5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bernie sanders
'Your Victory Is Fleeting': After California Measure Falls Short, Sanders Threatens Billionaires With Federal Wealth Tax
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," said economist Gabriel Zucman, who led the charge for California's failed proposal.
Nov 10, 2026
California's wealth tax proposal has fallen just short after the state's richest residents spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize voters against it. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning them not to get too comfortable.
Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that Proposition 40, which would have used revenue from a one-time 5% tax on billionaire residents to fund the state’s healthcare system, performed quite well given the resources that powerful tech barons like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and its former CEO Eric Schmidt deployed to fight it.
"Oligarchs spent $425 million against California's billionaire wealth tax—outraising supporters 250 to 1 on ads," Sanders wrote on social media. "The result: They got a 'whopping' 52% [of the vote]."
"I've got bad news for these oligarchs," Sanders continued. "Your victory is fleeting. We will pass a federal billionaire wealth tax and end your greed."
Many of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than ordinary workers because much of their wealth is held in stocks, whose gains are generally untaxed until sold—and can be taxed at lower rates than wages when realized.
Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans support a federal tax on the wealth of the superrich—including most Republicans.
One February poll by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found that 80% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats, supported the idea of a federal tax of 2% on fortunes over $50 million and a 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a wealth tax for years and made it central to her 2020 presidential bid, has argued that "the best way to do a wealth tax is to do a national wealth tax."
In January, she told The New Republic that a federal proposal would avoid some of the pitfalls the rich used to fearmonger about California’s proposal, such as the possibility of simply fleeing across state lines to avoid paying it.
Escaping a national tax, she said, would mean having to “give up your US citizenship, and forfeit your passport.”
French economist Gabriel Zucman, who helped lead the push for California’s ballot measure, said he was “not surprised” by its defeat.
"The money spent by the billionaires was critical," he told NPR. "Anyone who lives in California has been carpet-bombed by a deluge of ads. One can easily see how this could be pivotal in such a closely contested ballot."
But he said that last week's midterm elections, which saw Democrats swept into power on a wave of anti-billionaire anger, showed that the fight over a wealth tax was not something that could easily be ignored.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," Zucman said. "Many of the newly elected Democratic senators have been campaigning on curbing the power and influence of billionaires. One can reasonably expect to see significant progress in the next two years."
Sanders, who introduced a 5% annual wealth tax on those worth $1 billion or more with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, renewed his call to pass the bill after the elections.
Another proposal, which would impose an annual 2% tax on net worth above $50 million, increasing to 3% on wealth above $1 billion, has gained the support of 63 Democrats, including Warren, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Van Hollen, who has suggested he may challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to become Senate majority leader when Democrats retake the chamber, told Politico last week that he thinks there’s “growing support” in the Democratic caucus for a tax on the ultrarich.
“People are recognizing that we have a tax system that allows individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth," he said.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” Van Hollen added. “If [President Donald Trump] vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'He’s Not Going to Run Unopposed': Sanders Rejects Schumer for Majority Leader
“This election was about change," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
Nov 10, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he believes a member of the Senate Democratic caucus will emerge to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer for the majority leader post in the next Congress, the latest indication that the longtime—and deeply unpopular—Democratic leader might not get the coronation he expects.
“He’s not going to run unopposed, I don’t think,” Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the Democrats, told reporters, announcing he will not back Schumer's bid for majority leader. “This election was about change. People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
Schumer, who has led the Senate Democratic caucus for close to a decade, has publicly expressed certainty that his party will elect him as majority leader following Democrats' midterm rout of President Donald Trump's GOP. Senate Democrats are expected to hold a secret-ballot election next month, and Schumer needs the support of a simple majority of Senate Democrats to win the vote.
.@SenSanders (I-VT) says he will not support Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader: "But in my view, the time is now for change and I will not be supporting Chuck to be re-elected as the Democratic leader." https://t.co/hGy4zPvDgS
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 10, 2026
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Schumer's aides "say he has locked down another term... having secured commitments of support from enough Democratic senators."
But a number of newly elected Democratic senators, as well as some veteran lawmakers, have publicly declined to endorse Schumer, raising the possibility of a viable challenge to his leadership.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the progressive favorite to challenge Schumer, said Monday that he is "in listening mode" on running for the leadership position. Last week, Van Hollen argued that Senate Democrats should not back Schumer without clear commitments to advance "a very bold kitchen table agenda."
"Working people have been screwed for way too long, and we need to unrig an economy that’s been built to serve billionaires and big corporations," said Van Hollen, a Medicare for All supporter and outspoken critic of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. "It’s not a time for incrementalism."
