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
connecticut
'I'm Heading to Danbury,' Says US Senator as ICE Arrests Parents at School Bus Stops
“ICE is not here to protect Danbury,” Sen. Chris Murphy said. “ICE is here to put Danbury into a state of terror.”
Aug 26, 2026
National, state, and local Democratic officials joined activists in Danbury, Connecticut on Wednesday to demand accountability for the dozens of immigrants—some of them reportedly in the country legally—detained in recent days by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including parents who were seized while seeing their children off to school.
“This morning in Danbury, ICE was arresting parents at school bus stops,” US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a social media post. He alleged that agents waited until children had boarded buses, potentially leaving them to return home from school without their parents.
“I’m heading to Danbury,” he said. Murphy joined other Connecticut Democrats, including Gov. Ned Lamont, US Rep. Jahana Hayes, Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz, and Danbury Mayor Roberto Alves, as well as immigrant rights advocates at Kennedy Park to condemn the Trump administration's deadly and xenophobic crackdown.
“ICE is not here to protect Danbury,” Murphy told the crowd in the Fairfield County city of 86,000 residents—around 35% of whom are foreign-born immigrants. “ICE is here to put Danbury into a state of terror.”
“Congress should not authorize a single additional dollar for ICE while this illegality continues,” the senator added.
Hayes said, “What I would hate to see is a snowball effect where a parent is detained, and then a child goes into state custody because there's no one to pick them up."
Alves said that nearly 50 community members have been detained this week that he knows of, but warned that the actual number of arrests is likely higher.
"ICE has increased enforcement and stepped up its tactics with an intentional brutality you have all seen," the mayor told the crowd in the park. "The operations coincided with the start of school here in Danbury."
“We’re here because mothers, fathers, workers, and longtime community members are being swept up, with no rhyme or reason, not as part of a targeted campaign of folks who have committed serious crimes," he continued. "We’re seeing racial profiling, random people being picked up off the streets."
“ICE is pulling people after they put their kids on the school bus," Alves said. "Operations in front of a daycare, where 3- to 5-year-olds are looking out the window asking what’s going on. An operation on the first day of school at our second-most-populated, highly diverse elementary school in Danbury as students are being dropped off by parents and school buses."
"This isn’t a coincidence; this is intentional,” he stressed, adding that he received reports of legal residents being detained.
“So when we hear folks say, ‘Oh, we want people to do it the right way,’ the folks doing it the right way are also getting deported," he added. "We can’t stand for that anymore."
Juan Fonseca Tapia, a Mexican immigrant and co-founder of the advocacy group Danbury Unites for Immigrants (DUFI), broke down while recounting what he said he saw during the blitz, including one person getting pepper-sprayed and another taken to the hospital after being struck by an ICE vehicle.
“They were taking people everywhere. They hurt them. They were bleeding," he said. "I saw the chains they put on them—not handcuffs, literal chains.”
DUFI volunteer Clementina Lunar described a father being arrested while putting his child on a school bus.
“When he handed the child to the bus helper, ICE came and took him,” she said.
Lunar added that Danbury residents are mobilizing to help each other and monitor school bus stops.
“There is fear," she said, "but there is also a lot of resilience and resistance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawsuit Seeks to Stop 'Arbitrary and Capricious' Trump Attack on New England Wind Farm
"My experience tells me the discovery phase will be fascinating as the lawyers dig into the true motivations and scheming behind this ugly fossil fuel thuggery," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
Sep 04, 2025
The attorneys general of Connecticut and Rhode Island on Thursday joined renewable energy companies in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's suspension of an offshore wind farm that, if completed, will power hundreds of thousands of homes in the two New England states.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, both Democrats, announced they are suing "to overturn the baseless stop-work order abruptly issued on August 22, 2025, which halted the construction of Revolution Wind," a project located 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast.
"Revolution Wind is fully permitted, nearly complete and months from providing enough American-made, clean, affordable energy to power 350,000 homes," Tong said in a statement. "Now, with zero justification, [US President Donald] Trump wants to mothball the project, send workers home, and saddle Connecticut families with millions of dollars in higher energy costs. This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we're suing to stop it."
Acting US Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) Director Matthew Giacona issued the order directing Rob Keiser, head of asset management at the North American branch of the Danish firm Ørsted—the world's largest offshore wind developer—to "halt all ongoing activities related to the Revolution Wind project on the outer continental shelf."
Giacona's order—which cited "concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States"—is to remain in effect pending review by BOEM, which is part of the US Interior Department.
Ratepayers could have saved $400 million last winter if the 3.5 GW of offshore wind in New England was operational.Meanwhile, Trump just halted construction on Rhode Island's Revolution Wind and is trying to ban wind energy entirely. You can thank Trump when your energy bills continue to rise.
