5
#000000
#FFFFFF
inequality
Restoring Our Nation’s Soul From Mass Delusions
The present leadership in Washington has moved aggressively and efficiently—and with venality and myopia—to lay waste to our noble aspirations and our natural endowments. What can we do about it?
Jul 19, 2026
Has mass delusion overtaken America’s collective consciousness and eaten into its soul? Rather than “America the Beautiful," are we becoming “America the Delusional”? The question sprang from speculating that many of my fellow citizens might agree with statements that expertise and evidence have clearly undercut. Would a majority think there was truth in them?
After reading these statements, ask yourself if my concern is warranted.
- Technology will protect us from the ill effects of climate disruption.
- Next generation Americans will be able to maintain the standard of living they have now.
- The Earth will provide sufficient food and shelter for a population exceeding 8.3 billion.
- Vigorous enforcement of national borders and deportation of illegal migrants will stem mass migration in the US and across the globe.
- Fatal shootings in America will decrease as guns become more widely available.
- The US dollar will remain the world’s dominant currency.
- Black people and other minorities are narrowing the economic gap with white people.
- The US President is the world’s most powerful government leader.
- American universities and research centers will continue to be regarded as the best in the world.
- The American diet is comparatively as healthy as that of other developed nations.
Having enumerated them, I pondered the toxic effect of such delusions on the soul of our nation. That Washington has mounted a ceaseless campaign of disinformation, on everything from the Iran War to voting integrity to the Reflecting Pool, only adds potency to the poison.
A nation’s soul, writes Gary Kowalski, is its “capacity for valor and visionary change.” Valor springs from confronting fear or pain with firmness and a realistic sense of one’s challenges. Visioning similarly involves the courage and wisdom to chart one’s future course with both creativity and a realistic take on present circumstances.
Nourishing the soul of this nation for 250 years has been its idealistic aspirations and its remarkable natural endowment. Mount Rushmore is a fit representation. All four leaders depicted there exhibited valor and vision on behalf of America’s unique assets, both prior to and during their presidency.
In contrast, the present leadership in Washington has moved aggressively and efficiently—and with venality and myopia—to lay waste to our noble aspirations and our natural endowments.
Our soul is on “life support.” Democratic self-governance and equality of economic opportunity, two pillars of national aspiration, are evaporating month by month. Calculated governmental action—and inaction—are accelerating the arrival of climate-related disasters and diminishing our natural capital.
Despite a grim present, future restoration of the nation’s soul is possible. It begins with each of us accepting in large part the unreality of the contentions listed above and helping leaders and their constituents chart a course within that frame. Whatever form our civic engagement takes, seeing ourselves as unabashed truth seekers is essential. Valorous action and visionary change derive from a firm grasp on what is real, not what is fanciful.
Motivated and supported by allies, we can make a difference. All it would require is each of us focusing on a delusion or two, and through writing, advocacy, or group action, promoting clear-eyed resilience over wishful thinking. Project Soul Restoration begins individually, takes root locally, then spreads regionally and nationally.
Break the mold. Take on the mantle of “influencer” on behalf of the nation’s soul!
Keep Reading
Show Less
Game Changers: Building an Economy that Works for Working Americans
There is an arsenal of bold policies out there to embrace that will “defeat fascism, preserve democracy, and help create a greener, stronger and fairer economy for American workers.”
Jul 13, 2026
The United States is a plutocracy. Its economy works for the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working people. It is a broken politico-economic system in need of major repairs, but as leading progressive economist Gerald Epstein points out in the interview that follows, there is indeed an arsenal of bold policies to “defeat fascism, preserve democracy, and help create a greener, stronger and fairer economy for American workers.” Epstein is professor of economics and a founding co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
C.J. Polychroniou: It’s often been said that progressives are good in offering stinging critiques of the status quo and even making appealing policy proposals, but there is still a short supply of game changing strategies. I take it that this is the aim of Game Changers: Economic Polices for a Working America, an exciting new project from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. You conceived of the project and serve as its director, so tell us more about it. Why now the launching of such a project, what are the major issues covered, and what do you hope will be achieved?
