To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
Sarah Anderson, sarah@ips-dc.org or 202 299 4531
There is growing consensus on the need for executive compensation restrictions on corporations that receive emergency coronavirus crisis assistance. The question is how best to structure these restrictions to most effectively prevent taxpayer dollars from padding the pockets of executives instead of mitigating a national economic crisis.
Republican ban on pay raises is extremely weak
The March 19 Republican plan includes pathetically weak restrictions on executive compensation at airlines and other distressed companies that receive emergency financial assistance.
The plan merely bans pay raises for two years for executives who earned more than $425,000 in 2019. In other words, if a CEO made $10 million in 2019, he or she could earn $10 million in 2020 and 2021. Golden parachute payments for these executives would be limited to twice the value of their 2019 compensation. If an executive made $424,999 in 2019, he or she would face no pay limits whatsoever.
"Saying you're going to limit CEO pay at bailed-out corporations and then merely proposing to freeze that pay at pre-virus levels -- the trick the Trump White House is trying to pull off -- is like is like chasing burglars out of your house and then calling them an Uber for their getaway," said Institute for Policy Studies executive pay expert Sarah Anderson.
The Republican plan would do nothing to prevent massive CEO windfalls through their equity-based pay during a taxpayer-funded economic recovery. Say a CEO got a stock grant worth $9 million in 2019. To match that value in 2020, when share prices are very low, the firm would have to award many more shares, which could easily balloon in value in a recovery.
Exec comp should be capped at a level that prevents taxpayer subsidies for excessive pay
Two options:
1. Restrict total executive compensation to no more than 50 times median worker pay
"Linking CEO pay to a multiple of worker pay would prevent taxpayer subsidies from pumping up executive pay and, at the same time, create an incentive to narrow internal pay divides by lifting up the bottom of the wage scale," Anderson noted.
This pay ratio limit should accompany other proposed pro-worker conditions, such as banning layoffs, setting a $15 per hour wage minimum, requiring worker representation on boards, and banning anti-union activity.
As explained in more detail in this IPS Policy Brief, in 2018, the CEOs of the five largest U.S. airlines averaged nearly $10 million in total compensation. The ratio between CEO and median employee pay at these airlines ranged from 80 to 1 at Alaska Air to 195 to 1 at American. If the bailout law restricted CEO pay to no more than 50 times median worker pay, and if these five airlines kept median worker pay at current levels, their CEOs could earn $2.7 million to $4.1 million and still stay below this 50:1 ratio threshold.
2. Cap total executive compensation at a fixed amount
In 2009, the Senate approved an amendment that would have capped total pay for all employees of all bailout companies at no more than the salary of the U.S. President ($400,000). This sent a strong signal that bailout execs were essentially working for taxpayers, who should not have to subsidize excessive compensation. The measure, championed by Senator John McCain, was not included in the final bailout legislation.
Proposed bonus bans could be circumvented
Some lawmakers have proposed a ban on executive bonuses, starting immediately and extending for a few years after the bailout. This raises potential enforcement concerns:
1. Annual cash bonuses make up a small share of total executive compensation packages at the largest corporations. Executives are unlikely to meet criteria for long-term incentive awards in the near future, given low stock prices.
2. Corporations could circumvent this restriction by shifting compensation into other forms, such as salary, pensions, or long-term stock options or restricted stock awards (as President Obama's "Pay Czar" encouraged mega-bailout firms to do). As noted above, equity-based pay could turn into massive windfalls down the road as executives cash in on a taxpayer-funded economic recovery. Large stock-based awards made at a moment when share values are very low could balloon with even a small uptick in the market.
Government must have authority to force renegotiation of compensation contracts
Obama Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg had limited impact on executive pay at bailout firms after the 2008 crash. One reason: the bailout legislation limited his power over compensation contracts signed before February 11, 2009. This time around, legislators should require bailout recipients to renegotiate employment contracts to meet rigorous bailout restrictions.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
As health insurance companies rake in billions in profits, the California Democrat argues that a single-payer system would help US businesses and cut costs.
With the second-longest federal government shutdown dragging on and Americans concerned about soaring health insurance premiums and coverage losses, Congressman Ro Khanna on Thursday again made the case for Medicare for All.
On CNBC's "Squawk Box," co-host Joe Kernen made clear he doesn't support Medicare for All but expressed concern about rising premiums. He also admitted, "I don't know what the answer is."
Khanna (D-Calif.), meanwhile, reiterated his support for a single-payer system, in part by highlighting how private health insurance companies are raking in billions of dollars in profits each year, at the expense of patients.
If the United States extended eligibility for Medicare, which is now only available to Americans ages 65 and older, "it would help private business," the congressman argued. "It would lower healthcare costs."
