SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
billionaires
You Will Cry Out Because of Your King
When we eventually become aware of what we have given up, what it really means to surrender participation, voice, and responsibility, it will be too late.
Mar 14, 2025
As a clergy person who has served congregations in the Black and of-color communities in Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C. for over 45 years I am acutely aware of the traumas and anxieties that are encountered because of changing political administrations nationally, regionally, and locally, and how they impact families and lives.
Politicians and even the media often speak in broad generalities of what a change means statistically, according to the latest poll, and its implications for government and how it may set a precedent or not. But those of us serving pastorally in local communities are called upon to allay fears, to bind the wounds, make meaning out of the meaninglessness, find silver linings amid the dark clouds, and to identify hope in the despair and confusion. We have done this many times, but at no time has the impact been as stark, devastating, or as frightening as it is now.
With U.S. President Trump, Elon Musk, DOGE, and their radical approach to government there are many lives traumatized by the fears who are suffering from the emotional abuse inflicted on those who have worked for the federal government and their families. There are also many contractors and vendors associated with government work experiencing the same high anxieties that come with the uncertainty and worries associated with the political battering of uncertainty and threats inflicted on families and their sense of stability and security.
Now is the time to stir from our shock and catatonic state and begin to act, demonstrate, drown out town hall and community gatherings wherever they occur before we completely lose all memory of participatory debate, discourse, dialogue, or what the compromise and tensions of democracy look and feel like.
Living in Washington, D.C., I along with my colleagues feel that we are in the epicenter of this upheaval and must deal with this psychological tsunami. But by no means does this affect only Washington, D.C., because 80% of government employees are outside of the Washington, D.C. area. However, the perception is government equals Washington, D.C. and the message telegraphed by the Trump-Musk-DOGE fraternity is that they are dismantling The District of Columbia, its "deep state," putting Blacks and people of color in "their place" (as D.C. serves as a symbol of a Black and diverse town with a "woke" population, and where DEI abounds). They are stridently trying to demonstrate that they are reestablishing the good ole days of white supremacy and Manifest Destiny by taking the country back and making it Great Again in terms of absolute control both at home and abroad.
The imperialistic whim is expressed in changing the name of the Native American-associated Alaskan mountain peak, Denali, to Mount McKinley. The name Denali is largely used by Alaskans and Native people and translated to mean "The High One," referring to the more-than-20,000-foot mountain peak that dominates the landscape. The royal decree is amplified in the assertion that the Gulf of Mexico is now the Gulf of America and in punishing The Associated Press by banning them from the White House press corps for not acquiescing to the imperialistic name change. The list of royal decrees has suggested that Canada be annexed along with Greenland, and insinuated that Panama come under the control of the U.S. again. These are all imperialistic assertions and fantasy.
These assertions should be stridently questioned and analyzed by various media. However, in January 6 fashion the media forums historically entrusted to be defenders of democracy by maintaining a free and non-government controlled press have been bullied and overrun by a royally inspired overtaking that has usurped democratic order. Diverse and robust political discussion have been taken over by an imperialistic demand to assert the order of a feudalistic system of oligarchs, dukes, duchesses, billionaires, and courtiers seeking lands and fortunes by supporting the royal order. This is evident in Jeffery Bezos' nullification of The Washington Post's editorial board's endorsement of former Vice President Kamala Harris for president in 2024. It has been reported that more than 250,000 Washington Post subscribers have cancelled their subscriptions in protest since owner Bezos interfered in the endorsement and recently demanded that the paper's opinion pages reflect libertarian priorities excluding opposing points of view.
Bezos wrote in a March 2025 memo to the paper's staff, "We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets..." In other words, the opinion page will be slanted toward less or no criticism of the Trump dynasty, its policies, or its encroachment on democratic order. The Post's former Executive Editor Marty Baron called the new direction "craven" and suggested that Bezos is "basically fearful" of Trump. Whether it is fear or greed motivating these oligarchs only they know. But we cannot overlook the lucrative government contracts awarded Bezos, Musk, and many others currently feeding at, or hoping to feed at, the royal trough.
