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
cost of living
95% of Americans Say Country Faces Cost-of-Living Crisis as Half Struggle to Afford Essentials
"Meanwhile, Trump wants to hike military spending to $1.5 trillion a year," said one observer.
Jul 07, 2026
Days after President Donald Trump made his latest dismissive remark about the cost of living and Americans' struggles to afford housing, new polling released Tuesday finds that nearly the entire voting public views the US as facing an affordability crisis and are increasingly pessimistic that the economy—and working people—will recover.
The Harris Poll, conducted on behalf of The Guardian newspaper, found that 57% of respondents believe the economy is still getting worse for Americans even after the US and Iran signed a peace deal last month to end the conflict started in February by the Trump administration and Israel—a war that sent oil prices soaring.
The average price of gas in the US is still $3.79 per gallon, despite the fact that Brent crude prices have fallen sharply.
Across party lines, about half of respondents said they are struggling to afford basic items like gas and groceries, and two-thirds of Americans, including nearly half of Republican voters, said they do not believe the Trump administration will improve the affordability crisis.
The poll was taken nearly a week after Trump, who ran on lowering costs for Americans, refused to sign affordable housing legislation, calling the bipartisan bill "a big yawn."
In May, as the administration was negotiating an end to the Iran War, Trump said that he did not “think about Americans’ financial situation,” even as the Middle East conflict he and Israel started hit family budgets hard.
A month earlier, he said the federal government "can’t take care of daycare" and healthcare programs for Americans, because it was focused on one thing and one thing only: "military protection."
According to the new survey, gas is at the top of the list of expenses that Americans are struggling to afford, with 52% saying they are having trouble keeping up with the cost. More than half of respondents also reported having trouble affording groceries, and 46% said they are struggling to make their loan payments and pay for utilities.
Trump ended the Biden administration's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, terminating the income-based student loan repayment plan for millions of borrowers. A report by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee in March also found that the average utility bill was up by $110, or 6.4%, over last year, following the Republican Party's elimination of tax credits for solar and wind power and as Trump pushed for the unregulated expansion of energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, despite warnings that they would drive up household utility bills.
The president's tariffs and his refusal to take on corporate consolidation in the meatpacking industry have also contributed to high grocery prices, recent analyses have found.
The Harris Poll found that 57% of Americans believe the economy is steadily getting worse, compared with 46% who said so in February. Just 16% said the economy is getting stronger, and only 27% of Republicans said the same. In February, 49% of Republican voters reported a positive outlook on the economy.
The survey also found that 54% of respondents said neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has a solution to the growing affordability crisis.
However, the poll was taken on the heels of several electoral victories by progressive and democratic socialist candidates who have centered the needs of working families, demanded that billionaires pay their fair share in taxes, and called for Medicare for All and universal childcare—programs that would be similar to ones that are commonplace in other wealthy countries.
In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has made strides toward a universal childcare program, a wealth tax, and a rent freeze for rent-stabilized housing units to address the economic inequality and cost-of-living crises.
On Monday, Trump claimed that "a social Democrat is a communist," in an apparent reference to democratic socialists like Mamdani and US House candidates Melat Kiros in Colorado's 1st District, Claire Valdez in New York's 7th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York's 13th District.
"If you look at the people that are running, it's crazy what they're doing," said Trump. "But we'll never let that happen to this country... There's no appetite for it."
But in The New York Times on Tuesday, Lindsay Owens of the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative suggested the recent elections prove there is, in fact, an "appetite" for candidates who recognize the affordability crisis, and prioritize solutions.
“The economic populist moment is here," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Warning From the UK for Centrist US Democrats Who Refuse to Fight for the Working Class
When Labour won, they were supposed to be an alternative to right-wing crazy, but now are losing the whole country to their own MAGA because a real alternative takes work.
Jun 16, 2026
The consensus is that this is the year for the Democrats. They have the political winds at their backs. Even with the gerrymandering and the voter suppression and everything Republicans have thrown at the wall, smart money says Democrats take the House and maybe the Senate. And anything that limits the power of this president is good. I’ll grant all of it. Net positive.
But what happens after a good cycle or two, if the winners don’t understand what they won? If they don’t see the pain that powered their victories?
We don’t have to guess because it already happened in Britain.
