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
chris van hollen
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 ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says No Rubber Stamp for Schumer as Majority Leader Without Support for 'Bold Agenda'
"It’s not a time for incrementalism," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "It’s a time to move forward a very bold kitchen table agenda."
Nov 05, 2026
A top progressive senator on Wednesday said Democrats should not commit to supporting Sen. Chuck Schumer to lead the caucus after the party's historic midterm wins without demanding his support for a "bold agenda" that reflects the needs of the American public, which is facing a worsening cost-of-living crisis under President Donald Trump.
"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,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who previously led Senate Democrats' campaign arm, told Bloomberg in an interview. “It’s not a time for incrementalism. It’s a time to move forward a very bold kitchen table agenda.”
Van Hollen, a vocal critic of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza and a supporter of Medicare for All, has indicated that he does not intend to run for Senate majority leader himself. But the senator said Wednesday that "no one should be committing to anybody as the next Democratic leader" without first discussing how the party plans to advance an ambitious policy agenda.
"We need commitments," Van Hollen told Bloomberg.
The senator's remarks came as two prominent progressive advocacy groups, Indivisible and Our Revolution, called for the Senate Democratic caucus to move past Schumer.
"Contact your senators and demand they oppose another term for Chuck Schumer as leader—and insist on a public and transparent process for choosing new leadership," Indivisible wrote in a series of social media posts on Wednesday. "Schumer has a lower approval rating than Trump. After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics."
Yesterday, voters made it very clear that they want a new generation of Democratic fighters.We need a leader in the Senate who is capable of leading that fight.It’s time for Senate Democrats to choose new leadership.
[image or embed]
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) 1:50 PM · Nov 4, 2026
Schumer, who has headed the Senate Democratic caucus for nearly a decade, brushed off potential challenges to his leadership on Wednesday, telling reporters with certainty, "I'll be reelected as majority leader."
But several newly elected Democratic senators—including Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, Juliana Stratton of Illinois, and Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota—have explicitly said they would not support Schumer for leadership, raising the possibility of a significant revolt following the party's midterm wipeout of the GOP. Other senators-elect, including James Talarico of Texas and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, have declined to endorse Schumer for the leadership post, saying the party should explore other options.
"We are at the point of a new movement in this country," Flanagan said Wednesday. "Many of us were elected who refused corporate PAC money and are only beholden to the people who elected us—and are ready to fight for bold change."
"I think it's time for a new leadership," she added, "and I'm eager to work in partnership with my new colleagues to get that done."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With 74% of Voters Saying Iran War Was Big Factor in Midterms, Dems Urged to Become Peace Party
"Will Democrats finally get it?" asked one progressive expert. "Americans are tired of war. They want a new foreign policy."
Nov 04, 2026
Nearly three-quarters of Americans who voted in Tuesday's midterm elections said that President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran was a significant factor in their vote, a figure that opponents of US militarism said underscored the need for the Democrats to become a true anti-war party.
According to NBC News exit polling, 74% of voters called the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran a "crucial" or "major" factor in their vote, with Democrats winning 63% of people who responded that way. Meanwhile, 63% of voters said the Trump administration made the wrong decision in taking military action against Iran, compared with 37% who said it was the right decision.
"There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is," Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday in a lengthy social media post. "One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true."
"But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone," the vice president continued. "The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night."
Indeed, Trump acknowledged that the war harmed Republicans, telling Fox News, "I think a part of it was Iran," but nevertheless defended the 35-week military campaign, insisting that "people understood the importance of what I've done with Iran."
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump was similarly unapologetic, declaring: "I did the right thing. I would have done it again."
Numerous observers contended that Tuesday's results offered an opportunity for Democrats to do more than simply capitalize on Republican mistakes.
"Among other things, this is an absolute rebuke of the war in Iran. Democrats would be wise to heed that lesson and truly become the anti-war party," said commentator Ben Rhodes—who, while serving as a senior national security adviser to then-President Barack Obama, supported US intervention in countries including Iraq, Libya, and Syria, as well as Obama's wider drone war campaign.
Geopolitics scholar Van Jackson opined on social media that "if Democrats remain the party of the national security state, they will lose everything in 2028. If they become the anti-war party, they’ll consolidate this wave with the presidency."
A Wednesday analysis on the libertarian site Reason by Matthew Petti argued that Democrats now have an opportunity to exercise Congress' constitutional power over the war, including by withholding military funding.
