

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.

Sanders contact: Keane_Bhatt@sanders.senate.gov
Lee contact: Nissa.Koerner@mail.house.gov
Tlaib contact: Denzel.McCampbell@mail.house.gov
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, which rewrites the federal tax code to tackle the inequality crisis created by corporate America's unrestrained greed.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, which rewrites the federal tax code to tackle the inequality crisis created by corporate America's unrestrained greed.
The typical restaurant employee at McDonald's would have to work for more than 2,000 years to earn what the company's CEO Chris Kempczinski received last year. A retail worker at Gap Inc. would have to work for more than 3,000 years to receive the annual compensation of Gap's former CEO Art Peck. Peck's pay was increased by 33 percent in 2018, even after he presided over years of declines in sales and stock prices.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act would pressure corporations to curb these outrageous pay gaps that are the norm today, by imposing graduated taxes for companies that pay their CEO more than 50 times the pay of the median worker. The tax penalties would begin at 0.5 percentage points and rise to 5 percentage points for firms compensating their chief executives at more than 500 times the rate of their workers. A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies found that 80 percent of S&P 500 firms paid their CEOs more than 100 times the pay of their median worker.
Many of the firms lavishing multi-million-dollar compensation packages on their top executives rely on taxpayer support--through public housing, nutrition assistance, and Medicaid, for example--to assist full-time workers who struggle with poverty wages.
"In America today, ordinary workers at some of the richest corporations are making poverty wages. Meanwhile, we've got a class of corporate CEOs who make hundreds--sometimes thousands--of times more than their employees," said Sanders. "The last time I checked, corporations got by just fine when CEOs made a million bucks a year--one-tenth of what they make now. All around the world today, large, successful businesses manage to be profitable while treating their workers with dignity and not handing out obscene pay packages to their CEOs. If America's corporate boards can't understand the absurdity of paying their CEO friends--in one year--more than their workers will earn in a lifetime, then the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will help them figure it out."
"In the last four decades, inequality has ballooned in our nation and more and more wealth is going to those at the top while workers' wages, especially for workers of color, have remained stagnant," said Congresswoman Barbara Lee. "It is unjust and unacceptable that the CEOs of major corporations are making an average of 287 times more than their average worker - with some CEOs making upwards of 1000 times more. The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will incentivize companies to reduce the CEO-worker pay gaps and pay their workers the wages they deserve. Because if companies can afford to pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars, they can afford to raise wages for their employees."
"Corporate greed is a disease that has long inflicted this country--income inequality and the pay gap between CEOs and their employees are just two of its symptoms that are harming everyday people," said Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. "In 2018, for example, General Motors' CEO made nearly 300 times more than the median income of an employee there. We have had enough. The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will help ensure there is more fairness in the workplace when it comes to wages. It's common sense legislation on the path toward justice for all."
In the 1970s, the average middle-class American worker could raise a family and save for retirement with their pay. CEOs of successful U.S. corporations in the 1970s received about $1 million annually--roughly 20 to 30 times the average pay of their company's middle-class workers. At present, a CEO at a Fortune 500 firm receives about $20 million per year--200 to 300 times the average pay of a typical worker, according to research by the AFL-CIO.
Americans across the political spectrum are outraged by the extreme gaps between CEO and worker pay. According to a nationwide survey, the typical American would limit CEO pay to no more than 6 times that of the average worker. About 62% of all Americans--52% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats--favor capping CEO pay relative to worker pay.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act would raise roughly $150 billion over 10 years if current compensation trends continue. The bill also requires the Treasury Department to issue regulations to prevent tax avoidance, including against companies that increase the use of contractors rather than employees. Pay-ratio data for privately held corporations would also be made public, just as publicly held corporations are required to make public under current law.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic Action, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Popular Democracy, Communications Workers of America, Coalition on Human Needs, EPI Policy Center, Franciscan Action Network, Institute for Policy Studies/Global Economy Project, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Jobs With Justice, National Council of Churches, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Health Care for the Homeless Council, NETWORK, Other98, Our Revolution, People's Action, People Demanding Action, Public Citizen, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Social Security Works, Strong Economy for All, Take on Wall Street, and the Working Families Party.
The bill was cosponsored by Representatives Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Norton (D-D.C.), Huffman (D-Calif.), Jayapal (D-Wash.), Khanna (D-Calif.), Thompson (D-Miss.), DeLauro (D-Conn.), Haaland (D-N.M.), Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Pressley (D-Mass.), Garcia (D-Ill.), Omar (D-Minn.), Takano (D-Calif.), Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) and McGovern (D-Mass.).
Read the bill summary here.
Read the legislative text here.
Read an FAQ here.
Read a support letter by 28 major economic justice organizations here.
Watch the bill's release video here.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."