

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.
Mar-a-Lago is his Money Bin, and the world is his playground for schemes to add another billion or two to his and his family’s growing fortune.
Writers often try to gild their tawdry times or dignify their flawed leaders with lofty literary analogies—notably, America as the New Jerusalem; Lincoln as Moses leading his people through the wilderness of the Civil War; the Kennedy White House as an incarnation of King Arthur’s “Camelot“; or Lyndon Johnson living his last years as a latter-day King Lear, cast off by his ungrateful children into the moors of south Texas.
But what are we going to do with Donald Trump? Wouldn’t his vanity, his vulgarity, and his relentless pursuit of money and minerals in every corner of the globe turn any literary analogies into soggy clichés? Like the showman P.T. Barnum, Trump is an American original, whose true metaphors can be found only in comic books (America’s one true art form), not literature. As Ariel Dorfman reminded us once upon a time in How to Read Donald Duck, that classic guide to US cultural imperialism in Latin America, there was always more to a Disney comic book than gags.
To understand Trump’s America, we need our own comic guidebook to his global misadventures, which might be titled something like “How to Read Scrooge McDuck.” After all, in case you never had the pleasure of his acquaintance, Scrooge McDuck was the predatory billionaire in Disney comics, who was amazingly popular among teenagers in Cold War America. In that era when American corporations scampered around the global economy extracting profits wherever they saw fit, Scrooge McDuck put a friendly face on US imperialism, making covert intervention and commercial exploitation look benign, even comic.
From 1952 to 1988, a period coinciding almost precisely with the Cold War, the comic’s creator, illustrator Carl Barks, filled the country’s magazine racks with more than 220 comic books celebrating Scrooge’s schemes to accumulate ever more billions by dispatching Donald Duck and his triplet nephews (Huey, Dewey, and Louie) to scour the world for riches—gems, minerals, oil, and lost treasure. No place on the planet was too remote, not even the Arctic or the Amazon, and no people too poor or obscure, not even Hondurans and Tibetans, to escape his tight-fisted grasp. And yet in that innocent world of the comic book, every adventure, no matter how twisted the plot, always ended with a light laugh for those duckling heroes and the diverse peoples they encountered on their global travels.
Just as Scrooge McDuck scoured the world in a relentless, even ruthless search for wealth, so our real-life Donald has made mineral deals everywhere on the planet his top presidential priority.
Let’s visit a few of my favorite comic books from my Cold War childhood, starting with the 1954 story “The Seven Cities of Cibola.” Its initial panels show a butler showering the billionaire duck with coins while he swims around in his Money Bin’s “three cubic acres” of cash. At first, Scrooge McDuck seems content as he gloats about making money from “about every business there is on Earth” (from “oil wells, railroads, gold mines, farms, factories”).
Suddenly, however, saddened by the realization that he’s exhausted every possible domestic path to profit, Scrooge decides to lead his nephew Donald and the triplets into the desert borderlands between Mexico and the US. There, they come upon a lost Eldorado, a towering, multitiered city with gold-paved streets and a cistern filled with opals and sapphires. But caution intrudes when Huey, Dewey, and Louie discover that the whole edifice is poised dangerously atop a spindly stone pillar. Then, at their moment of near triumph, the ducks are denied any treasure by Scrooge’s recurring nemesis, the comically criminal Beagle Boys, who break in and grab the city’s bejeweled idol, triggering a hidden mechanism that fractures the pillar. As those fabled cities collapse into a heap of rubble, our duckling heroes escape unharmed, ready for their next adventure.
The first panel in a 1956 comic book, the “Secret of Hondorica,” shows Scrooge McDuck pointing to a map of the Caribbean as he dispatches Donald Duck and his three nephews deep into tropical jungles near—yes, how sadly appropriate almost seven decades later—Venezuela to recover his lost deeds to the region’s rich oil wells. After crossing steep mountains and crocodile-infested creeks, the Ducks happen upon a Mayan temple filled with spear-carrying “savages” arrayed around their idol. By translating the “picture writing” on the temple walls with the help of their handy encyclopedic “Junior Woodchuck Guidebook,” the nephews deceive the natives with incantations in their own language and escape with the idol’s crown of gold.