Petti noted that Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told Fox News last week, "The House and the Senate should stop the funding for any further actions in the Iran War," just like "we did to stop the Vietnam War."
However, Petti cautioned that Democratic electoral victories usually don't lead to anti-war foreign policy.
"Party leadership that is willing to attack Republicans' execution of the war may not share a principled anti-war commitment," he wrote, recalling how Democrats who swept the 2006 midterms over public anger with the Iraq War but then struggled to use their control of both chambers of Congress to end it.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wants his party to cut off funding for Trump's war and said Democrats can do so by demanding explicit restrictions on war spending as a condition of supporting the fiscal year 2027 government funding bill that expires next month.
"Right now, the continuing resolution goes through December 11," Van Hollen told The Lever on Tuesday. "And my view is that Democrats should not advance spending to continue to fund this war."
"The Vietnam War ended only when Congress defunded it," he added. "This is an illegal war, and we need to make sure that taxpayer monies are not used to continue an illegal war."
Institute for Middle East Understanding executive director Margaret DeReus pleaded on social media, "For the love of all that is good, Democrats, do not squander this."
"The voters have given you a mandate. Use it. Be the party of working people. Be the anti-war party. Be the anti-corruption party," she added. "We cannot go back to business as usual."
Matt Duss, a former top aide to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who serves as executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, noted that "Trump ran and won as an anti-war candidate in 2024 because Democrats left that lane wide open for him."
"Voters have just brutally punished him and the GOP for breaking that promise. Will Democrats finally get it?" Duss added. "Americans are tired of war. They want a new foreign policy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says Medicare for All Is What's Needed If Democrats Take Back the Senate
“The reality is people are facing huge increases in premiums and copays… So we need a Medicare-for-All-type solution,” Van Hollen said. “This is the kind of debate we need to have.”
Oct 26, 2026
Another possible Democratic presidential contender says the party needs to pursue “Medicare for All” as a solution to America’s healthcare crisis should the US Senate flip blue in November.
“The reality is people are facing huge increases in premiums and copays. So we need a Medicare-for-All-type solution,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in a Monday report from Politico. “This is the kind of debate we need to have.”
Van Hollen joins a list of potential 2028 hopefuls who have endorsed the idea of a single-payer healthcare system—including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who have championed the policy for years, following the lead of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also declared that he believes in “universal healthcare” and “Medicare for All” but has not yet released a concrete proposal for what his version of the policy would look like.
Van Hollen, who previously backed a public health insurance option to compete with private insurance, supported Sanders' Medicare for All bill in December as premiums were set to skyrocket after Republicans allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies to expire.
He declared that Congress "must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," pointing to the massive administrative costs and poor health outcomes under the for-profit status quo.
Medicare for All could also face a more favorable climate in the Senate than it did during the Biden presidency.
If Democrats retake the chamber this November—buoyed by promises to tackle the high costs of everything from healthcare to energy to food—Sanders is expected to once again be appointed chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Sanders led the committee from 2023-25, a time when Medicare for All lacked any chance of passing out of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
While a new Medicare for All bill would likely be routed through the Senate Finance Committee, chairing HELP would give the Vermont socialist the power to frame the debate on healthcare by holding hearings that could address problems with private insurance and launching investigations into industry practices, while making the case for a single-payer system.
In an April 2026 letter, co-signed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sanders called for a series of high-profile Senate hearings grilling insurance CEOs over rising premiums, coverage denials, executive compensation, and industry consolidation.
“The American public deserves to know why the big insurance executives... continue to get richer and richer, while over one-third of people with health insurance have been forced to skip or delay getting the care they need because of the outrageous cost,” Sanders and Wyden wrote. “It is time for our committees to hold the chief executives of the major health insurance companies accountable for their greed and to address the healthcare crisis in America."
A strong showing for Democrats in November's midterms could bring a new crop of Medicare for All supporters to Congress, such as former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed and labor leader Troy Jackson, who are leading their Senate races in Michigan and Maine.
As private insurance premiums spike and millions of Americans lose coverage after the Trump administration imposed the largest federal healthcare spending cut in the nation's history, Medicare for All also has more public support than it has had in years.
A September survey by KFF found that 66% of adults said they’d favor “a national health plan in which everyone gets insurance from a single government plan.” Support came from 84% of Democrats, who’ve long backed it, as well as nearly three-quarters of independents and even just over a third of Republicans.
“If I have anything to say about it… the agenda of the Democratic Party is going to be extremely bold. It is going to take on high costs,” Sanders told Politico. “The super [political action committees] are not going to run the agenda anymore. We’re going to do what the American people want.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Settler Attack on Post Photographer Must Force a Reckoning in Washington
Levine’s assault has brought renewed focus to the dangerous circumstances Palestinians face daily while tending to their land;
whether that attention matters will depend on whether a response leads to consequences for perpetrators.
Oct 22, 2026
Washington Post reporter Heidi Levine traveled to the occupied West Bank to document Palestinians harvesting olives. On Friday, Israeli settlers brutally attacked her, leaving her traumatized and hospitalized.
Despite carrying gear visibly identifying her as a photographer and wearing a protective vest clearly marked “PRESS,” she was surrounded by settlers who shoved her to the ground and relentlessly assaulted her.
According to reports, she suffered four broken vertebrae, a broken rib, severe lacerations across her body, and a finger that was severely split open.
Heidi Levine deserves justice, victims of settler violence deserve accountability, and the evidence warrants action.
In her words: “Luckily I had my flak jacket and helmet, otherwise I probably wouldn’t even be here, because they just kept kicking me and kicking me.”
This assault deserves an investigation and swift prosecution of those responsible.
It also calls on Americans to examine the deeper story she was covering.
If attackers are violently assaulting a photojournalist working for a globally influential publication, what protection can Palestinian farmers expect—especially when the cameras leave?
That question connects olive groves in the occupied West Bank to legislation in the US Senate led by Democratic Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen along with Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Senate Resolution 852 would require the State Department to provide information and assessments concerning investigations into the killings of Americans by Israeli forces or violent settlers, as well as other human rights abuses in the occupied West Bank.
Last month, although a historic 47 senators voted, largely along party lines, to move the measure forward, the Senate ultimately failed to discharge the resolution from the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
The assault on Levine is a wake-up call for the senate to reconsider.
This type of targeted violence extends beyond farmers gathering the harvest.
On October 12, at the beginning of this year’s harvest, Israeli forces uprooted and bulldozed 400 olive trees in Beit Rima, northwest of Ramallah, to make way for a new settlement outpost.
This is far from an isolated incident. So far this year alone, Israeli forces and settlers have uprooted and destroyed around 50,000 olive trees.
For a Palestinian family, olive groves equal years of labor. A family tending its trees is earning income and maintaining its connection to land. Destroying the trees or stealing the crop makes life untenable.
In April, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that at least 45 Palestinian communities had been completely displaced since January 2023 because of settler attacks and related restrictions.
Those figures describe a process often camouflaged behind abstract language.
Journalists documenting the harvest are simultaneously documenting the devastating toll of settler violence on Palestinian lives.
Attacking members of the press threatens individual livelihoods and lives, but also the public’s ability to stay informed and understand what is happening.
Our response must protect the people in the photographs, too. A farmer’s right to safety cannot depend on whether a foreign correspondent is nearby.
Washington has a practical place to begin.
Senate Resolution 852 requests information on Israel’s human rights practices under Section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act.
The September 29 Senate vote denied American families and victims of settler violence an opportunity to demand accountability for conduct that should inform Congress’ decisions about American security assistance.
The reporting requirement in the resolution is consequential, providing the State Department 30 days to respond.
Lawmakers who believe such a requirement could disrupt an important security relationship must explain why that relationship shouldn’t withstand scrutiny.
Congress should use the findings to pursue credible investigations, examine failures to protect civilians, and enforce applicable human rights conditions.
Levine’s assault has brought renewed focus to the dangerous circumstances Palestinians face daily while tending to their land.
Whether that attention matters will depend on whether a response leads to consequences for perpetrators.
Heidi Levine deserves justice, victims of settler violence deserve accountability, and the evidence warrants action.
The US Senate can begin demanding answers by reviving Senate Resolution 852 and unanimously passing this measure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Put a Real Ban on the Floor If You’re Serious': Senate Democrats Block Loophole-Laden Fake Fix to End Lawmaker Stock Trading
"This measure was a ruse, promoted by House Speaker Mike Johnson, to make it appear that congressional Republicans were tackling an ethical quagmire when, in fact, it would have accomplished very little."
Sep 30, 2026
Democrats in the Senate have blocked what they described as a loophole-laden Republican-led bill to ban members of Congress from purchasing stocks.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blasted his Democratic colleagues on Wednesday after they declined to give the votes necessary to advance the bill—known as the Stop Insider Trading Act—past the Senate filibuster.
"The Democrats who blocked it went back on their word to protect their own wallets—they should be ashamed of themselves," Cotton said.
But Democrats described the bill, which passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in July, as a sham. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the bill "does not adequately ban congressional stock trading," and described it as "meaningless messaging."
While the bill would have prohibited members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from buying stocks, it would not have required them to divest the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock they already own.
It also would have exempted President Donald Trump and other executive branch employees. During his second term in office, Trump has made around 30,000 securities trades since returning to office. Bloomberg estimated, based on public disclosures, that he'd made more than 21,000 trades worth between $600 million and $1.86 billion in 2025 alone.
The bill passed by House Republicans also attached a national photo ID requirement for voting as well as additional identification requirements for vote-by-mail, which voting rights advocates argued could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who do not possess a valid photo ID.
"This measure was a ruse, promoted by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), to make it appear that congressional Republicans were tackling an ethical quagmire when, in fact, it would have accomplished very little," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.
Democrats have argued that the watered-down Republican proposal was meant to sap momentum from stronger bills, amid broad public demand for a stock trading ban.
Holman noted that "there was serious legislation to stop congressional insider trading, but Johnson would not bring up any of the serious proposals for a floor vote."
A bipartisan bill that has stalled in the House would have required members of Congress to divest stock they currently own. Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled House Rules Committee blocked a Democratic proposal that would have made the president and vice president subject to the ban.
"Let’s be clear: I support a total ban on Congress members trading stock," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Wednesday. "But Republicans are trying to package a fraudulent version of that with a bill to disenfranchise American voters."
"This is politics at its worst," he said. "Put a real ban on the floor if you’re serious."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Has Clubbed Our Tax Code Back Into the Stone Age—Can Congress Fix It?
Lawmakers face a choice: They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals, or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
Sep 27, 2026
A tale of two couples:
Barney and Betty are both 66. Betty works as a hostess at a local restaurant. She makes $15,000 in hourly pay, plus another $25,000 in tips. Barney owns an interest in his family’s business, organized as a Subchapter S corporation, from which his annual income is $50,000. Over the holidays, Barney works long hours at a local big box store. He makes $10,000, $2,500 of which is the premium for overtime.
At tax time, Barney and Betty report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. In computing their taxable income, they take deductions of $25,000 for Betty’s tips, $12,000 in deductions for seniors, a $10,000 qualified business income deduction for Barney’s income from the family business, a $2,500 deduction for Barney’s overtime pay, and a standard deduction of $35,500, leaving them with taxable income of $15,000 and a federal income tax bill liability of $1,500.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing.
Fred and Wilma are both 64. Wilma no longer works. Fred makes $100,000 per year as an accountant with a local firm. Although he works long hours during tax season, he is not paid overtime because of his base compensation and position, which includes managerial duties. At tax time, Fred and Wilma report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. They take a standard deduction of $32,200, leaving them with taxable income of $67,800 and a federal income tax liability of $7,640.
These are, of course, concocted examples. But they show how tax policy in the US under President Donald Trump has returned to the Stone Age. There are couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Barney and Betty’s and other couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Fred and Wilma’s. Do they ever compare their respective situations? Do they question the Swiss cheese tax code we have courtesy of two Trump tax bills?
Could it get worse? Absolutely. As Brian Faler at Politico reported, members of Congress have a slew of new “no tax on” proposals ready to campaign on. No Tax on Boat Loan Interest? Yep. Taxes on Utility Bills? Absolutely, and it’s bipartisan no less! I spoke to a senior congressional staffer a few months ago who was just giddy about all the “no tax on” proposals his office hoped to include in a 2029 budget reconciliation bill.
The “no tax on” provisions currently in the tax code are set to expire after 2028. Will they be extended? Of course they will. As I commented to Politico, if you do away with no tax on tips, you can kiss the state of Nevada goodbye. And imagine how this will play in the other swing states in 2028. “No tax on auto workers” sure will sound sweet in Michigan. And if you want to carry Georgia, you damn well better sign on to “no tax on peanut farm workers.” By the time we get to the 2032 campaign, the pandering will be stripped of all pretense and we’ll be hearing “no tax on Pennsylvanians.”
How problematic is this from a tax policy perspective? Huge. The federal income tax system depends on voluntary compliance. The system must make sense to taxpayers for them to voluntarily comply. If you’re Fred or Wilma, would our tax system still make sense to you? Hardly.
How, then, do we rein this craziness in? We start by identifying the source of the problem. As gimmicky as provisions like no tax on tips are, and even though they benefit only a tiny percentage of workers, they address a need millions of Americans feel and millions more Americans understand. When people hear “tipped worker,” they don’t picture the blackjack dealer at the Venetian making $150,000 a year. They don’t even picture a worker like Betty, who together with her husband enjoys a comfortable income. They picture the struggling unmarried server at their local Denny’s slinging dishes for $35,000. And they understand well she doesn’t have enough income before federal income tax, let alone after, to pay her basic living expenses.
Now, consider struggling non-tipped workers and their reaction to no tax on tips. Do they think their tipped counterparts are getting an unfair break like the ultra rich get on their lightly-taxed investment gains? Or do they think that they should have their income tax burdens reduced as well, and that the rich should be required to pay more?
Asking those questions, of course, answers them, and shines a light on the real problem: The federal income tax is fundamentally flawed at both ends of the income spectrum. At the lower end, incomes not even sufficient to cover basic living expenses are subject to federal income tax. At the upper end, marginal rates top out at a fraction of the country’s highest income levels. Doctors making in the high six figures face the same marginal tax rate as CEOs making 50 times that much.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing. Their bill provides an exemption from federal income tax for income up to the basic cost of living, with a progressively smaller income tax reduction for those with incomes just above the basic cost of living. At the same time, the bill imposes a surtax on income in excess of $1 million, and larger surtaxes on incomes above $2 million and $5 million.
If the Working Americans Tax Cut Act becomes law, the ghastly “no tax on” provisions could be allowed to expire. The great majority of tipped workers, like that struggling server at Denny’s, won’t care, since they’d pay no federal income tax either way. A handful of taxpayers would still benefit from no tax on tips. But nobody will waste political capital on a tax break for affluent blackjack dealers.
Members of Congress face a choice. They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals. Or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
Let’s hope they make the right choice. Stone Age tax policy won’t end well for any of us.
This article was originally published on Bob Lord's Substack.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Senate Can and Should Take an Important Step Toward Ending Israeli Impunity
A vote is expected early next week on Senate Resolution 852 to hold Israel accountable for its horrific actions against US citizens killed or detained by Israel.
Sep 26, 2026
Last week, I was pleased to once again participate in a meeting with one of my US Senators, Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a consistent leader for peace, justice, and human rights in Congress, and especially for ending US support for Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing against the people of Palestine.
The subject of the meeting was his bill, with a vote expected early next week, Senate Resolution 852, to hold Israel accountable for its horrific actions against US citizens killed or detained by Israel. The goal of the resolution is very simple: within 30 days of passage, to require a State Department report on Israel’s alleged killings of nine US citizens, and more broadly, on the commission of “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights by Israel.” The resolution cites US law, section 502(B)(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
The resolution reads, in part “...since January 2022, at least nine United States citizens have been killed by violent Israeli settlers or Israeli security forces in the West Bank, including Omar Assad, Shireen Abu Akleh, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Mohammad Khdour, Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, Amer Rabee, Sayfollah Kamel Musallet, Khamis Ayyad, and Nasrallah Abu Siyam” and “...the killings of these Americans in the West Bank have been met by a lack of accountability from the Netanyahu government and an inability to secure justice by the United States Government.”
This resolution can help bring an end to US support for Israel’s atrocities, something most people in this country, especially nearly three-quarters of Democrats, support.
Asking the Department of State to produce such a report sounds like the absolute minimum we, as taxpayers, deserve from our government, and certainly the families of those killed by Israel, likely with US-provided weapons, deserve that and much more. The resolution is supported by 84% of voters, on a bipartisan basis, in a just-released poll, and has 24 Senate co-sponsors. And as the resolution states, and many supporters note, protecting US citizens abroad is constantly touted as the top priority for US foreign policy, even by the current rogue Trump regime that regularly flouts domestic and international law, with the most egregious example being the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran.
Peace advocates regularly support much stronger legislation, and will do so repeatedly, until peace, justice, and human rights are the real foundations of US foreign policy, and not just paid cynical lip service. Soon there will likely be a Joint Resolution of Disapproval (JRD) in Congress to stop the proposed shipment of 40,000 one-ton bombs to Israel. The Biden administration, as bad as it was in its support for Israel during the razing of Gaza, had put this sale on hold, but President Donald Trump is now moving it forward. But the relatively modest Van Hollen resolution would be an important step toward ending Israel’s impunity, and if we can’t get justice for American citizens killed by Israel, then Congress is completely derelict in doing its job.
Peace Action and our colleagues have already generated over 57,000 letters to the Senate in favor of Sen. Van Hollen’s resolution, and many groups are pushing to get that figure close to 100,000, if not more.
With the mess in Congress (not to mention the administration and Supreme Court), there is no guarantee this resolution will pass, or even get a vote, though it is considered privileged, so it can’t be bottled up indefinitely under Senate rules. It could get punted to the lame-duck congressional session after the midterm elections. Regardless, along with other proposed legislation such as the JRD in the pipeline, this resolution can help bring an end to US support for Israel’s atrocities, something most people in this country, especially nearly three-quarters of Democrats, support.
While I doubt hardcore supporters of Israel in this country will be swayed by much of anything, there is a growing political inevitability at play here. Regardless of what one thinks of the state of Israel, its actions, or its “right” to certain territory, US taxpayers are not going to continue to put up with endless amounts of US weaponry and military going to support genocide, apartheid, and gross human rights violations. And it’s easy to connect to the “affordability crisis” in the US and elsewhere. Young Americans who can’t afford to buy a car, let alone a house, and lack the free universal healthcare Israelis enjoy, have especially turned against Israel. The pipeline of US military support is going to be shut off eventually, and perhaps sooner than expected. Politicians of any party ignore this reality at their own peril.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says ICC Members Would Sanction Trump and Rubio If They 'Have Any Self-Respect’
In what the Democratic senator called an effort at “obstructing investigations of Netanyahu’s war crimes,” the Trump administration is planning a dramatic escalation of its sanctions against the court.
Sep 22, 2026
As the United Nations General Assembly prepared to meet, a US senator said President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio should face sanctions for their role in trying to destroy the International Criminal Court in order to protect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"If European countries and other signatories to the International Criminal Court (ICC) have any self-respect, they'd sanction Rubio and Trump for obstructing investigations of Netanyahu's war crimes," wrote Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) Monday on social media.
He was responding to a report from the Wall Street Journal detailing "a sharp escalation" in the Trump administration's efforts to, in Rubio's words, "dismantle" the ICC, which issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024. The body accused the prime minister and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war.
The ICC has also reportedly launched investigations into two other far-right ministers in Netanyahu's cabinet, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, for their roles in aggressively expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law.
The Trump administration had already aggressively sanctioned ICC officials involved in efforts to prosecute Americans or Israelis, including then-chief prosecutor Karim Khan and several judges and prosecutors. It had also sanctioned UN special rapporteur on Palestine Francesca Albanese and several Palestinian human rights organizations that had brought evidence of alleged Israeli crimes before the tribunal.
Now, The Journal reports that:
The Trump administration is preparing to impose sweeping sanctions on the [ICC]...
The sanctions would forbid most transactions with the ICC after a grace period of six to seven months... That could potentially cripple the court by prohibiting it from conducting transactions in US dollars, cutting it off from much of the global financial system.
It is unclear when a final decision and announcement might come, though some US officials said the move could be finalized as soon as this week during the United Nations General Assembly meeting or in the following days.
Several world leaders have been vocally critical of the US attack on the ICC, though they've stopped short of calling for sanctions against US officials.
Responding to Rubio's sanctions in August, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa said that the ICC's "judges and officials must be able to act independently and without external pressure."
Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen, whose nation is home to the ICC, said the Netherlands disapproves of efforts to sanction the court, adding that Dutch officials were actively working with the EU to protect the court from institution-wide US sanctions. Possible protective measures reportedly include alternative banking and payment arrangements outside the US dollar system.
There have also been calls within the European Parliament, including from Spanish socialist politician Iratxe García Pérez and others, to activate the EU's so-called "blocking statute," which would prohibit European companies from complying with the US sanctions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Poll Shows 63% of Americans Fear AI Could End Humanity as Industry 'Corruption' Called Out
"We need to pump the brakes until we have rules in place to stop this technology from doing grave harm," says Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "And that includes instituting mandatory safeguards and a comprehensive testing regime."
Sep 16, 2026
A new poll released Wednesday shows that nearly two out of three Americans believe there is "certain" to "moderate" risk that artificial intelligence could wipe out human society, a finding that backs up other surveys showing deep anxiety among the US voting public with a technology that so far has escaped government oversight or meaningful regulation.
According to Politico, which conducted the survey, "63% of Americans say AI could destroy humanity one day. And nearly half of Americans favor pausing development of more advanced AI models—48%—compared with 31% who favor continued development."
The findings, the news outlet noted, "signal an emerging tech-skeptical realignment of American politics with consequential midterm and presidential elections looming" and arrive just a day after a major symposium in Washington, DC brought together experts and lawmakers who say action must be taken before its too late.
In a separate Associated Press poll published Wednesday, US voters also expressed their concerns about the negative environmental impact of the AI industry, including the massive buildout of data centers that serve as the main infrastructure for the computing capacity needed by the major tech firms, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, SpaceX, and others.
AP reports that while Democrats are more concerned overall about the environmental impacts of AI, large segments of independents and Republicans share those sentiments.
"About two-thirds of Democrats," AP reports, "say they are 'extremely' or 'very' concerned about how AI will affect the environment, the poll found, up from about half in 2025. By contrast, about half of independents and about 4 in 10 Republicans are highly concerned about the environmental impact of AI."
Broader consensus emerged on data centers, the outlet noted, with about 60% of all voters—regardless of partisan affiliation—supporting limits on new data centers and sharing concerns about the impact such facilities will have on local water supplies and electricity prices.
The new survey data from both AP and Politico comes amid a high-profile debate in Washington, DC that has emerged over recent weeks and months as grave warnings—including from experts within the industry—tell of a technology that demands much more government control and public accountability.
At a forum on Tuesday billed as "The Pro-Human Assembly"—headlined by progressive champion Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and far-right former Trump advisor Steve Bannon—technological experts, AI industry insiders, watchdogs, and lawmakers advocated for a much more robust and critical response to the issue.
“Despite living in a so-called democracy, the public has had virtually no input into the AI revolution that is transforming the world in which they live,” Sanders said during his remarks at the event.
“Congress, under both Democratic and Republican control, has been asleep at the wheel, and we now have a president whose ignorance regarding this issue is truly embarrassing," added Sanders. "Virtually all of the decisions regarding the development of AI have been made by a handful of the richest people in the world... whose chief goal is to achieve even more wealth and more power than they already have, no matter what the impact their work has on ordinary people."
In a video posted to social media on Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) also demanded a shift in Congress, which has for too long stood idly by as the AI industry lobby plowed tens of millions of dollars into shaping the terms of debate on Capitol Hill and bankrolling political campaigns.
"The ongoing AI threat has been enabled by political corruption," Van Hollen warned in his post.
The ongoing AI threat has been enabled by political corruption.
The Trump admin isn't asleep at the wheel; their refusal to address these risks is part of an implicit deal.
We should pump the brakes on frontier AI development & confront a corrupt system that's endangering us… pic.twitter.com/B9KPOgHrdY
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) September 16, 2026
"The people building this technology are concerned about the loss of human control," Van Hollen said. "We need to pump the brakes until we have rules in place to stop this technology from doing grave harm. And that includes instituting mandatory safeguards and a comprehensive testing regime."
"This should not be a partisan issue," he continued. "The impact of AI on our collective future, on our safety, on our security, on our economy, and on our shared humanity—but be the type of risk that brings us all together."
While blasting Trump's recent comments dismissing concerns about AI dangers as "a hoax" to be ignored, Van Hollen said what can't be ignored is how the industry and its financial backers have used their outsized wealth and power to create the current situation in which AI has avoided serious oversight.
"The Silicon Valley big-wig investors and tech oligarchs that have bankrolled Donald Trump back into the White House didn't do it because they all became MAGA overnight. They did it because there was an implicit deal. In return for their support and funding his vanity projects, like his obscene ballroom, they wanted something in return: a free hand on AI policy."
Progressive political journalist David Sirota said Van Hollen's message was spot on.
"Van Hollen absolutely nails it," said Sirota. "He explicitly says AI oligarchs should be held civilly and criminally liable under existing laws, and he points out that the AI crisis is a crisis of corruption. This is the message."
Keep ReadingShow 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