/11/25, see above

[6] Liedtke, M., & Kurtenbach, E., 8/20/25, “US vying to own a big stake in Intel,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[7] Reich, R., 8/12/25, see above

BEWARE! SCAMS ARE COMING YOUR WAY! PART 2

Consumers beware; you’ll need to up your vigilance to avoid scams. The Trump administration is weakening consumer protections. From the cryptocurrency industry to cyber security to Social Security and health care, weak oversight and regulation will lead to consumer rip-offs and outright fraud.

Consumers beware; scams of all sorts are coming your way. The Trump administration is weakening or eliminating agencies and regulations that protect consumers. From the cryptocurrency industry to cyber security to Social Security and health care, weak oversight and regulation will lead to consumer rip-offs and outright fraud. You will need to up your level of vigilance to avoid getting scammed.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Consumers beware; scams of all sorts are coming your way. The Trump administration is weakening or eliminating agencies and regulations that protect consumers, so it’s an open field for unscrupulous behavior by businesses and fraudsters. From the cryptocurrency industry to cyber security to Social Security and health care, weak oversight and regulation will lead to consumer rip-offs and outright fraud. (See this previous post focused on financial and other corporate scamming.)

The cryptocurrency industry is trying to transform its image from that of a scandal-ridden and crime-enabling financial technology (aka fintech) experiment into that of a mainstream financial and commercial investment and transaction vehicle. Don’t let yourself be fooled. For example, Coinbase, founded in 2012 and now the largest U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchange as well as the world’s biggest bitcoin custodian, has had over 8,000 consumer complaints filed against it with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). [1]

The crypto industry spent well over $100 million in the last elections, including donations to Trump-affiliated entities, to elect pro-crypto politicians and to instill fear into others who might oppose the industry. It has also spent millions on a lobbying campaign to build bipartisan support for the Republican-led pro-crypto bills and to obtain a favorable regulatory environment.

Despite the crypto industry’s record of fraud, facilitating criminal activity, and extreme volatility, the Trump administration, through an executive order, is allowing investments in it by retirement plans, corporations (including banks!), and the government itself. [2] Furthermore, the Trump administration has eliminated crypto crime units at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and in other government agencies. It has ended numerous investigations and criminal prosecutions of crypto industry entities. These actions effectively facilitate money laundering and criminal activity. [3]

Three bills have been introduced in Congress ostensibly to regulate the industry but appear more focused on giving it legitimacy and a government seal of approval. One of the three bills, the so-called Genius Act has passed and become law. It established a regulatory framework for a piece of the crypto industry called stablecoins. This type of cryptocurrency is linked to the value of the U.S. dollar which is supposed to prevent the volatility that occurs with other cryptocurrencies. Most, but not all, Democrats opposed this bill due to concerns that it lacked strong provisions to prevent fraud and money laundering. Furthermore, it does nothing to stop President Trump, his family, and his associates from profiting from cryptocurrency activities that allow other people and entities to effectively put money in Trump’s and his affiliates’ pockets. [4]

One of the other bills, the so-called Clarity Act would create a broader crypto regulatory framework. The third bill would ban the Federal Reserve from creating its own cryptocurrency that would compete with private cryptocurrencies and presumably reduce the profitability of the private crypto industry. So, beware of anything crypto industry related that comes your way.

In a variety of other arenas, the Trump administration is also weakening consumer protections.

Having effectively eliminated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Trump administration is now considering weakening the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that protects consumers from dangerous non-financial products.

The Trump administration has dramatically weakened some of the federal government’s cyber security agencies. So, be ever more alert for cyber crime and cyber scams. It is taking FBI agents away from their specialties such as combating hackers (as well as terrorism, espionage, public corruption, white-collar crime, civil rights, child sex crime, etc.) to have them patrol the streets of D.C. where crime is at its lowest level in years. Moreover, a map of where FBI agents and troops have been deployed makes it very clear they are not really there to combat crime; they are there to be seen and to make a statement. [5]

The Trump administration is cutting staffing and services at the Social Security Administration, while having it send out misleading information. (See this previous post for more detail.) This will make it harder for seniors and others to receive the benefits they’re owed and to get accurate information. This will create fertile ground for scammers to step in. Be on your guard.

Similarly, cuts to the health care system and weakened oversight of privatized Medicare Advantage Plans will open the door to scammers. For example, 17% of Americans now report they are using buy now, pay later (BNPL) programs to pay for medical or dental care. [6] BNPL programs not infrequently involve terms and costs that are not well explained to consumers and, therefore, result in financial abuse.

Please contact your members of Congress and tell them you support strong regulation of the crypto industry to protect consumers and to prevent crime and money laundering. Ask them to oppose the two crypto industry bills as they are currently written. Ask them to stand up for strong consumer protections from the CFPB, CPSC, and cyber security agencies. Ask them to protect seniors and others from the undermining of Social Security and our health care system.

By the way, there is lots of good news. See Jess Craven’s latest good news post. It includes California Governor Newsom fighting fire with fire on the gerrymandering front, numerous judges’ decisions, protests all across the country, conservative economists opposing Trump’s nominee to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown deciding to run for U.S. Senate again in 2026, and much more.

[1] Silverman, J., 5/27/25, “Three coin monte,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/power/2025-05-27-three-coin-monte-crypto-regulation/)

[2] Johnson, J., 8/7/25, “‘Disaster in the making’: Trump to open 401(k)s to crypto, private equity vultures,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-private-equity-401k)

[3] Silverman, J., 5/27/25, see above

[4] Gold, M., 7/18/25, “Here’s how Congress is wading into crypto regulation,” The Boston Globe from the New York Times

[5] Cox Richardson, H., 8/19/25, “Letters from an American,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-19-2025)

[6] Corbett, J., 8/6/25, “‘Gouging’: US health insurance giants raked in over $71 billion in profits last year,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/health-insurance-profits)

BEWARE! SCAMS ARE COMING YOUR WAY!

Consumers beware; scams of all sorts are coming your way. The Trump administration is weakening or eliminating agencies and regulations that protect consumers. From financial services to the big tech companies a lack of oversight and regulation will lead to consumer rip-offs and outright fraud. You will need to up your level of vigilance to avoid getting scammed.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

Consumers beware; scams of all sorts are coming your way. The Trump administration is weakening or eliminating agencies and regulations that protect consumers, so it’s an open field for unscrupulous behavior by businesses and fraudsters. From financial services (including student loans) to the big tech companies, a lack of oversight and regulation will lead to consumer rip-offs and outright fraud.

Perhaps the most blatant of the Trump administration’s anti-consumer actions is the virtual elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In its 14 years of existence, the CFPB has required over $20 billion to be returned to consumers who were defrauded by financial businesses. Last year, for example, it sent $1.8 billion in checks to 4.3 million customers who had been defrauded by two credit repair services. [1] It has saved consumers billions more by regulating late fees on credit cards, overdraft fees on bank accounts, and much more. If it had been in existence before the 2008 financial collapse, it might well have prevented the collapse, and it would have saved many home owners their homes and others billions of dollars lost to mortgage fraud.

Not surprisingly, in the absence of CFPB enforcement, the number of consumer complaints has already exploded with 2.5 million complaints filed in the last six months. This is over ten times the number of complaints filed in a typical six-month period over the last 13 years. A major source of complaints is inaccurate data on consumers’ credit reports. Two weeks before Trump took office, the CFPB had sued Experian (one of the three big credit reporting agencies) for basically ignoring consumers’ complaints about inaccurate information. This lawsuit is going nowhere under the Trump administration. The Trump administration also voided a ruling that would have forced the Navy Federal Credit Union to return $80 million in fraudulent overdraft fees to customers who had been told they had sufficient funds to cover a withdrawal. This just one example of Trump administration actions to take millions of dollars promised to fraud victims and give it back to corporate scammers.

The Trump administration is attempting to dodge requirements that the CFPB make consumer complaints public so consumers can know which companies are bad actors. It has also stopped actions to curb excessive credit card late fees, to remove medical debt from credit reports, and to regulate digital payment businesses, payday lenders, and credit repair services. It has permanently dropped at least 22 enforcement actions against companies accused of billions of dollars of consumer financial fraud, including one against Zelle, the electronic payment platform that was infested with fraud shortly after being launched.

