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
corporate profits
They Need More Tax Giveaways Why? Profits of Fortune 100 Companies Surged by $100 Billion Last Year
"All these goodies were paid for in part by denying families healthcare," said the executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. "The tradeoff couldn't be more clear or more cruel."
Aug 06, 2025
A report released on Monday by Americans for Tax Fairness found that the profits of America's biggest corporations surged by $100 billion last year and were roughly twice the total profits these companies reported in 2017.
The Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) report, which was based on data collected by Fortune, found that the 100 biggest companies in the U.S. recorded collective after-tax profits of $1.2 trillion during a time when American voters have consistently told pollsters they are having trouble paying for groceries.
Big tech companies led the way in terms of total profits last year, with Google parent company Alphabet raking in $100 billion in after-tax profits, followed by Apple with $94 billion in profits, Microsoft with $88 billion in profits, and Nvidia with $73 billion in profits. Holding company Berkshire Hathaway was the only non-tech firm to post such gaudy numbers, as its yearly profits in 2024 totaled $89 billion.
ATF noted that corporate America was raking in these big profits even before congressional Republicans passed their massive budget law that included even more tax cuts designed to benefit the country's largest companies.
David Kass, ATF's executive director, said the GOP's budget package looks even more extreme given what we now know about the financial health of corporate balance sheets.
"Most Americans know in their bones that huge corporations don't need any more tax cuts, but the newest data on the revenue and profits of the nation's biggest firms confirms that hunch," he said. "Among the giveaways to the rich and powerful in the recently enacted Trump-GOP tax scam are roughly $900 billion in loophole openers, ranging from accelerated depreciation to a more generous interest deduction. All these goodies were paid for in part by denying families healthcare, taking food from hungry kids, and boosting household utility prices. The tradeoff couldn't be more clear or more cruel."
ATF also contended that American workers have little to show for these corporate tax cuts, as "the nation's largest firms have spent $3.2 trillion on stock repurchases and $2.1 trillion on dividends" since the first GOP-passed corporate tax package came into law in 2017.
Polls have shown the GOP budget package, which was signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump last month, to be extremely unpopular with voters. An analysis conducted recently by data journalist G. Elliott Morris found that the budget law "is likely the most unpopular budget ever, is the second most unpopular piece of key legislation since the 1990s, and the most unpopular key law, period, over the same period."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Budget Plan Would Make America Sicker, Hungrier, Poorer, Dirtier, and Hotter
His spending vision depicts a country where basic government functions—like keeping water safe and providing safety nets—are destroyed and corporate polluters can do what they please in the name of profits.
Jul 22, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is using every tool at his disposal to carry out his destructive agenda. From the passage of his Big, Ugly bill in Congress to his avalanche of executive orders, he’s breaking down basic government functions to clear the way for billionaire benefits and corporate profits. His latest tactic? A spending plan that would dismantle federal programs that keep us safe from pollution, support farmers and families, respond to disasters, and more.
At the end of May, Trump released a proposal for agency spending to guide congressional committees as they craft the next annual spending bill. Not to be confused with the recently passed Big, Ugly Bill, the upcoming spending legislation will fund the basic workings of the federal government for the fiscal year ahead (in this case, October 2025 to September 2026).
Trump’s spending proposal (called his discretionary budget request) makes his vision for the country crystal clear: Unsafe food, dirty water, and worse health for the many. Industrial polluters spewing toxic chemicals, and a destroyed ability to respond to the climate crisis that endangers all of us. Millions of farmers, families, and workers struggling to get by, while corporations amass yet more profits.
In the wake of Trump’s Big, Ugly Bill, his latest spending proposal is the opening salvo of another battle. Congress is now working to enact this vision, using this Trump proposal as a framework for its annual spending legislation. Here’s what’s at stake and how we’ll fight back.
Trump Promises Dirtier, Privatized Water
Not long ago, the United States’ rivers were so choked with pollution, they caught fire. Federal laws, like the Clean Water Act, changed that. Now, vast swaths of the country can depend on their taps for clean water.
Trump would drag us closer to those dark days by slashing programs that prevent pollution. His cuts would be a boon to corporate polluters who would rather preserve their profits than clean up their act.
Trump’s proposal has made his policy intentions clear—dirty water for all.
At the same time, he’s going after funding for infrastructure improvements we need to make our water safe and affordable. Federal government funding is crucial for water infrastructure for states, Tribes, and municipalities. However, this funding has plummeted in recent decades, and Trump wants to cut them even more drastically.
Trump’s deep cuts to water funding also serves as a ploy to encourage water systems to sell off their water systems to private corporations. And we already know that private water systems lead to less local control of water, higher water bills, and worse customer service.
Specifically, his spending plan called for:
Slashing Research and Regulation of Toxic Pollution
His plan calls for a 54% cut from the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is key for researching and regulating toxic chemicals that poison our water. Without a strong EPA, we can’t address threats to our water like PFAS “forever chemicals” and microplastics.
Virtually Eliminating Funding for Drinking Water
Trump’s plan calls for a nearly 90% cut to the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds, the main channels for federal dollars to states and localities for safe and clean water (that’s a cut of more than $2 billion).
Trump wants to completely eliminate these funds going forward, encouraging states to find “alternative funding sources” that could lead to private equity takeovers of local water supplies.
Dirtier Beaches and Dirtier Water
Trump’s plan calls for a complete elimination of many programs that provide clean water grants. That includes all EPA grants for beach protection, pollution control and prevention, clean and safe water technical assistance, and more.
Leaving Tribes and Rural Communities High and Dry
His plan would make huge cuts to water and wastewater grants specifically for Tribes and rural communities.
House Republicans lawmakers recently released their proposal for cuts to EPA and drinking safe and clean water programs, and while they aren’t as deep as Trump demanded, it would still be disastrous for our communities. And Trump’s proposal has made his policy intentions clear—dirty water for all.
Trump Takes Away Key Support for Farmers and Families
Trump’s spending plan also attacks programs that feed millions of families, support farmers and ranchers, and make our food more safe and sustainable. At the same time, Trump’s plan includes major giveaways to Big Ag. For one, he wants to completely eliminate funding for the EPA’s pesticides program and enforcement. The House Republican spending proposal would take a step in that direction by including Cancer Gag Act language to block EPA from improving rules for warning labels on pesticides.
Despite Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s rhetoric, his boss is working to make our food supply more dangerous for farmers, farm workers, and anyone who eats, helping pesticide companies to further profit from their toxic products.
Additionally, Trump would gut enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Without enforcement, meat corporations will get away with more dirty tactics in the market, putting livable incomes even further out of reach for farmers and ranchers.
Trump wants to:
Condemn People to Hunger
His spending plan slashes $748 million from the Agriculture Department’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (on top of what the Big Ugly bill already slashed).
These cuts threaten the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps more than 40 million people put food on the table. The cuts may also impact WIC, the SNAP program targeted to Women, Infants, and Children, and school lunch programs.
Roll Back Sustainable Agriculture
Trump’s plan reduces funding for the Nation Resources Conservation Service by almost 90%, from $916 million to $112 million. This threatens programs that support urban agriculture, conservation, and educational opportunities for farmers.
Undermine Conservation and Disaster Recovery
His spending plan slashes Farm Service Agency funding by $372 million, cutting loans and assistance to farmers for conservation and disaster recovery.
Completely Eliminate Good Food Programs
His plan zeros out key programs like the Source Water Protection Program, Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion that support farmers and a more resilient and sustainable food system.
Trump Wants Big Oil to Wreak Havoc on Our Planet
Our reliance on fossil fuels is making us sicker and poorer. From toxic pollution, to volatile energy prices, to the climate crisis, the harms are vast and growing. Trump’s budget would add fuel to the fire by clawing back funding for clean, renewable energy and ramping up support for Big Oil and Gas.
This will put more profits in the pockets of fossil fuel tycoons, while fossil-fueled climate change makes our power bills even more expensive. At the same time, Trump’s proposal would completely eliminate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps about 6 million people keep the lights on.
As if that weren’t bad enough, Trump would kneecap federal programs that predict and respond to life-threatening climate disasters, even as those disasters grow in frequency and intensity. In the wake of horrific flash flooding in central Texas, these cuts will kill people.
Specifically, Trump’s spending plan:
Promotes Dirty Fossil Fuels
His spending plan allocates $2 billion to a new “Fossil Energy Programming” line item and increases spending for fossil fuel research and development.
Slashes Solar, Wind, and Energy Efficiency
His plan cuts funding by at least $6.2 billion. That includes the elimination of USDA funding ($500 million) for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs for farmers. Trump also calls for eliminating the Department of Interior’s onshore renewable energy and offshore wind programs.
Halts Vital Climate Change Research
The plan calls for the total elimination of the research arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, closing all its weather and climate labs and slashes NASA climate monitoring.
Attacks Disaster Recovery
Trump’s plan eliminates a third of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) budget. Trump released his new proposal just days before he announced plans to start “phasing out” FEMA entirely.
Already alarms are being rung that the elimination of critical services due to mass layoffs and cuts at the National Weather Services and FEMA have hampered emergency preparations and response to the devastating floods in Texas.
Join Us in Stopping Trump’s Vision from Becoming Reality
Trump’s spending vision shows his hand in stark numbers. It depicts a country where basic government functions—like keeping water safe and providing safety nets—are destroyed and corporate polluters can do what they please in the name of profits.
If Congress follows his direction, we face a sicker, hungrier, poorer nation. More family farms will have to shutter. More pollution will flood our waterways. Lives and our livable future is at stake.
Congress controls the purse strings, and right now Congress members are writing this spending bill. We need to remind them that they answer to us—not Trump.
But we know that with concerted, strategic efforts, we can overcome much of Trump’s agenda. Already, we’ve defeated several terrible provisions moving through Congress. With dedicated supporters like you, we’ve stopped Republican efforts to roll back a key water safety rule and successfully defended school lunch programs from direct cuts and public lands from privatization.
In the end, Congress controls the purse strings, and right now Congress members are writing this spending bill. We need to remind them that they answer to us—not Trump. That’s why, over the next couple months, Food & Water Watch will relentlessly fight these cuts. Since inauguration day, Food & Water Watch staff, members and supporters have rallied dozens of times, sent tens of thousands of calls and emails, met with lawmakers and staffers, and made our voices heard in social media and news outlets.
This is the kind of energy and action we need to push our leaders in Congress to do the right thing. They must stand up against Trump and stand up for us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
3 Ways Rising Inequality Has Weakened US Democracy
The class-based inequalities exacerbated by the Trump bill are not new. Rather, they are part of a 50-year trend linked to social cleavages, political corruption, and a declining belief in the common good.
Jul 14, 2025
America has never been richer. But the gains are so lopsided that the top 10% controls 69% of all wealth in the country, while the bottom half controls just 3%. Meanwhile, surging corporate profits have mostly benefited investors, not the broader public.
This divide is expected to widen after President Donald Trump’s sweeping new spending bill drastically cuts Medicaid and food aid, programs that stabilize the economy and subsidize low-wage employers.
Moreover, the tax cuts at the heart of the bill will deliver tens of billions of dollars in benefits to the wealthiest households while disproportionately burdening low-income households, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. By 2033, the bottom 20% will pay more in taxes while the top 0.1% receive $43 billion in cuts.
I am a sociologist who studies economic inequality, and my research demonstrates that the class-based inequalities exacerbated by the Trump bill are not new. Rather, they are part of a 50-year trend linked to social cleavages, political corruption, and a declining belief in the common good.
The Roots of Class-Based Inequality
The decades following World War II were broadly prosperous, but conditions began changing in the 1970s. Class inequality has increased enormously since then, according to government data, while income inequality has risen for five decades at the expense of workers.
Economists usually gauge a country’s economic health by looking at its gross domestic product as measured through total spending on everything from groceries to patents.
But another way to view GDP is by looking at whether the money goes to workers or business owners. This second method—the income approach—offers a clearer picture of who really benefits from economic growth.
The money that goes to labor’s share of GDP, or workers, is represented by employee compensation, including wages, salaries, and benefits. The money left over for businesses after paying for work and materials is called gross operating surplus, or business surplus.
The share of GDP going to workers rose 12% from 1947 to 1970, then fell 14% between 1970 and 2023. The opposite happened with the business surplus, falling 18% in the early postwar decades before jumping 34% from 1970 to today.
Meanwhile, corporate profits have outpaced economic growth by 193% since 1970. Within profits, shareholder dividends as a share of GDP grew 274%.
As of 2023, labor had lost all of the economic gains made since 1947. Had workers kept their 1970 share of GDP, they would have earned $1.7 trillion more in 2023 alone. And no legislation or federal action since 1970 has reversed this half-century trend.
When more of the economy goes to businesses instead of workers, that poses serious social problems. My research focuses on three that threaten democracy.
1. Fraying Social Bonds and Livelihoods
Not just an issue of income and assets, growing class inequality represents the fraying of American society.
For instance, inequality and the resulting hardship are linked to worse health outcomes. Americans die younger than their peers in other rich countries, and U.S. life expectancy has decreased, especially among the poor.
Moreover, economic struggles contribute to mental health issues, deaths of despair, and profound problems such as addiction, including tobacco, alcohol, and opioid abuse.
Inequality can disrupt families. Kids who experience the stresses of poverty can develop neurological and emotional problems, putting them at risk for drug use as adults. On the other hand, when minimum wages increase and people begin saving wealth, divorce risk falls.
Research shows inequality has many other negative consequences, from reduced social mobility to lower social trust and even higher homicide rates.
Together, these broad social consequences are linked to misery, political discontent, and normlessness.
2. Increasing Corruption in Politics
Inequality is rising in the U.S. largely because business elites are exercising more influence over policy outcomes, research shows. My related work on privatization explains how 50 years of outsourcing public functions—through contracting, disinvestment, and job cuts—threatens democratic accountability.
Research across different countries has repeatedly found that higher income inequality increases political corruption. It does so by undermining trust in government and institutions, and enabling elites to dominate policymaking while weakening public oversight.
Yet democratic decline and inequality are not inevitable.
Since 2010, weakened campaign finance laws driven by monied interests have sharply increased corruption risks. The Supreme Court ruled then in Citizens United to lift campaign finance restrictions, enabling unlimited political spending. It reached an apex in 2024, when Elon Musk spent $200 million to elect Trump before later installing his Starlink equipment onto Federal Aviation Administration systems in a reported takeover of a $2.4 billion contract with Verizon.
Research shows that a large majority of Americans believe that the economy is rigged, suggesting everyday people sense the link between inequality and corruption.
3. Undermining Belief in the Common Good
National aspirations have emphasized the common good since America’s founding. The Declaration of Independence lists the king’s first offense as undermining the “public good” by subverting the rule of law. The Constitution’s preamble commits the government to promoting the general welfare and shared well-being.
But higher inequality historically means the common good goes overlooked, according to research. Meanwhile, work has become more precarious, less unionized, more segmented, and less geographically stable. Artificial intelligence may worsen these trends.
This tends to coincide with a drop in voting and other forms of civic engagement.
The government has fewer mechanisms for protecting community when rising inequality is paired with lower taxes for the wealthy and reduced public resources. My research finds that public sector unions especially bolster civic engagement in this environment.
Given increasing workplace and social isolation, America’s loneliness epidemic is unsurprising, especially for low earners.
All of these factors and their contribution to alienation can foster authoritarian beliefs and individualism. When people become cold and distrustful of one another, the notion of the common good collapses.
Inequality as a Policy Outcome
News coverage of the Trump bill and policy debate have largely centered on immediate gains and losses. But zoomed out, a clearer picture emerges of the long-term dismantling of foundations that once supported broad economic security. That, in turn, has enabled democratic decline.
As labor’s share of the economy declined, so too did the institutional trust and shared social values that underpin democratic life. Among the many consequences are the political discontent and disillusionment shaping our current moment.
Republicans hold both chambers of Congress through 2026, making significant policy changes unlikely in the short term. Democrats opposed the bill but are out of power. And their coalition is divided between a centrist establishment and an insurgent progressive wing with diverging priorities in addressing inequality.
Yet democratic decline and inequality are not inevitable. If restoring broad prosperity and social stability are the goals, they may require revisiting the New Deal-style policies that produced labor’s peak economic share of 59% of GDP in 1970.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Francesca Albanese Names and Shames Israel's Corporate Genocide Partners
As bank accounts swell, more Palestinian bodies are piled up in morgues, mass graves, or are scattered in the streets of Jabaliya and Khan Younis.
Jul 13, 2025
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in occupied Palestine, stands as a testament to the notion of speaking truth to power. This "power" is not solely embodied by Israel or even the United States, but by an international community whose collective relevance has tragically failed to stem the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Her latest report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council on July 3, marks a seismic intervention. It unflinchingly names and implicates companies that have not only allowed Israel to sustain its war and genocide against Palestinians, but also confronts those who have remained silent in the face of this unfolding horror.
Albanese's "Economy of Genocide" is far more than an academic exercise or a mere moral statement in a world whose collective conscience is being brutally tested in Gaza. The report is significant for multiple, interlocking reasons. Crucially, it offers practical pathways to accountability that transcend mere diplomatic and legal rhetoric. It also presents a novel approach to international law, positioning it not as a delicate political balancing act, but as a potent tool to confront complicity in war crimes and expose the profound failures of existing international mechanisms in Gaza.
Two vital contexts are important to understanding the significance of this report, considered a searing indictment of direct corporate involvement, not only in the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza, but Israel's overall settler-colonial project.
This madness needs to stop, and, since the U.N. is incapable of stopping it, then individual governments, civil society organizations, and ordinary people must do the job.
First, in February 2020, following years of delay, the U.N. Human Rights Council released a database that listed 112 companies involved in business activities within illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. The database exposes several corporate giants—including Airbnb, Booking.com, Motorola Solutions, JCB, and Expedia—for helping Israel maintain its military occupation and apartheid.
This event was particularly earth-shattering, considering the U.N.'s consistent failure at reining in Israel, or holding accountable those who sustain its war crimes in Palestine. The database was an important step that allowed civil societies to mobilize around a specific set of priorities, thus pressuring corporations and individual governments to take morally guided positions. The effectiveness of that strategy was clearly detected through the exaggerated and angry reactions of the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. said it was an attempt by "the discredited" council "to fuel economic retaliation," while Israel called it a "shameful capitulation" to pressure.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza, starting on October 7, 2023, however, served as a stark reminder of the utter failure of all existing U.N. mechanisms to achieve even the most modest expectations of feeding a starving population during a time of genocide. Tellingly, this was the same conclusion offered by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who, in September 2024, stated that the world had "failed the people of Gaza."
This failure continued for many more months and was highlighted in the U.N.'s inability to even manage the aid distribution in the strip, entrusting the job to the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a mercenary-run violent apparatus that has killed and wounded thousands of Palestinians. Albanese herself, of course, had already reached a similar conclusion when, in November 2023, she confronted the international community for "epically failing" to stop the war and to end the "senseless slaughtering of innocent civilians."
Albanese's new report goes a step further, this time appealing to the whole of humanity to take a moral stance and to confront those who made the genocide possible. "Commercial endeavors enabling and profiting from the obliteration of innocent people's lives must cease," the report declares, pointedly demanding that "corporate entities must refuse to be complicit in human rights violations and international crimes or be held to account."
According to the report, categories of complicity in the genocide are divided into arms manufacturers, tech firms, building and construction companies, extractive and service industries, banks, pension funds, insurers, universities, and charities.
These include Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir, IBM, and even Danish shipping giant Maersk, among nearly 1,000 other firms. It was their collective technological know-how, machinery, and data collection that allowed Israel to kill, to date, over 57,000 and wound over 134,000 in Gaza, let alone maintain the apartheid regime in the West Bank.
What Albanese's report tries to do is not merely name and shame Israel's genocide partners but to tell us, as civil society, that we now have a comprehensive frame of reference that would allow us to make responsible decisions, put pressure on, and hold accountable these corporate giants.
"The ongoing genocide has been a profitable venture," Albanese writes, citing Israel's massive surge in military spending, estimated at 65% from 2023 to 2024—reaching $46.5 billion.
Israel's seemingly infinite military budget is a strange loop of money, originally provided by the U.S. government, then recycled back through U.S. corporations, thus spreading the wealth between governments, politicians, corporations, and numerous contractors. As bank accounts swell, more Palestinian bodies are piled up in morgues, mass graves, or are scattered in the streets of Jabaliya and Khan Younis.
This madness needs to stop, and, since the U.N. is incapable of stopping it, then individual governments, civil society organizations, and ordinary people must do the job, because the lives of Palestinians should be of far greater value than corporate profits and greed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Medicare Advantage Is Hurting Workers
How Medicare Advantage is hurting workers
Jul 03, 2025
In 2017, Gary Bent was notified that his healthcare benefits were changing. Mr. Bent, a retired professor who taught at the University of Connecticut, received his Medicare coverage through his former employer. Prior to 2017, Gary was covered by traditional Medicare and a supplemental MediGap policy (which covers the 20% of medical costs not paid by traditional Medicare). However, in 2017 the state of Connecticut and Bent’s union renegotiated healthcare benefits for retired employees and entered into a Medicare Advantage contract.
Medicare Advantage is a for-profit, privately administered healthcare plan which covers people over the age of 65, or who have qualifying disabilities. Unlike traditional Medicare—the widely popular, government-run healthcare program that has covered America’s seniors for nearly 60 years—Medicare Advantage is rife with complaints of delays and denials of care, restricted provider networks, and the usual shortcomings of a for-profit healthcare system.
Years later, in June of 2022, Gary Bent had a recurrence of melanoma in the form of a bleeding lesion in his brain. Following a brain surgery, his neurosurgeon recommended he stay at a specialty hospital that could provide intensive care during his recovery. Despite being accepted as a patient, his Medicare Advantage plan said he had to go to a different facility, which his daughter, Megan Bent, described as “substandard.”
While he was in the rehab facility, Gary’s Medicare Advantage provider attempted to discharge him three times; Megan and her mother, Gloria Bent, filed appeals each time, and were twice successful. However, after losing the third appeal, Gary was discharged from the facility. Once he got home, he had a fever and was experiencing neck pain; he had been discharged from the facility while infected with bacterial meningitis.
After being readmitted for another three weeks, he was again discharged from the hospital and remained at home under the care of Megan and Gloria until he passed away shortly after. Following Gary’s death, Megan and her mother learned that Gary’s care was denied by an artificial intelligence program used by his Medicare Advantage provider.
The Bent family’s story is one shared by many families throughout the country, and despite increased criticism of Medicare Advantage in recent years, a growing number of unions have agreed to—or been forced into—moving their retired members out of traditional Medicare with supplemental MediGap coverage and on to these privatized plans.
To address this issue, the Labor Campaign for Single Payer recently hosted a webinar titled “Medicare Advantage and the Privatization of Healthcare: What Unions and Workers Need to Know,” which featured remarks from AFA-CWA president Sara Nelson, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). The webinar also included informative and important presentations from Rose Roach, national coordinator for the Labor Campaign for Single Payer and Dr. Belinda McIntosh, board member for Physicians for a National Health Program, as well as testimony from Megan Bent and another Connecticut retiree, James Russell, both of whom are activists with the health justice advocacy organization Be A Hero.
Rose Roach opened her presentation by stating that the organization “never want(ed) to shame a union or their workers.” In truth, negotiators at the bargaining table are in a difficult position when it comes to negotiating retiree health benefits. While traditional Medicare rarely subjects patients to prior authorizations and allows them to see virtually any provider in the country, the program alone only covers 80% of healthcare costs. Therefore, unions must negotiate the purchase of a supplemental (MediGap) policy in order to cover the other 20%, with the combined premiums costing hundreds of dollars a month.
Medicare Advantage plans, on the other hand, often have low- or zero-dollar premiums and include coverage for dental, vision, hearing, and prescriptions (though the value of these additional benefits is often much less than beneficiaries were led to believe). However, patients in Medicare Advantage regularly experience claim denials and are often restricted to seeing a narrow set of in-network providers to get care. Insurance companies seek to maximize their profits by minimizing the amount of care their beneficiaries receive. The long-term costs of having to pay out of pocket for expensive treatments that are often not covered under Medicare Advantage plans can leave retirees and their families under mountains of medical debt.
Union negotiators may embrace Medicare Advantage because they are not fully aware of the long-term costs to their retirees, and because it looks like an opportunity to save money on retiree healthcare, which increases their leverage to bargain for better wages and benefits for in-service workers.
Despite increased public attention to the shortcomings of Medicare Advantage plans, many negotiators do not have the full picture of what it means to enter into a Medicare Advantage contract, and so the Labor Campaign for Single Payer developed a White Paper that highlights many of the important differences between the two options and includes a list of questions for negotiators to ask at the bargaining table, which they hope will result in more informed negotiations and fewer retired union workers ending up on Medicare Advantage.
In her remarks, Sen. Warren asserted that the name “Medicare Advantage” is misleading, arguing that the program “isn’t part of Medicare at all, and certainly not an advantage.”
Congresswoman Jayapal, the lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the U.S. House, urged the attendees to make this issue a top priority in the coming years, saying “we can’t end up with Medicare Advantage for All, we need Medicare for All, and we need your organizing, your mobilizing, and your collective power to fight back against the giant insurance companies that are trying to buy up and destroy the vital public program.”
Indeed, insurance companies like UnitedHealthcare are doing everything they can to increase funding for Medicare Advantage and get as many people on to their plans as possible, often through deceptive marketing tactics and aggressive lobbying campaigns. This is because Medicare Advantage is the leading driver of corporate profits in healthcare.