A year and a half ago, Labour won in a landslide. Imagine our centrist Democrats, the Newsom and Buttigieg wing, sweeping into power with the biggest majority in a generation. The Tories were finished, the same way a lot of folks think Republicans are about to be finished. But Labour walked in and decided the mission was better management. Be the adults in the room. Trim the spending. Talk tough on the border. The ship was fine, just needed a steady hand.
If Democrats get to Washington, take the gavels, and decide the job is just to clean up after Donald Trump and keep the machine humming, we know how this ends. We just watched it play out in Britain.
Now look at them. Reform is Nigel Farage’s party, which is their MAGA more or less. Reform is leading the polls, and Labour’s a distant second. Their MAGA has led just about every poll since late last year. Keir Starmer, the head of Labour, is one of the least popular leaders in the Western world. A year and a half ago centrists won everything. Now they’re watching the British version of Trumpism walk toward power.
When a party wins on the promise of change and then delivers management, the people who abandon ship don’t all come back. The ones who move, move right. The angry ones, the ones who feel lied to, don’t drift off to some nicer party on the left. They turn to the man burning it all down, which is always how the right takes power. Afterward, centrists throws up their hands, convinced the country is turning right, when in reality they’re turning desperate. If you promise change and deliver the status quo, things don’t get better; for a lot of people, they get worse.
Britain at least has a buffer. They build coalitions, so no single party runs the whole thing alone usually. The damage is scattered and slower. But the US doesn’t have that. We’ve got winner-takes-all, with gerrymandering stacked on top. Here, a centrist party that wins big and then governs scared doesn’t lose gracefully. It delivers the whole country to MAGA. The House, the Senate, the gavels, all of it.
Our centrists, the Newsoms, the Buttigiegs, the Slotkins, are on the rise right now. They aren’t leaders. They aren’t fierce advocates for structural change. In fact this is exactly the kind of compromise-driven, go-along-to-get-along Democratic Party that abandoned the working class and helped usher in MAGA. Hell, California Gov. Gavin Newsom can’t even bring himself to tax billionaires. These are folks who don’t get the depth of pain across our the country. And they certainly don’t get the ferocity behind the criminal administration wrecking our democracy. The Democratic Party and its faux leaders don’t see what’s coming, or they see it and don’t care. In the end it won’t matter which.
The cost of living is so far out of reach for young people that you can’t fix it with a tweak. There’s no tax credit, no rebate, no clever little program that closes that gap. It will take transformation. It will take building things again. The same is true for jobs. AI and robotics are about to come for human labor in a way this country has never seen, and Democrats have no plan for it. None. They’re not ready for the losses. They’re not ready for what happens to a person, to a town, to a whole generation, when the work goes away.
And they’re sure as hell not ready for what’s happening at the very top. Last week, Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire. I wrote on Thursday about how we built him, how public money and public research and public contracts carried him up the hill while we kept no ownership. Our tax dollars built SpaceX and then we handed over the deed. The pretenders in the Democratic Party, the ones about to take the reins, have no answer for that. They have no intention of stopping the next massive giveaway. Why? Because they don’t want to upset the interests who fund their campaigns.
Lack of accountability for guys at the top is the clearest indicator that we need systemic change. Forget for a second the question of genocide in Gaza. Forget the West Bank. You don’t have to know the answer for those to agree we should honestly investigate war crimes. The International Criminal Court already issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister and defense minister for using starvation as a weapon of war. Our government’s response? To go after the court. To sanction its officials, and defend the war criminals.
Here at home, we’ve got a Justice Department unit whose entire job is crimes against humanity. Did it ever investigate Joe Biden’s cabinet, the men who signed off on the bombs? It didn’t. It won’t. They go after small men in faraway places, and give a pass to the policy masterminds here. The impunity of the powerful doesn’t start with Jeffrey Epstein or end with him. It runs straight through the war machine, the financial machine, the whole arrangement. A justice system that can’t prosecute its most powerful people for their most serious crimes is broken. You don’t fix broken with better management. You rebuild it.
We’ve got from now until the end of primary season to pick the right people. The candidates who understand our fight is structural. The ones who are ready for what’s actually coming. The ones not owned, willing to take a real risk.
If Democrats get to Washington, take the gavels, and decide the job is just to clean up after Donald Trump and keep the machine humming, we know how this ends. We just watched it play out in Britain. The winners were supposed to be an alternative to right-wing crazy, but now are losing the whole country to their own MAGA because a real alternative takes work.
That’s the thing about the so-called adults in the room. The centrists, the moderates, the corporatists, they won’t do the hard work. In part because they’re bankrolled by entrenched interests who will use every weapon in the arsenal to maintain status quo. And in part because of fear. They’re terrified of blame, so they’d rather keep walking toward disaster than take a chance on something better. Real reform means changing the whole structure, the democracy, the social fabric, the economy itself, and that’s going to take fight.
People are desperate for a life that works, but it’s easier for Dems to keep their heads down, push gently for incremental change, and hope things will get better on their own.
They won’t.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Are Fighting Back Against Silicon Valley's Race to the Lowest Wage
There should be rules that prevent companies from using personal data to quietly lower pay for some people while others earn more for the same work, and working people should have the ability to organize.
Jun 12, 2026
Recent reporting has confirmed what many working people already feel every day: Companies are using personal data to decide the lowest wage someone will accept. What working people call exploitation, Silicon Valley calls innovation.
The seven largest gig platforms in the United States—Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Favor, Instacart, Lyft, Shipt, and Uber—are using data that tracks how long its users stay on an app, what jobs they accept, and how urgently they need income. This algorithm calculates what the employers can pay to get the job done at the lowest rate individuals will accept.
Not what their labor is worth. Not what is fair.
Gig work was sold as a way to make extra money on a flexible schedule. But that’s not what it looks like today. Nearly 1 in 4 people in the US now participate in some form of gig or freelance work. What was supposed to be a side hustle has become a main source of income for one-third of gig workers.
This isn’t just about gig work. It’s about whether we allow companies to rewrite the rules of the economy—or whether we demand a system that works for the people in it.
As layoffs rise and wages fall further behind the cost of living, more people are being pushed into this kind of work to keep up. Black people and other workers of color, who tend to be more dependent on this type of work than white people, have been especially hard hit. But these unfair practices can impact all workers.
“Under surveillance wage systems, different people may be paid different wages for largely the same work, and individual workers cannot predict their incomes over time,” the Washington Center for Equitable Growth reports. “Not only has pay for app-controlled jobs decreased over time,” but “people who work longer hours are paid less per hour.”
This is what happens when an economy limits options for some people, then funnels them into systems that take advantage of that lack of choice. Now they’re going even further—using data to predict what some experts call a “desperation wage,” or the lowest amount someone will accept based on their behavior.
And it’s not just happening in gig work. Similar systems are being used to set rent and adjust prices for goods and services in real time. The same idea applies: Use data to figure out the worst price or wage someone will tolerate, then charge just below that or pay just above it.
When you combine higher unemployment, lower wealth, and fewer protections, you get a system where some people have less room to say no—and are more likely to be taken advantage of. The message is simple: Take it or leave it. And for many, leaving it isn’t an option.
That’s why we’re starting to see pushback. Working people are demanding more transparency. Some are organizing. New models are emerging that promise fairer pay and more control. But these changes are happening because people are speaking up—not because companies chose to act.
So what needs to happen next is clear. If companies are going to use algorithms to shape pay and access to work, those systems should be transparent. People should know how their pay is calculated.
Workers should be able to see how much of each transaction goes to them compared with how much the company keeps. There should be rules that prevent companies from using personal data to quietly lower pay for some people while others earn more for the same work. And working people should have the ability to organize and push back.
Because this isn’t just about gig work. It’s about whether we allow companies to rewrite the rules of the economy—or whether we demand a system that works for the people in it. Technology should make work more stable, more fair, and more predictable. Right now, it’s doing the opposite. And that’s not inevitable.
It’s a choice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Are Paying the Price for Federal and State Refusal to Raise the Minimum Wage
Workers nationwide deserve wages that keep pace with the real cost of living.
Jun 07, 2026
For years, Congress and elected officials across the country have sidestepped one of the clearest economic problems facing working families: The minimum wage no longer keeps pace with the real cost of living.
Today, even full-time work at the federal minimum wage doesn’t pay enough to rent a market-rate two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country. And too often, politicians have intervened to keep it that way.
For example, I live in Oklahoma, where the state minimum wage has been tied to the federal rate of $7.25 an hour since 2009. As a result, a full-time minimum-wage worker here earns about $15,000 a year before taxes—below the poverty line for an individual and wholly inadequate to survive.
This problem did not happen by accident.
An economy works best when working people can afford to participate in it.
In Oklahoma, some state lawmakers introduced bills to raise the minimum wage year after year—only to see those proposals die without a hearing or a vote. In 2014, the legislature went even further, passing a law that prevented cities and towns from raising local wages, even if local voters and community leaders supported the change.
That meant Oklahomans who wanted to see workers earn a fair wage were left with one remaining option: taking the issue directly to the people.
Again and again, voters in red, blue, and purple states alike have passed measures to raise their minimum wages. In the last decade or so, voters have approved minimum-wage increases in about a dozen states, including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Washington, plus DC.
In early 2024, Oklahomans turned to the state’s initiative petition process as well. Over 150,00 voters signed a petition to place State Question 832 on the ballot. If approved, SQ 832 will gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over several years and then index future increases to the Consumer Price Index after 2030.
Yet even as Oklahomans moved toward a vote, politics intervened. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt delayed the election for SQ 832 nearly two years. The wait is about to come to an end on June 16—when voters will finally get their say.
In the meantime, the delay and political games have forced working families in Oklahoma to wait as costs continue to rise. While wages for our lowest-wage workers have been frozen for 17 years, housing, groceries, and utility bills have all become more expensive.
Today, a minimum-wage earner in Oklahoma would need to work about 93 hours a week—more than two full-time jobs—just to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent.
No one should have to work that much simply to survive. That fact is proof that the current economy is failing many of the people who keep our communities running.
Workers most affected by legislative inaction are the very people we rely on every day: home health aides caring for seniors, childcare workers helping parents stay employed, restaurant staff serving meals, retail workers keeping stores open, and hotel staff assisting travelers. Many of these essential workers still struggle to afford basic necessities.
Our working families have spent years shouldering the cost of federal and state inaction. They are paying the costs through financial stress, unstable housing, delayed healthcare, and less time with their families because they are constantly working to stay afloat.
Many other states have already raised the minimum wage above the federal level, recognizing a simple truth: An economy works best when working people can afford to participate in it.
SQ 832 gives Oklahoma voters the chance to move the state forward after years of legislative inaction. On June 16, Oklahoma voters can take an important step themselves.
But this issue should not rest solely on state ballot measures. Workers nationwide deserve wages that keep pace with the real cost of living—a goal that ultimately requires action from Congress, too.
Because hard work should mean stability, not poverty.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fed's May Beige Book Shows Working Families Falling Behind As Trump Is 'Choosing to Keep Prices High'
Middle-income households were "squeezing more life out of every dollar before deciding to spend it" last month, while low-income families and individuals "showed greater financial strain."
Jun 05, 2026
The Beige Book, a monthly report on consumer spending, labor markets, and inflation from the Federal Reserve's 12 districts across the country, offers an up-to-date look on how the US economy is impacting households across the US—and this week, the report for May showed a continuation of the trend that accelerated after President Donald Trump joined Israel in attacking Iran more than three months ago.
"This month’s report, the third since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, reveals that soaring input costs are triggering price hikes for consumers," said the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative.
The report notes that regional contacts at the Federal Reserve's districts described middle-income households as "squeezing more life out of every dollar before deciding to spend it,” while low-income families and individuals "showed greater financial strain."
"Overall, there were reports of increased credit card usage, fewer retail visits, and stronger demand for necessities," reads the Beige Book.
"Higher-income households remained resilient and less sensitive to price increase," the Federal Reserve reported, indicating a "K-shaped economy"—in which wealthy Americans are represented by the top angled line and middle- and lower-income households are represented by the line angled toward the lower right.
The report comes as peace talks with Iran are stalled and the Strait of Hormuz—a key waterway for trade, particularly for the world's oil supply, remains effectively closed following the US-Israeli invasion. Iran's retaliatory move has sent global oil prices soaring, with gas now costing $4.22 per gallon on average.
"High prices for essentials like groceries and a tank of gas are busting household budgets and eliminating breathing room for middle- and low-income families."
"Numerous contacts mentioned the conflict in the Middle East as a source of cost pressures and heightened business uncertainty," reads the Beige Book. "Higher energy and fertilizer prices contributed to a moderate increase in food prices, especially for fresh produce."
Manufacturers and retailers are also facing increased shipping costs, while auto repair rates and used-car financing rates "remained very high" in parts of the country.
The report was released days after the administration launched new strikes against Iran last weekend, and as Iran announced it was suspending peace talks with the US over Israel's continued targeting of Lebanon.
Alex Jacquez, Groundwork's chief of policy and advocacy, said that "Trump is choosing to keep prices high for working families."
"High prices for essentials like groceries and a tank of gas are busting household budgets and eliminating breathing room for middle- and low-income families," said Jacquez. "Despite his own party’s opposition, the president is forging ahead with his reckless, costly war—and leaving working Americans in the dust.”
The Beige Book also describes a "low-hire, low-fire" job market, "with workers increasingly reluctant to change jobs because of economic uncertainty."
"Widespread economic uncertainty from continued tariffs and persistent inflation means businesses are delaying expansion, leading cautious employees to remain in their current roles—even if it means staying in worse-paying jobs," said Groundwork.
The Federal Reserve pointed to a contact in the construction industry in Cleveland, Ohio who said employees are "nervous and stressed, as well as a human resources firm in Richmond, Virginia that reported "that clients have explicitly slowed hiring for new roles due to uncertainty, while their existing employees seemed reluctant to leave 'something stable' for new opportunities."
Jacquez said that based on the report, "Americans lucky enough to be employed full-time are losing faith in their ability to keep up with inflation as paychecks lag and the labor market stalls out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
3 Months of Trump's Disastrous Iran War Has Cost US Consumers $60 Billion in Extra Energy Costs
The average US household, according to Moody's, has shouldered nearly $450 in extra fuel costs due to the Republican president's unprovoked Middle East war.
May 29, 2026
Americans have made clear since President Donald Trump joined Israel in beginning an unprovoked war on Iran that they view the conflict-of-choice as damaging to their financial well-being—and that they blame the president for the higher cost of fuel since the war started in February.
On Friday, Moody's Analytics put an exact number on the heightened financial anxiety families across the country have been feeling over the past three months as Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent fuel prices soaring: $447.19.
That's how much the average US household has had to additionally spend on fuel-related expenses since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanu launched their attack on February 28, Moody's told CNBC.
Altogether, Americans have spent a total of nearly $60 billion on gas, airline fares, and other related costs as the strait, a key shipping route for oil, has remained effectively closed.
According to AAA, the average price of a gallon of regular gas stands at $4.39—up close to 50% since early March. Diesel now costs $5.52 per gallon, forcing consumers to pay $20 billion more in additional expenses on groceries and other goods.
"The economy isn’t just soft, it’s struggling," Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, said Thursday. "The Iran war needs to end, and the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened soon, or recession will become more likely than not."
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending."
As CNBC reported Friday, "higher energy costs can force consumers to raid their savings and lean more on debt to cover expenses."
Trump flatly said earlier this month that he doesn't consider Americans' financial situation "even a little bit" when it comes to the war on Iran, while National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett posited earlier this week that Americans are "spending more money" not because higher prices are forcing them to but because they're "very, very optimistic about the state of the economy." He also bragged recently that "credit card spending is through the roof"—a sign several observers took not as a positive omen for the economy but as a sign that families are being forced to take on debt to pay for gas and other essentials.
Zandi provided a reality check Friday.
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending, threatening the already soft economy,” he told CNBC, warning that families could end up spending nearly $2,000 extra on fuel-related costs if the war continues reaches the one-year mark.
Republicans emphasized last year that Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would give bigger tax returns to families across the country. Any benefit, said Zandi, has now been canceled out by the president's war.
On Thursday, US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said the White House is in denial about the fact that Americans are struggling with the impact of Trump's foreign policy decisions as the Pentagon vastly underestimates how much the conflict has cost in public statements.
The acting comptroller of the Pentagon told Congress in April that the war had cost $25 billion, increasing the estimate to $29 billion two weeks later.
The senators told the Congressional Budget Office Friday that independent analyses had put the real cost of the war at $40 billion-$50 billion.
“It is essential," said the lawmakers, "that Congress and the American public receive accurate, comprehensive estimates of the costs of the war in Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Tax Season Proved 'No Tax on Tips' Was Never for Workers
Cutting taxes on some tips for some workers is not a solution. Raising wages—and ending the subminimum wage—is.
Apr 18, 2026
During the election, Donald Trump boasted about lowering taxes for working Americans with his “no tax on tips” plan. This tax season, millions of Americans found out it was a scam.
You have to earn money for tax cuts to affect you. A tax deduction only helps if you owe taxes—and most tipped workers earn so little that they barely do. Two-thirds of tipped workers will not even earn enough to benefit. Zero minus zero is still zero. The vast majority of these tax cuts go to the wealthiest taxpayers.
For the workers this policy was supposed to help, the results are already clear.
Take Sherie Cummings, who has poured drinks on the Las Vegas Strip for 20 years. Sherie and her husband, also a bartender, earned $60,000 in tips last year. They expected the full deduction the president promised. They got $25,000 of it. The cap.
Thirteen million tipped workers do not need a tax deduction. They need a raise.
For private jet buyers, the same law delivered something different. Full write-offs on aircraft worth $5 to $10 million. And that write-off is permanent. The tips deduction expires in 2028. The Tax Policy Center projects that 60% of the savings from this law will flow to the top fifth of households—those earning more than $217,000 a year. The wealthiest will save millions. Sherie Cummings is putting her refund into savings because she is afraid of what comes next.
For working people, the real problem was never the tax code. It is wages. The federal subminimum wage for tipped workers has been $2.13 an hour since 1991. It was locked there permanently in 1996 by the National Restaurant Association—what we call “the other NRA.” They spent $2.9 million on federal lobbying in 2020 alone to make sure it stayed there. Which is why tipped workers earn a median income of $15,198 a year. Thirty-seven percent of the national median. Which is why they rely on food stamps at nearly double the rate of other workers. And because workers depend on tips from customers to survive, they put up with what no one should have to. Seventy-one percent of women in the industry report sexual harassment. In subminimum wage states, the rate is double what it is in states that require a full minimum wage with tips on top.
Seven states already require a full minimum wage with tips on top: California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Minnesota, Montana, Alaska. It is called One Fair Wage. The restaurant lobby warns that tips would disappear, that restaurants would close, that jobs would vanish. These are scare tactics. The seven states prove them wrong. Tips are the same or higher. Restaurant employment grows faster. Small business growth rates match or beat subminimum wage states.
And restaurant workers have organized and fought for years and won One Fair Wage in Washington, DC, Chicago, and Michigan. The restaurant lobby has fought to block and roll back these wins—in Michigan, they are still trying. But workers keep going. And even where implementation is partial, the numbers are in. DC set an all-time restaurant employment record. Tips grew. Chicago saw more than 850 new restaurant licenses and the fastest pay growth in the country.
Cutting taxes on some tips for some workers is not a solution. Raising wages—and ending the subminimum wage—is. That is why more than 100 labor, community, and civil rights organizations have come together as the Living Wage For All coalition. The fight: Raise the minimum wage to meet the cost of living and end all subminimum wages. In every state. For every worker. Campaigns are active in eight states. Workers have already won. And they will keep winning.
Thirteen million tipped workers do not need a tax deduction. They need a raise. Every shift. Every paycheck. Every year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran War 'More Important Than Your Pocketbook,' GOP Senator Tells Americans Facing High Gas Prices
"People in the United States are literally skipping meals and the Republican Congress won’t even hold a hearing about this unplanned disastrous war," said one critic.
Apr 14, 2026
A Republican senator on Tuesday tried to sell wary Americans on President Donald Trump's war with Iran by telling them that national security is more important than any financial pain they're feeling in the form of higher energy costs.
During an appearance on Newsmax's "Wake Up America" program, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) tried to assuage Americans' concerns about the spike in gas prices caused by the war by informing viewers that the US is "the leading producer of oil in the world, we're exporting more than we're importing."
Sen. Roger Marshall: "I'm sorry that gas prices are going up, but help is on the way, and your national security is even more important than your pocketbook." pic.twitter.com/GSUEDVHQml
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 14, 2026
The US exporting more of its own oil to foreign countries whose regular supplies have been disrupted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz does nothing to lower US gas prices and, if anything, will push them higher.
As a Monday Wall Street Journal article explained, "prices at the pump are poised to keep rising if the US exports more oil and gas and drains its inventories," especially since "the jump in exports doesn’t yet correspond to an increase in US oil production."
