To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
"It's a disgraceful law that forces working families to pay the price so the ultra-rich can profit," said Rep. Brendan Boyle.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday said the Republican budget package that President Donald Trump signed into law last month will push up interest rates and add at least $4.1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade—largely due to the measure's massive tax cuts for the rich and large corporations.
According to the CBO, growing interest payments on the national debt will account for $718 billion of the estimated $4.1 trillion total deficit increase. Economist Josh Bivens has noted that it would cost the federal government $4.1 trillion to send a $12,000 check to every adult and child in the United States.
If temporary tax provisions of the highly regressive Trump-GOP law are made permanent, the estimated deficit impact would soar to nearly $5 trillion, CBO Director Phillip Swagel—a Republican—wrote in a letter to Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday.
"Each and every analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office continues to show the same result regardless of how you look at it: this bill explodes the debt by trillions of dollars to fund tax breaks for billionaires," Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement. "Republicans can't spin the fact that this bill is bad policy that kicks more than 15 million people off of their health insurance, will force millions of kids to go hungry, and explodes the national debt by $5 trillion over the next 10 years—pushing the cost of this bill onto future generations to ensure billionaires can pay less in taxes."
"It is the height of hypocrisy coming from the party that claims to be fiscally responsible," Merkley added.
The deeply unpopular Republican law includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance in U.S. history, alongside major handouts to profitable corporations—including oil and gas firms, pharmaceutical giants, and tech companies.
Zion Research Group estimates that 369 companies in the S&P 500 are set to reap a combined $148 billion in cash tax savings this year as a result of the Trump-GOP law, which extends tax breaks in Republicans' 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Just four companies—Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, and Microsoft—are expected to rake in 38% of the $148 billion total.
The poorest 40% of Americans, meanwhile are set to see their taxes rise next year under the Trump-GOP bill, mostly due to Republican lawmakers' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Wow, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google are getting 38% of the total cash savings from the part of Trump’s tax law going to corporations. That’s $15.7B to Amazon alone! https://t.co/l9AZth20RJ pic.twitter.com/XFVekRmrrp
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) August 5, 2025
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the new CBO analysis "yet again confirms Republicans' Big Ugly Law is as expensive as it is cruel."
"It explodes the deficit by over $4 trillion to pay for massive tax breaks for billionaires, while ripping healthcare and food assistance away from millions of Americans," said Boyle. "It's a disgraceful law that forces working families to pay the price so the ultra-rich can profit."
Scott Bessent's "3-3-3" agenda "requires brutal cuts to health and nutrition and higher costs for families at the grocery store," said analysts at the Center for American Progress.
At his confirmation hearing on Thursday, hedge fund manager and U.S. treasury secretary nominee Scott Bessent told the Senate Finance Committee that at the helm of the Treasury Department he would usher in an "economic golden age."
But a report by two policy analysts details how Bessent's signature "3-3-3" plan would only be achievable by gutting programs for some of the nation's most vulnerable households—extending the "golden age" only to wealthy people and corporations for whom the Trump administration plans to slash taxes.
At the Center for American Progress, senior director of economic policy Brendan Duke and senior director of federal budget policy Bobby Kogan completed "the accounting to determine what it would take to achieve" Bessent's 3-3-3 agenda, particularly his plan to cut the federal budget deficit down to 3% of the gross domestic product (GDP). The plan also calls for real GDP growth to reach 3% and the production of 3 million barrels of oil by 2028.
While reducing the budget deficit and simultaneously protecting programs American families rely on is a "laudable goal," wrote Duke and Kogan, Bessent has "explicitly stated that extending the expiring 2017 tax cuts is a priority, and he would likely rule out tax increases on the wealthy to pay for them"—suggesting that the Treasury nominee's 3-3-3 agenda would require new taxes on imported goods and "massive cuts to anti-poverty programs."
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the budget deficit will represent 5.8% of the nation's GDP in 2028.
"The president-elect is stacking his cabinet with one goal in mind: more tax breaks for his billionaire boys club and major corporations."
With Bessent proposing an extension of the 2017 tax cuts—which are projected to grow the budget deficit by about $4 trillion over a decade—the elimination of Inflation Reduction Act energy investments, and a pause on nondefense discretionary spending increases, said Duke and Kogan, Bessent's plan would "actually increase the projected 2028 budget deficit from 5.8 to 6.0% of GDP, or $1 trillion above the 3% target.
Without any cuts to Medicare and Social Security—which Trump has said he would exempt from cuts—or defense spending, says the analysis, Bessent's deficit target would require both:
"The combination of policies that would deliver the deficit reduction proposed in Bessent's 3-3-3 economic plan would raise taxes on low- and middle-income families and gut healthcare, nutrition assistance, and veterans' programs while still cutting taxes for the wealthy," wrote Duke and Kogan. "Such a plan would hike families' costs both because broad-based tariffs would increase prices and because Americans would have to pay more for healthcare and food due to cuts to federal programs that help lower the cost of living."
With families across the U.S. facing "brutal cuts to health and nutrition" and higher prices at the grocery store under Bessent's plan, said Duke, the wealthiest households would still get "a net tax cut."
At The Washington Post, columnist Catherine Rampell wrote that "the magnitude of cuts required to make Bessent's arithmetic work is breathtaking."