"After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic senator-elect from Michigan, said last week that he believes Van Hollen would "be an amazing Senate majority leader."
"Of course, that’s a choice he has to make about whether or not he wants to pursue that," said El-Sayed, one of several newly elected Democrats who have declined to endorse Schumer for the leadership post.
Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, and James Talarico of Texas have also said they want new leadership in the upper chamber.
Progressive advocacy groups and a machinists union with around 600,000 members are among those backing the newly elected Democrats' call for fresh leadership following the party's historic midterm wins.
“Schumer has a lower approval rating than Trump," the advocacy group Indivisible wrote on social media last week. "After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
On Tuesday, RootsAction launched a campaign aimed at encouraging Van Hollen to challenge Schumer for the leadership post. The group said it sent mass emails urging supporters across the country to contact their senators and demand that they back Van Hollen.
"As the Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer has been a devoted servant of corporatism, Big Tech, go-slow status-quo economics, and Israel-right-or-wrong policies—and he has the receipts (in the form of campaign cash) to prove it," RootsAction's nationwide email reads. "Even though voters across the country—not just Democrats—rejected those policies at the polls, Schumer will have even more power in January as the Senate Majority Leader... unless someone challenges him for that position."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Sanders Explains How the New Democratic Congress Can Take an 'Immediate First Step to Medicare for All'
Once Democrats take power in the new Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders argued they should pass legislation to lower the Medicare eligibility age and expand the program to children.
Nov 09, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday urged Democrats to use their new congressional majorities to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 10 years, expand the program to children, and add dental, vision, and hearing coverage—steps that the progressive senator said would put the country on a path toward a Medicare for All system.
Sanders (I-Vt.), the leading proponent of Medicare for All in the Senate, argued that each proposal he outlined "can be passed with 51 votes in the Senate through reconciliation," a filibuster-proof budget process that would allow Democrats in the upper chamber to approve legislation without Republican support. Any Democratic bill would still face President Donald Trump's veto pen.
"Let's do it," the Vermont senator wrote on social media, calling his plan "an immediate first step toward Medicare for All."
In recent years, Sanders has repeatedly pushed Democrats to incrementally expand Medicare as part of a broader effort to ultimately provide every person in the US with comprehensive health coverage as a right.
The senator's past efforts, including during the Covid-19 pandemic, focused largely on lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55, but some policy experts have argued that Medicare expansion should begin with children.
"This would move the ball forward on Medicare for All in a serious way by bringing a large group of people who are already not expected to pay for their own insurance into the system," Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, wrote in 2020. "It's easy to come up with many different combinations of ways to pay for it. Medicare for Kids is not a technically complicated proposal or even a very 'expensive' proposal in terms of fiscal cost. The question is only whether elected officials can summon the will to do it."
Sanders' proposal came amid a debate within the Democratic Party on how to approach healthcare in the new Congress after voters delivered a clear rebuke of the GOP agenda. As STAT reported on Monday, "There has been broad agreement among congressional Democrats that they should roll back the historic Medicaid cuts championed by President Trump, and restore the additional Affordable Care Act health insurance tax credits that, upon expiring, put coverage out of reach for many."
"For those debating whether the new Congress should consider big and bold reforms or pass practical help for people right away, the answer is yes."
But many in the public—and some newly elected Democrats—want the party to go much further and embrace Medicare for All, which research shows would save more than 100,000 lives and over $1 trillion per year. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the lead sponsor of Medicare for All legislation in the House, has said she plans to reintroduce her bill in the new Congress.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who are widely expected to lead Democrats in the new Congress despite burgeoning opposition, don't support Medicare for All—though Schumer has previously backed proposals to lower the Medicare eligibility age.
Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA, said following last week's midterms that "for those debating whether the new Congress should consider big and bold reforms or pass practical help for people right away, the answer is yes."
"Voters can and should expect action on multiple fronts: Congress' new majorities must use their oversight and investigative power to check this administration’s attack on our public health infrastructure," said Wright. "They should pass an affordability agenda of price reforms with bipartisan support. They can push to restore the tax credits and reverse, delay, or mitigate the Medicaid cuts before millions lose coverage."
"And beyond repealing and rebuilding," Wright added, "they should develop and pass policies to reimagine and reclaim our health system. Even if they face a veto, those proposals will set the stage for the next phase of health reform.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'No More Excuses,' Thunders Bernie Sanders. 'Democrats Must Deliver'
Last week's election results, says the Independent from Vermont, show that voters are done with "tinkering around the edges."
Nov 08, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders this weekend continued to hammer away at the idea that Democrats in Congress—following sweeping gains in last week's midterm elections—must embrace and push for bold policies that match the economic populist hunger voters have shown.