The contraction and absence of media that are independent and distant from the Trump royalty pose an immediate and imminent danger to the freedom of political debate and moral discernment. Columbia University has been penalized $400 million by the Trump dynasty for not shutting down the protests and encampment on Columbia's campus last Spring that educated the public of the genocide and war crimes in Gaza. Mahmoud Khalil, who is a green-card holder, a graduate of Columbia, and married to a U.S. citizen, having led some of the demonstrations and protests at Columbia, was arrested by ICE because his political expressions ran counter to the proclivities of the Trump dynasty. The Trump monarchy is weighted toward imperialistic initiatives that are expressed through Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands; ethnic cleansing; the attempted annexation of Ukraine by Russia; or by its own fantasies of seizing Canada, Greenland, and Panama.
People are perplexed by how quickly and radically these changes could have occurred in the United States. The national narrative has been that fascist takeovers, and the emergence of tyrants and dictators, happen other places but not in the U.S. But now we are confronted with what we believed was commonplace elsewhere having happened here. I find myself turning to tools of my trade trying to explain to people this current moment and why and how this could have happened.
In the scriptures that I use, First Samuel, chapter 8 offers a hauntingly accurate explanation for this historical moment. The words in this text describe people who felt let down by government, troubled by the state of the economy, fearful of an uncertain future, scared of changes, living where one set of political leaders was perceived as ill-equipped to serve the interest of some people, and where apparently a few had grown richer at the expense of the poor becoming poorer. Whether this was true or only perceived to be true we do not know.
The 2024 elections appears to have similarities with the text, where the framing of the issues were the ruinous effects of inflation; immigrants taking jobs and criminally violating communities; and where Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies forced the hiring of incompetence and overlooked those who were more deserving and were white, male, and straight. A significant portion of the population wanted a leader who would address their fears and resolve their anxieties of an inclusive world. The political ideologies of the campaigns either cited an increasingly diverse population or the dangerous nature of democracy as it strived to include diversity and create equal opportunities. The ideologies were on a collision course. One ideology warned of the threat to democracy, and the other offered the protection of the American way of life through a strongman that would protect the country by reclaiming and protecting its past. When talking about the things that were seen or felt as wrong with the nation, the strongman pledged, "I alone can fix it." Some people clamored for this strongman—this king, the restoration of the past, and the good ole days.
It was just like the people in 1 Samuel 8, who demanded, "Give us a king" so that they could go back to the familiar; the fears of the future could be tamed; and they would not have to wrestle with or agonize over anything that was unfamiliar, frightening, or defined as "woke." "Give us a king" that will solve all our problems, navigate us through a frightening world, and ensure we don't have to deal with the messier things of democracy. And this is what we got. In 2024 we have unconsciously or consciously given up a president for a king.
But this scriptural text goes further by warning what a king will do, and it is not pretty but so relevant to today. It warns that by giving up discourse and participation we will become victims of the wants and desires of a king. The king will reward his patrons and supporters and harm his detractors. The billionaires who lust after more billions as well as those fearful of the loss of billions fall into line and tout the monarch's political framing of issues. He will take a portion of all that we have worked for and earned, and he will give it in tax breaks and lucrative contracts to his patrons and supporters. He will press us into his service, and likewise our children. We will parrot the fears of diversity and inclusion. We will turn in those who we suspect of being undocumented and accept it as natural when people are stopped and arrested for driving while Hispanic or Black. And when we eventually become aware of what we have given up, what it really means to surrender participation, voice, and responsibility, it will be too late.
The damage will have been done and will be revealed in disasters because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), that predicts atmospheric and weather changes, has been dismantled. There will be an increase in diseases such as measles that was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. Unemployment will increase because of firings and layoffs in the governmental sector that will spread into the private sector because of protectionism, tariffs, and the interconnection of one economic sector to another. And there will be fewer places to challenge the royal decrees as the courts, informational platforms, and people are silenced out of fear of retribution and punishment. In all, democratic order will disappear, become extinct in practice, and eventually fade from memory. All of this will occur because we have chosen the dictates of a king over the messier and cumbersome discourse of the democratic process. The scriptural text warns, "In that day you will cry out because of your king." So many of us are crying out now because of this wannabe king.