Medical credit cards and abuses of them are likely to increase dramatically with the CFPB out of the way. For example, in 2023, Synchrony Bank made $3.7 billion in interest and fees on its 11.7 million CareCredit cards (the most widely used medical credit card). These are offered to patients, sometimes ones in a crisis. They are often interest-free up-front but have a balloon interest amount due if not fully paid off in a set period. There are frequently junk fees associated with them and users frequently report that the terms and rules of the credit card weren’t clearly explained to them. [2]

The emasculation of the CFPB will eliminate oversight and accountability in the financial industry. This will make consumers vulnerable to the multitude of financial scams in the marketplace, which will now grow and proliferate. You will need to up your level of vigilance to avoid getting scammed.

Consumers will also be harmed by the far-reaching business deregulation and lack of enforcement of regulations and laws governing business behavior that the Trump administration is undertaking. As economists have noted for literally hundreds of years, bad money drives out good money, or, in other words, honest companies have a tough time competing against dishonest companies. Therefore, bad business behavior is likely to proliferate. [3]

Over 165 enforcement actions against businesses have been dropped or put on hold in the first six month of the Trump administration. Not coincidentally, roughly $50 million in donations to Trump’s inauguration and untold millions to Trump via other vehicles have come from companies subject to federal investigations, lawsuits, enforcement actions, or antitrust cases. Technology companies, particularly the big three: Meta (Facebook’s parent company), Apple, and Google, have benefited by spending relatively small amounts of money for them (a few million dollars) on political spending and lobbying to get favorable actions from the Trump administration. Of the 140 investigations and enforcement actions targeting 104 tech corporations when Trump took office, at least 50 have already been stopped. Bank of America, Capital One, Coinbase, DuPont, and JPMorgan donated to Trump’s inauguration and then federal enforcement actions against them were dropped. Intuit, which makes tax preparation software, gave to the inauguration and then the IRS discontinued its free, Direct File tax return program. Apple supported the inauguration and was then exempted from most tariffs. These companies are getting a great return on their “investments”. This pattern is evidence of a pay-to-play scheme that would be criminal bribery under any other president and administration. [4] [5]

The Trump administration is weakening or stating it won’t enforce laws banning U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials, prohibiting workplace discrimination, or regulating loan shark lending and its usurious interest rates. It is also making life harder and loans more expensive for student borrowers by making federal government student lending much less helpful and more costly. This will force many students needing to borrow funds for college into the hands of private lenders, some of whom are financial predators that the CFPB won’t be around to regulate or hold accountable. [6]

More in my next post on scams to be on the lookout for, including from the cryptocurrency industry.

[1] Tkacik, M., & Baratta, J., 7/11/25, “Hardly workin’,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/economy/2025-07-11-hardly-workin-cfpb-doge-trump/)

[2] Covert, B., 5/28/25, “Predatory lenders in the operating room,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/health/2025-05-28-predatory-lenders-operating-room-medical-credit-cards/)

[3] Dayen, D., 5/27/25, “The golden age of scams,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/power/2025-05-27-golden-age-of-scams/)

[4] Johnson, J., 8/14/25, “‘Corporate crime pays’ under Trump as his agencies drop enforcement against 165 companies,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/corporate-crime-donald-trump)

[5] Johnson, J., 4/22/25, “‘See how this works?’: Trump drops cases against corporations that funded his inauguration,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-corporations-inauguration)

[6] Dayen, D, 5/27/25, “Borrowers besieged,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/education/2025-05-27-borrowers-besieged-student-debt/)

THERE’S GOOD NEWS AND LOTS OF IT!

Despite all the bad news, there’s lots of good news. Democrats in Congress are starting to increase their resistance. In addition to action at the national level, state level action is critically important. I don’t condone gerrymandering, but I do believe we need to fight fire with fire. For lots of good news, look at Jess Craven’s weekly good news edition of her Chop Wood, Carry Water blog.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

Despite all the bad news the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are generating, there’s lots of good news.

Democrats in Congress are starting to increase their resistance. (Finally!) Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee invoked a rarely used procedure that allows five members of the committee to obtain documents from the administration. Senate Democrats have formally and officially demanded the release of the Epstein files by August 15. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has announced that she and hopefully other Democrats will refuse to cooperate with Republicans on any spending bills until Trump stops withholding previously appropriated funds. She pointed out that if Republicans allow Trump to ignore spending decisions by Congress or to rescind them after the fact, any future spending bills are a meaningless waste of time. Democrats are also demanding a thorough vetting process for fifty Trump nominations awaiting Senate confirmation rather than letting Republicans ram them through in an expedited process. [1]

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) strongly criticized his fellow Democrats for voting for some of Trump’s policies. Apparently as a result, Democrats held a closed-door meeting to develop a strategy for their resistance to the Trump / Republican agenda for the next two months.

In addition to action at the national level, state level action is critically important. Most notable right now is states’ threats to gerrymander congressional districts. Texas is threatening to do a very unusual and very partisan redistricting (normally this is only done when there is new Census data every ten years). Its goal would be to create five districts where Republicans would replace Democrats. Not only are Texas Democrats working to block this however they can, Democratic states are announcing that if Texas does this, they will take similar action to create new districts where Democrats would replace Republicans. I don’t condone gerrymandering, but I do believe we need to fight fire with fire. Democrats can’t afford to play by the rules when Republicans aren’t playing by the rules and are destroying our democracy.

For lots of good news across all levels, look at Jess Craven’s weekly good news edition of her Chop Wood, Carry Water (CWCW) blog. Here are some samples of the dozens of items she reported in the last two weeks.

August 3 edition examples (there’s much more!)

President Trump was caught on camera cheating while playing golf in Scotland.
Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced that nearly 210,000 Michiganders will see more than $144 million in medical debt eliminated.
A federal judge ruled that Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue to be reimbursed by Medicaid, despite a provision in the Republican / Trump budget cutting off this funding.
On April 30, several thousand CWCW readers contacted their U.S. Representatives urging them to sign a bipartisan letter supporting fiscal year 2026 funding for global maternal and child health, GAVI (the vaccine alliance), and global nutrition. On July 23, the House Appropriations Committee rejected Trump’s proposed cuts, continued FY 2025 funding levels, and INCREASED nutrition funding to $172.5 million. ADVOCACY MAKES A DIFFERENCE!
Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott denied a request from the Department of Defense to activate Vermont Army National Guard soldiers in support of federal immigration enforcement activities.
Solar and batteries make up the vast majority of new power plant installations in the U.S. — and will continue to through 2030. Trump may be able to slow the momentum, but not stop it

July 27 edition examples (there’s much more!)

Almost every late night host and others showed up at Stephen Colbert’s first show after being canceled in order to show their support. On Monday, protesters gathered outside the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York City to shout “Colbert Stays! Trump Must Go!”
The United Nations reported a global shift toward renewable energy, passing a “positive tipping point” where solar and wind power will become even cheaper and more widespread.
There are now about 11,400 high-speed, public, electric car charging stations in the US and hundreds more are being added every few months. Driven by the private sector, the rapid expansion has continued despite the Trump administration’s freezing of construction subsidies.
A House subcommittee voted to subpoena the DOJ for files in the sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein after Democrats successfully goaded GOP lawmakers into defying Trump and Republican leadership to support the action.
South Park excoriated Paramount (for capitulating to Trump’s ridiculous lawsuit) and humiliated Trump in the premiere episode of the show’s 27th season just after signing a five-year contract renewal with Paramount valued at $1.5 billion. The show has already been seen by nearly six million viewers.
Six hours after Louisville Public Media lost $376,000 in annual funding due to federal budget cuts, it held an emergency pledge drive and raised more than $500,000. Donations to NPR and PBS stations have surged since Trump and Republicans in Congress cut their funding.
Democratic governor of AZ, Katie Hobbs, announced that $429 million in medical debt has been erased for more than 352,000 Arizonans as part of a partnership between her administration and national nonprofit Undue Medical Debt.
After Democratic state Attorneys General and other groups sued, the Trump administration is releasing $6 billion in grants for education it had previously withheld.
Tesla’s net income dropped 16% in the second quarter as sales of vehicles plummeted.
JD Vance and his family went to Nantucket on vacation and were greeted by booing protestors, lots of mocking signage, and a pink blow-up couch.
Every Tuesday this summer at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., fired federal employees and their children will share personal stories and pen letters urging lawmakers to protect public service jobs and uphold democratic norms — they’re calling it “Camp Democracy.”
After pushback from Sen. Warren (D-MA), the Social Security Administration said it will continue issuing paper checks to the retirement program’s beneficiaries, backing away from a previously announced plan to switch all payments to electronic deposits after Sept. 30.
Los Angeles grand juries are refusing to indict ICE protestors.
A Scottish newspaper went viral as Donald Trump prepared to visit by using its front page to announce: “Convicted US felon to arrive in Scotland.”