Gerald Epstein: I launched the Game Changers project, along with my colleagues James Boyce of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Juliet Schor of Boston College, because of the emerging perception that progressives in the United States could not gain political power and defeat the fascists and MAGA simply by leveling criticisms and epithets against Trump and his associates. Working people in the United States are hurting and angry after decades of neoliberal economic policies implemented, with some exceptions, by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Looking for answers to their legitimate problems, many American voters either simply sit out elections, or pull the lever for extreme candidates that seek to manipulate them by identifying scapegoats—such as immigrants—as the source of their problems.So, we launched Game Changers to be a positive source of real answers to real problems facing working Americans. The idea is to offer activists, political candidates, and government officials with policy ideas that bridge the gulf between the transformative and the practical, ideas that can envisage the way to an economy that is fairer, greener, more productive and more democratic. These are ideas, we believe, that are also practical enough to offer hope to those who want to help to mobilize the political forces that can help bring them into fruition.
Importantly, though, we are not intending to offer a comprehensive program for the American left. We felt that would be presumptuous for us to do and beyond our competence and standing. Ours is more of a menu of ideas that can be picked up by those who need them and who want to mobilize on their behalf.
We geared the timing of this project so that the policy ideas would be ready by the Congressional elections in November of 2026. In fact, we are launching policy proposals this month of July 2026. They can be found at https://gamechangerspolicy.org. Some of these ideas might be taken up by candidates. If they win, they might be taken up when they serve in Congress. Some of these ideas may percolate and emerge in future campaigns and legislative actions, as well as be taken up by progressive organizations. That is our hope, anyway.
The Game Changers project consists of 9 teams of experts and practitioners, (about 45 people in total) working on a range of subjects: Care, Finance and Financial Regulation, Health Care, Housing, Immigration, Macroeconomics, Trade and Labor, and Work and Jobs. All in all, these teams have developed about 25 different policy proposals.
The range of policies is striking. They include: “The Wealth of Welcome: Immigration Reform that Works for America”; “America’s Workers Deserve a Four-Day Week”; A Universal Basic Income for Children”; “Medicare for All”; “Polluters Pay - The Extreme Weather Superfund”; “Democratize North American Trade”; “Housing as a Human Right”; “National Rent Control”; “Public Banking”; “No More Bailouts”. (For the whole list, see GameChangersPolicy.org).
C.J. Polychroniou: Since the project is about advancing progressive economic alternatives to the problems and challenges facing the US economy, one would assume that the economists invited to be part of the project represent a common tradition in the discipline. If so, how would you define this tradition, and is it important that there is a consensus among them as to what constitutes progressive economic policies over key issues? We know that the Left has always been divided over ideology and policymaking. It is divided over the scope of government intervention in capitalist economies, and there is even disagreement over several specific issues, such as the Universal Basic Income, how to reduce inequality, and how to combat the climate crisis.
Gerald Epstein: What unites the economists and other experts involved in Game Changers is a commitment to defeat fascism, preserve democracy, and help create a greener, stronger and fairer economy for American workers. We did not invite experts based on a theoretical, methodological or ideological litmus test. Indeed, I would say that is one of the strengths of our project. The left often has great difficulties uniting sufficiently to engage in practical tasks like winning elections, or even achieving small practical goals, because they are riven by ideological, theoretical or methodological differences. We are not subject to that problem. Big egos are also a problem in politics -left, right and center and, for sure, in academia. Thankfully, we have avoided that problem as well. For us, the litmus test was a commitment to the ideals of Game Changers, expertise in their subject areas, and, for the most part, a willingness to volunteer their time.
C.J. Polychroniou: The 1930s posed the biggest and most severe challenge in US economic history. The New Deal was a response to the calamity of the Great Depression and reshaped the United States in a major and profound way. But the New Deal ultimately gave way to the neoliberal order and the results have been nothing but catastrophic for working-class people. Is the US today in a similar state of affairs as it was in the 1930s in the sense that the system is badly broken? Is this the message behind the launching of Game Changers? If so, can different issues still be addressed separately or does the entire system need restructuring before anything meaningful can be done?
Gerald Epstein: You are certainly correct that the neoliberal order wreaked havoc on America’s workers, but now things are even worse. In the U.S. we are facing a particularly pernicious form of capitalism, an authoritarian, and profoundly corrupt version that is dominated by a self-seeking Presidential family and a lethal coalition of techno-fossil-fuel-financialized capitalists. While our specific issues and policy proposals stand on their own terms, we see them as part of a broader vision of what our economy needs to overcome this lethal form of capitalism. The antidote is to recognize the equal dignity of every human being and working to guarantee their right to economic security, the opportunity to thrive, a livable planet, a world free of racism, and democratic governance of our lives, societies and economies.