Later in the segment, Marshall acknowledged that Americans were feeling pain at the gas pump, but he said it was worth it to stop the supposed threat from Iran, which did not attack the US and, according to US intelligence estimates, was not close to producing nuclear weapons.
"I'm sorry that gas prices are going up," he said. "But help is on the way, and your national security, yes, is even more important than your pocketbook."
Marshall's claims about the Iran War being worth the cost came days after Harvard Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes, an expert in war budgeting, estimated the total cost of the conflict would top $1 trillion.
Criminal defense attorney Sara Spector pounced on Marshall's comments as symbolic of Republicans' tone deafness to Americans' economic concerns.
"Octogenarians are door dashing to pay for medical bills," she remarked, "and Senator Marshall wants you to pay for a war while Donald Trump golfs and attends VIP sporting events. Wow!"
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives in Missouri, noted that the GOP-run Congress isn't even having hearings where elected representatives can ask Trump administration officials about the war.
"People in the United States are literally skipping meals and the Republican Congress won’t even hold a hearing about this unplanned disastrous war," Wellman wrote. "No, we won’t accept anymore assurances or urges to sacrifice for the greater good when the leaders won’t even respect us enough to go under oath and tell us why."
Jennifer Schulze, a former local TV news executive, pointed out that the claims about the Iran War being essential to US security were totally false.
"Iran was not: 1.) close to having a nuclear weapon; 2.) Posing an imminent threat to the US," she wrote.
Jon Bauman, president of Social Security Works PAC, said Marshall's claim that high gas prices are worth the cost of launching an unprovoked war with Iran was a "losing argument."
Keep ReadingShow Less
While Cost of Living Soars and Healthcare Taken Away, Trump Spending $1 Billion Per Day in War of Choice With Iran
"We can't afford to keep our hospitals open, but we can afford a billion dollars a day to bomb Iran?"
Mar 05, 2026
With fresh reporting that the ongoing US assault on Iran could be costing $1 billion per day in taxpayer money, opposition lawmakers, candidates for office, and outside critics are ripping the Trump administration and his allies in Congress for the financial recklessness of the unlawful and unprovoked attack on the Iranian people.
"We can't afford to keep our hospitals open, but we can afford a billion dollars a day to bomb Iran?" asked Graham Platner, a Democrat running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collin of Maine in this year's midterm elections, in a social media post Wednesday.
Hundreds of hospitals across the US, most of them in rural areas, are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy or closure in the wake of Trump's signing of a spending and tax giveaway bill last year that gave billions in tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy while slashing healthcare, including Medicaid.
Collins on Wednesday joined all but one member of the Republican caucus in the US Senate to vote down a War Powers Resolution that would have compelled Trump to cease military operations against Iran.
"In one fucking month we will spend more over there than we needed to save healthcare for more than 2 million Americans. They literally are taking away your food and your healthcare for this regime change war of choice." —Sen. Brian Schatz
Planter was responding to journalist Nancy Youssef of The Atlantic, who reported, citing a congressional official, that a "preliminary Pentagon cost estimate of the war in Iran is $1 billion a day."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) expressed similar outrage to the figure.
"This war is costing a billion dollars a day," said Schatz. "In one fucking month we will spend more over there than we needed to save healthcare for more than 2 million Americans. They literally are taking away your food and your healthcare for this regime change war of choice."
An analysis by Allison McManus at the Center for American Progress published Tuesday estimates that the US costs since bombing raids were launched by the American and Israeli forces over the weekend easily exceed $5 billion. According to McManus:
In a March 2 press conference, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine provided a glimpse into the nature of operations thus far in Operation Epic Fury. Caine described the deployment of more than 100 aircraft, the use of Tomahawk missiles, and attacks on more than 1,000 targets in just the first day of operations. Utilizing Brown University’s “Costs of War” project cost estimates of previous operations in the region—including Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran last June and engaging the Houthis in Yemen—it is likely that the operations Caine described alone would cost more than $4 billion.
But these are not the only costs. Elaine McCusker, a former Pentagon official in the first Trump administration, estimated the costs of repositioning forces in the Middle East to be around $630 million even prior to the start of hostilities. On March 2, Kuwaiti forces accidentally shot down three F-15 fighter jets in a friendly-fire incident. As these aircraft can cost as much as $117 million, this translates to an estimated total loss of $351 million. Added to the operations Caine described, a conservative estimate for the initial costs of Operation Epic Fury is more than $5 billion as of March 2—and the campaign is just getting started.
McManus further notes that the billions in military spending for a war that polls show a large majority in the US oppose, "come at a time when American citizens are acutely feeling the pressures of increased prices at home, including housing, energy, and health care costs."
As independent journalist Zaid Jilani noted, "Trump is spending a billion dollars a day killing people abroad while cutting Medicaid and health care for Americans."
"Waging a senseless and costly war raises legitimate questions about this government’s priorities," argues McManus in her analysis. "Priced at around $2.2 million, a single Tomahawk missile could cover 775 children on Medicaid for a year or provide more than 3,600 children with meals in the National School Lunch Program. At more than $5 billion and counting, the costs of Operation Epic Fury—in only its first few days of operations—could cover Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for more than 2 million Americans for a year. If this war continues at the same pace, Americans could see their government burn through tens of billions of dollars, funds that would amount to the cost of Medicaid for millions in the United States."
John Collins, political writer based in Boston, was contemplative about the military expenditures. "Just thinking of what we could do with a billion dollars a day that doesn’t include bombing people," Collins said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Policies Are Making It Harder for the So-Called Middle Class to Make Ends Meet
As life becomes less and less affordable for working people, we need to restore and expand our social safety net so those of us who work for a living can keep our families affordably housed, fed, and healthy.
Feb 21, 2026
Affordability is a crisis that keeps millions of us awake at night. It is not, as President Donald Trump claims, a word Democrats “made up.” As more and more families struggle to pay their bills, we need policy solutions, not partisan deflections.
By most accounts, my family is middle class. I have a leadership position at a nonprofit organization, a modest house with a mortgage, student loans, and a car. But like countless other working Americans, I’m struggling to afford the basics.
I’m supposed to be saving for retirement, but instead I’m scouring the internet for “free sites”—mutual aid groups or neighborhood sites where people safely drop off their groceries, clothes, and basic appliances for others to take. In desperation, I even accept open juice cartons and past-date food from my community so I can feed my family as the cost of these items continues to rise.
I’ve lived on the edge of uncertainty all my life. My parents struggled to provide for their three kids when we were growing up. Sufficient medical care was always out of reach. As I grew older, I learned to be super resourceful and did my best to “pull myself up by my bootstraps.”
You simply can’t pay your mortgage with someone else’s stock gains.
But even after I earned a Master’s degree and bought a small townhouse, it wasn’t enough. The cost of babies and childcare is overwhelming when one is struggling to make ends meet. Add health complications from childbirth on top of it, and we were immediately under water.
Getting help from the social safety net has always been harder than it should be. Years ago, before I had kids, I needed help affording food and housing while I searched for new employment after getting laid off. But because I had a car and no kids, I was told I was ineligible.
But that’s nothing compared to what families are facing now.
We’ve recently seen the largest shift away from support for families in modern history. All in favor of massive tax breaks for billionaires. The so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” mercilessly slashes funding for healthcare and food for the rest of us to subsidize nearly $5 trillion in tax cuts for the already rich.
That doesn’t seem very fair to me.
According to the Urban Institute, more than half of American families can’t afford the true cost of living in their communities, even when both adults work full-time. Costs, especially for essentials like housing, food, childcare, and healthcare, are rising faster than wages.
The label “middle class” hides the real financial stress that millions of us feel. We don’t make enough to cover what our families need, yet we make too much to qualify for help when we need it.
The programs that would help everyday Americans weather the occasional storms have been pillaged to give trillions more to billionaires. Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs have cost the average US family an extra $1,000 last year and are expected to cost families $1,300 this year.
I’m facing a layoff from my current job in a dismal job market, which will cost my family and me our employer-provided healthcare. And with Congress both slashing Medicaid and allowing extended subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans to expire, I don’t know how I will afford our health coverage.
While many in Washington point to record stock market highs as proof of a booming economy, those gains don’t reflect the reality at my kitchen table. A rising Dow Jones doesn’t pay for a child’s doctor visit or lower the price of eggs. For families like mine, the economy isn’t measured by a ticker, but by our bank balance. You simply can’t pay your mortgage with someone else’s stock gains.
As life becomes less and less affordable for working people, we need to restore and expand our social safety net so those of us who work for a living can keep our families affordably housed, fed, and healthy. Currently, we’re headed in the wrong direction.
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