So, what can be done? Now is the time to stir from our shock and catatonic state and begin to act, demonstrate, drown out town hall and community gatherings wherever they occur before we completely lose all memory of participatory debate, discourse, dialogue, or what the compromise and tensions of democracy look and feel like. The Trump-Musk-DOGE fraternity has been rattling off dictates of firings, downsizing, policy, and name changes so rapidly that it is hard to pivot fast enough in response, let alone being able to act instead of reacting. This is a tactic to keep us off balance. But our challenge is to engage, question, and resist and not be wearied by the avalanche of the various decrees, Executive Orders, or the whiplash of on and off again policies.
In the 1960s and 70s many of us wore buttons that read "Question Authority." It was a statement of independent thinking, not falling into line simply to fall into line, and to remind ourselves and governments that we are only governed by our consent. We sought to remind ourselves of the authority of average citizens and not the absolute power of government. This mentality needs to be reborn. We need to question, act, and challenge all things and everything that comes from this royal fiefdom.
They may not be wrong in everything they do, but we know that unless we exercise the discipline of questioning authority, challenging policies, and making the administration prove every single assertion we will certainly lose all forms of democratic order. After all we really don't want or need a king, but we truly want a government that is of, for, and by the people. This however will require that we exercise the muscles of messy democracy before they completely atrophy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why We Need a Progressive Shadow Cabinet to Counter Trump
A shadow cabinet would show us what it would mean to have a government of public servants who put the well being of American families ahead of the further enrichment of billionaires.
Mar 13, 2025
The rapid fire destruction initiated by President Trump, Elon Musk, and MAGA Republicans has overwhelmed Americans, with many scrambling to respond to one shock after another. Which was, of course, the point. The “flood the zone” strategy worked, for a while, leaving us alternating between fear and exhaustion.
But waiting for the lawsuits to stop the worst illegal moves or for disasters to expand to the point of collapse are losing strategies. Likewise, focusing exclusively on the failures of Trump administration policies leaves us feeling powerless and isolated.
What we need is a path forward.
Here’s one idea, discussed by North Carolina Democrat Rep. Wiley Nickel and historian and author Timothy Snyder: a shadow cabinet. The idea comes from other parliamentary democracies especially in Europe. In these systems, the opposition party establishes an alternative cabinet with specific portfolios that mirror those of the ruling government. These shadow ministers serve two crucial functions: they critique current policies while offering constructive alternatives.
Imagine having a shadow Attorney General who could provide journalists with informed counterpoints to administration claims while also creating a secure channel for alarmed federal employees to share concerns and leaks. Imagine a Secretary of Interior who could speak to the enduring value of American forests and parklands and why they should be protected.
What we need is to restore our sense of collective agency — to set a people’s agenda for the future and choose our own leaders.
A shadow cabinet would show us what it would mean to have a government of public servants who put the well being of American families ahead of the further enrichment of billionaires. During this time of overwhelm, when our physiological resources are limited by the impulse to “fight or flight,” this process could refocus us on our rights as citizens of this nation to have a government that works for us.
I propose one crucial variation on the approach proposed by Nickel and Snyder. The cabinet should not be appointed by the Democratic Party establishment — instead, we should embrace a truly democratic (small d) selection process. The Democratic Party establishment has failed to rise to the challenges of the times on many fronts, and many have felt alienated or left out.
Moreover, we need to recover our voices after the failed primary season of 2024 in which the nominations of Pres. Joe Biden followed by Vice President Kamala Harris were forgone conclusions. If Party leaders once again tell us who our leaders should be, alienation and cynicism would grow instead of engagement.
What we need is to restore our sense of collective agency — to set a people’s agenda for the future and choose our own leaders. So let’s create a grassroots process to debate priorities, hear from potential shadow cabinet candidates, and make selections collectively. We could consider a few key cabinet posts at a time. Caucuses at the local level could elect representatives to take community priorities and nominations for shadow secretaries to a national gathering for final selection.