More specifically, Game Changers is posing a set of policies to help defeat this form of capitalism by “changing the game”, based on three principles.
Changing the game means (1) investing in each other, through public provisioning of care, health care and other critical services; (2) securing our future by, for example, breaking the power of the fossil fuel capitalists and addressing climate change; and (3) righting the rules, by ending reckless and predatory financial practices, changing tax policies so that the super-rich have less wealth and contribute a bigger share for the operations of our government, preventing capitalists from firing workers arbitrarily and without just cause.
At one level, these, of course, are not revolutionary demands in a traditional sense. But if widely implemented, they would bring about a revolutionary improvement in the lives of working people, not only in the short term but in the longer term as well.
C. J. Polychroniou: In your view, what are the most pressing issues facing today the US economy and working-class people?
Gerald Epstein: While the US economy’s productivity has grown significantly over the last 40 years, the standard of living of American workers has, for the most part, barely budged. This is especially true if one includes American workers’ ability to acquire many of the most important basics of life: housing, time and the wherewithal to care for children, family members and their communities; a sustainable environment in the face of climate change and degradation; quality health care and education; and dignity, respect and a voice in their workplace. American capitalists, especially but not exclusively those on Wall Street, engage in speculative and extractive activities, rather than investing in socially productive assets for the future. Even when a new technology is developed that could improve workers’ lives, such as AI, these are weaponized by big capitalists in their efforts to control and extract wealth from American workers. We have a bailout economy, whereby Wall Street financiers undertake highly risky investments, grab the rewards, and when these threaten themselves and the economy, they get bailed out by the government. All of this has led to an obscene level of income and wealth inequality. And we have a political economic system where those at the top use xenophobia, and racial and ethnic baiting and oppression to try to divide and conquer America’s workers in order to stay in control.
At Game Changers, we are trying to do our small part to help overturn this immoral and destructive system.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Democrats Rally Around ‘Affordability,’ But ‘Precarity’ Is a Better Slogan
Americans need something more ambitious and less transitory than relief at the checkout counter.
Jul 09, 2026
Janeese George’s recent victory in the Washington, DC, mayoral primary and wins by progressive Democrats in New York and Colorado last week are signs that Zohran Mamdani's election was not a one-off, and that populist, “eat the rich” messaging is effective across a broad swath of voters. But as the US heads toward midterm elections, Democrats are having a hard time finding a partywide motto with similar resonance. Since last fall, they have been focusing on “affordability” because the slogan resonates with working-class voters; their main message is that things are too expensive and that the cause is unchecked corporate greed.
But here’s the problem with focusing on affordability: It addresses poor and working-class Americans as consumers rather than as workers. It ignores the stagnant hiring environment and Americans’ widespread anxiety about getting and keeping jobs. And it fails to differentiate between short-run price pressures, such as the ones created by the war in Iran, and prolonged economic trends. Campaigning on affordability could leave Democrats laser-focused on unclogging temporary economic bottlenecks without a strategy for the long term. And affordability candidates must contend with the awkward fact that, by some measures, US wages have actually outpaced inflation. Some big-ticket items, including college tuition and airfare, are more affordable now than they were a decade ago.
If Democrats want to win this fall, promising to curb inflation and pinning the blame for high prices on corporate greed is not enough. Candidates should instead focus on precarity, the sense that American jobs and the future are hanging by a thread. I am a historian who studies how the economic concepts we use shape the politics we pursue. I have also seen firsthand how low-paying, precarious work and short-term contracts have engulfed higher education and how precarity has become a rallying cry for student workers and contingent faculty seeking to unionize.
If Democrats want to win this fall, promising to curb inflation and pinning the blame for high prices on corporate greed is not enough.
Precarity has great sloganeering potential. It names a phenomenon that straddles the working and the middle classes. More importantly, precarity messaging could help Democrats connect with younger voters, who are not yet fretting about childcare or housing prices but are very much worried about artificial intelligence, automation, and the lack of entry-level jobs.