[image or embed]
— LCV – League of Conservation Voters 🌎 (@lcv.org) September 4, 2025 at 6:31 AM
At the time of the order, Ørsted said that Revolution Wind was "80% complete, with all offshore foundations installed and 45 out of 65 wind turbines installed."
The lawsuit filed by Revolution Wind—a joint venture between Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables—seeks to lift BOEM's order. An attorney for Ørsted contended Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia that Trump's "apparent hostility toward offshore wind" was behind the stop-work order.
"The project has spent billions of dollars in reliance on these valid approvals," the Revolution Wind filing states. "The stop-work order is invalid and must be set aside because it was issued without statutory authority, in violation of agency regulations and procedures and the 5th Amendment's due process clause, and is arbitrary and capricious."
US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who previously condemned the stop-work order, said Thursday that "if Trump's plan is to raise families' energy prices, cut American jobs, turbocharge climate change, and accelerate the Great Climate Insurance Crisis, he's knocking it out of the park with his all-out attack on American offshore wind."
"Wind power is one of the fastest, safest, cheapest ways to meet rising electricity demand and cut energy prices," the senator continued. "The only winners here are the corrupt fossil fuel donors who bankrolled Trump's campaign."
In a separate social media post on Thursday addressing the new lawsuit, Whitehouse said that "my experience tells me the discovery phase will be fascinating as the lawyers dig into the true motivations and scheming behind this ugly fossil fuel thuggery."
Revolution Wind is at least the second major wind project hit with a BOEM stop-work order during the second administration of Trump, who campaigned on a "drill, baby, drill" pro-fossil fuels platform.
Trump has also antagonized Denmark by threatening to take control of Greenland, a Danish territory. Last month, Denmark's Foreign Ministry summoned Mark Stroh, Trump's charge d'affaires in the Nordic nation, following a report by the main Danish public broadcaster alleging that three Americans with ties to Trump have been attempting to instigate tensions between Denmark and Greenland.
Thursday's lawsuit follows another multistate complaint filed in May by 18 attorneys general seeking to block Trump's effort to pause offshore wind development via an executive order issued on the president's first day in office.
"This arbitrary and unnecessary directive threatens the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments, and it is delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition of states, said at the time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Senate Report Details How Private Equity 'Devastates' Hospital Systems
"Private equity comes in, squeezes the life out of hospitals and doctor's offices, and then leaves patients and communities in the lurch," says a report from Sen. Chris Murphy.
Aug 20, 2025
A US senator on Wednesday released a report that detailed how private equity firms have ruined hospitals in his home state and across the country.
The report from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) documented what happened when three Connecticut hospitals—Waterbury Hospital, Rockville General, and Manchester Memorial—were bought by Prospect Medical Holdings, a private equity-backed healthcare firm.
Interviews conducted with staff members of these hospitals told a consistent story about how Prospect cut corners in nearly every conceivable aspect and worsened the care patients received at the hospitals.
Ramona, an operating room assistant at Waterbury Hospital cited in the report, explained how Prospect went to extreme lengths to avoid spending money. She explained to Murphy that Prospect at one point stopped paying vendors, which resulted in supplies eventually growing "so scarce patients were sometimes left on the operating table while staff scrambled" to find the necessary equipment.
Staff members eventually started buying supplies themselves, with some even going so far as to buy food for their patients to ensure that they did not go hungry.
A nurse named Anne-Marie, who has worked at Manchester Memorial for over three decades, told Murphy's staff that it was only through the dedication of staff members that her hospital was able to continue functioning at all.
"You know, I'm very fortunate where I work that we still care and patients can't believe what a good job we do despite all of the obstacles and hurdles we've been given," she said. "We still show up every day and we're committed to our communities, thankfully."
Prospect didn't just skimp on buying supplies for the hospitals but also on maintaining the buildings themselves. A unit secretary at Waterbury Hospital named Carmen told Murphy's staff of two instances where the ceiling at the building literally fell down due to years of neglect.
"We were lucky enough that the patient had already been discharged and where it fell, it would have missed the stretcher and the patient," she said of the first instance. "The other time it fell in the trauma room, it was only on top of the computers... so we called maintenance, and they came and fixed it, [which means] putting a little hose where the water is and putting buckets to catch the water…it's happened a lot."
The deterioration of patient care at Waterbury became obvious by 2019, when the report noted that it "recorded the highest rates of patient readmission in the state."
Things got even worse for the hospitals when Leonard Green & Partners, the private equity firm that at the time owned Prospect, decided to sell the land where the hospitals reside to a real estate investment firm that then leased the land back at high rates. The final blow came when Leonard Green sold off its stake in Prospect, which the report says left "nothing but debt and destruction" in its wake.
"After Leonard Green's exit, Rockville Hospital was losing so much money, they cut all but emergency and outpatient mental health services without the required state authorization, leaving many patients with no full-service hospital nearby," the report stated.
Prospect itself filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, and the fate of all three hospitals is now "in the hands of a bankruptcy judge in Texas," the report added.
Murphy's report also emphasized that the story of private equity stripping hospitals for parts is not unique to his state.
"The story of these three Connecticut hospitals is playing out in healthcare systems all over the country," it said. "Private equity comes in, squeezes the life out of hospitals and doctor's offices, and then leaves patients and communities in the lurch."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senator Urges Contempt Motion Against Trump Officials Over Alleged Deportations to South Sudan
"A federal judge is wise to Trump's ploy of illegally deporting immigrants and then claiming there is nothing he can do to get them back," said the former executive director of Human Rights Watch.
May 21, 2025
Democratic U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Tuesday urged a federal judge to consider holding U.S. officials in contempt of court following the Trump administration's alleged deportation of multiple immigrants from Southeast Asia to South Sudan, possibly in violation of an order handed down by that same judge earlier this spring.
On Tuesday, lawyers for the immigrants accused the Trump administration of deporting nationals from Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in violation of a court order. In court filings, the lawyers also said they received "information" that there were likely at least 10 others also on the same plane to South Sudan.
In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts directed the Trump administration to give immigrants a chance to challenge their deportations to a third country. Murphy ruled that the Trump administration must give them 15 days' notice to raise concerns about danger they may face if deported.
"If those individuals were on a plane sent to South Sudan, it seems a violation of the court order. Judge Murphy ought to be really angry, his order has been violated, and he ought to consider a contempt of court motion, and no doubt the plaintiffs are considering it now," said Blumenthal on CNN on Tuesday evening.
"Violation of court orders ought to be treated with the utmost of sanctions, because otherwise the law is dead letter," Blumenthal continued.
Murphy hastily called a hearing on Tuesday evening and issued a ruling that the Trump administration must "maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful," according to The Associated Press.
During the hearing, Murphy warned criminal sanctions could be invoked against those involved in the deportations who were aware of his order. "Based on what I have been told," he said according to The New York Times, "this seems like it may be contempt."
In addition to not being the country of origin of the individuals feared deported, South Sudan has faced continued instability and political violence between government forces and opposition factions.
Murphy has ordered U.S. officials back to court on Wednesday so they can provide more information, such as who exactly was removed and what opportunity they were given to raise concerns about dangers they may face upon deportation, according to the AP. Officials must also give information about the whereabouts of the migrants who have apparently already been deported.
In March, the Trump administration sent Venezuelan immigrants to a megaprison in El Salvdor after invoking a little-used wartime statute. As those deportations were taking place, a federal judge ordered that any planes carrying them either not take off or turn around, but the Trump administration did not turn the planes around.
A federal judge has ordered the U.S. government to facilitate the release of a Salvadoran man who was on one of the planes to El Salvador. The man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is still in El Salvador and the Trump administration has said that it is up to El Salvador whether to release him.
Commenting on reporting of the judge's order to keep the immigrants apparently sent to South Sudan in U.S. custody, human rights advocate and former executive director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth wrote: "A federal judge is wise to Trump's ploy of illegally deporting immigrants and then claiming there is nothing he can do to get them back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Connecticut’s Baby Bond Experiment Could Help Bridge the Wealth Gap
It will take a lot to address America’s extreme wealth concentration, but one ingredient is critical: tangible financial resources.
Feb 29, 2024
Consider a tale of two babies born in the same American city, Jake and Justin. Jake, born into an economically secure white family, is primed for success. His grandparents set up a college savings plan for him. With both parents in professional careers, there’s ample income to secure him a quality education and extra-curricular activities. During college summers, Jake works at his uncle’s real estate firm, eyeing the launch of his own contracting business post-graduation.
Across town, Justin’s story unfolds in a neglected Black neighborhood. Justin’s father, hindered by a prison record, finds only sporadic low-wage construction gigs. His mother, an administrative assistant, scrimps to support Justin’s potential. Despite hurdles, Justin enters college, funding his education with loans and a campus job. Intent on securing a coveted tech internship, Justin juggles extra shifts to support his family when his mother is laid off. Struggling to balance work and studies, Justin eventually drops out of college.
The wealth gap is the ugly shadow of American prosperity, fueled by historic and ongoing wrongs.
Jake and Justin will carry the indelible mark of their beginnings throughout their lives: Jake’s life will embody security; Justin’s, the stark reality of wealth inequality.
What if, at that critical moment, Justin had resources to reduce his work hours and take that tech internship? What would his life look like?
Connecticut’s baby-bond initiative aims to find out.
America’s First Baby Bonds
Connecticut has made history as the first state to implement a baby bonds program—fully funded for 12 years of babies.
The state will invest $3,200 for each baby covered by HUSKY, the state’s Medicaid program—that’s about 15,000 babies a year and a whopping 36% of the state’s children. Kids are automatically enrolled; no action is required. Upon reaching adulthood (18-30), participants can claim funds for specific wealth-and-opportunity-building purposes like higher education, a home purchase, or starting a business in the state. To receive the funds, they have to be Connecticut residents and need to complete a financial literacy course (hopefully not one funded by self-serving Wall Street firms). The initial $3,200 investment is anticipated to grow to $11,000 - $24,000, depending on when claims are filed.
Turning the idea of baby bonds into reality was a rocky road: The Democratic-led Connecticut General Assembly passed the bill in 2021, championed by former Democratic Treasurer Shawn Wooden. However, Gov. Ned Lamont and his team initially opposed the program’s funding, citing concerns over borrowing more than $50 million annually. Internal conflict heated up, as revealed in a January 2023 investigation by the Connecticut Mirror, exposing tensions between Wooden and the governor’s staff. Yet, following the publication, the situation took an unexpected turn. The program became a reality.
The sticking point of funding was solved by a plan to use a $393 million reserve fund established in 2019 during the restructuring of the state’s cash-strapped pension fund for municipal teachers. Originally designed to cover shortfalls in pension fund contributions, this reserve could be repurposed. To safeguard the pension system and meet ratings agencies’ requirements, a $12 million insurance policy was necessary, leaving approximately $381 million available for investment in the baby bonds program.
An Economic Shadow
The wealth gap is the ugly shadow of American prosperity, fueled by historic and ongoing wrongs. Picture wealth as your financial mojo—the sum of all your assets minus debts. It won’t surprise you to hear that white men and white families are more likely to have wealth, and a hefty sight more of it, than women, households of color, or women of color.
Racial wealth gaps reflect the country’s troubled history of discriminatory policies that have barred people of color from growing wealth. The sad fact is that things have not been getting better. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances shows the racial wealth gap widening during the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2019 and 2022, median wealth increased by $51,800, yet the gap surged by $49,950. This leaves a significant $240,120 difference between median white and Black households. Meanwhile, child poverty in America started surging as pandemic benefits ended and inflation hit hard: The child poverty rate actually doubled in 2022. The official poverty rate that year was 11.5% overall, but for Black Americans it was 17.1%.
Obviously, this is not a fair playing field. Kids don’t choose their economic circumstances.
Giving children a stake in America’s future is consistent with both a liberal and a conservative economic philosophy.
Treasurer Erick Russell, who got the Connecticut Baby Bonds Trust rolling, described the program as “leveling the playing field in the sense that regardless of what family you’re born into, or where in the state you’re born into, or what resources your parents have, you have a fair shot at having economic opportunity and growth right here in Connecticut.”
Notably, Russell refers to the wealth gap as “generational” rather than “racial.”
This move acknowledges that while the wealth gap in the U.S. is substantially shaped by racial injustices like slavery, segregation, redlining, and discriminatory lending, it’s a complex issue. Women generally contend with wealth-building hurdles such as occupational segregation, caregiving responsibilities, and restricted access to family planning. Additionally, many whites, including men, encounter barriers to wealth accumulation such as geographic disparities, limited education access, and family structure.
Calling the wealth gap generational is also politically savvy: It makes long-term policy fixes more appealing, taps into family values, sparks empathy among voters concerned about their descendants’ financial future, and garners broader support for anti-inequality measures. Plus, it shifts blame away from individuals and fosters the idea of fair opportunities, a concept voters across the political spectrum can cheer for.
There are several ongoing debates about the details of Connecticut’s program: What if political opponents gain the power to axe it? What happens after the 12 years is up? Might the program further stigmatize children born into poverty? Is it big enough to make a difference?
It will take a lot to address America’s extreme wealth concentration, like fairer tax policies and rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, and education. But another ingredient is critical: tangible financial resources.
Capitalists Need Capital
One thing is clear: Giving children a stake in America’s future is consistent with both a liberal and a conservative economic philosophy. Conservatives believe in limiting government spending, and baby bonds pass the test: A program is pretty cheap compared to other forms of government spending. It’s also consistent with a notion dear to the hearts of free marketeers: Baby bonds allow more people the opportunity to benefit from the markets.
Economist Darrick Hamilton, founding director of the New School for Social Research’s Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy and a key architect of the baby bonds concept, acknowledges the devils in the details of Connecticut’s plan. But he is optimistic that state-level programs, even if imperfect and limited in scope, serve to mainstream baby bonds and help take the idea from theory to action. The ultimate goal for Hamilton is a nationwide baby bonds plan funded directly by the Treasury, akin to Social Security.
When asked about the top issue in addressing the country’s wealth gap, Hamilton responds succinctly: “Capital.”
He underscores the fact that if you lack capital in a capitalist system, you aren’t going to get very far. You can save all you want, but if you don’t have any transfers of resources from your parents or grandparents to help with things like college or the down payment on a house, it’s going to be very difficult to build wealth. “The problem with wealth-building is not how much you actively save,” says Hamilton. “It’s access to capital.” He adds that “most people with wealth generate it from owning an asset that began with some initial capital that passively appreciates over their lifetime.”
In Hamilton’s vision of a federal program, the amount allotted to each child varies based on their family’s wealth, ranging from $500 for affluent families to up to $60,000 for those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. On average, each child would receive approximately $20,000.
Inspired by Hamilton’s work and Connecticut’s plan, state-level proposals have sprouted up all around the country, including Washington, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, and North Carolina. In New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and 2025 Democratic gubernatorial candidate has suggested that baby bonds will be part of his agenda if he becomes governor. In Georgia, the Georgia Resilience and Opportunity (GRO) Fund is piloting a program with a simple slogan: “Wealth begets wealth.”
Undoubtedly, the wealth gap negatively impacts everyone, no matter how affluent you happen to be or what color you are. It shreds social cohesion and economic stability, limits upward mobility, and perpetuates cycles of injustice. It’s terrible for democracy, concentrating political power and paving the way to societal unrest and diminished well-being for all.
Connecticut’s experiment could be an important step in dissipating the country’s shameful economic shadow. And give the Justins a fighting chance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DeLauro Pours Cold Water on Child Credit Boost in Exchange for Corporate Tax Giveaway
"At a time when a majority of American voters believe tax on big corporations should be increased, there is no reason we should be providing corporations a tax cut while only giving families pennies," said the lawmaker.
Jan 30, 2024
Some economic justice groups this week are pushing for the passage of a $78 billion bipartisan tax package that includes an expansion of the child tax credit—but one lawmaker who has made the credit one of her signature issues for years said Monday that the legislation does not go far enough to support families in need, especially considering the corporate tax breaks it includes.
As U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said the bill is expected to come to the House floor this week under "suspension of the rules," an expedited maneuver requiring the approval of two-thirds of members for passage, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the bill "fails on equity" and leaves out too many struggling American families.
DeLauro released a fact sheet showing how the bill, negotiated by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "falls far short of comparing to the gains made under the American Rescue Plan (ARP)," which in 2021 helped slash childhood poverty by about 30% with its inclusion of an enhanced child tax credit (CTC).
With Republicans insisting on work and minimum income requirements for the version of the CTC included in the tax package—to "safeguard" against undocumented immigrants and "ineligible persons" benefiting from the bill, according to the House Ways and Means Committee—"families with little-to-no income are left behind from the full child tax credit, while allowing a single parent making $200,000 or a married couple making $400,000 to receive the full $2,000 credit," notes DeLauro's fact sheet.
The ARP included all but the highest earners in the enhanced CTC, which increased the maximum credit amount to $3,000-$3,600 per child depending on the child's age and issued half of the credit on a monthly basis, enabling families to use the money for everyday necessities.
Falling short of the credit amount included in the ARP, the Wyden-Smith plan would afford families a maximum of $2,100 per child and would not provide payments to families on a monthly basis.
The tax deal is estimated to lift "up to 400,000 kids" out of poverty, said DeLauro, while "93% of kids in the lowest quintile (the poorest 1/5th of children in the country) will continue to be left behind—meaning they will not receive the full credit."
Last week DeLauro called on her fellow Democrats to "fight to ensure our families aren't sold out for profits" and told The Connecticut Mirror the bill has "serious room for improvement."
While falling short on providing economic support for families paying for groceries, childcare, healthcare, and other essentials, the Wyden-Smith deal "locks in $600 billion in tax cuts for businesses," according to Smith.
The GOP aims to make those cuts permanent, making the three-year cost "four times higher than the child tax credit," DeLauro noted.
"This is not parity," said the congresswoman, adding that a research and development tax credit for corporations will be made retroactive "under the guise of incentivizing R&D."
"It is virtually impossible to incentivize action for anything retroactively," said DeLauro. "While the CTC phases-in, corporations will get their tax cuts on the first dollar. Families will not be getting any additional child tax credit retroactively to 2022, like the corporations are."
The tax deal "delivers huge tax cuts for giant corporations while denying middle-class families the economic security they had under the expanded, monthly child tax credit," said DeLauro. "It also leaves the poorest families behind because of a policy choice. At a time when a majority of American voters believe tax on big corporations should be increased, there is no reason we should be providing corporations a tax cut while only giving families pennies."
The Pew Research Center found last year that 61% of Americans feel corporations don't pay their fair share. Nearly two-thirds said tax rates on large corporations should be raised; 39% said by "a lot," while 26% said by "a little" and just 14% said they should be lowered.
Some of DeLauro's colleagues have suggested any expansion of the CTC should be passed, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) telling The Mirror he was "less than ecstatic" that the credit is not completely expanded but that he would "rather see this provision enacted than none at all."
Another Connecticut Democrat, Sen. Chris Murphy, said he would consult "the mother of the child tax credit"—DeLauro.
"I'm going to continue to work to improve this legislation before it's considered on the House floor because I believe that families and children need a strong child tax credit," DeLauro told the outlet. "I'm opposed to this bill in its current form. Corporations get everything they asked for and children got pennies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Baby Bonds’ Can Help Democratize the Stock Market, for Real
Innovative programs like these can help bust up the dangerous concentration of wealth at the top of our country’s economic ladder.
Jan 19, 2024
Nearly all stock market wealth in this country is now owned by the super rich. The wealthiest 10% hold about 93% of all household stock market wealth in this country, Axios reported recently—a record high.
The Institute for Policy Studies analyzed Fed data and found that the lion’s share of these gains went to the richest 1% alone. This elite group owns 54% of public equity markets, up from 40% in 2002.
The bottom half of the country? They own just 1%.
How do we boost the wealth ownership of the bottom half of households? One bold solution is to establish children’s savings accounts, also known as “Baby Bonds.”
There’s been a lot of chatter about the “democratization” of the public stock market. The Fed estimates that 58% of U.S. households have some money in the stock market, mostly through retirement funds like IRAs and mutual funds.
But that hype is missing a key trend: Nearly all that wealth is controlled by the wealthiest 10% of us. As Gillian Tett observed in the Financial Times, “If nothing else, these rising concentrations merit far more public debate, since they challenge America’s self-image of its political economy and financial democracy.”
How do we boost the wealth ownership of the bottom half of households? One bold solution is to establish children’s savings accounts, also known as “Baby Bonds.”
Senator Cory Booker and Representative Ayanna Pressley have introduced the American Opportunity Act, a federal baby bond bill. Under this proposal, children would be provided with a $1,000 savings account at birth, with annual contributions up to $2,000, depending on family income.
At the age of 18, the proceeds of these accounts would become available to recipients for educational expenses, purchasing a home, or making investments that provide for long-term returns. For example, those funds could be invested in mutual funds and retirement funds to increase the nest eggs for non-wealthy individuals.
A number of states, like Connecticut, and a few cities, like Washington, D.C., are already creating baby bond programs. Others have introduced legislation to create them.
Connecticut has a far-reaching program aimed at reducing the state’s racial wealth divide and boosting the wealth of all low-income households. Starting in July 2023, Connecticut began depositing $3,200 into a trust in the name of each new baby born into a household eligible for Medicaid. The program is known by the acronym HUSKY after the popular state college mascot.
Recipients will be able to redeem that capital between the ages of 18 and 30 if they remain Connecticut residents. The HUSKY bonds are projected to grow to between $10,000 and $24,000 in value, depending on when they are withdrawn. The funds will be tax-exempt to the beneficiaries and available for investments such as higher education or job training, homeownership, and small business start-ups.
Other states that have either introduced baby bond legislation or are seriously considering it include California, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
Innovative programs like these can help bust up the dangerous concentration of wealth at the top of our country’s economic ladder. In an age of unprecedented inequality in this country, it’s an idea whose time has come.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Connecticut Leads the Way Forward for Racial Economic Equality
The state’s first-in-the-nation Baby Bond program is the most significant step forward in public policy I’ve seen yet.
Jun 18, 2023
Juneteenth celebrates the end of chattel slavery in the United States. But over 150 years later, discriminatory public policies have prevented African Americans from closing the racial wealth divide in this country they helped build.
Policy created that divide—and policy can close it.
One state is showing how to move forward in advancing racial economic equality. This year, Connecticut is launching the country’s first “Baby Bond” program.
The program will significantly address the state’s racial wealth gap—even as it gives young people of every race in the state a path out of poverty.
This program will invest $3,200 for every baby born into poverty in the state. The bonds are projected to grow to between $10,000 and $24,000 in value, depending on when they’re used.
When they reach an age between 18 and 30, these Connecticut residents will be able to use that money to start a small business, get a higher education or job training, or buy a home.
That money goes to poor residents regardless of their race. But because Black and Latino residents of the state are poorer than their white counterparts, the program will significantly address the state’s racial wealth gap—even as it gives young people of every race in the state a path out of poverty.
I’ve been researching and writing about the racial wealth divide for the last 20 years. In my view, Connecticut’s Baby Bond program is the most significant step forward in public policy I’ve seen yet. It should be an example for the country.
The program builds off decades of analysis and advocacy.
In 1959, over 50% of African Americans lived in poverty—a figure that had fallen to less than 19% by 2019. That’s still more than twice the rate for non-Hispanic whites, but it’s an example of substantial economic improvement for African Americans.
How did this happen? By removing barriers to economic and social opportunities and investing in those facing poverty.
The Black freedom movement of the 1950s and 1960s pushed for important legislation like the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968. The movement also helped advance the War on Poverty and its associated programs—including SNAP, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, all of which dramatically decreased poverty for the entire country.
Today we see Connecticut taking the next big step forward.
The idea for Baby Bonds came out of the wealth-building movement popularized by Michael Sherraden’s 1992 book Assets and the Poor: New American Welfare Policy. The book’s theme was the need to shift from simply supplementing people’s income to helping them build real assets—to help poor people get beyond day-to-day survival.
Child Savings Accounts under the Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment (SEED) Initiative were one step in that direction.
By 2017, there were 54 of these programs serving 382,000 children in 32 states and Washington, D.C. At that time, the most common initial deposit for a Children’s Saving Account was $50—not enough to make a significant difference in reducing poverty or the racial wealth divide.
Connecticut’s Baby Bond program was inspired by a vision to address racial economic inequality first proposed in 2010 by economists William Darity and Darrick Hamilton.
Though the return of $10,000 to $24,000 for all babies born in poverty would not bridge the nearly $150,000 wealth divide between Blacks, Latinos, and whites, it would about double the median wealth of Black and Latino households in the state.
Hopefully this is the beginning of states nationwide creating similar wealth-building programs.
It could also build momentum for the national American Opportunity Accounts Act introduced by Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). That law would provide a Baby Bond of $1,000 for every American child—with an annual addition of up to $2,000 for the lowest income Americans.
For generations, we’ve done little to bridge the racial wealth divide or get families out of multi-generational asset poverty. Connecticut’s Baby Bond program, which launches in July, and similar proposals across the country show that we may finally be willing to take the next step.
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Years After Sandy Hook Massacre, Progressives in Congress Lead Calls for Gun Control
"It's been 10 years since Sandy Hook. Ten years and Republicans still offer no solution beyond thoughts and prayers. Our children deserve action," asserted Rep. Barbara Lee.
Dec 14, 2022
U.S. progressives marked the 10th anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre by renewing calls for gun control, with one reform advocate telling families of those slain in the nation's worst primary school shooting that "it is our national shame that we failed to take meaningful steps to protect your children."
"Instead of a moral reckoning, this country has seen an increase in mass shootings. The whole damn system is guilty as hell."
On December 14, 2012, a mentally ill 20-year-old armed with an assault-style semi-automatic rifle shot and killed his mother before murdering 20 first graders and six faculty members at the Newtown, Connecticut school before taking his own life as first responders arrived on the gruesome scene.
While gun control advocates pressed for reforms in the wake of the Sandy Hook slaughter, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, who still holds the position today, asserted that more guns in the form of armed guards at schools were part of the solution to a problem which he blamed on violent movies, video games, and music videos.
Since Sandy Hook, Democratic U.S. lawmakers have proposed dozens of gun control laws, with the vast majority failing to pass.
"Ten years ago today, 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School were shot and killed. We must never forget that horrific day," tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "It's time for Congress to pass the commonsense gun safety reforms the American people are demanding."
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) tweeted that "it's been 10 years since Sandy Hook. Ten years and Republicans still offer no solution beyond thoughts and prayers. Our children deserve action."
Former Democratic Ohio congressional candidate Nina Turner wrote on Twitter: "It's been 10 years since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary occurred and instead of a moral reckoning, this country has seen an increase in mass shootings. The whole damn system is guilty as hell."
Since Sandy Hook, there have been 189 deadly school shootings in the United States, resulting in 279 deaths, according to the K-12 School Shooting Database. The advocacy group Sandy Hook Promise says that 12 children are killed and 32 more wounded by gunfire each day in the United States.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures show that more than 250,000 people have been shot dead in the United States between 2016 and 2021. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 42,199 U.S. gun deaths in 2022 alone, including 628 mass shootings.
"Today, gun violence has become the leading cause of death for children in the U.S.," noted the Institute for Policy Studies in a Twitter thread.
IPS continued:
Even within the U.S., gun deaths are highest in the states with the fewest gun restrictions... The same NRA lobbyists who profit off pushing more guns into the populace tell us that the answer to school shootings is to militarize schools. But we've seen that adding police to schools harms students--and *still fails* to prevent shootings.
The pro-gun lobby, one of the largest in the country, ignores these facts and spreads distortions by vastly outspending all of the gun safety orgs, while Congress looks on. Nearly $3 billion(!) is being spent annually on school security across the country without proven evidence that it promotes safety. Instead, we should invest in what we *know* promotes safety: Social and emotional support for students. And commonsense regulations on guns.
"From Sandy Hook to Parkland to Uvalde to Club Q, mass shootings are heartbreaking, too common, and entirely avoidable," IPS added. "Before we see any more tragedies, Congress must listen to the people and pass bold gun control now."
President Joe Biden--who earlier this year signed minor gun safety legislation in the wake of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas--marked the Sandy Hook anniversary by declaring a day of remembrance.
"We should have societal guilt for taking too long to deal with this problem," the president said in a statement. "We have a moral obligation to pass and enforce laws that can prevent these things from happening again."
At the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, Biden was vice president under then-President Barack Obama.
Biden added Wednesday that he is "determined" to sign a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, an unlikely outcome given Republicans will control the House of Representatives beginning next month.
"Enough is enough. Our obligation is clear," the president said. "We must eliminate these weapons that have no purpose other than to kill people in large numbers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Far-Right Conspiracy Grifter Alex Jones Hit With Nearly $1 Billion in Damages for Sandy Hook Lies
"The man is a destructive, deceitful and lethal menace," the head of Media Matters for America said of Jones. "Let these damages crush him under the weight of his own lies."
Oct 12, 2022
A Connecticut jury on Wednesday ordered far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay nearly $1 billion to people including relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, who endured relentless threats and harassment as the Infowars owner repeatedly claimed the shooting was a hoax staged by "crisis actors."
"There will be more Alex Jones in this world, but what they learned here today is that they absolutely will be held accountable."
Jones and Infowars parent company, Free Speech Systems, were ordered to pay $965 million to family members of eight Sandy Hook victims and an FBI agent who responded to the scene of the December 14, 2012 Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting in which 26 people--including 20 elementary school students--were murdered.
"There will be more Alex Jones in this world, but what they learned here today is that they absolutely will be held accountable," said Erica Lafferty, mother of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, after she was awarded $76 million.
Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son Ben was killed in the shooting, told the court: "It is one thing to lose a child. It's quite another thing when people take everything about your boy who is gone, and your surviving child, and your husband, and everything you ever did in your life on the internet and harass you."
Christopher Mattei, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told reporters outside the courthouse that "the jury's verdict is a testament to that courage, in a resounding affirmation that people of goodwill, dedicated to the truth, mindful of their responsibilities to their fellow citizens can come together to protect the innocent, to reveal lies masquerading as truth, and to set right a historic wrong."
"You may say that is astronomical. It is," Mattei said of the judgment. "It's exactly what Alex Jones set himself up to do. That's what he built. He built a lie machine that could push this stuff out. You reap what you sow."
Spurred by Jones' lies, his supporters subjected the plaintiffs to menacing threats and merciless harassment, including accusing parents of faking their own children's deaths. Some of the plaintiffs described feeling unsafe in their hometown; some of the families even left Newtown.
According to the Associated Press:
Strangers showed up at their homes to record them. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, testified that people mailed rape threats to her house. Mark Barden told of how conspiracy theorists had urinated on the grave of his 7-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin.
A Texas jury in August awarded nearly $50 million to the parents of another Sandy Hook victim. Due to state limits, the actual payout will be far less.
Jones was not in the Connecticut courtroom as Wednesday's verdict was read. Instead, he live-streamed the court proceeding on an Infowars broadcast and laughed as the jury read the damages against him.
"Why not make it trillions?" he asked sardonically. "Do these people actually think they're getting any of this money?"
Jones then implored his supporters to buy his overpriced dietary supplements, asking them to go to his website and "get all the great products that are there that keep us on air."
"They want to scare us away from questioning Uvalde or Parkland," he added, referring to two other U.S. mass shootings. "We're not going away. We're not going to stop."
To that, Fred Guttenberg--whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was one of 17 people murdered during the February 14, 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida--replied: "If Alex Jones intends to now question Parkland, bring it. Alex is a scum-sucking low-life dirtbag who deserves his place in hell."
Observers said that if upheld--Jones has vowed to appeal the "kangaroo court" verdict--Wednesday's judgments could spell financial ruin for the conspiracy theorist and his Infowars empire.
"Remember, even if Alex Jones does not have $965 million in cash, the Sandy Hook families can now use this judgment to go after his property, assets, and to garnish his wages," tweeted attorney Aaron Parnas. "He may never pay the full amount, but this judgment is going to cripple him."
Some of Jones' supporters called Wednesday's judgments an attack on free speech. In the past, numerous far-right figures including former President Donald Trump--who while running for office in 2015 said Jones' "reputation is amazing"--have voiced their support for him.
"My audience," added Trump, "90% of them, they support you."
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