President Donald Trump is, of course, our real-life Scrooge McDuck. Mar-a-Lago is his Money Bin. And the world is his playground for schemes to add another billion or two to his and his family’s growing fortune. Just as Scrooge McDuck scoured the world in a relentless, even ruthless search for wealth, so our real-life Donald has made mineral deals everywhere on the planet his top presidential priority—rare earths from Ukraine, oil from the Middle East, and (someday perhaps) a frozen treasure trove of minerals in Greenland. And just as Scrooge dispatched Donald Duck on a mission to recover his lost oil wells from the jungles of “Hondorica,” so our real Donald did indeed send US special forces to capture President Nicolás Maduro and win yet more of Venezuela’s oil fields for American companies.
Alas, my innocent childhood is long gone. The world is no backdrop for comic book adventures, and imaginary heroes don’t flit from frame to frame to amusing endings. In the real world of 2026, we are already deep into a “new Cold War” against nuclear-armed powers, and President Donald J. Trump’s comedic foreign policy is dragging us toward a dismal defeat.
First, let’s snap back to reality by taking stock of the world we’ve actually been living through all these years and review how we got here. During the real Cold War, the global conflict that lasted from 1947 to 1991 (when the Soviet Union collapsed), the one I describe in my new book, Cold War on Five Continents, Washington’s geopolitical strategy was brilliantly ruthless in its basic design. After fighting quite a different global conflict, World War II, for four years with the aim of defeating the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) entrenched at both ends of Eurasia, America’s leaders of General (and future president) Dwight D. Eisenhower’s generation knew instinctively that geopolitical control over that vast continent was indeed the key to global power.
If Washington’s strategy for waging the Cold War was a successful exercise in geopolitics, its use of “unipolar” power in the decades to come was... much less so.
Guided by that fundamental strategic principle (which had, in fact, held true for the last thousand years or so), Washington’s early Cold War leaders worked hard to “contain” the Sino-Soviet communist bloc behind an “Iron Curtain” that stretched for 5,000 miles around the rim of Eurasia. With the armed forces of its NATO alliance securing that continent’s Western frontier and five bilateral military pacts ranging along the Pacific littoral from Japan to Australia for its eastern border, Washington bottled up the communist superpowers. That strategy freed the US to make the rest of the planet into its very own “free world.” In exchange for open access to the markets and minerals of the countries in much of that free world, the US distributed a few development dollars of aid to the emerging nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which often served to fatten up the bank accounts of their nominally “democratic” dictators.
After two decades of being locked up inside Eurasia, however, Beijing and Moscow tried to break out of their geopolitical isolation by arming allies for revolutionary warfare on Cold War battlegrounds stretching from South Vietnam across the Middle East and through southern Africa, all the way to Central America.
To counter that gambit and push those communist powers back behind the Iron Curtain, the US sometimes sent in its own troops, whether successfully to the Dominican Republic in 1965, or disastrously to South Vietnam from 1965 to 1973. But most of the time, Washington dispatched individual CIA operatives armed with impunity to do whatever—and I do mean whatever—they wanted to deflect Moscow and Beijing’s gambits and secure contested terrain. Usually misfits, even oddballs at home, those surprisingly significant historical actors, whom I’ve come to call “men on the spot,” often proved quite successful abroad. Using the cruelest instruments in the toolkit of modern statecraft—assassinations, coups, surrogate troops, torture, and psychological warfare—those covert operatives fought for control of foreign capitals as diverse as Kinshasha, Luanda, Saigon, Santiago, San Salvador, Tegucigalpa, and Vientiane. And then, with the Soviet Union significantly “contained” geopolitically within its borderlands, Washington could just sit back and wait for Moscow to make a strategic blunder.
That blunder came in 1979 in one of those classic military misadventures that often hasten the deaths of empires in decline. When Moscow sent 100,000 troops to occupy Afghanistan, Washington sent just one CIA operative, Howard Hart, to defeat that occupation. Acting as Washington’s “man on the spot,” he used the agency’s millions of dollars to form a guerrilla army of 250,000 Afghan fighters. By the time the Red Army was bled dry and left Afghanistan a decade later, defeated and demoralized, Moscow’s satellite states in Eastern Europe were erupting in mass anti-communist protests. With the Red Army generally unable or unwilling to intervene, the Soviet bloc broke apart as the Soviet Union broke up, ending the Cold War with an unqualified US victory.