Precarity sets in the moment someone begins thinking about entering the workforce. High schoolers and college students across the country ask themselves, “Will there be jobs for me? What can I add to the new A.I. economy?” Affordability rhetoric cannot answer these pressing questions. But running on an anti-precarity agenda would give Democrats the opportunity to lay out bold plans for working- and middle-class Americans, including strengthening safety nets for recent graduates, bankrolling programs that train young Americans for the many well-paying blue-collar jobs that go unfilled, and retraining workers when occupational demand shifts.
They should also capitalize on labor unions’ popularity, which has in the past decade returned to historic highs. Expanding workers’ collective bargaining rights should be a core part of the Democrats’ midterm platform. Only by empowering labor unions and strengthening worker protections will elected officials be able to deliver on eliminating precarity. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ other major campaign slogan, “abundance,” has drawn opposition from workers’ groups. Unions are wary that the push to cut red tape and supercharge new housing and infrastructure construction could come at the cost of hard-won wage and training standards.
Widespread unionization can eliminate bottlenecks and lower prices by ensuring that workers are better coordinated and trained, helping to avoid the accidents, delays, and manpower shortages that cause construction prices to soar. Lawmakers hoping to deliver on promises of abundance should start by creating stable jobs and secure futures for the workers who are expected to build new houses and energy infrastructure.
Of course, Democratic candidates do not have to choose between campaigning on increasing affordability or eliminating precarity. These are complementary messages, and they point to related problems. So far, however, Democratic pollsters have yet to fully test a worker-centered slogan and battleplan. Americans need something more ambitious and less transitory than relief at the checkout counter. Prices go up and down, but secure and satisfying jobs can last years, if not decades.
Keep Reading
Show Less
An Open Letter to NATO: The False Promise of Militarized Security
NATO’s leaders would do well to remember that true security is not measured in the size of an arsenal, but in the strength of the societies it claims to protect.
Jul 08, 2026
As NATO convenes once again to double down on military spending, arms production, and the logic of deterrence through superior firepower—this despite the alliance’s own members having repeatedly used force in violation of international law in recent years, in Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, and the open-ended War on Terror—it is worth asking: What kind of security are we actually buying?
These interventions, often justified under the guise of humanitarianism or collective defense, have in practice destabilized entire regions, fueled insurgencies, and visited immense suffering upon some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. The result is a perverse paradox of an alliance that presents itself as the guardian of a rules-based order but has, through its own actions, undermined that very order, deepening the insecurity it claims to combat.
The record is unambiguous: Militarized security is reactive, not preventive. It treats symptoms—territorial disputes, insurgencies, great-power rivalry—while ignoring root causes such as inequality, resource scarcity, political exclusion, and the erosion of trust in institutions. The post-1945 era, for all its flaws, demonstrated that stability is not the product of arms races, but of norms, institutions, and the rule of law.
The relative peace among liberal democracies, the decline in international armed conflicts, and the gradual expansion of human rights all occurred not because states built bigger arsenals, but because they built stronger frameworks for cooperation. International organizations—including the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the International Court of Justice—have encouraged cooperation and stability, while aircraft carriers or hypersonic missiles have mainly spread terror and destruction. Yet as NATO attempts to expand its influence these very institutions of social cooperation are under attack by the same NATO member states who have cut funding and even withdrawn from the organizations in some cases.
What we require is a legal framework that serves as the foundation for a truly equitable international community—one that enforces cooperation over competition, shared development over extraction, and the rights of all people over the privileges of a few.
The opportunity cost of this militarized approach urged by NATO is staggering. The combined military expenditure of NATO members now exceeds $1.3 trillion annually according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The UN Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Reports indicates this is a figure that dwarfs the estimated $40 billion needed to close the global gaps in education, healthcare, and food security.
For the price of a single nuclear-powered submarine, a nation could fund universal pre-kindergarten for its entire population for a year. For the cost of a new fighter jet squadron, it could eliminate malaria in an entire region. These are not moral abstractions; they are strategic failures.
Study after study has shown that spending on healthcare, education, and renewable energy generates far greater economic multipliers in terms of job creation and GDP growth than equivalent spending on defense. Military expenditure distorts economies, prioritizing a narrow industrial base of contractors and exporters over diversified, sustainable development. It exacerbates inequality by funneling public resources into capital-intensive sectors that benefit elites, while social services—hospitals, schools, public transit—suffer from chronic underfunding. When citizens see their tax dollars funding bombs rather than bridges, cynicism replaces civic engagement, and the very legitimacy of a country’s governance is undermined.