Please contact your members of Congress and tell them to increase their resistance. Urge them to speak out against Trump / Republican policies and to explain to their constituents the toll these policies will take on every day Americans and our society.

[1] Hubbell, R., 7/31/25, “More signs of life among Senate Democrats,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/more-signs-of-life-among-senate-democrats)

HARMFUL POLICIES OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Trump administration policies are doing wide-ranging harm to people and our society. We need to protest and resist to convince elected officials, business and academic leaders, and others to stand up and push back.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

Trump administration policies are doing wide-ranging harm to people and our society. This is why we need to protest and resist in every way possible and however each of us can. We need to make it clear these policies are unpopular and convince elected officials, business and academic leaders, and others to stand up and push back. Perhaps some of the topics below will suggest wording for your protest signs. This previous post highlighted some of the harms of the recently passed Trump / Republican budget and thisprevious post documented some of the harm to seniors.

This post highlights harmful policies in crime and violence prevention, in children’s health and well-being, and for low-income seniors. It also notes harms to economic data and states’ finances.

CRIME AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION: The Trump administration has slashed funding for multiple programs that fight crime, reduce violence, and improve public safety. In April, the Department of Justice (DOJ) canceled $820 million in grants that had supported over 500 organizations working to reduce crime and promote public safety. This included $13 million for a program that funded rural law enforcement, supporting investigations of sexual assaults and reductions in child abuse. It cut a $3.5 million collaboration program for law enforcement, community leaders, and researchers to reduce violent crime – a program that Trump had touted as a success in his first term. These cuts are literally defunding the police. [1]

These programs had been working. After a spike in violent and property crimes during the pandemic, over the last three years crime has fallen substantially. Homicides have fallen in major cities, e.g., down 62% in Baltimore to a record low and also to record lows in Chicago and New York.

YOUNG CHILDREN’S WELL-BEING: The Head Start program provides essential services and supports to almost 800,000 low-income children up to age 5 and their families each year. The services include early education and child care, health and dental referrals, nutrition, and parenting supports, including support for getting a job.

The Trump administration’s ban on enrolling children who are undocumented is punishing children for their parents’ status and behaviors. This is like telling parents they can’t send a child to school because they got a ticket for running a red light. Denying them Head Start services will jeopardize the children’s development and ability to succeed in school and in life – early nutrition and development have life-long effects. Moreover, parents may not be able to work because they will have lost their child care. [2]

Head Start has provided these services and supports to over 40 million children and their families since 1965 with no questions asked because they benefit the children as well as their and our society’s futures.

Moreover, between Trump’s inauguration on January 20 and April 15, 2025, according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Trump administration illegally withheld more than $800 million from Head Start programs. Some Head Start programs were forced to close at least temporarily, negatively affecting thousands of children and hundreds of staff. [3]

CHILD MALNUTRITION: The Trump administration recently ordered the destruction of over 500 tons of emergency high-nutrition biscuits that would have prevented malnutrition for about 1.5 million children for a week. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had spent about $800,000 on this important food source for distribution to children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was in storage when the Trump administration gutted USAID stopping its distribution. Secretary of State Marco Rubio assured the House Appropriations Committee that the food would get to the children before it spoiled. However, the State Department ordered the destruction of the food because providing food to Afghanistan might benefit terrorists (although no reason was given for destroying the food destined for Pakistan and apparently no option of delivering the food to another country was considered). Destroying it will cost the U.S. taxpayers $130,000. [4]

WORK PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS: The Trump Labor Department has quietly ended that Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). This program helped tens of thousands of seniors (55 or older) who are living on the edge of poverty get part-time employment. The Labor Department withheld about $300 million from grant recipients in July. This is doubly cruel as the Trump / Republican budget is putting work requirements in place for these seniors to qualify for Medicaid health care coverage and for food assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). [5]

ACCURATE ECONOMIC DATA: The accuracy of economic data provided by the Trump administration has been a matter of concern for months. Cuts to staff at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a key source of economic data, have hurt the timely production of accurate data. For example, the Consumer Price Index and related data that the BLS produces have included a lot more estimated data than in the past. [6]

When the August 1 jobs report from the BLS showed low job creation for the last three months, Trump falsely claimed that the data had been manipulated to make him look bad. So, Trump fired the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Dr. Erika McEntarfer. With a Trump replacement, future data from the BLS, which is important to investors and business leaders making decisions about hiring and growth, will be even more suspect that it has been to date.

IMPACT ON STATES’ BUDGETS: Massachusetts Governor, Maura Healey, has introduced legislation to spend $400 million of emergency state funds on research and development. This is an effort to soften the blow of Trump administration cuts of research and development grants. MA state programs have lost $714 million in federal funding already this year and universities and other entities have also lost federal research and development funding. MA receives over $8 billion annually in federal research and development funding, which supports 81,300 jobs and generates $16 billion in ancillary economic activity. In New England, the Trump administration has canceled hundreds of research grants from the National Science Foundation and the Health and Human Services Department totaling over $3 billion. [7]

[1] Waldman, M., 7/22/25, “Trump defunds effective crime-prevention policies,” Brennan Center for Justice: The Briefing (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trump-defunds-effective-crime-prevention-policies”

[2] Hilliard, J., 7/14/25, “Immigration policy shift threatens Head Start,” The Boston Globe

[3] Conley, J., 7/23/25, “Nonpartisan watchdog agency finds Trump admin illegally withheld Head Start funds,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/head-start-trump)

[4] Cox Richardson, H., 7/15/25, “Letters from an American,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-15-2025)

[5] Johnson, J., 7/20/25, “‘Extra cruel’: Trump admin ends job program for seniors as work requirements loom,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/senior-job-training-program)

[6] Cox Richardson, H., 8/1/25, “Letters from an American,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-1-2025)

[7] Gross, S. 8/1/25, “Mass. Research would get $400m,” The Boston Globe

HARMS OF THE TRUMP / REPUBLICAN BUDGET

The Trump / Republican budget just enacted will increase the federal debt, make college less affordable, harm our (and particularly women’s) health as well as our health care system, and hurt states’ finances. Please contact your members of Congress and tell them you oppose these budget cuts. Ask them to explain to their constituents the toll the budget will take on every day Americans and on our society.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

The Trump / Republican budget just enacted will increase the federal debt, make college less affordable, harm our (and particularly women’s) health as well as our health care system overall, and hurt states’ finances (among other things). My previous post documented harm to seniors because of cuts to Medicaid, cuts to Medicare, and the weakening of Social Security. I also noted the harm to millions of non-seniors due to the cuts to Medicaid and food assistance.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has just issued its final report on the budget: it will increase the deficit by $3.4 trillion over ten years and result in 10 million Americans losing health coverage from Medicaid (among other things). Low-income children and families will be among the groups hit hardest with about 37 million children losing their healthcare coverage from Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The money from the huge increase in the deficit and the harmful cuts in vital programs helps pay for tax breaks for millionaires and large corporations, as well as grotesque increases in the budgets for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the military. [1]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S TOTAL DEBT CEILING RAISED: While most people know that the Trump / Republican budget bill increased the annual budget deficits, few are aware that the bill also included a big, $5 trillion increase the federal government’s overall amount of allowable, accumulated debt, i.e., the debt ceiling. You may remember that Republicans threatened to shut down the federal government – and sometimes did – and created crises over the increasing of the debt ceiling when Democrats were president. Despite Republicans supposed concern about the amount of the federal debt, they were happy to increase the debt limit 27 times when Republicans Reagan and George H. W. Bush were president. But when Democrat Clinton was president, the Republicans shut down the federal government twice over increases in the federal debt, although ultimately the debt ceiling was increased eight times during the Clinton presidency. Under Republican president George W. Bush, the debt ceiling was increased eight times without Republican opposition. Under Democrat Obama, the debt ceiling was increased or suspended five times with Republicans threatening government shutdowns and creating crises over their supposed concern over the debt.

These Republican-created debt ceiling crises resulted in dramatic stock market declines and the downgrading of the federal government’s credit rating by Standard & Poor’s for the first time ever. In Republican Trump’s first term the debt ceiling was suspended three times with no Republican objections. Under Democratic President Biden, the Republicans returned to their hypocritical objection to increasing the debt ceiling and created another crisis. They also threatened, for the first time in history, to use the filibuster in the Senate to block an increase in the debt ceiling. So, the Republicans’ big increase in the debt ceiling and the annual federal budget deficit in the recent budget bill dramatically underscore the hypocrisy of their claims to be concerned about the federal budget deficit and the debt ceiling.