Having won new majorities in both the US House and Senate, Sanders issued a public missive Thursday telling Democrats that winning the midterm "is not enough" and that "we have got to do more" to fulfill the mandate provided by an electorate that has strongly signaled its desire for a Democratic Party that goes beyond incrementalism, corporate-friendly triangulation, and tepid solutions to the hardships the nation's working class has long endured.
"No more excuses," Sanders said in a social media post on Saturday. "Democrats must deliver."
In his argument last week, Sanders said, "Whether we like it or not, we are living in an unprecedented moment in American history where our country faces extraordinary crises. We cannot and must not run away from them when Democrats assume power in January. These crises must be dealt with."
Appearing Sunday on Meet the Press with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Sanders repeated his argument by saying the election results showed that people are sick of the Trump era, but also ready to go much further in terms of solving the nation's problems.
"What I think this election was about was the American not only expressing disgust with Trump and his policies, but also demanding real change," said Sanders. "No more tinkering around the edges."
This election showed that the American people want BOLD change: - Medicare for All- A wealth tax on billionaires so that we can build affordable housing, have universal childcare and free tuition at public colleges and universities. - Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour.- End the war in Iran and U.S. military aid to IsraelLET’S DO IT
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 8, 2026
"Now is the moment when Democrats have got to stand up to big money, create an economy and government that works for all of us," said Sanders, who added that his two top priorities when the new Congress is sworn in will be working to enact a Medicare for All healthcare system and taxing billionaires who for too long have avoided paying their fair share.
In his post on Saturday, Sanders listed other specific policy items Democrats must embrace, alongside polling numbers showing how popular those policies are—not just among Democrats and progressives, but among American voters overall.
- 66% want Medicare for All
- 61% want a billionaire wealth tax
- 57% want a $20/hour minimum wage
- 63% want a data center moratorium
- 58% want to end military aid to Israel
- 73% want to ban super PACs
- 79% want a 10% credit card interest rate cap
"Let us do what the American people want," said Sanders on Meet the Press. "Create an economy that works for everybody. Stand up to the billionaire class."
With both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) under pressure to recognize that the base of the Democratic Party is moving away from the kind of leadership the pair of New York lawmakers represent as key members of the Establishment wing, Sanders' message—which he has been railing on since his 2016 presidential run—is resonating among those seeking bigger and transformative change.
"Democrats won by recognizing Americans’ economic pain, denouncing Washington corruption that has made a rigged economy worse by favoring giant corporations over working people, and by pledging to upend this system," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Sunday. "Americans need Democrats to deliver now."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Bernie Sanders: Increasing Social Security Payments by $2400 Next Year a Top Priority
"How? By scrapping the cap and demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes."
Nov 07, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday that one of his top priorities, once he takes control of the chamber's Social Security Subcommittee in January, will be to lift the cap on taxable income that funds the program and increase benefit payments by at least $2400 per year.
Vowing to extend "Social Security’s solvency for generations" to come, Sanders explained that the way to do that is to raise the limit at which wealthy people stop paying into the program—currently set at $184,500—so that extremely wealthy individuals pay in at the same rate as working-class taxpayers.
By "demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes," Sanders said the government could pay out higher benefits each month and strengthen the program long into the future.
In the wake of Tuesday's massive midterm defeat of the Republican Party, Nancy Altman, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works, said the outcome was a major win for Social Security, the nation's most successful anti-poverty program.
With Social Security "on the ballot" in the midterms, Altman said the message sent by US voters was "resoundingly clear: Hands off our earned benefits!"
"Democrats ran on making the wealthy pay their fair share into Social Security," she said, and now they have a chance to show the American people what that looks like.
"In the next two years," Altman said, "lawmakers should vote on legislation that expands benefits with no cuts. This legislation should restore Social Security to long-range balance by requiring the wealthiest Americans, like Elon Musk, to finally start paying their fair share."
Altman also called on Democrats to use their new power in Congress to "investigate Musk and his henchmen in the so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency,' who committed the largest data theft in American history by stealing all of our most personal and private Social Security data."
"Democrats should seek to reverse all the damage that Donald Trump and his cronies have done to the Social Security Administration," she concluded, "so that the American people can get the first-rate service they have paid for and deserve."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'If He Wants to Pass Trumpcare-for-All, I'm OK With It,' Says Medicare for All Champion Abdul El-Sayed
"Donald, if you're watching, we'll put your name on it. You get to be the American president who finally guaranteed health care for every single American."
Nov 07, 2026
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senator-elect from Michigan who ran on a progressive platform with Medicare for All at its center, said Friday that he doesn't care what the policy is called as long as it passes, even during President Donald Trump's lame-duck term, which begins in January.
Appearing on Zeteo with editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan, El-Sayed was asked whether he agreed with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who the night before said he wasn't so sure that if Democratic majorities in the US House and Senate passed a Medicare for All bill, Trump wouldn't sign it.
"If he wants to pass Trumpcare-for-All, I'm ok with it. He seems to like to put his name on things," said El-Sayed.
"That's a pretty good compromise—that's bipartisan," Hasan quipped. "You'll offer him the name, and everyone gets healthcare?"
"Yeah," responded El-Sayed. "Donald, if you're watching, we'll put your name on it. You get to be the American president who finally guaranteed health care for every single American—met the unmet promise of America. You get to be that guy, so let's talk about it."
“If he wants to pass Trumpcare-for-All, I'm ok with it.. Donald, if you're watching, we'll put your name on it. You get to be the American president who finally guaranteed health care for every single American."@AbdulElSayed to me today, lol.Full intv: https://t.co/W8g8V0efSF https://t.co/m4QC14saNE
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 7, 2026
In Sanders' remarks Thursday, which he made on MS-NOW with Chris Hayes, the Independent Senator from Vermont interrupted when Hayes said the chances of Trump ever signing Medicare for All into law were extremely low.
"Hold it, hold it, hooooold it," Sanders said, waving his hand. "Two points. Trump has the constitutional right to veto—if he wants to. But we have the constitutional right to represent the American people and to pass the damn thing and to show the American people that we are sick and tired of maintaining a broken [healthcare] system."
Hayes on Medicare for All: "The odds of Donald Trump signing that into law, pretty small--"Sen. Sanders: "Hold it, hold it, hold it... Our job is to produce it. He wants to veto it, Republicans want to sustain that veto, that is their responsibility, the American people will see it."
— NewsNewsNews (@RealCrookedNews) November 6, 2026
"Number two," Sanders continued. "Donald Trump may be a bit crazy, but he is not stupid. And he is a good politician. I mean this guy looks out all over the country, and he says, 'Everyone knows this system is broken. You know what, what do I gotta lose?' So I am not absolutely certain that Trump wouldn't sign it. But whether he would or not, our job is to produce it. He wants to veto it, and Republicans want to sustain that veto—that is their responsibility and the American people will see it."
Poll after poll have shown that Medicare for All—which would cover everyone in the country for less money overall than the current system dominated by for-profit insurers—is incredibly popular, not just among Democrats but also independents and increasing numbers of those who identify as Republican or conservative.
Many social media users applauded the idea. "I just had this discussion with someone," said one user in response to comments separate Sanders made about the subject earlier in the week. "Call it Trumpcare-for-All, who cares as long as we get it. People around him have been taking advantage of his narcissism for years; he doesn't have any real beliefs himself, it's worth a shot."
In response to El-Sayed's strategic idea of renaming "Medicare for All" to "Trumpcare-for-All," Hasan admitted that while he thought it was a "good move," he'd have a hard time seeking care if it meant invoking Trump's name at the doctor's office.
"I just want people to have healthcare," said El-Sayed.
Keep Reading
Show Less
How Shorter Workweeks Shaped Lula’s Comeback
Lula's comeback offers a powerful lesson: Ambitious economic policies can capture voters' imaginations when they promise tangible improvements in everyday life and win their hearts when you can deliver on that vision.
Nov 07, 2026
In just three weeks last month, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva turned a 2.2-million-vote deficit in the first round into a 4.4-million-vote victory in the runoff. He won 52% to 48%. The six-point reversal made him the first candidate in Brazil's modern presidential history to win a runoff after being down in the first round. He increased turnout and appears to have converted voters who didn’t initially vote for him.
Much has been written about the organizing mechanics of this remarkable turnaround and the revitalization of "Lula's Army." While these explanations tell us how Lula’s campaign mobilized voters, they don’t tell us why voters mobilized. The contrasts between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro were of course already stark, but if they were so stark, the changing of the tides wouldn’t have been so dramatic over three weeks. That emphasis on organizing mechanics overlooks strategic policy decisions Lula made those final weeks to deliver concrete victories for Brazilian workers.
And the most powerful of those decisions? In October, Lula successfully fought for the passage of a constitutional amendment to shorten the workweek from six days to five days, which had been one of his main campaign pledges. This was one of the most meaningful Brazilian labor reforms in decades. By the end of 2027, workers will have 10% of their time back and an additional day of rest. So many voters are used to politicians making promises but not delivering on them. Lula made sure workers knew he had their back by delivering real policy change in a critical period of the election. And this policy was not a niche policy change impacting small segments of the population. It’s estimated it would concretely touch the lives of over 30 million Brazilian workers by giving them their time back.
The Political Power of Giving Workers Their Time Back
For millions of Brazilian workers, they’ve had a “6x1” schedule their entire lives: working six days every week with just a single day to recover. Burnout, unsurprisingly, had become epidemic. Shortening the Brazilian workweek had been advanced by unionists in Brazil for decades, but had taken on newfound pressure from a grassroots campaign called Vida Além do Trabalho (Life Beyond Work). This campaign, founded in 2023 by worker-turned-politician Rick Azevedo, helped turn growing frustration into a real political movement. From 2023 to 2026, workers and politicians worked together to steadily build support in Congress, organizing demonstrations, running for office on a shorter workweek agenda, collecting millions of signatures, and incorporating the demand into campaign rallies. This culminated in Lula focusing on shortening the workweek in his May Day 2025 rally and sending a bill to Congress in April 2026, bringing this issue into the forefront of the presidential election.
The grassroots campaign also helped seed widespread support for shorter workweeks across the political spectrum, helped in part by the fact that shorter workweeks intuitively connected to workers’ material self-interest. In March 2026, a Datafolha poll showed that 71% of Brazilians supported ending the six-day workweek, including 77% of women.
Lula recognized the opportunity. Just days after his first-round defeat in October, he publicly challenged Bolsonaro to support the reform. Simultaneously in October, University of Brasilia’s student union held a 50,000-person rally with the slogan “Bolsonaro never again, and end the 6x1 now.” This bottom-up and top-down approach worked. Bolsonaro and his opposition party initially opposed the proposal. But amid widespread backlash, they quickly backed down. They agreed to a special Senate session to ensure the passage of a constitutional amendment which would result in a 10% reduction of workers’ workweeks (from 44 hours to 40 hours) and two guaranteed days of rest by the end of 2027, with no loss in pay. The public hunger for this change was so deep that the amendment passed 75-1 in the Senate and Congress passed it two days later.
Time Is a Cost-of-Living Issue
Lula's comeback offers a powerful lesson. Ambitious economic policies can (1) capture voters' imaginations when they promise tangible improvements in everyday life, and (2) win their hearts when you can deliver on that vision. And few promises are more meaningful than giving workers back the one thing they can never earn more of: their time.
The cost-of-living crisis is a global issue: When you hear the struggles of Brazilian workers, they’re not too different from those of American workers. Just as in Brazil, there’s an epidemic of burnout and widespread frustration that the American dream has just resulted in being overworked and tired. Brazilian politicians and movement leaders savvily recognized that cost-of-living and affordability is about prices and wages, but also about time.
American politicians should start paying attention. The United States established the 40-hour workweek nearly 90 years ago. Despite massive changes in who works, how we work, where we work, and when we work, that workweek has stayed at approximately 40 hours at the individual level, and we work more household hours than we did 60 years ago. With AI on the horizon, even more could change rapidly with work.
American politicians should keep in mind that the shorter workweek offers an opportunity to translate this burgeoning coalition for shorter workweeks into meaningful policy change.
In this moment of burgeoning economic populism, shorter workweeks could be a policy that helps politicians deliver real widespread change that is also immensely popular. The Brazil example is instructive. Any shorter workweek bill deserves to be passed merely for the sake of giving time back to workers, but it also holds real electoral fruits. As in Brazil, approximately 7 in 10 Americans support shorter workweeks. After all, a better economy shouldn't just mean having more money in your pocket. It should mean having more life outside of work.
Similar to Brazil in 2023, we’re seeing small scale progress in the last few years. At the federal level, 32-hour workweek bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.). At the state and local level, policymakers as wide-ranging as a Republican in Maine, Rick Bennett, and a DSA NY Member in NYC, Phara Souffrant Forrest, have advanced shorter workweek legislation. Both unions have advocated for this and hundreds of companies have adopted it.
The dust will soon settle on the 2026 midterms, and campaigns will start prepping for the 2027 and 2028 elections. American politicians should keep in mind that the shorter workweek offers an opportunity to translate this burgeoning coalition for shorter workweeks into meaningful policy change. Lula's comeback shows what can happen when politicians give workers something worth fighting for, and then deliver on that idea.
Keep Reading
Show Less
After Failed Effort by Billionaires Like Elon Musk to Buy 2026 Midterms, Call Grows for Federal Wealth Tax
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. “If Trump vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
Nov 05, 2026
With tech mogul Elon Musk pouring nearly half a billion dollars into the midterm elections and just 20 individuals spending over $2 billion in an effort to elect Republicans who would continue President Donald Trump's corporate-friendly MAGA agenda, the results—including at least seven US Senate seats, 30 US House seats, and five governorships taken over by Democrats—sent a resounding message to GOP megadonors.