If Washington’s strategy for waging the Cold War was a successful exercise in geopolitics, its use of “unipolar” power in the decades to come was, as I also argue in Cold War on Five Continents, much less so. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington stood astride the globe like a Titan of Greek legend—the sole superpower on Earth, at least theoretically capable of remaking the world as it wished. Convinced that “the end of history” would make its free-market democracy the future of all mankind, America’s leaders, “drunk with power,” advanced sweeping plans for a new world order, grounded in a globalized economy that served their short-term interests but would have deleterious long-term consequences for their global hegemony.
Only a decade after the Cold War ended, Washington started facing serious strategic challenges across the Eurasian continent, which, then and now, has been the epicenter of geopolitical power. In the heady aftermath of its Cold War victory, the US attempted some bold strategic gambits that would soon prove to be distinctly ill-advised. Above all, Washington’s leaders believed that they could co-opt Beijing’s rising power by recognizing China as an equal trading partner. In a parallel attempt to curb any of Moscow’s future imperial ambitions, the US also presided over NATO’s expansion until that alliance surrounded Russia’s western borders, sparking security concerns in Moscow. Such ill-fated initiatives, combined with ill-considered military interventions in Afghanistan and also Iraq, created conditions for the revival of a great-power rivalry that, since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, many observers have called “the new Cold War.”
For over a century, the Caribbean region had consistently experienced the most brutal, least benign aspects of US foreign policy and now that reality has only worsened.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and its socialist economy in 1991, Washington seemed to feel its post-Cold-War globalization would both promote democracy there and integrate that country into an emerging American world order, perhaps as a secondary power supplying cheap commodities, including oil, to the global economy. For the Russians, however, such globalization produced the dismal decade of the 1990s that would be marked by what economist Jeffrey Sachs has called a “serious economic and financial crisis” and a privatization of state enterprises “rife with unfairness and corruption,” creating a coterie of predatory Russian oligarchs.
When Vladimir Putin became prime minister amid the post-Soviet malaise of the late 1990s, he reverted to Russia’s centuries-old imperial mode. He found his vision for the country’s revival as a “great power” in the sort of geostrategic thinking that Washington’s leaders seemed to have forgotten in the afterglow of their great Cold War victory. Following a 2005 address calling the collapse of the Soviet Union the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin set about systematically reclaiming much of the old Soviet sphere—invading Georgia in 2008 when it began flirting with NATO membership; deploying troops in 2020-2021 to resolve an Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in favor of a pro-Moscow regime in Baku; and dispatching thousands of Russian special forces to Kazakhstan in 2022 to gun down pro-democracy protesters challenging a loyal Russian ally.
Concerned above all with securing his western frontier with Europe, Putin pressed relentlessly against Ukraine after his loyal surrogate leader there was ousted in the 2014 Maidan “color revolution.” First seizing Crimea, next arming separatist rebels in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region adjacent to Russia, and finally invading Ukraine in 2022 with nearly 200,000 troops, he would spark a protracted war that has yet to end.
At first, as Kyiv fought the Russians off, Washington and the West reacted with a striking unanimity by imposing serious sanctions on Moscow, dispatching armaments to Ukraine, and expanding NATO to include all of Scandinavia. Moreover, Ukraine showed a formidable flair for unconventional operations—clearing Russian ships from the Black Sea with naval drones and sabotaging that country’s massive gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea.
As Russia’s war on Ukraine reverberated across Eurasia and beyond, geopolitical tensions also rose in the Western Pacific, sparking a renewed great power rivalry that became worthy of the phrase “the new Cold War.” In a striking parallel with the 1950s, in February 2022, just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Beijing and Moscow forged a multi-faceted economic and strategic alliance that they claimed had “no limits.” In an eerie reprisal of the early Cold War years, Russia and China were in that way united against a Western alliance, once again led by Washington with its military forces still deployed in Western Europe and East Asia.
After two years of continuous combat in Ukraine, however, cracks began to appear in the West’s anti-Russian coalition. Most critically, American domestic support for Ukraine started to falter under partisan political pressures, amplified by a rising populist opposition in both the US and Europe to the globalized economy and its military alliances. After successfully rallying NATO to stand with Ukraine, President Joseph Biden opened America’s arsenal to Kyiv until Republican legislators, at Donald Trump’s behest, delayed military aid throughout much of 2024.
Following his second inauguration in January 2025, President Trump’s initial foreign policy initiative was a unilateral attempt to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war—an effort that would be complicated by his underlying hostility toward NATO and his sympathy for Russian President Putin. On February 12, Trump launched peace talks through a “lengthy and highly productive” phone call with the Russian president, agreeing that “our respective teams start negotiations immediately.” Within days, Defense Secretary (or do I mean Secretary of War?) Pete Hegseth announced that “returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” and Trump added that NATO membership for Kyiv was no less unrealistic—in effect, making what a senior Swedish diplomat called “very major concessions” to Moscow before any talks even began.
At month’s end, those tensions culminated in a televised Oval Office meeting in which Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying: “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.” That unilateral approach not only weakened Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, but also degraded NATO, which had, for the previous three years, supported Ukraine’s resistance to Russia. Recoiling from the “initial shock” of that utterly unprecedented breach, Europeans quickly appropriated $160 billion to build up their own arms industry in collaboration with both Canada and Ukraine, thereby reducing their dependence on US weaponry.
Although it has little chance of success, Trump’s attempt at a tricontinental grand strategy will likely leave a residue of ruin—alienating allies in Latin America, weakening NATO’s position in Western Europe, and ultimately corroding Washington’s global power.
For the rest of the year, Putin continued to work on Trump. He even scored a state visit and meeting with the American president in Alaska, without making any concessions whatsoever. In the process, he reduced US envoys to messenger boys for his unyielding demands, while using disinformation to drive a wedge between Washington and Kyiv. Even if the Trump administration does not formally withdraw from NATO in the years to come, the president’s repeated hostility toward it, particularly its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to weaken, if not eviscerate the alliance.
Amid a torrent of confusing, often contradictory foreign policy pronouncements from the White House, the design of Trump’s de facto geopolitical strategy soon took shape. Instead of focusing on mutual-security alliances like NATO in Europe or NORAD with Canada, Trump seems to prefer a globe divided into three major regional blocs, each headed by an empowered leader like himself—with Russia dominating its European periphery, China paramount in Asia, and the United States controlling the Americas. That aspiration to hemispheric hegemony lent a certain geopolitical logic to Trump’s otherwise quixotic strikes on Venezuela (and his capture of its president and his wife), as well as his overtures to claim Greenland, reclaim the Panama Canal, and even to make Canada the 51st state.
Last November, formalizing that approach, the White House released its new National Security Strategy, which proclaimed a “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” aimed at achieving an unchallenged “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.” Think, of course, the Donroe Doctrine. To that end, the US will reduce its “global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere,” deploy the US Navy to “control sea lanes,” and use “tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools” to make the Western Hemisphere “an increasingly attractive market for American commerce.” In essence, “the United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity.”
For over a century, the Caribbean region had consistently experienced the most brutal, least benign aspects of US foreign policy and now that reality has only worsened. Not only has Trump reverted to the gunboat diplomacy of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but he’s done so with a caricatured cruelty—sinking boats in the Caribbean in the name of drug interdiction and sending troops to invade Venezuela, a sovereign state.
Just as Theodore Roosevelt used the Navy to seize land from Colombia for the Panama Canal, so Trump sent Special Forces into Venezuela to gain control over its oil. “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies… go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said at a January 3 press conference just hours after President Maduro’s capture. “We’re gonna rebuild the oil infrastructure, which will cost billions of dollars. It will cost us nothing. It’ll be paid for by the oil companies directly.” Such a caricatured assertion of economic interest is likely to inflame resentment in a region where anti-imperialist sensibilities remain strong.
Although it has little chance of success, Trump’s attempt at a tricontinental grand strategy will likely leave a residue of ruin—alienating allies in Latin America, weakening NATO’s position in Western Europe, and ultimately corroding Washington’s global power. From a strategic perspective, a staged US retreat from its military bastion in Western Europe would end its long-standing influence over Eurasia, which remains the epicenter of geopolitical power in this new Cold War era, just as it was in the old one. Such a retreat, at the very moment when Russia and China are expanding their influence over that strategic continent, would be tantamount to a self-inflicted defeat in this era of a new and intensifying Cold War.
To return to those Donald Duck comic books for an appropriate analogy: Just as that bungled grab for a bejeweled idol collapsed the spindly stone pillar holding up the “Seven Cities of Cibola,” so the Trump administration’s inept foreign policy is potentially destabilizing a fragile world order with dangerously unpredictable consequences for us all. And count on one thing, unlike in the comic books, it won’t be even a little bit funny.
The evidence is overwhelming. The American economic system is no longer failing by accident; it is succeeding at its new design: concentrating wealth and power for the few while dismantling the foundations of a dignified life for the many.
Nine days ago, I laid out a draft of a pledge akin to Newt’s Contract for America. First, we must agree on what is broken. If you can’t agree on the scale of a crisis, you can never agree on the scale of a solution.
This is my attempt to lay out the first and most important reality, one that so many of us know in our bones but that the establishment continues to deny.
The people in charge—the politicians in Washington, the economists at Hahvahd, the CEOs in boardrooms—all describe a nation that does not exist for most of us. Strongest economy EVER! Record GDP! Look at the MARKET FOLKS! “Real Wages” are up across the board!
Our greatest economic minds reckon we oughta be in awe of the riches that their management has bestowed upon us.
Every official metric tells us we're richer than our parents and grandparents, and that all who have come before us would look at even the poorest among us green with envy. The story goes that even Kings and Queens could only dream of trading their lives for those of trailer park dwellers or Section 8 residents. We're living the dream.
Alas, it’s a lie. A goddamn lie. It's the big lie.
Why does it matter that we share this understanding of reality? Why can’t you think things are okay but need improving? Because this lie paralyzes us. If the prevailing wisdom is to be believed then there is no problem. No need for fundamental shifts in the foundation of our system.
Also, implicit in this lie is that failure is our fault if we struggle financially or socially. It means that if we’re poor, we’re fuck ups that didn’t heed Dave Ramsey’s advice. After all the fantasy of America and the data tell us the same story. America is the land of opportunity. You fail, you suck.
Politicians, voters and non-voters alike all look at the stats to determine a plan of action. Is the good life out there waiting for us?
Unless we share this reality we have no chance in mobilizing the strength to overturn a system that constantly fails us. To overcome the corporations, the billionaires and the yes men in our government that have their boots on our throats economically it’ll take a lot of political will. A lot of political fights. Brave people, terrified people, but united people.
The odds of a child earning more than their parents have fallen from 90% for those born in 1940 to 50% for those born in the 1980s.
People that agree in this simple truth: We are not failing. The system is failing us.
Let's start with what we know in our bones.
Our parents and grandparents could afford a home on one income. Now we struggle on two. Our grandparents raised a family on a factory wage. Today even with a college degree many can't afford daycare. That degree once cost a summer job. Now it's a lifetime of debt.
They want to tell you about personal responsibility, bootstraps, or about the choices you've made. The elite, academics, and CEOs want us to believe that if we’d worked a little harder, gotten a different degree, made a different decision, we’d have risen above it all.
But when an entire generation is locked out of the stability their parents took for granted, the problem isn't the generation—it's the system.
According to a 2017 study we’ve long lost social mobility. We're not better off than our parents. Our kids probably won't be better off than us.
We need to understand that the people telling you otherwise are invested in not seeing the truth. They are tracking the portfolios of the rich instead of the lives of the working. They are celebrating the health of the parasite while the host, you and me, get sicker every year.
You don't need an economics degree to see the crime scene. You just need basic arithmetic.

Housing: In 1950, the median household income was about $3,073 and the median home cost around $7,500. 2.8 times a household’s yearly pay. In 2023, the median household income was $80,610 and the median home cost $430,000 or 5.3 times a household income. No inflation though. Just ask experts.
Keep in mind that more and more homes had two people working full-time. So what once took 2.8 years of income for one worker now requires 5.3 years from TWO. The one-income household is DOA.
Education: In 1973, you could pay for a year of public university tuition (about $400) by working roughly 250 hours at the federal minimum wage ($1.60). Today, with average public university tuition at $11,610, you'd need to work over 1,600 hours at the current minimum wage—most of a full-time job just for tuition. Forget food, rent, or books.
The game has been fundamentally changed. The cost of entry into the middle class now requires a lifetime of debt and labor that was unimaginable two generations ago.

So where did all the prosperity go? It didn't vanish. It was taken. Housing, healthcare, education, transportation, and food make up the bulk of our spending. And corporations have gobbled it up.

A landmark study from the RAND Corporation calculated the scale of the heist. If income had been distributed as equitably as it was from 1945-1975, the bottom 90% of Americans would have earned $79 trillion more over the past 50 years.
That's not a typo. Trillion. With a T.
In 2023 alone, the transfer was $3.9 trillion. That's enough to have given every single worker in America an additional $32,000.
Stop and think about that number. Every American worker in a single year, 2023, was robbed of 32 grand. What would an extra $32,000 have meant for your family last year? A down payment? An end to credit card debt? The ability to see a doctor without checking your bank account first?
That money is our money. It was earned by our labor, our infrastructure, our markets. Then stolen with interest, inflation, and policy choices.
CEO pay exploded from 30-to-1 in 1978 to 290-to-1 today. The top 1% now owns 31% of all wealth—up from 23% in 1989.
Why are people so pissed? Why is xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, on the rise in the West? This is one of the reasons. We’ve spent the last 50 years being mugged with policy. Blaming immigrants or leftists or right wingers and Trump and everyone in between is simpler than acknowledging the truth. They are easier fixes too. Walls, bombs, bullets, and deportations. Much easier than rebuilding an entire economy and society.
How do they hide a crime this massive in plain sight? They build a gaslighting machine “experts say” or “the News” or "economic data."
They use sophisticated, elegant-sounding mathematical formulas to tell us it's raining while they piss all over us.
The official inflation number is their primary weapon, engineered to hide the affordability crisis. Here's exactly how they do it:
"Substitution": When steak gets too expensive, the statisticians quietly assume you now buy hamburger. When hamburger gets too expensive, they assume you switch to chicken. When chicken gets too expensive, it's beans. They are not measuring the cost of living; they are measuring the cost of surviving. By constantly moving the goalposts downward, they report that prices are stable while you are eating worse for more money.
"Hedonic Adjustments": When a new car includes a backup camera that used to be an option, they count that as a price decrease because you're "getting more car for your money." But you can't buy the old, cheaper car anymore. You are forced to pay the full sticker price, while the government reports that your cost of living went down.
"Averaging the Absurd": TVs got 94% cheaper while healthcare costs have tripled since 2000—from $4,900 per person to $14,570. They call it a wash. But you need healthcare to live. A TV is optional. It's like saying "Sure, chemotherapy will bankrupt you, but have you seen the deal on flatscreens?"
The lies, the blatant lies that we're told about our economy, our living situations, are just enraging and offensive.
The $79 trillion heist was never just about cash. They didn't just steal our money; they stole our capacity. They stole our ability to do things, to build, to create, and to care for our own.
We can't build infrastructure projects anymore. We can't complete a high-speed rail system. The road on I-40 between Asheville and my home is still down to two lanes because part of it collapsed into a river, and God knows how many years that'll take to fix.
They've got us in a situation where 54 percent of this country can't read beyond a sixth-grade level, and 20 percent of us are functionally illiterate. At the same time, they tell us we have a 99 percent literacy rate because people can read a sentence.
We are the only developed nation where mothers are three times more likely to die in childbirth than 25 years ago. Our life expectancy is falling.
We are literally sick from the stress, the debt, and the garbage food that's all many can afford. Over 130 million Americans have multiple chronic conditions.
The average family now spends $13,174 annually on transportation—more than double what most people think. Childcare costs average $11,582 per year, often exceeding college tuition. We're spending more on basic necessities than we earn.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' own data shows that families in the bottom 80% spend more than they earn just on necessities—before accounting for anything else. This isn't overconsumption; it's mathematical impossibility sustained only through debt.

They haven't just taken the fruit; they've poisoned the tree. They've left us a nation rich on paper but poor in the real capacity to provide decent lives for our people.
The evidence is overwhelming. The American economic system is no longer failing by accident; it is succeeding at its new design: concentrating wealth and power for the few while dismantling the foundations of a dignified life for the many.
This is the rot beneath the floorboards of our democracy. This is the economic carnage that fuels the political chaos. January 6th, Minnesota, Kirk, Pelosi...
Trump’s election victories were outlandish. They were the predictable consequences of telling a drowning country that it's not even wet. When you gaslight people about their own lives for long enough, they will eventually burn the whole thing down. Blame anyone they can find—an immigrant from Guatemala, some trans kid, whomever—because the people who actually robbed us live in walled-off communities or a yacht in the Mediterranean. We're not running into them at the grocery store.
We have a choice. We can keep pretending. We can keep tweaking the machine that's grinding us into dust. Or we can admit the truth. The experiment failed. The system is broken. It's time to build something new.
We have a choice. We can keep pretending. We can keep tweaking the machine that's grinding us into dust. Or we can admit the truth. The experiment failed. The system is broken. It's time to build something new. An economy where we build things again. An economy where one job is enough to raise a family. An economy where the goal is the prosperity of our people, not the fiction of our spreadsheets.
We did this before, from 1933 to 1975. We can do it again. But first, we gotta stop lying about where we are and how we got here.
Our eyes aren’t lying to us. The spreadsheets are.
Help spread a shared reality. Share this. Post it on social media. Restack it. Forward it. And comment on the thoughts below.
Did any of these numbers or comparisons surprise you? Which ones stood out most? If you were explaining this to a friend, which example would you start with? What’s the best way to show people that the system is failing us—not that we’re failing as individuals? If you could put just one chart, story, or fact on a billboard in your town, what would it be?
For the economists reading this: The data supporting these claims comes from Carter C. Price's extension of the RAND wage divergence study (WR-A516-2, 2025), Federal Reserve Distributional Financial Accounts (WFRBST01134), Census Historical Income Tables (P-60 series), NCES Digest of Education Statistics, BLS Consumer Expenditure Surveys via FRED (CXUTRANSLB0101M), CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Commonwealth Fund maternal mortality analyses, NAEP Reading Assessment data, and Chetty et al.'s work on intergenerational mobility (Science, 2017). The productivity-compensation gap documented by EPI, the PCE deflator biases analyzed by the Boskin Commission, and the hedonic adjustment critiques from Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi all support the core thesis: our measurement systems systematically obscure declining affordability and eroding living standards for the bottom 90% of Americans.
"Enough with the attacks on working people in order to fund billionaire tax cuts," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas). "Tax the billionaires instead of funding the billionaires."
As House Republicans prepared to vote Tuesday on a budget blueprint that calls for ravaging Medicaid and other programs to help fund trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy, progressive lawmakers joined community members and organizers outside of the U.S. Capitol to launch a new coalition demanding a radically different approach.
"Enough with the attacks on working people in order to fund billionaire tax cuts," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said at a press conference. "Just tax the billionaires instead of funding the billionaires."
Speakers at Tuesday's event cast the "Tax the Greedy Billionaires" coalition—which includes People's Action, MoveOn, and other advocacy groups—as a direct challenge to President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans' legislative agenda, particularly the push for $4.5 trillion tax cuts primarily for the wealthiest Americans, financed by deep cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other key programs.
"The Republican plan is about making government more efficient for big corporations and billionaires who are screwing us over," said Casar. "We don't need to cut Social Security; we can expand it. We don't need to cut people's healthcare; we can expand it. We can have a country that is better off for small businesses and workers alike."
LIVE: The Congressional Progressive Caucus Holds Tax the Greedy Billionaires Press Conference https://t.co/ZCKGk61r1a
— Congressman Greg Casar (@RepCasar) February 25, 2025
The press conference included remarks from organizers who warned the House GOP's proposed $880 billion Medicaid cuts over the next 10 years would have devastating—and potentially deadly—impacts on their communities.
"Medicaid afforded me the opportunity to get on life-saving medication," said Elissa Tierney, co-founder of an organization that helps people negatively impacted by substance addiction. "I am asking, begging: Please protect these programs."
"If your vote is going to result in someone dying or losing their home," Tierney added, "vote no."
A full House vote on the budget blueprint, which Trump has endorsed, could come as soon as Tuesday evening, though there could be delays caused by divisions in the narrow Republican majority as GOP lawmakers face mounting constituent backlash in their home districts.
Politico noted Tuesday that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "faces some bleak arithmetic: No Democrats are expected to back the budget plan, and if all members are present and voting, he can lose only one Republican and still approve it."
"Do not take your eye off the ball—and the ball is always the money."
In a letter to members of Congress on Tuesday, the new coalition urged lawmakers not to "slash programs that working families depend on."
"Tax the greedy billionaires now," the letter adds. "The American Dream is dying in a system where unlimited wealth for the few destroys opportunity for all."
Last month, according to an analysis unveiled Monday, the world's billionaires saw their collective wealth surge by $314 billion—roughly $10 billion per day.
The GOP's proposed extension of expiring provisions of their 2017 tax law would be a major boon to billionaires in the United States, who saw their wealth skyrocket in the years following the law's enactment.
"Republicans are not thinking about regular people ever," Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said at Tuesday's press conference. "It's about who's at the top who we can give more money to while the rest of us are scrapping around for every little bit that we can get. It's not right."
"Do not take your eye off the ball—and the ball is always the money," Balint added. "Who has the money, who's getting the money, and how are the rest of us being screwed."