

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
Huh? That's not an answer, much less a solution. It's a political tap dance around a crucial matter facing America. Why would she dodge a chance to swing away at a down-the-middle issue that's right in the wheelhouse of her party's populist strength?
After all, recent polls show majority public support for direct government action to reduce the wealth gap, from raising taxes on the superrich to raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.
Turns out there's one tiny constituency whose opinion outweighs all others on this issue: the 1-percenters.
Clinton and other top Democrats are weaker than Canadian hot sauce when it comes to embracing the real populism that voters want. Here's a possible explanation for that mystery: Only 13 percent of the superrich think government should take action to redress inequality.
These privileged Americans blame widening inequity on the very people losing their jobs, income, and wealth. They claim that hard-up people should simply improve their work ethic and character.
Why would Democrats care what these few elites think? Well, because meek Democrats like Clinton have become so dependent on rich people's campaign checks that they let them restrict the party's policies and message, thus alienating the workaday majority.
When both parties kow-tow to money, the people's needs are ignored, and politics becomes illegitimate.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
Huh? That's not an answer, much less a solution. It's a political tap dance around a crucial matter facing America. Why would she dodge a chance to swing away at a down-the-middle issue that's right in the wheelhouse of her party's populist strength?
After all, recent polls show majority public support for direct government action to reduce the wealth gap, from raising taxes on the superrich to raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.
Turns out there's one tiny constituency whose opinion outweighs all others on this issue: the 1-percenters.
Clinton and other top Democrats are weaker than Canadian hot sauce when it comes to embracing the real populism that voters want. Here's a possible explanation for that mystery: Only 13 percent of the superrich think government should take action to redress inequality.
These privileged Americans blame widening inequity on the very people losing their jobs, income, and wealth. They claim that hard-up people should simply improve their work ethic and character.
Why would Democrats care what these few elites think? Well, because meek Democrats like Clinton have become so dependent on rich people's campaign checks that they let them restrict the party's policies and message, thus alienating the workaday majority.
When both parties kow-tow to money, the people's needs are ignored, and politics becomes illegitimate.
It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land. How about the Democrats?
Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies."
Uh...yes. But what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."
Huh? That's not an answer, much less a solution. It's a political tap dance around a crucial matter facing America. Why would she dodge a chance to swing away at a down-the-middle issue that's right in the wheelhouse of her party's populist strength?
After all, recent polls show majority public support for direct government action to reduce the wealth gap, from raising taxes on the superrich to raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.
Turns out there's one tiny constituency whose opinion outweighs all others on this issue: the 1-percenters.
Clinton and other top Democrats are weaker than Canadian hot sauce when it comes to embracing the real populism that voters want. Here's a possible explanation for that mystery: Only 13 percent of the superrich think government should take action to redress inequality.
These privileged Americans blame widening inequity on the very people losing their jobs, income, and wealth. They claim that hard-up people should simply improve their work ethic and character.
Why would Democrats care what these few elites think? Well, because meek Democrats like Clinton have become so dependent on rich people's campaign checks that they let them restrict the party's policies and message, thus alienating the workaday majority.
When both parties kow-tow to money, the people's needs are ignored, and politics becomes illegitimate.