But economic justice advocates on Thursday said the Democratic Party must not stop there, demanding that the party's new majorities take immediate action after the new Congress is sworn in in January to pass a federal wealth tax—the kind that was central to campaigns including those of Sens.-elect Troy Jackson (D-Maine), James Talarico (D-Texas), and Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.).
“This election was a referendum on who has control over our democracy and our economy," said Meghan Schneider, senior spokesperson for Tax the Greedy Billionaires. "The ultrawealthy funneled billions of dollars into state and federal races to manipulate public opinion and buy influence, to further enrich themselves. From Michigan to Texas, voters across the political spectrum rallied against the billionaires and the cronies they bankrolled."
By electing candidates including El-Sayed, Talarico and Sen.-elect Peggy Flanagan (D-Minn.), said Schneider, voters sent a clear message: "We want leaders who will improve the lives of working people, not billionaires."
While billionaire opponents of California's proposed wealth tax, which would have established a one-time 5% tax on the state's richest residents, succeeded in crushing the proposal after spending more than $379 million against it, experts are expecting Democrats in Congress to consider bills, including one proposed by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
"From Michigan to Texas, voters across the political spectrum rallied against the billionaires and the cronies they bankrolled."
The senator has called for a graduated surtax on people earning more than $1 million per year. Those who earn $1 million-$2 million would be taxed 5% and households earning more than $5 million would be taxed 12%, while the capital gains top tax rate would be raised from 23.8% to 35.8%.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has also joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in proposing the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act, which would establish an annual 5% tax on households whose net worth is more than $1 billion.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has proposed quadrupling a tax on stock buybacks, while Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), set to become the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a post-election statement Wednesday that "the committee will redouble its efforts to ensure billionaires pay their fair share and hold tax cheats accountable."
Van Hollen, who has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential contender or a successor to Schumer—but has said he doesn't plan to run for the latter—told Politico Thursday that even if President Donald Trump vetoes a potential billionaires' tax, putting forward the proposal would show the American public whose side the Democrats are on ahead of 2028.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” said Van Hollen. “If Trump vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
Schneider said that with the artificial intelligence boom and looming initial public offerings by wealthy corporations "already accelerating historic wealth inequality and worsening the affordability crisis, the need to act decisively and quickly at the national level is dire."
"Leaders in the new Congress must deliver on their promises to put working people over billionaires," she said, "and introduce a national wealth tax within the first 100 days of the new Congress.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Warren Lays Out How Democrats Can Deliver for the Working Class—Even With Trump in the White House
"Democrats won this election by claiming we are on the side of working people, and working people are counting on us to deliver."
Nov 05, 2026
"Americans need Democrats to deliver now, not in two years."
That was US Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) post-election message to her fellow congressional Democrats on Thursday as she outlined how the party can use its impending control of the House and Senate to deliver real gains for the working class—even with corrupt billionaire President Donald Trump in the White House.
In an op-ed for TIME, Warren argued Democrats succeeded in midterm contests across the country "by being populist economic fighters who were unafraid to call out the corrupt politicians and corporate interests who have rigged the system at the expense of everyone else."
"Now, Democrats must deliver," the progressive senator wrote, urging her party to push Trump to live up to his vow to work with Democrats in the new Congress. "We should force him to do that on the affordability and corruption issues that drove this election—or call his bluff."
Warren laid out what she views as top priorities for the new Democratic majority, including: Ending Trump's illegal war in Iran, cutting costs for working families, moving to cancel Trump-GOP cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance, reversing Trump's tax cuts for the rich, and holding "Big Tech CEOs, Wall Street executives, and giant corporations" accountable for "ripping off the American people to make themselves richer."
The senator expressed openness to working with Republicans but wrote that Democrats must be willing to use the filibuster-proof reconciliation process—or eliminate the Senate's 60-vote filibuster entirely—to advance an ambitious agenda.
But what if Trump decides to wield his veto power against Democratic legislation, as he has suggested he could do?
Warren argued that Democrats must "test that out by passing legislation the American people support to make life more affordable and our government less corrupt."
"It would be a breach of faith with the people from South Carolina to Texas, who voted for us to address costs and corruption, to spend the next two years waiting for some future Democratic trifecta to hopefully deliver meaningful change," Warren wrote. "Democrats won this election by claiming we are on the side of working people, and working people are counting on us to deliver."
Another leading progressive in the Senate Democratic caucus, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), similarly argued that Democrats' historic midterm wins were "important," but "not enough."
"The American people want change. Real change. And the midterm election confirms just that," Sanders said in a video message, pointing to the urgent need to address out-of-control income and wealth inequality, the starvation-level federal minimum wage, unfettered artificial intelligence, the corrupt campaign finance system, the broken for-profit healthcare system, and more.