A 2020 analysis from the Economic Policy Institute found that Medicare for All would benefit companies and workers by supporting self-employment and small business development, boosting wages, increasing job quality, and lessening the stress and economic shock of losing or changing employment. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that shifting to Medicare for All could save $650 billion annually.
Khanna on Thursday pushed back against claims that under Medicare for All, Americans wouldn't be able to get the healthcare they need, saying: "I don't think Medicare is rationing more than the private industry. [If] you are on private insurance, that's where you get rationed. You have to get your pre-authorization. You have things denied. Medicare, actually, doesn't do that."
Although Medicare can deny coverage, KFF found in 2023 that people with employer-sponsored health insurance were twice as likely as those on Medicare for Medicaid—which covers people with low incomes and disabilities—to have a claim denied.
"Traditional Medicare, also known as Original Medicare, has historically required little in the way of pre-authorization for beneficiaries seeking services; pre-authorization was typically the domain of Medicare Advantage," or plans administered by private insurance companies, Kiplinger reported this summer. "But that's about to change."
Under President Donald Trump's "profoundly unqualified" pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS will require prior authorization for 17 services it claims "are vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse" in six states next year.
Beginning in January, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington will serve as testing grounds "to provide an improved and expedited prior authorization process relative to Original Medicare's existing processes, helping patients and providers avoid unnecessary or inappropriate care and safeguarding federal taxpayer dollars," CMS said in a June statement.
Julie Alderman Boudreau, who has worked as a researcher at various organizations, warned at the time that "this is a Medicare cut by another name. This will cause seniors to delay care or forgo it altogether."
The CMS announcement came just days before Trump signed Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which contained cuts to Medicaid and did not extend expiring Affordable Care Act premium tax credits. The current government shutdown, which began on October 1, stems from Democrats' fight to undo the GOP attacks on Medicaid and ACA subsidies.
The CBO estimates that 10 million Americans could be booted off Medicaid because of cuts. Additionally, more than 20 million Americans who buy insurance via ACA marketplaces are expected to see their premiums spike next year, and some of them may not be able to afford any plans. Multiple polls released this week show that US voters are concerned about premium hikes.
One of those surveys, released Monday by Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative, also shows that voters want Democrats in Congress to keep fighting for a fix to the looming healthcare crisis, even if it means the shutdown continues.
Khanna—one of several Democrats considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate—noted on social media earlier this week that KFF polling shows that "78% of Americans favor extending ACA credits."
"Republicans are once again trying to reward the ultrawealthy at the expense of regular folks," he added. "It's time to pass Medicare for All and solidify Americans' right to affordable healthcare."
"US military interventions of the 20th century brought dictatorships, disappearances, and decades of trauma to our nations," the Latin American leaders emphasized.
Dozens of political leaders throughout Latin America are condemning US President Donald Trump's boat-bombing spree, which began in the Caribbean last month but has since spread to the Pacific Ocean.
In a letter posted by Progressive International on its X account, the Latin American leaders from across the region said that Trump's campaign of extrajudicial killings of purported drug traffickers is threatening peace and stability in Latin America, and is likely a pretext for further military intervention in the region.
"The Trump administration is escalating a dangerous military buildup off the coast of Venezuela, deploying naval forces in the Caribbean in preparation for potential armed intervention," they wrote. "The pretext is familiar. President Trump justifies intervention in Venezuela as a means to combat 'cartels,' celebrating lethal strikes against fishermen accused of carrying drugs."
The lawmakers then linked the Trump administration's current militarism to past US actions that had destabilized their nations.
"We have lived this nightmare before," they emphasized. "US military interventions of the 20th century brought dictatorships, disappearances, and decades of trauma to our nations. We know the terrible cost of allowing foreign powers to wage war on our continent. We cannot—we will not—allow history to repeat itself."
They called upon "all organized political forces across Latin America and the Caribbean" to unite in the name of preventing another "catastrophe" from occurring.
"Across our political contexts, we share a common cause: the sovereignty of our nations and the security of our peoples," they concluded. "We must stand together now."
The US military has carried out at least nine attacks on boats in the Caribbean and in the Pacific Ocean over the past seven weeks, killing at least 37 people so far. Although the administration has claimed that these boats were engaged in illegal drug smuggling, it has provided no evidence to justify this claim—and both Trump and Vice President have jokingly said it would be dangerous "to even go fishing" in the Caribbean, suggesting civilians could be killed in the strikes
Colombian President Gustavo Petro this past weekend said that the Trump administration had “committed a murder” after one of its boat attacks killed a Colombian citizen named Alejandro Carranza, who had been out on a fishing trip when the US military attacked his boat.
The Trump administration's boat strikes have been condemned not only by leaders in Latin America, but also by multiple US-based legal experts who have accused the administration of going on an extrajudicial murder spree. Experts have noted that the US has long approached drug trafficking as a criminal offense—not an act of war to be responded to with military force.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a US-based think tank, announced on Thursday that it was launching a new project aimed at tracking "US militarism, aggression, and intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean," including "US strikes on boats, threats against Venezuela and Colombia, and other aspects of US interventionism in the region under the second Trump administration."
Alexander Main, CEPR's director of international policy, said that the Trump administration's recent actions across Latin America represent "a dangerous new escalation with an open disregard for international law and agreements" that could have "profound implications beyond the region."
"Every second we spend talking about a tattoo I got in the Marine Corps is a second we don't talk about Medicare for All," said Platner ahead of a town hall. "It's a second we don't talk about raising taxes on the wealthy."
As Politico and other news outlets reported over the past week on old posts written by progressive US Senate candidate Graham Platner and a tattoo he got while in the military, pollsters with the University of New Hampshire were speaking to Mainers about their views on the state's Democratic primary, in which Platner is now facing Gov. Janet Mills along with several other candidates.
Despite the media onslaught, UNH's Pine Tree State Poll revealed on Thursday that voters in Maine heavily favor Platner, who has spent the past two months since his campaign launch speaking to overflow crowds about his platform—one that is focused on making life more affordable for Maine families, shifting the Democratic Party away from corporate interests and toward the needs of working people, and ensuring corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share to provide for the needs of all Mainers.
The poll, taken between October 16-21, found Platner with 58% of the vote. Twenty-four percent of respondents said they support Mills, who announced her campaign on October 14 after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to run, while other candidates each had less than 2% of the vote.
Politico reported on Platner's old Reddit posts on October 16, generating national attention in the following days, and on Monday the oyster farmer and former Marine spoke on the popular podcast Pod Save America about his tattoo that was visible in a video—one that critics said resembled a Nazi symbol, but which, he noted, didn't prevent from from being approved to reenlist in the US military after he got it. Platner this week covered the tattoo and denounced Nazism.
"In other words, they were in the field as all the [opposition] hit," Democratic consultant Rebecca Katz said in response to the polling. "Mainers have Graham Platner's back because they know he has theirs."
Progressive observers said the polling showed that recent efforts to damage Platner's working class-focused campaign—which, one attendee at the candidate's town hall on Wednesday night noted, coincided with Mills' entrance into the race—have been no match for voters' palpable anger over a political system that has left millions struggling to afford healthcare, groceries, and other essentials while the wealthiest Americans are handed tax breaks.
The survey, said journalist David Sirota, provides "today's evidence that people are really pissed at the status quo, and also despise the national Democratic leadership and the media that so often run interference for them."
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News added that, judging from the temperature-check in Maine, the "Democratic Party leadership could not be more disconnected from the party base if they had lived on the moon the past decade."
Tommy Vietor of Pod Save America said that the poll served as a "good reminder that the DC pundit class has no fucking clue what actual Maine voters think or how they will vote."
The poll results were released the morning after Platner spoke to a crowd of about 600 people at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, following a video he posted on Instagram addressing the controversy surrounding his tattoo.
"This has come up because the establishment is trying to throw everything it can at me," said Platner, who also showed a new tattoo he got to cover up the old image. "It is terrified of what we are trying to build here. Every second we spend talking about a tattoo I got in the Marine Corps is a second we don't talk about Medicare for All. It's a second we don't talk about raising taxes on the wealthy. It's a second we’re not talking about the material struggles of Mainers as they try to scrape through a system that at its core is trying to rob them."
"And that's why tonight, I'm just going back right out on the road," he said. "Going around the state of Maine, making myself accessible to Mainers in their communities, so I can listen to them, I can hear about what it is they need to change in our political system, and that is what I'm going to continue dedicating my time to."
At the town hall in Ogunquit, Platner emphasized his political and personal evolution as he turned the attention back to his platform—one focused on passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and ban "billionaires buying elections," rebuilding the US healthcare system by extending Medicare to all, breaking up corporate monopolies and ensuring corporations pay a fair tax rate, and defending the rights of immigrants and other marginalized groups.
"I'm not going to minimize what has come out," he said. "I used to hold different opinions... I also grew. I met new people. I learned of other people's experiences. I realized... that the more open I could be to listen to other people's stories, the more open I was willing to be—to extend compassion and empathy to others."
If they thought that any of this would stop us or deter us: they clearly don't understand our movement, and they don't understand Marines. pic.twitter.com/fXukXG2nVT
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) October 23, 2025
"The establishment is spooked," he reiterated. "And if they thought that this was going to scare me off, if they thought that ripping my life to pieces and trying to destroy it was going to make me think that I shouldn't undertake this project, they clearly have not spent a lot of time around Marines."