This approach would be newsworthy, energizing, and shift our focus from mere opposition to creative problem-solving, visionary imagination, power-building, and community empowerment.
We could do this in locations across the country led by non-MAGA organizations that have large memberships and local chapters, for example The Working Families Party, Indivisible, the Women's March, Black Lives Matter, and Democratic Socialists of America come to mind, alongside local Democratic Party districts.
Americans are seeking genuine solutions to their everyday challenges, not ideological litmus tests. The questions we should be asking center on values and on practical approaches to improving the lives of current and future generations.
Our shadow cabinet members would serve as forward-looking spokespersons with the legitimacy of having been chosen through an inclusive process. They could effectively articulate alternative visions while also forming a deep bench of potential candidates for future elections.
Importantly, the democratic process itself would be enlivening. It would shift us away from the stale red-vs blue argument that too often miss the point. Is advocating for healthy lifestyles inherently conservative now that RFK Jr. is in office? Is supporting peace in Ukraine a right-wing position? Are immigration enforcement policies exclusively Republican when Democratic administrations have also implemented deportations?
Americans are seeking genuine solutions to their everyday challenges, not ideological litmus tests. The questions we should be asking center on values and on practical approaches to improving the lives of current and future generations.
This caucus process would provide valuable practice in democratic deliberation about real issues that are affecting our lives in local communities throughout the country. And it would expand our political imagination beyond the limitations imposed by establishment thinking, potentially embracing such popular proposals as Medicare for All.
No one is better equipped to define our national priorities and develop solutions than the American people themselves, engaged in pragmatic local conversations focused on constructive action. A democratic shadow cabinet offers a way to channel our energy toward building the future we want. By reclaiming our democratic voice through this process, we can begin building our vision and our power, re-engaging in our communities, and doing the essential work of renewal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
When It Comes to Taxing the Rich, France’s National Assembly Is Leading the Way
Assembly lawmakers have just given a green light to the world’s first significant tax on billionaire wealth at a time when the most powerful nation on Earth—the United States—is moving in the exact opposite direction.
Mar 12, 2025
Nine of the world’s 10 wealthiest billionaires now call the United States home. The remaining one? He lives in France. And that one—Bernard Arnault, the 76-year-old who owns just about half the world’s largest maker of luxury goods—is now feeling some heat.
What has Arnault and his fellow French deep pockets beginning to sweat? Lawmakers in France’s National Assembly have just given a green light to the world’s first significant tax on billionaire wealth.
“The tax impunity of billionaires,” the measure’s prime sponsor, the Ecologist Party’s Eva Sas, exulted last month, “is over.”
The annual tax on grand fortune that the assembly’s lawmakers have passed, says the UC-Berkeley analyst Gabriel Zucman, represents “amazing progress” that has the potential to set a bold new global precedent.
Sas had good reason for exulting. In the French National Assembly debate over whether to start levying a 2% annual tax on wealth over 100 million euros—the equivalent of $108 million—the leader of the chamber’s hands-off-our-rich lawmakers introduced 26 amendments designed to undercut this landmark tax-the-rich initiative. All 26 of these amendments failed.
But France’s 4,000 or so deep pockets worth over 100 million euros—the nation’s richest 0.01%—don’t have to open up their checkbooks just quite yet. The French Senate’s right-wing-majority has no intention of backing the National Assembly’s new levy, and, even if the Senate did, France’s highest court would most likely dismiss the measure.
French president Emmanuel Macron, for his part, has spent most of the last decade cutting corporate tax rates and axing taxes on investment assets. And his budget minister has blasted last month’s National Assembly tax-the-rich move as both “confiscatory and ineffective.”
None of this opposition, believes the French economist who inspired the National Assembly’s new tax move, should give us cause to doubt that move’s significance. The annual tax on grand fortune that the assembly’s lawmakers have passed, says the UC-Berkeley analyst Gabriel Zucman, represents “amazing progress” that has the potential to set a bold new global precedent.
What makes the National Assembly’s tax legislation even more significant? That tax-the-rich vote has come at a time when the most powerful nation on Earth—the United States—is moving in the exact opposite direction. The new Trump administration, with the help of the world’s single richest individual, is now busily hollowing out the tax-the-rich capacity of the Internal Revenue Service.
President Donald Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had actually made some serious moves to enhance that IRS capacity, hiring—before he left office—thousands of new tax staffers. But those new hires, notes a ProPublica analysis, have now started going through Elon Musk’s “DOGE” meat grinder.
Team Trump’s ultimate goal at the tax agency? To use layoffs, attrition, and buyouts to cut the overall IRS workforce “by as much as half,” The Associated Pressreports. A reduction in force that severe, charges former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, would render the IRS “dysfunctional.”
The prime target of the ongoing IRS cutbacks: the agency’s Large Business and International office, the IRS division that specializes in auditing America’s highest-income individuals and the companies they run.
On average, researchers have concluded over recent years, every dollar the IRS spends auditing America’s richest ends up returning as much as $12 in new tax revenue. The current gutting of the agency’s most skilled staffers, tax analysts have told ProPublica, “will mean corporations and wealthy individuals face far less scrutiny when they file their tax returns, leading to more risk-taking and less money flowing into the U.S. treasury.”
Moves to “hamstring the IRS,” sums up former IRS Commissioner Koskinen, amount to “just a tax cut for tax cheats.”
Donald Trump, agrees the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s Amy Hanauer, “is waging economic war on the vast majority of Americans, pushing to further slash taxes on the wealthiest and corporations, while sapping the public services that keep our communities strong.”
Public services like Social Security. Elon Musk has lately taken to deriding America’s most beloved federal program as a “Ponzi scheme,” and the Social Security Administration’s new leadership team, suitably inspired, has just announced plans to trim some 7,000 jobs from an agency “already at a 50-year staffing low.”
A vicious economic squeeze on America’s seniors. A massive tax-time giveaway for America’s richest. How can we start reversing those sorts of inequality-inducing dynamics? The veteran retirement analyst Teresa Ghilarducci has one fascinating suggestion.
Any individual’s annual earnings over $176,100 will this year, Ghilarducci points out, face not a dime of Social Security tax. A CEO making millions of dollars a year will pay no more in Social Security tax than a civil engineer making a mere $176,100.
If lawmakers removed that arbitrary $176,100 Social Security tax cap and subjected more categories of income—like capital gains—to Social Security tax, Ghilarducci reflects, we could ensure Social Security’s viability for decades to come and even make giant strides to totally ending poverty among all Social Security recipients.
And if we had just merely eliminated the Social Security tax cap on annual earnings in 2023, the most recent stats show, America’s 229 top earners would have paid more into Social Security that year than the 77% of American workers who took home under $57,000.
We could also apply Ghilarducci’s zesty tax-the-rich spirit to the broader global economy, as the inspiration behind France’s recent tax-the-rich moves, the economist Gabriel Zucman, has just observed in a piece that cleverly suggests “tariffs for oligarchs.’
The fortunes of our super rich, Zucman reminds us, “depend on access to global markets,” a reality that could leave these rich vulnerable at tax time. Nations subject to Trump’s new tariffs, he goes on to explain, could retaliate by taking an imaginative approach to taxing Corporate America’s super rich.
“In other words,” Zucman notes, “if Tesla wants to sell cars in Canada and Mexico, Elon Musk—Tesla’s primary shareholder—should be required to pay taxes in those jurisdictions.”
Taking that approach “could trigger a virtuous cycle.” The super rich would soon find relocating either their firms or their fortunes to low-tax jurisdictions a pointless endeavor. Any savings they might reap from such moves would get offset by the higher taxes they would owe in nations with major markets.
The current economic “race to the bottom,” Zucman quips, could essentially become “a race to the top” that “neutralizes tax competition, fights inequality, and protects our planet.”
Lawmakers in France have just shown they’re willing to start racing in that top-oriented direction. May their inspiration spread.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular