

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.

Outside of Fox News, a federal jobs guarantee polls "stunningly well" nationwide, including in red states, according to recent surveys.
Expressing disbelief that a politician would deign to embrace a widely popular idea that could bring massive numbers of voters to the polls and drastically reduce inequality, President Donald Trump's favorite show "Fox & Friends" ran a segment on Tuesday sliming Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) plan to guarantee every American a decent-paying job as a mere "vote-buying operation."
"That's what it is," grumbled Fox News host Stuart Varney. "Fifteen dollars an hour, a government job with benefits guaranteed by the government."
In addition to scoffing at Sanders' desire to give unemployed Americans jobs and pay them decent wages, the "Fox & Friends" panel was particularly appalled by the idea that the rich might be required to pay a bit more in taxes to fund the program.
"Who's going to pay for it?" asked host Steve Doocy.
"I'm sure it will be, 'tax the rich because the rich because the rich will be paying their fair share,'" Varney said. "It's a nonstarter."
The "Fox & Friends" segment comes less than 24 hours after the Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported that Sanders is planning to introduce a federal jobs guarantee that would "fund hundreds of projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, caregiving, the environment, education, and other goals."
"The plan's authors envision millions of Americans getting hired under the proposal," Stein noted.
Fox News panelists are hardly alone in opposing Sanders' ambitious proposal, which polls "stunningly well" nationwide.
In an interview with the Post, Ernie Tedeschi, an economist who served in Obama's Treasury Department, worried that the plan "would be extremely expensive."
Progressives, however, argue that the idea is hardly radical or unprecedented, pointing to the New Deal's public employment programs as evidence that federal job initiatives can be both extremely effective and a good investment.
"This is an opportunity for something transformative, beyond the tinkering we've been doing for the last 40 years, where all the productivity gains have gone to the elite of society," Darrick Hamilton, an economist at the New School in New York, concluded in an interview with the Post.
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 |
Expressing disbelief that a politician would deign to embrace a widely popular idea that could bring massive numbers of voters to the polls and drastically reduce inequality, President Donald Trump's favorite show "Fox & Friends" ran a segment on Tuesday sliming Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) plan to guarantee every American a decent-paying job as a mere "vote-buying operation."
"That's what it is," grumbled Fox News host Stuart Varney. "Fifteen dollars an hour, a government job with benefits guaranteed by the government."
In addition to scoffing at Sanders' desire to give unemployed Americans jobs and pay them decent wages, the "Fox & Friends" panel was particularly appalled by the idea that the rich might be required to pay a bit more in taxes to fund the program.
"Who's going to pay for it?" asked host Steve Doocy.
"I'm sure it will be, 'tax the rich because the rich because the rich will be paying their fair share,'" Varney said. "It's a nonstarter."
The "Fox & Friends" segment comes less than 24 hours after the Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported that Sanders is planning to introduce a federal jobs guarantee that would "fund hundreds of projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, caregiving, the environment, education, and other goals."
"The plan's authors envision millions of Americans getting hired under the proposal," Stein noted.
Fox News panelists are hardly alone in opposing Sanders' ambitious proposal, which polls "stunningly well" nationwide.
In an interview with the Post, Ernie Tedeschi, an economist who served in Obama's Treasury Department, worried that the plan "would be extremely expensive."
Progressives, however, argue that the idea is hardly radical or unprecedented, pointing to the New Deal's public employment programs as evidence that federal job initiatives can be both extremely effective and a good investment.
"This is an opportunity for something transformative, beyond the tinkering we've been doing for the last 40 years, where all the productivity gains have gone to the elite of society," Darrick Hamilton, an economist at the New School in New York, concluded in an interview with the Post.
Expressing disbelief that a politician would deign to embrace a widely popular idea that could bring massive numbers of voters to the polls and drastically reduce inequality, President Donald Trump's favorite show "Fox & Friends" ran a segment on Tuesday sliming Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) plan to guarantee every American a decent-paying job as a mere "vote-buying operation."
"That's what it is," grumbled Fox News host Stuart Varney. "Fifteen dollars an hour, a government job with benefits guaranteed by the government."
In addition to scoffing at Sanders' desire to give unemployed Americans jobs and pay them decent wages, the "Fox & Friends" panel was particularly appalled by the idea that the rich might be required to pay a bit more in taxes to fund the program.
"Who's going to pay for it?" asked host Steve Doocy.
"I'm sure it will be, 'tax the rich because the rich because the rich will be paying their fair share,'" Varney said. "It's a nonstarter."
The "Fox & Friends" segment comes less than 24 hours after the Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported that Sanders is planning to introduce a federal jobs guarantee that would "fund hundreds of projects throughout the United States aimed at addressing priorities such as infrastructure, caregiving, the environment, education, and other goals."
"The plan's authors envision millions of Americans getting hired under the proposal," Stein noted.
Fox News panelists are hardly alone in opposing Sanders' ambitious proposal, which polls "stunningly well" nationwide.
In an interview with the Post, Ernie Tedeschi, an economist who served in Obama's Treasury Department, worried that the plan "would be extremely expensive."
Progressives, however, argue that the idea is hardly radical or unprecedented, pointing to the New Deal's public employment programs as evidence that federal job initiatives can be both extremely effective and a good investment.
"This is an opportunity for something transformative, beyond the tinkering we've been doing for the last 40 years, where all the productivity gains have gone to the elite of society," Darrick Hamilton, an economist at the New School in New York, concluded in an interview with the Post.