"If you add up all the tax-cut promises Trump made during his campaign, the budget hole swells to almost $10 trillion," wrote Rampell. "To compensate, government programs would have to shrink by two-thirds. Alternatively, Trump could raise taxes on the middle class. Pick your poison."
On social media, government watchdog Accountable.US denounced Bessent's defense of Trump's tax cuts—under which "the top 1% saw benefits nearly three times larger than families in the bottom 60%"—and of the president-elect's proposed tariffs, which leading economists say would "reignite" inflation.
"Scott Bessent's nomination isn't about helping American families," said the group. "It's about lining the pockets of the ultra-wealthy and doubling down on policies that hurt the middle class."
Meanwhile, critics of Bessent on Thursday pointed to new reporting from Politico that Senate Democrats have accused the Treasury nominee of dodging $910,182 in Medicare taxes for income he made through his hedge fund from 2021-23. A memo circulated by Democrats stated that Bessent argued that as a "limited partner" in his fund, he was not liable for taxes on certain income.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) addressed the memo at Bessent's hearing, saying: "Like a number of Wall Street fund managers, Mr. Bessent makes use of a tricky legal maneuver to opt out of paying into Medicare."
"The billionaire hedge fund manager Trump handpicked to oversee a massive tax giveaway for the ultra-wealthy doesn't pay his own taxes," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative. "It's almost too on the nose. The president-elect is stacking his cabinet with one goal in mind: more tax breaks for his billionaire boys club and major corporations."
If you want to make social investments, it's important to recognize that vast amounts of capital held by the rich are just sitting around waiting to be put to good social use.
Back in 1933, the journalist-turned-lawyer Wesley Lloyd turned into a new member of Congress from Washington State. Two months into his first term, Lloyd rose to address his fellow lawmakers. They had all, he related, so far applied little more than “palliatives” to the continuing Great Depression.
“We have subsidized the farmer and charged the cost to labor,” Lloyd observed, “and we are attempting to subsidize labor and propose to let the farmer pay the bill.”
What Congress needed to do instead: “lay the ax of legislative enactment at the tap root” of what had gone wrong in America and “place a definite limitation on the acquisition and ownership of wealth.”
“A startlingly small number of our people,” Lloyd charged, had come to enjoy a “vastly major proportion of our national wealth.” His answer: a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power “to limit the wealth” of individual Americans to no more than $1 million, the equivalent of about $23 million today.
“I propose in the main,” said Lloyd, “to bring up the poor and bring down the rich into the class of the average man, where all may find real happiness and where we may know a widespread national prosperity.”
Over the next dozen years, under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the United States would make historically unprecedented progress toward that greater equality Lloyd so deeply desired. By 1945, America’s richest faced a 94 percent tax rate on income over $200,000. Lloyd, sadly, wouldn’t be around to see that progress. He died early in 1936, midway through his second term.
But Lloyd’s tax-the-rich spirit lives on, especially today in his home Washington State. Earlier this year, 19 of the state’s senators and 43 state reps introduced legislation that would fix a first-ever 1 percent annual tax on stocks, bonds, and other forms of “intangible personal property” worth over $250 million. The Evergreen State currently hosts over 700 grand fortunes that top this quarter-billion mark.
The holders of these massive accumulations have — for now at least — dodged this proposed annual 1 percent tax on their “financial intangible property.” The proposal failed to get through the 2023 state legislative session. But that failure hasn’t left Washington’s deepest pockets feeling like celebrating. The reason? They’ve just become subject to another new tax, a measure that Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat is describing as the state’s first-ever “wealth-related levy.”
This particular levy, a 7-percent excise tax on asset-sale profits over $250,000, actually became law two years ago, then got shelved when a county court ruled the new tax unconstitutional. This past March, a state Supreme Court ruling reversed that county ruling, and wealthy Washingtonians are now paying up on their new taxes due — at much higher levels than the state’s legislative number-crunchers had anticipated!
Those analysts had expected Washington’s new 7-percent capital gains tax to raise $440 million from the state’s richest. The new tax has instead so far raised $849 million, almost double the take originally anticipated.
Washington’s wealthy still, to be sure, have plenty to be thankful for at tax time. Washington, for instance, remains without an income tax. But no state, we need to remember, has yet come up with what analysts at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities would see as a perfect package of tax reforms that prioritize “equity and fairness.”
The Center is now hoping to nudge state lawmakers nationwide further in that direction with a new online tool for developing “State Revenue Options for Advancing Equity and Prosperity.” State policymakers, the Center notes, don’t always understand “how much revenue different policies might raise, whether a tax will fall more on families with low incomes or people at the top.” The new Center tool aims to build that understanding.
Understanding, of course, only takes lawmakers so far. They still have to overcome the opposition of the richest among us to paying anything close to their fair tax share. Lawmakers can certainly do that overcoming — if enough of us push them. And if we do enough of that pushing, maybe our lawmakers will start sounding like Wesley Lloyd back when he proposed to limit the personal wealth of our super richest.
“I do not seek to destroy wealth or industry,” Lloyd told his fellow members of Congress, “but I do propose to place the burden of public expense and national development upon the shoulders of those best able to bear that burden and those who have profited most. I would have the strong help the weak rather than have the weak forever carrying the strong.”