The solutions to those crises, he argued, "are not radical," pointing to broad public support for Medicare for All, expanding Social Security, and other progressive proposals.
"What we are talking about now is not only the need to fight for economic justice," said Sanders. "We are fighting to give hope to the American people—to allow them to understand that their government can work for them, can address the crises that they face, and will pay attention to the needs of the men, women and children in our country who are struggling, and not just the very, very wealthy campaign contributors."
"That is, in my view, what Democrats have got to do when they assume power in January," he added. "We can do it. We must do it."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Bernie Sanders: Winning the Midterms Is Not Enough. Here's What We Must Do
The American people understand that the economy today is rigged and that we cannot continue the ‘same old, same old’ establishment politics and establishment policies.
Nov 05, 2026
On Tuesday, Trump told us to vote as if he were on the ballot. And that is exactly what the American people did.
Together, we stood up to authoritarianism and a president who does not believe in the Constitution or the rule of law. And we won.
With Democratic control over the Senate and the House, we will now—finally—be able to hold Donald Trump accountable.
The American people have had enough. They are demanding real change and bold policies that will dramatically improve their lives.
That is a big deal. But as important as it is, it is not enough. We have got to do more.
Whether we like it or not, we are living in an unprecedented moment in American history where our country faces extraordinary crises. We cannot and must not run away from them when Democrats assume power in January.
These crises must be dealt with.
It is no secret that in the United States and all over the world, people are giving up on democracy. Now, why is that?
And the answer is that—all over the world, not just in America—working families are struggling to put food on the table and pay for basic necessities while the very richest people become much richer. And, throughout our country and in many other countries, ordinary people are saying, ‘Does their government even know that they exist?’ Or are elected officials too busy worrying about the needs of the rich and the powerful?
This is an American issue, but, in fact, an international issue.
And in my view, the American people have had enough. They are demanding real change and bold policies that will dramatically improve their lives.
In the richest country on Earth, the American people want a government that stands for working families, not billionaire campaign contributors. And that is not just Bernie Sanders talking.
According to a recent AP poll, 80% of registered voters want either “complete and total upheaval” or “substantial change” in how this country is run. And that includes 97% of Democrats, 90% of independents, and 58% of Republicans.
In other words, the American people understand that the economy today is rigged and that we cannot continue the ‘same old, same old’ establishment politics and establishment policies.
The American people want change. Real change. And the midterm election confirms just that.
Let me give you some examples of what I mean and the issues that we have got to deal with.
In our country today, income and wealth inequality has reached unprecedented levels. The top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 93%. One man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households. In my view, that is insane. And I think that’s how most Americans feel.
Democrats, when they gain control, in January, of the House and the Senate, cannot ignore this grotesque inequality. We must take on the greed of the very, very rich and their incredible wealth.
We must enact a 5% wealth tax on billionaires so that we can provide every working-class family in the country, a family of four, with a $12,000 direct payment.
And that means a Democratic Congress must pass a wealth tax on billionaires.
At a time when billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than truck drivers or nurses, we must enact a 5% wealth tax on billionaires so that we can provide every working-class family in the country, a family of four, with a $12,000 direct payment. In other words, if you’re a working-class family of four, that’s $3,000 for every man, woman, and child—$12,000.
Furthermore, with that tax on billionaires, we can build 7 million units of low-income and affordable housing, we can make public colleges and universities tuition-free, and we can provide universal free child care for 13 million children. That is what a wealth tax on billionaires can do.
But taxing the oligarchs means more than just taking on their wealth.
It means ending their stranglehold over our political system.
Elon Musk and his billionaire friends have poured a record-breaking $2 billion into the recent election. That is absurd.
The American people want Congress to overturn Citizens United, abolish super PACs, and establish public funding of elections. Democracy must mean one person, one vote, not billionaires buying elections.
But it’s not just massive income and wealth inequality that we have to deal with or a corrupt campaign finance system.
In America today—as everybody knows, and I get the same response wherever I go in this country—everybody understands that our healthcare system is broken. It is dysfunctional. And it is wildly expensive.
We spend almost twice as much per person on healthcare as any other major country. Yet, despite that huge expenditure, more than 90 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured. Over half a million people go bankrupt each year because of medical debt. We pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world. And tragically, more than 60,000 Americans die unnecessarily every year because they cannot afford medical care.
How cruel is that?
Yes, we must repeal the $1 trillion in cuts Trump made to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to prevent 15 million Americans from losing their healthcare. Yes, we must restore ACA tax credits to stop the outrageous premium spikes for 20 million Americans, but that is nowhere near enough. Healthcare must be considered as a human right, not a privilege. That means passing Medicare for all legislation now supported by 66% of the American people.