MAKING COLLEGE LESS AFFORDABLE: The Trump / Republican budget bill reduces and caps the total amount that students and parents can borrow to pay for college from federal sources. It raises interest costs and shuts down or weakens programs that allow loan forgiveness for low-income graduates and those in public service jobs. For new student loans, there are only two repayment plans, both of which are far more expensive than the current options. These changes will cost student borrowers about $355 billion over ten years most of it from repealing reduced loan payments for graduates in low-paying jobs. These budget savings come directly out of the pockets of student borrowers to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and increased funding for ICE and the military. [2]

MAKING HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN LESS ACCESSIBLE: The Trump / Republican budget bill prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any organization that is primarily engaged in family planning services and got more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. Note that federal law already prohibits federal funding from paying for almost all abortions.

The budget bill targets Planned Parenthood because of its abortion services, but it will also dramatically affect many other women’s health care services and many other providers of health care for women. While Planned Parenthood performs about 400,000 abortions a year, it also provides over 5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, over 2 million family planning and contraception services, and over 400,000 cancer screenings and prevention services. The loss of Medicaid coverage for these services will harm many low-income women.

An example of the impact on non-Planned Parenthood providers is Maine Family Planning. It will lose about $2 million in Medicaid reimbursements (one-fourth of its total budget) for its non-abortion services to roughly 3,500 patients in rural Maine, such as cancer screenings, pregnancy testing, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and family planning counseling and contraception services. It operates 18 clinics and for about two-thirds of its patients it is their only health care provider. [3]

HARMS TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND STATES’ FINANCES: The Trump / Republican budget bill will harm the overall health care system by reducing the revenue it receives from Medicaid and Medicare by hundreds of millions of dollars. States simply do not have the resources to fill this gap. Higher insurance premiums and higher co-payments for services from patients will occur. States’ finances will be harmed as at least some states will use their funds to make up for some of the lost federal funding that supports low-income individuals and families. It is estimated that 51,000 preventable deaths will occur each year because of the cuts to the health care system. [4]

For example, in Massachusetts, it’s estimated that the federal budget cuts will reduce payments to MA health care providers by as much as $3.5 billion per year. About 326,000 MA residents (almost 5% of the population or 1 of every 20 people) are projected to lose their health insurance due to the budget cuts. Hospitals are projected to lose $424 million in revenue. As a result, some hospitals will close and some will stop providing services that are less profitable, such as psychiatric and obstetrical care. Emergency rooms may close. Massachusetts (and other states) will be forced to step in and subsidize critically important services, especially in rural areas. Hundreds of rural hospitals across the country are likely to close as they are more dependent on Medicaid revenue than urban / suburban hospitals. [5]

The budget’s new Medicaid work requirements will mean that millions of Medicaid recipients will lose coverage even though they are working or qualify for an exemption from the work requirements because of a disability, for example. They will lose their coverage because they are unable to assemble the necessary paperwork and to jump through all the hoops of presenting it quickly enough to avoid being cut off. By the way, the budget bill also requires them to do this twice a year rather than once a year as is currently required.

Please contact your members of Congress and tell them you oppose these budget cuts. Urge them to speak out against the Trump / Republican budget and to explain to their constituents the toll the budget will take on them and our society.

[1] Hubbell, R., 7/23/25, “Resisting while in political exile,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/resisting-while-in-political-exile)

[2] Kuttner, R., 7/16/25, “Gutting the student loan program,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2025-07-16-gutting-student-loan-program/)

[3] Whittle, P., & Mulvihill, G., 7/17/25, “Trump’s new bill affects more than Planned Parenthood,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[4] Anderson, S. & Koshgarian, L., 7/9/25, “10 ways the GOP’s big ugly bill could hurt you,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/10-harms-big-ugly-bill)

[5] Globe Editorial, 7/17/25, “One big disaster for Massachusetts health care,” The Boston Globe

REPUBLICAN BUDGET HARMS SENIORS (AMONG MANY OTHERS)

The recently enacted Republican budget bill will harm seniors by reducing Medicaid spending, weakening Social Security, and cutting Medicare. These (and other) budget cuts are being made to help pay for large tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

The Republican budget just passed by Congress and signed by President Trump will harm seniors by reducing Medicaid spending, cutting Medicare, and weakening Social Security. Before I get into some of these details, a couple of notes on other provisions of the bill, of which there are many in the nearly 1,000-page bill’s language. As you probably know, 12 million people are projected to lose their health care due to Medicaid cuts of roughly $1 trillion (yes, trillion) over the next ten years. Medicaid provides health insurance for low-income families and seniors including long-term care for millions of seniors (see more below). Cuts to food assistance programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), will increase hunger for millions of families, including many new mothers and babies where malnutrition may have long-term effects on the babies’ development.

All the cuts in the budget are being made to help pay for large tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. Note that the big tax cuts take effect right away, while many of the program cuts don’t go into effect until after the 2026 election. The Republicans hope that because people won’t be experiencing the program cuts before the election that it will be easier to con voters into voting for Republicans.

Most people know that the budget will increase the federal budget’s annual deficits by over $300 billion for a total of $3 trillion (yes, trillion) over the next ten years. However, few people are aware that the bill increases the federal government’s overall amount of allowable, accumulated debt, i.e., the debt ceiling, by $5 trillion. (I’ll document the Republicans’ hypocrisy on raising the debt ceiling in a future post.)

The Trump administration and Republicans are pumping out lots of disinformation about the budget bill in an attempt to keep the public from understanding the harm it will do.

For example, within hours of the passage of the bill, all of you who are seniors, tens of millions of Americans overall, received an email from the Social Security Administration stating that “The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits” and that “The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.” [1]

These statements are misleading at best. Only about a quarter (25%) of seniors will see any tax benefit from the bill’s provisions – quite different from the figures used in the Social Security Administration’s email.The bill does not directly eliminate or even reduce taxes on Social Security benefits. What the bill does is temporarily increase the standard income tax deduction by $6,000 for seniors 65 and over. [2] Sixty-four percent of seniors receiving Social Security benefits ALREADY pay no tax on their Social Security payments. This percentage will increase to 88% due to the bill’s provisions. Furthermore, the people who will benefit will be those Social Security recipients who are better off and the richest will benefit the most. By the way, the increase in the income tax deduction will expire in 2028 when Trump’s term in office is ending. [3] [4]

Furthermore, the message from the Social Security Administration didn’t mention that, overall, the budget bill will weaken Social Security by reducing the revenue that flows into the Social Security system. Currently, the Social Security trust fund, built up over many years to help pay Social Security benefits, is projected to run out of money in 2033. After that, Social Security revenue would only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits. Under the Republican budget bill, the Social Security trust fund will run out of money one year earlier, in 2032, and its reduction of future Social Security revenue means that benefits after 2032 would be even lower than the currently projected 77% of the promised level. [5]

The Republican budget’s cuts to Medicaid will harm low-income seniors who qualify for Medicaid (and that they receive in addition to Medicare – which covers all seniors). In particular, it will harm the roughly eight million seniors and people with disabilities whose long-term home and community-based care services are paid for by Medicaid and the 1.5 million seniors in nursing homes. About two-thirds of all nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid. The budget’s Medicaid cuts will significantly reduce revenue for long-term care services and facilities. As a result, 25% of nursing homes are projected to close and over half are likely to have to reduce staff to remain financially viable. Therefore, finding nursing home care, let alone good quality care, will become even more difficult than it is now. [6] [7]

In addition to the direct cuts to Medicaid (government health care coverage for low-income families and seniors), the Republican budget will also force cuts to Medicare (government health care coverage for all seniors). Because of the budget’s large increases in the federal government’s annual budget deficits, the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010 requires across-the-board budget cuts. A mandatory cut of about $50 billion a year to Medicare for each of the next ten years will be required. This cut will take place immediately (while many of the explicit program cuts in the budget are delayed until after the 2026 elections). [8]

Please contact your members of Congress and tell them you are opposed to (or even horrified by) budget cuts that will harm seniors. Tell them you are particularly upset that these cuts are being used to give wealthy individuals and corporations tax cuts. Urge them to speak out against these cuts and to explain to their constituents the toll the Republican budget is taking on seniors and others.

[1] Social Security Administration, 7/3/25, “Social Security applauds passage of legislation providing historic tax relief for seniors,” Press Release (https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#2025-07-03)

[2] Hubbell, R., 7/7/25, “Stay on task: Overwhelm the opposition,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/stay-on-task-overwhelm-the-opposition)

[3] Edelman, L., 7/15/25, “Seniors score, gamblers get rolled in Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’,” The Boston Globe

[4] Siegel Bernard, T., 7/8/25, “Social Security email misleading,” The Boston Globe from the New York Times

[5] Johnson, J., 7/4/25, “Trump Social Security chief applauds budget bill that will harm Social Security’s finances,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-social-security-budget-bill)

[6] Lawson, A., 6/30/25, “The Republican nursing home apocalypse,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/gop-nursing-homes)

[7] National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, Feb. 2025, “Medicaid facts with links to state data,” (https://nacdd.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/250204_NACDD-Medicaid-Fact-Sheet.pdf)

[8] Dayen, D., 7/3/25, “Republicans are cutting Medicare. Not only Medicaid, Medicare.” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/politics/2025-07-03-republicans-cutting-medicare-not-only-medicaid/)

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN A “MAKE GOOD TROUBLE” PROTEST ON THURS., 7/17

I hope you’re planning to participate in a Make Good Trouble protest on Thursday, July 17. You can find an event near you here. The Trump administration continues its assaults on our democracy and on the safety and well-being of Americans. We and our elected officials need to step up our resistance and make it clear we oppose the administration’s actions.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Personal note: My posting has been and will be a bit less regular this summer primarily because of multiple opportunities to spend time with our grandchildren.)

I hope you’re planning to participate in a Make Good Trouble protest on Thursday, July 17. You can find an event near you here. These protests are important follow-ups to the No Kings protests on June 14. Resistance is even more important now as the Trump administration continues its assaults on democracy and on the safety and well-being of all Americans. Please participate in a protest if you can; bring family members and friends if possible. Support the resistance however you can. Let’s make this bigger and better than the No Kings protests in June!

In addition to protests against the Trump administration, these will also be rallies in support of democracy. They will include pro-democracy messaging supporting the Constitution, equality, due process, liberty, fairness, decency, compassion, and the common good. [1]

These Make Good Trouble protests will be honoring the legacy of civil rights activist and former member of Congress John Lewis, who advocated for making good trouble and marching forward despite all odds. Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers didn’t make it across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday (and Lewis almost got beaten to death), but they persisted and now is our time to stand up for democracy, decency, the rule of law, fairness, and justice.

These protests are not seeking to change Trump’s mind or those of his MAGA supporters in and outside of Congress. They are seeking to demonstrate to our elected officials that if they do not stand with us in resisting the Trump administration and in protecting democracy that they will lose their next elections. They also seek to convince enough people of the importance of voting for Democrats (and against Republicans) in upcoming elections to give Democrats control of Congress, along with state and local offices and legislative bodies. They also seek to make it clear to corporate executives that siding with Trump will hurt their businesses as well as to judges that the people support and want democracy; that we want government of, by, and for the people; and that we will back them when they stand up to the Trump administration’s illegal actions.

The Make Good Trouble protests and pro-democracy rallies are also a way to support one another in our resistance and underscore the importance of our actions. As John Lewis wrote: “When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself. Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble.” [2]

Trump’s repeated assertions of illegal and autocratic powers undermine the Constitution, civil rights, the rule of law, and the foundations of our democracy. They are a coordinated attack on our democracy and a humane and healthy society. They attack our rights to due process, to vote, to protest, and even our well-being, including access to healthcare, food, and shelter. They target immigrants, families in need, and anyone who disagrees with them or calls out their lies.

The only solution to the Trump administration’s illegal and dictatorial actions is for millions of Americans to peacefully protest to show their opposition. Thousands of protests all over the country, in cities, towns, and rural areas, by people of all ages, political persuasions, and ethnicities, are needed to clearly show the Trump administration, our elected officials (members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, members of state legislatures, etc.), corporate executives, and our judges that the Trump administration’s actions are unacceptable and broadly opposed.

We, as citizens of a democracy, need to rise up in unassailable numbers to defend our democracy against the autocracy and budding police state dictatorship of the Trump administration.

Our political leaders (if they deserve to be called leaders) should be leading the charge and stepping up their resistance, as President Trump continues his assaults on our democracy. I urge you to contact your elected officials at all levels, from members of Congress to Governors to members of state legislatures to local officials, and ask them to join a protest on Thursday and to resist every day. Ask them to do more than just speak out. Now is the time for action!

P.S. We all need our weekly dose of good news, so here’s a link to a Jess Craven Chop Wood, Carry Water good news post.

[1] Hubbell, R. B., 7/14/25, “Making good trouble,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/making-good-trouble)

[2] Hubbell, R. B., 7/14/25, see above

EXAMPLES OF THE SOCIETAL TOLL OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

The actions of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are inflicting a serious toll on our society. Examples include their efforts to defund foreign aid and public broadcasting, their weakening of our cybersecurity defenses, and their efforts to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not to mention all the horrible things in the budget bill.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

The actions of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are taking a heavy toll on people, on our society, and on our democratic institutions. Here are some examples.(See this previous post for more examples.)

ACTION #1: Republicans in U.S. House recently passed a bill to rescind $9.4 billion of previously approved funding for foreign aid ($8.3 billion) and public broadcasting ($1.1 billion). The good news is that the Trump administration is tacitly acknowledging that it is illegal for it to cut congressionally approved funding through executive orders or actions by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The vote to pass the bill was 214 to 212 and occurred only after Republican Speaker Johnson had pressured a few Republican representatives to switch their “no” votes and support the bill. [1] Republicans in both the House and the Senate have expressed concerns about this bill.

The bill would rescind funding for foreign aid programs that some of them support, such as President George W. Bush’s emergency AIDS program that has saved over 25 million lives around the globe. These cuts will ultimately harm health and result in deaths here in the U.S. as diseases spread across international borders.

It also would rescind funding that supports 1,500 public TV and radio stations, including many in rural, Republican areas where they are a vital, local resource.

ACTION #2: The Trump administration is weakening America’s cybersecurity defenses at a time when the likelihood of cyberattacks is growing. Trump fired the general who led the National Security Agency and other leaders of our cybersecurity agencies. He has cut staffing and funding for cybersecurity agencies. [2]

This makes no sense because the likelihood of cyber warfare is growing as global tensions and conflicts escalate – in Ukraine, the Middle East, and over Taiwan. U.S. adversaries Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea all have significant cyber warfare capabilities, and there are signs of cyber activity cooperation among them. Cyberattacks can be used for espionage – to steal valuable corporate or government information. Or they can be used to disrupt public infrastructure such as electric power supplies, phone and Internet services, hospitals, banks and financial services, and water supply systems. Recently, Russian hackers disabled the automatic control systems at a rural Texas municipal water plant. This was probably just a test of their capabilities or a warning about what they can do.

ACTION #3: The Trump administration, Republicans in Congress, and their wealthy backers in the financial industry are working hard to eliminate or at least emasculate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB was created in response to the financial industry corruption that caused the 2008 financial collapse and resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes due to abusive and fraudulent mortgages. Since its creation, the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion to consumers through enforcement actions on illegal behavior by financial companies. It has also saved consumers untold additional money through its regulation of the financial industry. [3] For example, it has capped exorbitant fees such as credit card late payment penalties and bank account overdraft charges.

The Trump administration and Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have been trying to cut CFPB funding, fire its employees, and eliminate the agency. On February 14, a federal judge ordered a halt to these actions. The Trump administration responded by placing most of the CFPB staff on administrative leave and preventing them from performing their jobs.

On June 10, the head of enforcement for the CFPB resigned, writing: “It is clear that the bureau’s current leadership has no intention to enforce the law.” [4] (Russell Vought is the Acting Director of the CFPB and the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, as well as a key author of Project 2025.)

To benefit the wealthy executives and corporations in the financial industry, the Trump administration is persistently trying to eliminate the only independent agency protecting consumers from predatory and illegal practices of financial industry companies.

YOUR ACTION: Please contact your members of Congress and ask them to oppose these actions of the Trump administration in every way they can. Urge them to speak out against these actions and to explain to their constituents the toll Trump administration’s actions are taking on them and our society.

[1] Edmondson, C., 6/12/25, “House votes to claw back $9 billion for foreign aid and public broadcasting,” The Boston Globe from the New York Times

[2] Klepper, D., 4/21/25, “Nations ready cybersecurity defenses,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[3] Economic Policy Institute, 6/12/25, “Trump administration attempts to close the CFPB, block agency’s work,” (https://www.epi.org/policywatch/trump-administration-closes-the-cfpb/)

[4] Economic Policy Institute, 6/12/25, see above

ASK YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO OPPOSE THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

ACTION: Please contact your U.S. Representative NOW and ask them to do everything they can to stop the draconian Republican budget bill. The House will be voting soon on the bill just passed by the Senate, which has even bigger cuts to Medicaid and food assistance than the original, horrible House budget. In addition to spending cuts that will harm millions of Americans and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, it includes many other very harmful provisions.

(Note: If you find this message too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading and acting!)

The Republican budget the Senate just passed is now back in the House as it has significant differences from the bill the House originally passed. Please act NOW as the House will be voting soon. As you probably know, this budget bill makes big spending cuts in a range of government programs and services due to the need to offset some of the lost revenue from the big tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. Nonetheless, the federal budget deficit will increase by over $300 billion a year. Overall, rich Americans would gain around $12,000 a year from the tax cuts, while the poorest families would lose about $1,600 on average from program cuts.

The vote in the Senate was 50 to 50, so Vice President Vance voted to break the tie and pass the bill 51 to 50. Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, switch her “Yes” vote on the procedural preliminary vote to a “No” vote. Thanks to all of you who contacted her!! All Democrats and Republican Senators Tillis (NC) and Rand (KY) also voted against the budget bill. The bill includes a number of special benefits for Alaska to buy the vote of Alaska Senator Murkowski. (See this post from The American Prospect for highlights of the bill and what was done to buy Murkowski’s vote.)

Repeating what was in my previous post, here are some key things the Republicans’ proposed budget would do (among the many harmful provisions in the bill): [1] [2] [3]

Take health care away from roughly 12 million Americans by cutting spending on Medicaid by $930 billion over ten years. Medicaid provides health insurance for millions of low-income families, including students and families of low-paid and unemployed workers. It also covers nursing home care for millions of seniors and health care for disabled individuals. This cut, combined with cuts to the Affordable Care Act and Medicare, will reduce spending and wreak havoc throughout the whole health care system.
Take food assistance away from millions of low-income households, including many new mothers and their babies, as well as students and families of low-paid and unemployed workers. It would dramatically cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps. It would also cut the Farm to School program that supports local, small farmers and provides healthy, fresh food to school lunch programs.
Increase the federal budget deficit by about $330 billion a year. This would add $3.3 trillion (yes, trillion) to the overall federal debt over the next ten years.
Extend expiring tax cuts and create new ones that will provide huge windfalls to wealthy individuals and corporations at a cost of about $4 trillion.
More than double the budget for the detention and deportation of immigrants by adding $150 billion to the budget of the Department of Homeland Security. It will add $45 billion to the budget for detention centers to increase or expand the existing 160 detention centers. This would mean ICE has more money for detention that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
End tax credits that have been in place since 2005 that incentivize the development of wind and solar energy. [4]
Increase funding for the Defense Department by about $150 billion, including for Elon Musk’s companies. This significant increase is proposed even though there’s more waste, fraud, and abuse in the Defense Department than anywhere else in the federal government. Clearly, Trump, his administration, and Musk and DOGE don’t really care about cutting waste and making government more efficient.

Please contact your U.S. Representative NOW, as they will be voting on this bill and its provisions in the next two days. Ask them to vote against this draconian budget. Let them know you oppose tax cuts for wealthy corporations and individuals, as well as cuts in programs that benefit everyday working Americans. It’s particularly galling that the cuts in programs for low-income families are being made to offset part of the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Your contacts are important even if you don’t change someone’s mind or vote. It lets your Representative know that you are watching them and paying attention to what’s going on in Congress. If they vote for the budget in upcoming votes, it will let them know that they are jeopardizing their chances of re-election, which is key to getting them to oppose Trump in these and future votes.

You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO! IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE!

(Note: Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Trump) and Congresses have cut taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations multiple times since the 1981. These tax cuts have added over $10 trillion (yes, trillion) to the federal debt. The economic boom, jobs, increased tax revenue, and trickle down of benefits to everyday Americans they always promise have NEVER materialized. Most recently, they did not happen after the Trump and Republican tax cuts of 2017. Extending those tax cuts and adding others will not increase economic growth, will not increase tax revenue, will not create jobs, and will not trickle down to everyday Americans.)

[1] Reich, R., 6/30/25, “The worst bill in history,” Robert Reich’s daily blog (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-three-myths-of-trickle-down-economics)

[2] Mascaro, L., Freking, K., & Cappelletti, J., 6/29/25, “Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill clears key Senate vote as Republicans race to pass it by July 4,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 6/28/25, “Letters from an American,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-28-2025)

[4] Reuters, 6/28/25, “Senate bill hastens end of wind, solar tax credits and imposes new tax,” U.S. News (https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2025-06-28/senate-bill-hastens-end-of-wind-solar-tax-credits-and-imposes-new-tax)

ASK YOUR SENATORS TO OPPOSE THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET

Please contact your US Senators NOW. Ask them to stop the draconian Republican budget the Senate is voting on NOW, which includes major cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. Its spending cuts will harm millions of Americans. Its tax cuts will be a windfall for wealthy individuals and corporations.

ACTION: Please contact your U.S. Senators NOW and ask them to do everything they can to stop the draconian 940-page Republican budget the Senate is voting on NOW, which includes major cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. In addition to spending cuts that will harm millions of Americans and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, it includes many other very objectionable provisions.

(Note: If you find this message too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading and acting!)

The Republican budget the Senate is voting on NOW makes big spending cuts in a range of government programs and services due to the need to reduce the increase in the federal budget deficit caused by the lost revenue from the big tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. Overall, the richest Americans would gain around $12,000 a year from the tax cuts, while the poorest families would lose about $1,600 on average from program cuts. Here are some key things the Senate Republicans’ proposed budget would do: [1] [2] [3]

Take health care away from roughly 12 million Americans by cutting spending on Medicaid by $930 billion over ten years. Medicaid provides health insurance for millions of low-income families, including students and families of low-paid and unemployed workers. It also covers nursing home care for millions of seniors and health care for disabled individuals. This cut, combined with cuts to the Affordable Care Act and Medicare, will reduce spending and wreak havoc throughout the whole health care system.
Take food assistance away from millions of low-income households, including many new mothers and their babies, as well as students and families of low-paid and unemployed workers. It would dramatically cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps. It would also cut the Farm to School program that supports local, small farmers and provides healthy, fresh food to school lunch programs.
Increase the federal budget deficit by about $330 billion a year. This would add $3.3 trillion (yes, trillion) to the overall federal debt over the next ten years.
Extend expiring tax cuts and create new ones that will provide huge windfalls to wealthy individuals and corporations at a cost of about $4 trillion.
More than double the budget for the detention and deportation of immigrants by adding $150 billion to the budget of the Department of Homeland Security. It will add $45 billion to the budget for detention centers to increase or expand the existing 160 detention centers. This would mean ICE has more money for detention that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
Immediately end tax credits in place since 2005 to incentivize the development of wind and solar energy. Moreover, it would implement a new tax on these projects. [4]
Increase funding for the Defense Department by about $150 billion, including for Elon Musk’s companies. This significant increase is proposed even though there’s more waste, fraud, and abuse in the Defense Department than anywhere else in the federal government. Clearly, Trump, his administration, and Musk and DOGE don’t really care about cutting waste and making government more efficient.

There are many other harmful provisions in the proposed Republican budget.

Please contact your U.S. Senators NOW (as they are voting on this bill and its provisions this week) and ask them to vote against this draconian budget in the upcoming votes. Let them know you oppose tax cuts for wealthy corporations and incredibly wealthy individuals – especially when they are partially paid for by cutting programs that benefit everyday working Americans.

If your Senator is a Democrat or Republicans Tillis (NC) or Paul (KY), thank them for voting against the budget in a preliminary vote. If your Senator is one of the other Republicans, ask them to vote against the budget in upcoming votes.

Your contacts are important even if you don’t change someone’s mind or vote. It lets your Senators know that you are watching them and paying attention to what’s going on in Congress. If they voted against the budget preliminarily, it will encourage them to continue to oppose the budget. If they vote for the budget in upcoming votes, it will let them know that they are jeopardizing their chances of re-election, which is key to getting them to oppose Trump in these and future votes.

You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO! IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE!

(Note: Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Trump) and Congresses have cut taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations multiple times since the 1981. These tax cuts have added over $10 trillion (yes, trillion) to the federal debt. The economic boom, jobs, increased tax revenue, and trickle down of benefits to everyday Americans they always promise have NEVER materialized. Most recently, they did not happen after the Trump and Republican tax cut of 2017. Extending these tax cuts and adding others will not increase economic growth, will not increase tax revenue, will not create jobs, and will not trickle down to working Americans. They will, however, balloon the deficit by around $500 billion a year – unless spending is cut to make up for the loss of revenue.)

[1] Reich, R., 6/30/25, “The worst bill in history,” Robert Reich’s daily blog (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-three-myths-of-trickle-down-economics)

[3] Cox Richardson, H., 6/28/25, “Letters from an American,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-28-2025)

EXAMPLES OF THE SOCIETAL TOLL OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

The Trump administration and Republicans are taking a serious toll on our society. Examples include their sanctioning of unnecessarily aggressive and violent tactics by federal police, their false claims of fighting antisemitism, and their attacks on transgender girl athletes.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are taking a serious toll on our society. Examples include their sanctioning of unnecessarily aggressive and violent tactics by federal police, their false claims of fighting antisemitism, and their attacks on transgender girl athletes. It’s valuable to document the damage and the toll for multiple reasons.

(Note: If you find this post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

The Trump administration is taking a serious toll on our society, in addition to its toll on individuals’ well-being and safety. (See this previous post for examples of the human toll).

Overall, the toll the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are taking on people, on our society, and on our democratic institutions is immense. The more one looks and the deeper one looks the more damage one sees. At some point it can seem meaningless to document the damage in detail – it’s just omnipresent and unimaginable. And it’s depressing to think about it all.

This is what Project 2025 envisioned and planned to do. However, the swiftness, scope, and cruelty of the actions in these first few months has, I think, been a shock to almost everyone. Part of this is that I’m not sure anyone – even Trump and the Project 2025 authors – anticipated the involvement and aggressiveness of Musk.

I do think it’s valuable to document the damage and the toll for multiple reasons. Here are some reasons to do so:

To identify and make us appreciate all that the federal government does for us, which I think all of us took for granted, at least to some extent.
To identify opportunities for push back and responses that facilitate individuals’ involvement based on where personal interests, experiences, and/or expertise allow each of us to be uniquely effective.
To provide evidence and arguments that will convince more and more people to turn out to vote and to vote against Trump and Republicans. This provides talking points for all of us to use in convincing others to get engaged and to vote. (Note: Democrats also must present powerful reasons to vote for Democrats; something Democrats have not done well, to say the least.)
To identify what will need to be repaired and rebuilt once the Trump administration and Republican control of Congress are over.

Here are some examples of the toll the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are inflicting on our society:

EXAMPLE #1: With Trump’s authorization and encouragement, federal police forces (including Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the FBI) are using unnecessarily aggressive tactics. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), perhaps following their example, has also engaged in unnecessarily aggressive tactics in response to the recent, largely peaceful protests in LA. (See this previous post, which includes more on the unnecessarily aggressive tactics of the Trump administration in LA, the exaggerated reporting of violence by the mainstream media, and a note on the kidnapping-type tactics of ICE in detaining people.)

Jeremy Lindenfeld, a reporter for Capital & Main, a California-based non-profit news source, has reported based on firsthand experience that peaceful protesters in Los Angeles have faced aggressive use of force that violates police crowd-control protocols. He has experience with this because he’s previously covered Black Lives Matter protests and demonstrations on the Israel – Palestine conflict. He reports that in LA he “witnessed law enforcement agencies deploy crowd-control weapons with greater intensity and more indiscriminately than [he] ever had before.” [1] He witnessed clearly identified members of the press being targeted and injured by the police’s use of weapons.

EXAMPLE #2: The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are using Jewish Americans as political pawns. They claim to be fighting antisemitism on college campuses and in protests over the war in the Middle East. However, this is just an excuse to attack colleges and individuals who don’t share their right-wing political views. Attacking colleges and universities is part of Project 2025 and something Vice President Vance has been talking about since at least 2021. [2]

The insincerity of the claims by Trump, members of his administration, and some Republican members of Congress that they are concerned about antisemitism is belied by their support (and pardoning) of January 6, 2021, insurrectionists who attacked the U.S. Capitol carrying Nazi flags and symbols, as well as spouting Nazi rhetoric. Trump also described neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville, VA, in 2017 as “very fine people.” Trump has hosted antisemites at his home at Mar a Lago and his biggest financial supporter and (until very recently) his co-president, Elon Musk, has engaged in antisemitic rhetoric and actions on multiple occasions.

EXAMPLE #3: The Trump administration and many Republicans are using LGBTQ+ individuals, and particularly transgender children, as pawns for political purposes. They are vilifying transgender children and denying them access to medical care as well as normal participation in everyday life.

Trump and many Republicans have targeted transgender girls playing public school and college sports. The number of these athletes is tiny and clearly should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, Trump and company are trying to ban their participation in sports. (Note: the NCAA reports that out of 500,000 college athletes, ten are transgender girls.)

Trump has targeted Maine over its laws that allow transgender girls to play on girls’ high school sports teams. He has tried to cut funding for Maine’s schools and to impose other penalties, but Governor Mills has fought back and has prevailed in court.

Recently, one of the very few transgender girls competing in high school sports in Maine won an event at a track meet. A Maine state legislator, Laurel Libby, on national TV, used Trump’s talking points to attack transgender girl athletes. She claimed that they are “pushing many, many of our young women out of the way on their ascent to the podium.” This is false because there aren’t that many transgender girl athletes and because they aren’t, by any stretch of the imagination, dominating girls’ sports. (Note: None of the ten fastest high school girl runners nationally in the events this girl ran is a transgender girl.) [3] Furthermore, Libby endangered the girl by posting a picture of her winning a race and portrayed transgender athletes as violent and dangerous during a legislative hearing.

The girl who finished second in the race won by the transgender athlete stated, “I don’t feel like first place was taken from me. Instead, I feel like a happy day was turned ugly by a bully who is using children to make political points. … No one was harmed by [the transgender girl’s] participation in the girls’ track meet, but we are all harmed by the hateful rhetoric of bullies, like Rep. Libby, who want to take sports away from some kids just because of who they are.”

[1] Lindenfeld, J., 6/10/25, “Police violently crack down on L.A. protests,” Capital & Main (https://capitalandmain.com/police-violently-crack-down-on-l-a-protests

[2] Abraham, Y., 4/3/25, “Don’t be fooled,” The Boston Globe

[3] Wilkins, B., 5/15/25, “2^nd-place runner in high school race rips Maine GOP lawmaker for attacking trans winner,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/transgender-student-athletes-maine)

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN A NO KINGS PROTEST ON SAT., 6/14

I hope you’re planning to participate in a protest for No Kings Day on Saturday, June 14. You can find an event near you here. The Trump administration has escalated its attacks on our democracy, and we, and our political leaders, need to step up our resistance and make it clear we oppose the administration’s actions.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Personal note: I took last week off as I was on an overseas vacation – our first since Covid.)

I hope you’re planning to participate in a protest for No Kings Day on Saturday, June 14. You can find an event near you here. This important day of protest has been planned for many weeks and is even more important now that the Trump administration has escalated its attacks on democracy.

The Trump administration is actively working to impose martial law. Deploying National Guard troops, let alone Marines, to the streets of Los Angeles is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. Trump is again declaring a fake emergency to justify his exercise of autocratic powers, and, in this case, the powers of a military dictator.

The confrontational protests in LA have occurred in a small, 4-block area of a huge city. The Trump administration has intentionally inflamed the situation first by the unnecessarily aggressive actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel (see more on this in a note at the bottom), then by sending in the National Guard, and finally by sending in Marines. The LA Police Department was fully in control of the situation and the Trump administration’s actions only made their job harder. (See Robert Hubbell’s on-the-ground testimony and video of the calm and normalcy of LA as well as his blog post .)

As Hubbell notes, the depictions and reporting by the mainstream media are misrepresentations of the situation. They play right into Trump’s hands in making the unwarranted emergency he has declared seem reasonable. Trump has declared this and other fake emergencies to justify his exercise of illegal and autocratic powers, thereby undermining the Constitution, civil rights, the rule of law, and the foundations of our democracy.

The only solution to the Trump administration’s illegal and dictatorial actions is for millions of Americans to peacefully protest to show their opposition. Thousands of protests all over the country, in cities, towns, and rural areas, by people of all ages, political persuasions, and ethnicities, are needed to clearly show the Trump administration, our political leaders (members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, members of state legislatures, etc.), and our judges that these actions are unacceptable and broadly opposed.

We, as citizens of a democracy, need to rise up in unassailable numbers to defend our democracy against the autocracy and budding military dictatorship of the Trump administration.

Our political leaders (if they deserve to be called leaders) should be leading the charge and stepping up their resistance, given that President Trump has stepped up his attacks on our democracy.

I urge you to contact your elected officials at all levels, from members of Congress to Governors to members of state legislatures to local officials, and ask them to join a protest on Saturday. Ask them to speak out in support of California Governor Newsom and LA Mayor Bass. But tell them to do more than just speak out. Now is the time for action. I’d love to see members of Congress organize and lead a march to the Pentagon to protest the use of Defense Department resources to support ICE (and also, by the way, to stage a military dictator-style parade).

Note on ICE tactics: One thing our mainstream media aren’t covering at all, to my knowledge, is that if ICE was really focused on arresting and deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records, it would be operating very differently. Our police arrest criminals all the time. Unless they catch them in the middle of a criminal act, they have warrants for their arrest – which ICE typically does not. Our police wear uniforms that identify who they work for and who they are. They don’t wear masks to hide their faces. ICE agents typically show up without identification, often wearing masks, and frequently in military dress with military weapons. Their detentions are more like kidnappings than arrests. There is no need for these tactics to make arrests.

EXAMPLES OF THE HUMAN TOLL OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

The Trump administration is making us less safe from disease, violence, and death. Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare will increase deaths. So will weakening gun violence prevention efforts. Finally, the Trump administration’s war on children is harming children and will increase deaths for them too.

The Trump administration is making us all less safe in many ways, including less safe from disease, violence, and death. Cuts to the Medicaid and Medicare health care programs will increase deaths. So will the weakening of gun violence prevention efforts. Finally, the Trump administration is engaged in a war on children that is harming the well-being of children and will increase deaths for them as well.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

STORY #1: The expansion of Medicaid by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obama Care) has saved 27,400 lives. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently published an analysis of 37 million Americans since the passage of the ACA in 2010. The low-income adults who got Medicaid coverage under the ACA expansion were 21% less likely to die each year than those who did not have Medicaid coverage. Deaths also fell for 20 and 30-year-olds. Overall, the analysis estimated that 27,400 lives were saved by the Medicaid expansion. This is one of several studies that have found that having Medicaid coverage saves lives. These findings are particularly relevant now, given that the Republican budget just passed by the U.S. House would end Medicaid coverage for roughly eight million people who now have it. [1]

STORY #2: The Republican budget just passed by the U.S. House would increase the deficit so much that it would trigger mandatory spending cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The cuts would include a roughly $50 billion a year reduction in Medicare spending. Explicit cuts to Medicaid (health coverage for low-income Americans including many seniors in nursing homes) are specified in the Republican budget. The cuts to Medicare (health coverage for all seniors) are not explicit in the budget but are forced by the budget’s sizable increase in the annual federal budget deficit. The CBO’s non-partisan analysis estimated that the Republican budget would increase the deficit by about $230 billion a year. Therefore, under the 2010 Pay-As-You-Go Act (PAYGO), the White House Office of Management and Budget would have to reduce spending (i.e., sequester authorized spending) by $230 billion a year. About $50 billion of this would come from cuts to Medicare, according to the CBO. [2]

STORY #3: The Trump administration is weakening multiple facets of gun violence prevention efforts. This makes us all less safe. On day two as President in 2025, Trump closed the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Despite Trump’s promises to keep Americans safe and reduce crime, this and other actions that weaken gun violence prevention will do the opposite. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, created by President Biden, brought a coordinated, government-wide approach to gun violence prevention for the first time. It coordinated the federal response to mass shootings and community violence. Its cross-agency, public health approach to the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence contributed to a 13.5% decline in the homicide rate in 2023, the largest annual decrease ever. It also contributed to a significant drop in the number of untraceable “ghost” guns, i.e., guns without serial numbers. It worked with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to close down 644 gun dealers who had engaged in illegal sales. [3]

The Trump administration has also:

Legalized the sale of devices that convert ordinary guns into automatic weapons, i.e., machine guns,
Advocated for a nationwide right to carry a concealed weapon,
Cut Centers for Disease Control funding for studying and analyzing gun violence,
Promoted policies that would make it easier and more profitable to sell gun silencers, and
Facilitated re-licensing of gun dealers who had their licenses revoked for illegal activity.

Three hundred Americans are shot every day on average. Weakening gun violence protection efforts puts the interests and profits of the gun industry above the safety of children and all the rest of us.

STORY #4: The Trump administration is putting children at risk and making them less safe in multiple ways. The risks start at birth and continue through adolescence. The lack of federal regulations and enforcement for the health care of pregnant and post-partem women has led to significant increases in maternal and infant mortality.

The Trump administration has laid off thousands of workers who run programs that help children and their families. They have also cut funding or plan to cut funding for many of these programs. For example, the staffs of programs that help families keep the electricity and heat on have been fired en masse. The staff that provides enforcement for child support payments has been decimated. Funding has been terminated for investigating child sexual abuse, responding to internet crimes against children, preventing youth violence, and following up on reports of missing children. Billions of dollars for school meals and school safety have been suspended or delayed. [4]

Trump wants to eliminate funding for Head Start, which provides hundreds of thousands of low-income children annually with high quality early education along with meals and family support. The federal staff that oversees Head Start programs and processes their federal funding has been decimated, which may force some programs to shut down.

The Trump administration’s cutting of funding for food assistance, gun violence prevention efforts, and the suicide hotline will all disproportionately harm children. It’s ignoring the harm that social media does to children. And last, but by no means least, its targeting of immigrants, who frequently are parents of children (who may well be U.S. citizens) is doing untold and immeasurable harm to children.

[1] Kliff, S., & Sanger-Katz, M., 5/17/25, “Medicaid expansion saved 27,000 lives, study finds,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

[2] Johnson, J., 5/21/25, “‘They’re not just cutting Medicaid’: GOP bill would trigger over $500 billion in Medicare cuts,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/cuts-to-medicare)

[3] Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, retrieved from the Internet 5/27/25, “Press releases,” (https://www.bradyunited.org/press)

[4] Hager, E., 4/23/25, “The Trump administration’s war on children,” ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/how-trump-budget-cuts-harm-kids-child-care-education-abuse)

MUSK AND DOGE ARE FAILURES

Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are failures. They haven’t even managed to reduce federal spending, let alone reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, or increase government efficiency – according to Jeff Jacoby, a quite conservative columnist for the Boston Globe.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are failures. Don’t take my word for it, according to Jeff Jacoby, a quite conservative columnist for the Boston Globe (with whom I almost never agree), they have failed at the most basic of their goals: reducing federal government spending. [1]

It may be debatable whether Musk and DOGE had any intention of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, or of increasing government efficiency, or even just cutting government spending. However, the results are clear: they accomplished none of these things. (See previous posts about their successes in benefiting Musk and his companies, as well as their failure to focus on the places where waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency are widespread, namely the Defense Department and private, for-profit government contractors.)

First, Jacoby recapitulates Musk’s own statements. Initially, Musk said he would cut at least $2 trillion in government spending. In March, he said DOGE would deliver $1 trillion in spending cuts by the end of May. At an April 10 cabinet meeting, he said he was anticipating savings of $150 billion. The DOGE website lists only $71 billion in spending cuts.

However, the Treasury Department’s report on federal spending says that spending in February and March was $86 billion MORE (up 7%) than in the same months last year. Jacoby notes that Musk and DOGE have not touched programs that account for three-quarters of the federal budget: Social Security payments (as opposed to staff), Medicare and Medicaid health care, the Defense Department, veterans’ benefits, and the interest on the national debt. The Congressional Budget Office reported separately that the federal budget deficit for this fiscal year has increased by about $200 billion in the first seven months of the year.

Although DOGE appears to have reduced or planned reductions of 121,000 federal employees, the cost of the entire civilian workforce of the federal government is only $336 billion. Given that there were three million government employees when Trump took office, assuming these reductions occur, this would reduce the workforce by only 4%. Ignoring severance and any other separation costs, this would save only about $13.5 billion – nowhere near the $2 trillion of promised savings.

Jacoby states that Musk and DOGE have “not made a dent in the vast amount of money the government annually loses to fraud and abuse – as much as $521 billion … It has not clawed back any of the improper payments disbursed by Medicare and Medicaid, which amounted to $101 billion in 2023.” (My bolding.) Trump, Musk, and the Republicans in their party platform, in the campaign, and once Trump was in office promised to slash wasteful government spending. Jacoby closes by noting, “That’s a promise the GOP always makes when it’s out of power and never keeps when it regains control.”

I couldn’t have said this better myself!

[1] Jacoby, J., 5/18/25, “Why Musk flopped,” The Boston Globe