In 2024, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and independent government commission tasked with advising Congress on Medicare policy, estimated overpayments to Medicare Advantage providers to be roughly $80 billion dollars every year, while Physicians for a National Health Program released a similar report that estimated overpayments could be closer to $140 billion dollars annually. Roach’s presentation analyzed the various ways in which Medicare Advantage providers receive more money than was intended, which include upcoding, favorable selection and deselection, and quality and county bonuses. Of greatest concern to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle is ‘upcoding,’ a term referring to the insurance industry’s fraudulent practice of applying diagnostic codes to a patient’s chart in order to charge the federal government more money.
Insurance companies like UnitedHealthcare are doing everything they can to increase funding for Medicare Advantage and get as many people on to their plans as possible...
Much has been written about upcoding in recent years, including a bombshell report from the New York Times in 2022. Despite this extensive level of news coverage, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was seemingly caught off guard by a line of questioning from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who asked Sec. Kennedy whether he was aware of any ongoing investigations, led by the Department of Justice, into this nefarious corporate practice. Kennedy, befuddled, asked the Congresswoman what she was referring to when she claimed there were “80 million dollars” of overpayments in Medicare Advantage, to which Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez had to clarify she said “80 billion dollars a year…billion, with a ‘b.’”
A centerpiece of the insurance industry’s public relations campaign to pressure the federal government to increase funding for Medicare Advantage is the claim that the program is solving the health equity gap among eligible Medicare beneficiaries. Studies funded by AHIP, the insurance industry’s biggest lobbyist, claim that Medicare Advantage is providing better care at lower cost to beneficiaries. Dr. Belinda McIntosh repudiated the industry’s claim with a detailed presentation highlighting disparate health outcomes among various racial groups, concluding that beneficiaries who are black, hispanic, or members of “the usual disenfranchised groups are being left with no choice but to accept an inferior product with major problems, that wealthier and more privileged Americans are less likely to accept.” Indeed, as Dr. McIntosh stated, Black and Hispanic beneficiaries were denied care at rates of 20% and 23% respectively by their Medicare Advantage plans, as compared to 15% of claims being denied for White beneficiaries.
While the world of health policy is often laden with statistics and figures, everyone has a story about the shortcomings of the American healthcare system. Stories like that of the Bent family ring true to millions of others, including James Russell, a retired academic who, like Gary, used to work for the state of Connecticut and is on a Medicare Advantage plan. During the webinar, Russell told his story of being diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer and having to seek treatment from a number of different providers in different corners of the country. Megan, Gloria, and James shared their stories and discussed their collaborative work to fight for a better healthcare system as part of their work with Be A Hero.
While the world of health policy is often laden with statistics and figures, everyone has a story about the shortcomings of the American healthcare system.
The Labor Campaign for Single Payer is demanding that the federal government “level the playing field” between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. While the former is constantly under financial strain, the latter benefits from unchecked corporate handouts to insurers, who then increase their profits at the expense of patients by delaying and denying care. Just as is the case when a union negotiator is in a difficult position in picking between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, so too are individual beneficiaries, who must either pay hundreds of dollars a month in premiums for traditional Medicare and a supplemental policy, or instead sign over their Medicare benefits to an insurance corporation that does not care about them. In order to “level the playing field” between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, activists and lawmakers seek to expand traditional Medicare to cover vision, dental and hearing, as well as to set an out-of-pocket-cap on healthcare spending by beneficiaries, which could reduce the necessity of a MediGap policy and thereby reduce the monthly premiums of traditional Medicare.
The Labor Campaign for Single Payer encouraged attendees of the webinar to go to their unions and pass a resolution stating support to level the playing field, which has passed at conventions of the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO, the Minnesota AFL-CIO and the Maine AFL-CIO. Additionally, organizers of the webinar encouraged attendees to review and utilize their White Paper to discuss Medicare and Medicare Advantage with their fellow workers and union’s leadership and plan a bargaining strategy that pushes back on the claim that Medicare Advantage is a “win-win” solution to the problem of the high cost of retiree healthcare.
The White Paper, the resolution and the recording of the June 18 Webinar are available on the Labor Campaign for Single Payer’s Resources page, along with a variety of other educational resources on Medicare Advantage and the fight to guarantee healthcare to all workers and people.Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Built the Platform Economy, But They’re Not Seeing Its Rewards
By classifying workers as contractors, platform companies avoid paying core employment obligations while retaining tight control over how the work is done.
May 29, 2025
Alejandro G. thought that driving full-time for Uber in Houston offered freedom—flexible hours, quick cash, and time to care for his young son. But that promise faded fast.
“There are hours when I make $20,” he told me. “And there are hours when I make $2.” As his pay dropped, he pawned his computer and camera, began rationing the insulin he takes to manage his diabetes—putting his health at risk—and started driving seven days a week, often late into the night, just to break even.
Alejandro, whose real name is withheld for his privacy, is one of millions of workers powering a billion-dollar labor model built on legal loopholes. Companies like Uber insist they are tech platforms, not employers, and that their workers are independent contractors. This sleight of hand allows them to sidestep minimum wage laws, paid sick leave, and other workplace protections, while shifting the financial risks and responsibilities of employment onto the workers. It also lets them avoid employer taxes, draining funds from public coffers.
If gig workers were properly classified, public companies would have to disclose pay data, showing just how far below the median these workers earn, and how high executive compensation soars above them.
A new Human Rights Watch report looks at seven major platform companies operating in the U.S.—Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Favor, Instacart, Lyft, Shipt, and Uber—and finds that their labor model violates international human rights standards. These companies promise flexibility and opportunity, but the reality for many workers is far more precarious. In a survey of 127 platform workers in Texas, we found that after subtracting expenses and benefits, the median hourly pay was just $5.12, including tips. This is nearly 30% below the federal minimum wage, and about 70% below a living wage in Texas.
Seventy-five percent of workers we surveyed said they had struggled to pay for housing in the past year. Thirty-five percent said they couldn’t cover a $400 emergency expense. Over a third had been in a work-related car accident. Many said they sold possessions, relied on food stamps, or borrowed from family and friends to get by. Their labor keeps the system running—but the system isn’t built to work for them.
By classifying workers as contractors, platform companies avoid paying core employment obligations while retaining tight control over how the work is done. The platforms often use algorithms and automated systems to assign jobs, set pay rates, monitor performance, and deactivate workers without warning. In our survey, 65 workers said they feared being cut off from a platform, and 40 had already experienced it. Nearly half were later cleared of wrongdoing.
Companies use incentives that feel like rewards but function more like traps. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash dangle “quests,” “challenges,” and “surges” to push workers to stay on a shift for longer or hit quotas. These schemes lure workers into chasing bonuses that rarely reflect the true cost of the work. One Uber driver in Houston said, “They are like puppet masters. They psychologically manipulate you.”
Access to higher-paying gigs is also conditioned on behavior. Platforms use customer ratings and performance scores to shape who gets the best jobs. One Shipt worker in Michigan said her pay plummeted immediately after she received two four-star reviews, down from her usual five. Ratings are hard to challenge, and recovering from a low score can take weeks. Workers feel forced to accept every job and appease every customer, reinforcing a system that rewards compliance over fairness.
These aren’t the conditions of self-employment. They’re the conditions of control.
This labor model also drains public resources. In Texas alone, Human Rights Watch estimates that misclassification of platform workers in ride share, food delivery, and in-home services cost the state over $111 million in unemployment insurance contributions between 2020 and 2022. These are public funds that could have strengthened social protection or public services. Instead, they’re absorbed into corporate profits—a quiet transfer of public wealth into private hands.
In 2024, Uber reported $43.9 billion in revenue and nearly $10 billion in net income, calling the fourth quarter its “strongest ever.” DoorDash pulled in $10.72 billion, up 24% from the previous year. Combined, their market valuation exceeds $250 billion.
But workers are pushing back, and policymakers are starting to listen. From June 2 to 13, the 113th session of the International Labour Conference—the United Nations-backed forum where global labor standards are negotiated—will convene to debate a binding treaty on decent work in the platform economy. The message is clear: Workers are demanding rules that protect their rights.
The U.S. can start by updating employment classification standards and adopting clear criteria to determine whether a platform worker is truly independent. We also need greater transparency. If gig workers were properly classified, public companies would have to disclose pay data, showing just how far below the median these workers earn, and how high executive compensation soars above them.
This isn’t about rejecting technology. It’s about making sure new forms of work don’t replicate old forms of exploitation or create new ones, by hiding them behind an app.
Alejandro doesn’t need an algorithm to tell him when to work harder. He has a right to a wage he can live on, protections he can count on, and a system that doesn’t punish him for getting sick, injured, or speaking up.
He and millions like him built the platform economy. It’s time they shared more than the burden.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Plan for Workers: Make America a Sweatshop Again
The proof of the Republican Party's big lie to the working people of this country is written all over their actions: Reconfiguring the Labor Department into an anti-worker weapon designed to crush any further unionization in America.
May 05, 2025
Trump and his billionaire toadies like Howard Lutnik and Scott Bessent are peddling a dangerous lie to working-class Americans. They’re strutting around claiming their tariffs will bring back “good paying jobs” with “great benefits,” while actively undermining the very thing that made manufacturing jobs valuable to working people in the first place: unions.
Let’s be crystal clear about what’s really happening: Without strong unions, bringing manufacturing back to America will simply create more sweatshop opportunities where desperate workers earn between $7.25 and $15 an hour with zero benefits and zero security.
The only reason manufacturing jobs like my father had at a tool-and-die shop in the 1960s paid well enough to catapult a single-wage-earner family into the middle class was because they had a union — the Machinists’ Union, in my dad’s case — fighting relentlessly for their rights and dignity.
My father’s union job meant we owned a modest home, had reliable healthcare, and could attend college without crushing debt. The manufacturing jobs Trump promises? Starvation wages without healthcare while corporate profits soar and executives buy their third megayacht.
The proof of their deception is written all over their actions: They’re already reconfiguring the Labor Department into an anti-worker weapon designed to crush any further unionization in America.
Don’t be fooled for one second: the GOP’s plan to resurrect American manufacturing while continuing their war on unions is nothing but a cynical ploy to create an army of desperate, low-wage workers with no power to demand their fair share.
Joe Biden was also working to revive American manufacturing — with actual success — but he made it absolutely clear that companies benefiting from his Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act should welcome unions in exchange for government support.
Trump and his GOP enablers want the opposite: docile workers grateful for poverty wages.
While Republicans babble endlessly about “job creators,” they fundamentally misunderstand — or deliberately obscure — how a nation’s true wealth is actually generated.
It’s not through Wall Street speculation or billionaire tax breaks. It’s through making things of value; the exact activity their donor class has eagerly shipped overseas for decades while pocketing the difference.
There’s a profound economic reason to bring manufacturing home that Adam Smith laid out in 1776 and Alexander Hamilton amplified in 1791 when he presented his vision for turning America into a manufacturing powerhouse. It’s the fundamental principle behind Smith’s book “The Wealth of Nations” that I explain in detail in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America.
A tree limb lying on the forest floor has zero economic value. But apply human labor by whittling it into an axe handle, and you’ve created something valuable. That “added value” — the result of applying human (or machine) labor to raw materials — is wealth added to the nation, often lasting for generations if the product endures. Axes made in the 17th century are still being sold in America; manufacturing can produce wealth that truly lasts generations.
Manufacturing, in other words, is the only true way a country becomes wealthier. It’s why China transformed from the impoverished nation I witnessed firsthand when I lived and studied there in 1986 to the economic juggernaut it is today. It’s why Japan and South Korea emerged from the devastation of war to become industrial powerhouses within decades.
This is not generally true, by the way, of a service economy, the system that Reagan and Clinton told us would give us “clean jobs” as America abandoned manufacturing in the 1980-2000s era.
If I give you a $50 haircut and you give me a $50 massage — a service economy — we’ve merely shuffled money around while the nation’s overall wealth remains unchanged. But build a factory producing solar panels, and you’ve created something from raw materials that generates power for decades: that’s real wealth that didn’t exist before.
Republicans used to understand this basic economic principle before they sold their souls to Wall Street speculators and foreign dictators who shower them with “investments.”
Service-only economies don’t generate wealth; they just recirculate existing money. This fundamental truth is the strongest argument for rebuilding American manufacturing capacity, yet it’s one that economists and political commentators almost never mention. Trump certainly doesn’t grasp it — or care — as he hawks Chinese-made MAGA hats while pretending to champion American workers.
It’s not “Making America Great Again” — it’s making America into exactly what their corporate donors have always wanted: a docile workforce with no voice, no protections, and nowhere else to go.
The hypocrisy is staggering. This is the same Donald Trump whose branded clothing lines were manufactured in China, Mexico, and Bangladesh. The same Republican Party that pushed “free trade” deals for decades that gutted American manufacturing communities. Now they’re suddenly tariff champions? Please.
So yes, let’s use thoughtfully designed tariffs and other trade policies to bring manufacturing back to our shores. Let Congress debate and pass these measures with 3- to 10-year phase-in periods so manufacturers can plan their transition to American production without the chaos of Trump changing his mind every time some foreign dictator slips another million into his back pocket.
But don’t be fooled for one second: the GOP’s plan to resurrect American manufacturing while continuing their war on unions is nothing but a cynical ploy to create an army of desperate, low-wage workers with no power to demand their fair share.
It’s not “Making America Great Again” — it’s making America into exactly what their corporate donors have always wanted: a docile workforce with no voice, no protections, and nowhere else to go.
We need manufacturing AND unions. Anything less is just another con job from the party that’s perfected the art of getting working class Americans to vote against their own economic interests.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Take Back America From the Oligarchs
What we are witnessing is not just economic decline—it is a calculated transfer of power, wealth, and dignity from the people who built this country to the corporate and political class who believe they own it.
Apr 12, 2025
America is not being lost. It's being taken.
Taken from the factory worker in Michigan whose job was shipped overseas. From the farmer in Indiana watching crops wither while markets close, subsidies disappear, and tariffs crush their bottom line. From the mother in Ohio who can't feed her children because her food stamps have been cut. From the young man in Kentucky forced to choose between insulin and rent. From the senior in Pennsylvania being told to drive to a Social Security office to collect their check—only to find their local office closed, and the nearest one hours away.
This isn't just mismanagement—it's betrayal.
We are not spectators. We are not statistics. We are the heart of this nation. And it's time we acted like it.
Major companies that were built by American labor—Ford, Caterpillar—are moving out. They're being driven out by a political agenda that's sent material costs soaring through reckless tariffs. To stay afloat, they chase cheaper labor overseas, leaving hollowed-out towns and broken families in their wake.
Meanwhile, politicians slash food assistance, threaten Social Security and Medicaid, and then have the audacity to tell us the economy is strong and it's in our best interest. They smile on TV while the working class suffers.
The elites in Washington tell us to be patient. To wait. That it's complicated. But we know what we see. Our communities are drying up. The jobs are gone. The wages are stagnant. Our groceries are more expensive. The promises are broken.
What we are witnessing is not just economic decline—it is a calculated transfer of power, wealth, and dignity from the people who built this country to the corporate and political class who believe they own it.
The Human Cost
Consider the typical of a lifelong resident of a small town in Ohio. A person who worked at the local manufacturing plant for over 20 years, a job that provided her family with stability and a sense of pride. When the plant closed due to outsourcing, she found herself unemployed, struggling to make ends meet. The ripple effect was felt throughout the community—local businesses shuttered, schools faced budget cuts, and the town's spirit diminished. Her story is not unique; it's a narrative echoed in countless towns across America.
The Illusion of Prosperity
Politicians tout stock market highs and corporate profits as indicators of economic health, but these metrics are detached from the reality most Americans face. While the wealthiest accumulate more, the average worker sees little improvement. The gig economy grows, offering precarious employment without benefits or security. The middle class shrinks as the dream of upward mobility becomes increasingly elusive.
A Call to Action
Enough.
We are not spectators. We are not statistics. We are the heart of this nation. And it's time we acted like it.
Rise Up.
Get off your knees. Don't just sit on the couch and watch it happen. Rise up! Use your voice. Post your grievances. Use social media. Call your representatives. Write letters. Talk to your neighbor. See what's happening. What they're doing isn't how a country should treat its people—and it damn sure isn't right.
Rise up by showing up. At the ballot box. At the school board. At the union hall. At the town meeting. Wherever decisions are made, do what you can. Your presence matters.
Rise up because this country wasn't built by the connected—it was built by the committed. By steelworkers and carpenters. Nurses and truck drivers. Teachers and veterans. People who worked with their hands, loved with their hearts, and built the greatest nation on Earth.
Reclaiming Our Future
It's time to take it back.
Take back our jobs. Demand fair trade policies that protect American workers and hold corporations accountable for outsourcing. Support local businesses and invest in community initiatives that foster economic resilience.
Take back our towns. Advocate for infrastructure projects that create jobs and improve our communities. Push for affordable housing and quality education that ensure a brighter future for the next generation.
Take back our dignity. Stand up against policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the working class. Demand transparency and integrity from our leaders.
Take back our rights. Protect the social safety nets that safeguard our most vulnerable. Fight for healthcare, fair wages, and the right to organize.
And take back America.
We are many. Let them hear us. Let them know—we will not be silent.
To the politicians in power—the ones slashing our benefits, outsourcing our jobs, gutting our economy—then turning around and telling us it's for our own good... I've got one thing to say to you:
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain.
Take Back America.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Look Around: The Signs of a Trump Recession Are Everywhere
The latest signs from the American heartland are not encouraging. The average voter’s confidence about their economic prospects is falling quicker than at almost any other time on record.
Mar 31, 2025
Once you start looking, the signs of an American recession are everywhere.
The second-hand market is heating up, a classic pre-recession indicator. People are unloading luxury goods. Second-hand clothes apps, such as RealReal, Depop and Grailed, are filling up with designer handbags and sneakers bought during the la-la economy of the pandemic. This always happens before a crash.
You might remember that eBay boomed before the 2008 recession. People panic-sold designer handbags faster than you could say Anglo Promissory Note. Splurges always lead to sell-offs.
It looks like 2025 will be the year the pandemic chickens come home to roost. When the plague hit five years ago this week, governments closed down our economies and rather than impoverish workers who were forced to stay home, national treasuries opened the fiscal and monetary spigots. Government spending soared and interest rates were cut to negative territory. About $15 trillion (€13.85 trillion) of fiscal/monetary sweeties were doled out by the world’s richest governments to protect their stay-at-home electorates. (The governments had no choice; a great depression would have accompanied the plague.)
Investment and speculation took off in a splurge of credit, consumption and debt. As sure as night follows day, the credit cycle rolls and we are about to pay a terrible price for the emergency economics of Covid-19.
In tune with our always-on age, the coming American recession will be live-streamed on Instagram. Every small change in consumer confidence and business sentiment will be videoed, shared, commented on and thus amplified. We are witnessing the TikTok-isation of the business cycle, meaning the economic cycle – previously a slow-moving, deliberate phenomenon – will pick up pace, becoming fitful and immediate.
In the past, it took people time to realise that the economic backdrop was changing. Today, with social media and a US president who behaves more like a near-bankrupt day trader than a long-term investor, our collective time horizons have been slashed from years to months, weeks to minutes. The impact of a slowing economy on investment and spending will be almost instantaneous.
The latest signs from the American heartland are not encouraging. The average voter’s confidence about their economic prospects is falling quicker than at almost any other time on record. The litany of surveys pointing to recession, or more accurately a Trump-cession, not to mention the sell-off in American stock markets, suggests we are on the cusp of something enormous. The incoherence of Trump economics – with its on-and-off tariffs – is making already indebted consumers and businesses even more anxious.
Punters across all income brackets are panicking and consumer confidence is collapsing, although it is richer workers who are most worried. This probably reflects the fact that middle-class Americans are heavily invested in the stock markets, which are back to where they were in September and falling farther. Since Trump was inaugurated, the percentage of voters who are worried about their job has shot up from 30 per cent to close to 80 per cent of all those surveyed. The number of consumers worried that businesses might close has spiked up to the highest level since records began in the middle of the 1980-81 recession.
People’s confidence about where their income will be in a year has plummeted to the lowest level since 2009, right after the Great Crash. Worse still, the average American is now more worried about inflation than at any time since the beginning of the pandemic, when prices shot up because of the shutdown of industry.
This combination of a rapidly weakening economy and fear of inflation points to an old enemy not seen since the 1970s: stagflation, where unemployment and inflation rise together. In such an environment, prices rise at the same time as incomes fall. The main trigger is the broad electorate’s understanding that tariffs are a tax on spending that will raise the price of goods for working Americans.
What is going on in corporate America, the part of the economy that was supposed to be boosted by Trump? Earnings are an important leading indicator, as profit squeezes foreshadow lay-offs and investment cuts. Corporate profits surged in 2021 but have now entered a slower growth phase. By the third quarter of 2024, US corporate profits fell 0.4 per cent quarter-on-quarter, the first decline in years. By late 2024, year-on-year profit growth was 5.9 per cent, down from more than 20 per cent in 2023 – this is a huge slowdown in margins.
All the while the nonsense that is Trump’s economic plan continues to be “sane-washed” by many writers and commentators as if there is some brilliant economic rabbit about to be pulled out of a hat by the sages of Mar-a-Lago. Declaring a trade war on your four biggest trading partners – Canada, Europe, China and Mexico – will simply push up American prices, robbing US consumers.
Tariffs are a way of taking something away from somebody. Trade allows better, cheaper products to come in from abroad, putting manners on local crony businesses. Tariffs protect second-rate local businesses, allowing them to sponge off consumers, flogging second-rate goods when punters could be buying superior imported stuff. In the end, tariffs take from buyers and give money to yellow-pack local sellers who can’t compete in the international market. There’s a reason that low tariffs, which have been reduced continuously in the past 50 years, corresponded with the greatest expansion of the global economy ever seen.
Protectionism is a sign of weakness, not strength. Americans are not being “ripped off”; in fact, they are being enriched by having access to better, cheaper, superior products made by more productive people. Rather than being the beginning of a great new era of American prowess, tariffs are a sign of insecurity and fear, marking the end of the great American century that began after the end of the first World War.
The fascinating thing is that the average “Joe Six Pack” American appreciates this; otherwise, why is he so fearful about the future?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sure Looks Like Hegseth's Proposed Pentagon 'Cuts' Wouldn't Be Cuts at All
"It seems that this announcement may amount to a money-moving exercise within the agency itself rather than an overall Pentagon topline reduction," said one watchdog.
Feb 20, 2025
On the surface, a widely reported memo authored by Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth appears to call for significant cuts to the massive U.S. military budget over each of the next five years—a proposal that quickly received positive feedback from some progressives.
But the details of Hegseth's proposal, and a public statement from the defense secretary's deputy, raise serious doubts about whether the floated spending "cuts" would be cuts at all.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Hegseth, in an internal memo, "ordered senior leaders at the Pentagon and throughout the U.S. military to develop plans for cutting 8% from the defense budget in each of the next five years." Hegseth instructed officials to hand in their proposals by this coming Monday.
In response to the Post's reporting, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), long a vocal proponent of cutting the military budget as it approaches $1 trillion a year with bipartisan approval, wrote on social media that "when the Pentagon cannot complete an independent audit, we should cut military spending by 8% a year over the next five years."
"These savings should go to increasing Social Security benefits and strengthening VA healthcare," Sanders added.
That is not what the administration appears to have in mind.
In a statement issued Wednesday as headlines in major media outlets characterized Hegseth's memo as a striking call for "cuts," Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Salesses described the proposal as a push for "offsets" that could be used to fund other military-related efforts favored by President Donald Trump, including an "Iron Dome for America" that experts have ridiculed as a wasteful "fantasy."
"The department will develop a list of potential offsets that could be used to fund these priorities, as well as to refocus the department on its core mission of deterring and winning wars," said Salesses. "The offsets are targeted at 8% of the Biden administration's FY26 budget, totaling around $50 billion, which will then be spent on programs aligned with President Trump's priorities."
The U.S. military budget for Fiscal Year 2025 is roughly $850 billion.
I don’t understand the stories about the supposed cuts to the defense budget. If you “cut” parts of the defense budget and say you’re going to spend that money on a missile defense system…. that’s not really cutting the defense budget?
[image or embed]
— Matt Novak (@paleofuture.bsky.social) February 20, 2025 at 1:14 AM
Hegseth's memo also reportedly exempts more than a dozen categories from being used for offsets, including nuclear weapon modernization, military operations at the southern U.S. border, and one-way attack drones.
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said Wednesday that "there is plenty of opportunity—and a desperate need for—deep cuts in Pentagon spending, if that is in fact what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is proposing."
"However, it seems that this announcement may amount to a money-moving exercise within the agency itself rather than an overall Pentagon topline reduction," said Weissman. "The Hegseth proposal wrongly exempts 17 categories from cuts, including areas that are ripe for savings and which should themselves be curtailed in the name of national security, like the nation's nuclear arsenal, missile defense, and drones. These protected categories give clues to the administration's priorities that may be disguised in partial reports about the Hegseth memo: increased militarization and ever-increasing corporate profits."
"It's too soon to know exactly what the Hegseth proposal entails, or if it would deliver actual cuts, and so not possible to issue even a preliminary assessment," he added. "But this much remains clear: It's time to cut—not increase—the Pentagon budget, and to devote the savings to human needs."
The details of Hegseth's memo emerged as Trump threw his support behind a House GOP budget blueprint that calls for a $100 billion increase in U.S. military spending, underscoring the administration's contradictory posture on the issue.
CNN noted Wednesday that "Hegseth himself called for an increase to the defense budget one week ago."
"While visiting Stuttgart, Germany," the outlet reported, "Hegseth said, 'I think the U.S. needs to spend more than the Biden administration was willing to, who historically underinvested in the capabilities of our military.'"
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