As an immediate first step, Democrats must lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 down to 55, expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing, and guarantee universal healthcare coverage for every child from birth through age 19. All of this can be accomplished with 51 votes in the Senate, through the reconciliation process.
But it’s not just income and wealth inequality that we have to deal with, or a corrupt campaign finance system or a dysfunctional healthcare system. We must deal with artificial intelligence—the most transformational technology in the history of humanity.
In America today, big tech oligarchs are spending trillions of dollars on artificial intelligence and robotics with virtually no regulation.
Democrats must enact a national moratorium on AI data centers, must pause advanced AI development and ban superintelligence.
This revolutionary technology will transform the lives of every man, woman, and child in our country and around the world. Left unchecked, AI and robotics will destroy tens of millions of jobs, devastate our children’s mental health, eviscerate our privacy rights, drive up electricity rates, strain water supplies, and transform warfare.
If AI becomes smarter than human beings and escapes human control, it will also pose an existential threat to the very existence of humanity. We cannot allow a handful of big tech billionaires to become even richer and more powerful by ramming this dangerous technology down our throats.
Democrats must enact a national moratorium on AI data centers, must pause advanced AI development and ban superintelligence.
And by the way, I might mention that in the election, in dozens of communities throughout our country, citizens voted for a moratorium on the construction of data centers. In other words, a moratorium on data centers is exactly what the American people want.
But my friends, it is not just oligarchy, a corrupt campaign finance system, a broken healthcare system, and uncontrolled AI.
In America today, while the very rich get richer, 60% of our people live paycheck to paycheck and millions work long, long hours for incredibly low wages. That must change.
A job must lift people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
The $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage is a starvation wage. Democrats must raise it to a living wage of at least $20-an-hour and make it easier for workers to form unions by passing the PRO Act. A job must lift people out of poverty, not keep them in it.
Further, in our country today, one-third of our seniors are struggling economically, and more than 20% are trying to survive on less than $15,000 a year. Nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and no idea how they will retire with a shred of dignity. Meanwhile, Elon Musk pays the same amount into Social Security as someone earning $184,600 a year. That is absurd.
By applying the Social Security payroll tax to all income above $250,000, including capital gains and dividends, we could increase benefits by $2,400 a year, lift millions of seniors out of poverty, improve cost of living adjustments, and keep Social Security solvent for generations without raising taxes on the bottom 91% of Americans.
We must also restore the traditional pension plans corporate America took away so that every worker can count on a guaranteed income in retirement.
That is what a Democratic Congress must do.
Let me be clear. In America today, we spend more on the military than the next six nations combined. Despite massive waste, fraud, and abuse, the Pentagon has repeatedly failed independent audits and cannot account for trillions of dollars in spending. Adding insult to injury, Trump has dragged us into an illegal and unconstitutional war in Iran that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
We must end this disastrous war.
We must cut off all funding for the genocidal government in Israel.
And we must substantially reduce military spending.
Instead of pouring $1.1 trillion into a bloated Pentagon and never-ending wars, a Democratic Congress must build the best public education system in the world with no teacher earning less than $60,000 a year.
We are fighting to give hope to the American people—to allow them to understand that their government can work for them, can address the crises that they face, and will pay attention to the needs of the men, women and children in our country who are struggling, and not just the very, very wealthy campaign contributors.
And let me touch on one more subject that Democrats must deal with.
Since Trump took office, ICE agents have shot American citizens in cold blood, have broken down doors to arrest people, and have sent five-year-old children to detention centers. These actions are not only immoral and disgraceful, they are unconstitutional.
Democrats must immediately rein in the $75 billion Republicans gave Trump to fund his domestic army. Instead of ICE agents terrorizing communities throughout the country, we must finally move to comprehensive immigration reform and a path toward citizenship for the undocumented.
Let’s be clear: All of the policies I have just discussed—and more that I have not mentioned—are not radical.
They are precisely what a strong majority of the American people want.
So we are in a moment in American history where a lot of folks are losing faith in democracy. They are struggling every day just to stay alive while, at the same time, billionaires have more money than they can spend in a thousand lifetimes and are getting richer and richer all of the time.
What we are talking about now is not only the need to fight for economic justice.
We are fighting to give hope to the American people—to allow them to understand that their government can work for them, can address the crises that they face, and will pay attention to the needs of the men, women and children in our country who are struggling, and not just the very, very wealthy campaign contributors.
That is, in my view, what Democrats have got to do when they assume power in January.
We can do it. We must do it.
And I look forward to working with all of you to make sure that it happens.
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy