

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With all our disasters at home, it’s a safe bet we’re not wanted in Venezuela for our management expertise. In fact, most Venezuelans don’t want us there at all.
Read it in the news:
“Economic Confidence Drops to 17-Month Low”
—Gallup, December 4, 2025
“Satisfaction with U.S. healthcare costs is the lowest Gallup has recorded … since 2001.”
—Gallup, December 15, 2025
“ACA credits expire, leading to sharp rise in health insurance premiums.”
—WANF TV Atlanta, January 1, 2026
“We’re going to run (Venezuela) until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.”
—Donald Trump, January 3, 2026
The commentary pretty much writes itself. As surely as night follow day, the Trump Administration was bound to do something to distract Americans from their well-founded economic fears—especially from a health cost crisis Trump’s party just made vastly worse. And all that Venezuelan oil looks mighty attractive from an oligarch’s perspective.
But “run Venezuela”? Shouldn’t they do a better job running this country first? Let’s start with healthcare. The Affordable Care Act is what programmers used to call a “kludge”; it’s a Rube Goldberg contraption whose goal is to mitigate the pain caused by America’s so-called healthcare “system.” America’s healthcare crisis can’t truly be fixed until the profit motive is removed.
Nevertheless, the ACA has provided at least some healthcare coverage to millions of people. That’s better than nothing—much better. The premium tax credits are a wealth transfer from the public to the private sector. But without them—and with no other system in place—millions of people will soon face disastrous monthly premium hikes. If they don’t pay them—and many won’t be able to afford it—they’ll face financial ruin if they become sick or injured.
We can recognize the flawed nature of the ACA and still see that these Republican cuts are inhumane and indefensible.
“We can’t afford it,” the Republicans argue. But that raises the obvious question: If not, then how can we afford to “run Venezuela”? Besides, they’ve got work to do right here.
Sure, the economy is doing pretty well—for the investor class. But even that limited success is hanging by a thread. It’s driven by an AI bubble that will almost certainly burst, wreaking economic havoc when it does. Meanwhile, millions of households are struggling with the cost of living (click on images to expand):
Visual Capitalist/StatistaMore than 43 million Americans live in poverty, including one child in seven:
Source: Annie E. Casey FoundationThe housing shortage is causing widespread pain as homes become increasingly unaffordable for most workers:

The labor outlook is “cooling,” as the economists say. But even that doesn’t count the most critical element of the job market, which is the ability to find jobs that actually pay a living wage:

Young people are especially hard-hit:

“Energy affordability” is a growing crisis, too. The average American household paid $124 per month more on its utility bill in the first nine months of 2025 and rates are still rising, with no end in sight:

Oh, and the New START treaty will expire in a few weeks, leaving the world with no meaningful limits on the possibility of a new nuclear arms race:

Nuclear catastrophe? It’s not impossible. Doesn’t that warrant some attention from this country’s leaders?
You get the idea. With all these problems to solve, our leaders have decided the right thing to do is—invade Venezuela. That won’t be an easy ride. It’s a country of 28 million people and its terrain that includes jungles, deserts, and mountains.
With all these disasters at home, it’s a safe bet we’re not wanted in Venezuela for our management expertise. In fact, most Venezuelans don’t want us there at all:

Most Venezuelans think the US is only doing it “because of the oil”:
The question, translated: “Do you believe that a potential military invasion against Venezuela would aim to overthrow the president in order to seize the oil, or do you think it would be to combat drug trafficking?” The headline: “90% believe that an invasion would aim to overthrow Maduro because of the oil.”
To be fair, we are only doing it because of the oil. Mostly, anyway.
Most Americans don’t want us in Venezuela, either:

In fact, most Americans are sick of our government’s seemingly endless addiction to foreign military adventurism:

And yet, here we are.
This is a desperate resource grab by Trump and the other overseers of this dying economic system. It’s also an obvious and deliberate distraction from the many problems here in the United States. And we all know they’re doing it for their benefit, not ours.
Like the saying goes: it’s all about the grift. But at what price for the rest of us?
In a recent focus group, one voter who supported the president in 2024 said Trump's recent claims that the economy is strong were "delusional."
New polling from The Guardian on Monday bolstered recent analyses that have shown low consumer confidence and job creation numbers and higher household costs and unemployment: Americans are struggling under President Donald Trump's economic policies, and they increasingly believe the White House—for all Trump's claims that the economy is strong—is to blame.
The poll, conducted by Harris for the news outlet between December 11 and 13, found that respondents were twice as likely to say their financial security is getting worse as they were to report an improvement.
Nearly half of those surveyed said their financial situation is worsening, and 57% said they perceived that the US is in a recession—although that would be defined by two quarters of negative growth in the US economy, which the country has not experienced at this point.
Despite that, the poll—along with recent focus groups including members of Trump's 2024 base, held by Syracuse University and reported on Monday by NBC News—illustrated how Trump's focus on imposing tariffs on countries around the world and his promotion of policies that have raised household bills for millions of people have left Americans feeling pessimistic about their own financial health and that of the country.
Democratic voters were far more likely than Republicans to tell Harris that their financial security is getting worse, with 52% of the latter saying so compared with 27% of the former.
But 54% of independent voters agreed that they are struggling more financially, despite Trump's recent claim that he would give the economy a grade of "A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.”
"We have seen a shift among these voters collectively, cracks in their faith, more questioning, oscillating, or outright change of heart about Trump."
Respondents from across the political spectrum were more likely than ever before to blame the White House for their financial struggles, Harris said.
More than three-quarters of Democrats blamed Trump's policies and "government management of the economy," along with 72% of independents and more than half of Republicans—55%.
Analyses this year have shown Trump's tariffs, which he claimed soon after taking office would "liberate" Americans from the national debt, are raising costs for small businesses and making it harder for them to stay afloat, and are passing on higher prices to consumers—resulting in ballooning grocery bills for millions of Americans.
Trump made lowering grocery prices a central promise of his campaign last year, along with repeatedly pledging that he was "going to get your energy prices down by 50%.”
But the president's embrace of artificial intelligence and the expansion of data centers—something he and congressional Republicans have aggressively pushed states to allow despite public disapproval—is unlikely to result in lower utility prices for households. Those costs have risen by 13% since Trump took office, with the president's cancellation of renewable energy projects to blame as well as energy-sucking data centers.
The focus groups held by Syracuse recently found that voters who supported the president last year have rapidly grown discouraged by his economic policies, including his tariffs, which one participant called "a tax on the American people."
"That’s who pays for it, so I don’t support it,” David S. of New Jersey told NBC. “The people who are buying those imports are paying the tax.”
With less than a year until voters are set to decide if Republicans should keep their majorities in the US House and Senate, fewer than half of the people surveyed in four focus groups said they believed Trump has made it a priority to fight inflation and reduce their costs. Robert L. of Virginia told Syracuse researchers that the president's recent comments painting a sunny picture of the economy were "delusional."
Another Virginia voter, Justin K., said the president has been focused on "prosecuting his political enemies" and "pardoning people" and has not "tried at all" to tackle the rising cost of living.
A number of those surveyed said they had decided to back Democratic candidates Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill in this year's gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey just a year after supporting Trump.
"Many of these voters gave President Trump a long runway well into the summer because they believed that he understands how business works better than they do and that his own fortune would eventually translate to enriching the country and their own finances," Margaret Talev, director of Syracuse University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism, and Citizenship, told NBC on Monday.
"But as the year wore on, we have seen a shift among these voters collectively, cracks in their faith, more questioning, oscillating, or outright change of heart about Trump," Talev said. "What we almost never see is a wish for a do-over vote or a rush toward Democrats for the answer."
The rise of cost-of-living focused candidates like Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, and Katie Wilson suggests that the electoral engagement of those who live on wages and salaries is rising.
Recent electoral dynamics suggest an affordability crisis is mobilizing a newly engaged electorate. Cost-of-living conditions are a measure of class relations: “According to a Statista Consumer Insights survey conducted in June and July 2025, 49% of US adults said that the high cost of living was one of the biggest challenges they currently face—making it by far the most common answer.”
The billionaire corporations and the wealthy, attached to the political system, are benefiting. “The total wealth of the top 10%—or those with a net worth of more than $2 million—reached a record $113 trillion in the second quarter, up from $108 trillion in the first quarter,” CNBC’s Robert Frank writes, citing Federal Reserve Bank data. “The increase follows three years of continued growth for those at the top, with the top 10% adding over $40 trillion to their wealth since 2020.”
A driver of the wealth boom at the top is the stock market. The prices of so-called Magnificent Seven stocks of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft and Tesla, are booming.
Meanwhile, a cost-of-living crisis festers on Main Street. Significantly, this working majority does not set prices or wages, the drivers of cost-of-living conditions.
NYC’s response to systemic unaffordable childcare, food, and rent is, therefore, a conscious decision of the working class on behalf of its own self-interest, electorally speaking.
It’s not an either or situation. “The roots of today’s affordability crisis actually lie not in recent price spikes,” according to Heidi Shierholz, president at the Economic Policy Institute and former chief economist at the US Department of Labor, “but in the long-term suppression of workers’ pay.”
On that same note of wage suppression, the working class labors largely union free in the US. Private-sector workers, the majority of the American labor force, do not collectively bargain their wages, salaries, and working conditions with employers.
Why? Anti-labor union policies are one of the main workplace conditions that have marked the postwar economy since the 1970s. Other anti-worker policies causing wage suppression are corporate-driven globalization and excessive unemployment.
So-called free trade pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement happened under Democratic President Bill Clinton. Corporations relocated to Mexico, where workers earn a fraction of the pay that their American counterparts receive.
The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009, when President Barack Obama was in the White House. He promised to sign the Employee Free Choice Act, an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. With the EFCA, a simple majority of employees (50%) could check a card showing support to join a union at a workplace, replacing the National Labor Relations Board secret-ballot elections stacked in favor of employers.
First, however, the EFCA required enough votes to pass the Senate and House for President Obama to sign it into law, as he promised to. Democrats held a majority in the House and Senate in 2009-2011, Obama’s first term, but the bill never made it through the upper house.
Democrats had a majority in both chambers at the start of his presidency in the 111th Congress (2009-2011). The bill made it through the House but died in the Senate. “Several lobbying and consulting groups aligned with the Democratic Party were actively working with anti-union employers to defeat the EFCA,” according to the Arizona State University School Center for Work and Democracy.
The Democratic Party controlled the House and Senate when President Joe Biden took office in January 2021. Recall that Biden said, "Nothing fundamental will change," to his wealthy donors before winning the White House over Trump. Nothing fundamental changed in terms of reversing the fall of labor unions and rise of anti-union companies such as Walmart and Amazon.
Weakening unions has been a leading policy of neoliberalism, moving income and wealth from the bottom and middle to the top. Out with New Deal and Great Society policies for those who live on wages and salaries. In with policies for those who live on profits from investment capital.
Cut to today. The affordability crisis, the struggle to make ends meet, is a class struggle. That struggle is gaining traction electorally, beginning with the two presidential campaigns of Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
A more recent case in point is the victory of Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, in NYC. How? He in part focused on rising prices of childcare, food, and rent compared with salaries and wages.
That is why the voters in NYC chose him as mayor recently. NYC’s response to systemic unaffordable childcare, food, and rent is, therefore, a conscious decision of the working class on behalf of its own self-interest, electorally speaking.
Therein lies a dilemma. I mean the fact that Democratic candidates, once elected, sell out their voters. By contrast, donors with deep pockets get what they demand, election after election.
This relationship profits donors. The politics of capitalist economics is a powerful force to contend with. There is no alternative to confronting this force, to paraphrase the late British Pime Minister Margaret Thatcher, proclaiming the power of liberal capitalism to rule via crushing opposition its opponents.
The popularity of Mr. Mamdani in NYC and Katie Wilson, mayor-elect in Seattle, who like him focuses laser like on policies to address the cost-of-living crisis for working families, suggests that the electoral engagement of those who live on wages and salaries is rising. That’s a step forward but by no means a victory over a resilient economic system with a track record of crushing and co-opting political reforms that improve people’s lives.