International law, which has been a strong impetus to cooperation in the world and which can provide fundamental rules of fairness, has been used as an instrument to promote militarization and violence in the world by the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world.
The path forward demands a radical reimagining of international law—not as it is currently wielded by powerful states to justify intervention, enforce economic dependency, or entrench global hierarchies, but as a tool for genuine equity, cooperation, and shared prosperity.
Today, international law is too often a weapon of the strong, invoked selectively to punish adversaries while ignoring the transgressions of allies. This is not the international law we need. What we require is a legal framework that serves as the foundation for a truly equitable international community—one that enforces cooperation over competition, shared development over extraction, and the rights of all people over the privileges of a few.
Such a system must prioritize binding agreements on climate change to ensure our natural environment is protected not as a luxury but as a fundamental right. A fair international legal system would mandate fair trade practices that prevent the exploitation of weaker economies, and it would guarantee economic rights—food, water, education, healthcare—as inalienable entitlements for every human being, not as charities doled out at the discretion of the wealthy. A rejuvenated international law would also hold all states, regardless of power, accountable to the same standards, ending the hypocrisy that allows some nations to flout norms with impunity while others are punished for far lesser offenses.
The argument for participatory governance is not merely moral but strategic. States that involve all their citizens in a meaningful way in the governance of their country are less likely to engage in external conflict because their leaders are accountable to electorates who bear the costs of war. But this participation must be substantive, not procedural. Holding elections means little if economic inequality allows elites to dominate policy, if media concentration distorts public discourse, or if voter suppression silences marginalized groups. True participation requires deliberative assemblies, workplace unionization, digital direct democracy, and local autonomy. When people feel ownership over their government, they are less susceptible to the siren song of populist demagogues and the xenophobic chants of nationalists.
The post-2008 austerity consensus has been a disaster for global stability. Neoliberalism’s core assumption—that unregulated competition drives progress—ignores the fact that markets produce winners and losers, and that losers, when abandoned, turn to extremism. The rise of far-right parties, the spread of extremist movements, and the surge in gang violence are all, in no insignificant part, responses to economic despair.
A global fair deal must prioritize universal basic services as human rights, not commodities. It must invest in green industrial policy to create high-wage, low-carbon jobs. It must cancel the crushing debts of the Global South and replace free trade with fair trade, ensuring that corporations cannot exploit weak regulations in developing States. And it must tax extreme wealth to fund the end of extreme poverty. These are not socialist or communist ideas; they are merely common sense policies.
Yet NATO’s current trajectory assumes that security is a zero-sum game, where one state’s gain is another’s loss. This ignores that the greatest threats of our time—climate change, pandemics, nuclear proliferation—respect no borders. Even China and the United States, despite their rivalry, have cooperated on climate accords and pandemic response when it served their interests. The Montreal Protocol succeeded because states realized ozone depletion threatened them all. Collective security, properly structured, can work. The question is not whether cooperation is possible, but whether we have the will to pursue it. NATO does not answer this challenge, but seeks to exploit it by setting people against each other in the name of militarization.
We have a choice. We can continue down the path of militarized security, where trillions are spent on weapons that guarantee mutual destruction, where inequality festers, and where the logic of competition ensures that no one is ever truly safe. Or we can invest in a future where no child goes hungry, no family lacks healthcare, and no nation lives in fear of another—a future where international law serves as an equalizer, ensuring that the rights and dignity of all people are upheld, and that our shared planet is preserved for generations to come. The former is the path of barbarism. The latter is the path of civilization.
NATO’s leaders would do well to remember that true security is not measured in the size of an arsenal, but in the strength of the societies it claims to protect—and that those societies are far weaker when their most vulnerable members are abandoned to the consequences of unchecked militarism.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Fire Any Financial Advisor Who Tells You to Utilize a Trump Account
To be clear, take the $1K that Trump wants to give newborn kids—I mean, why not? But never put another dime in an account like this.
Jul 07, 2026
I’m serious, and this is not just my disgust with everything Trump. There is no good reason for the overwhelming majority of people in the country to ever put a dollar in a Trump account for their kids.
To be clear, I’m not in favor of tax-sheltered accounts in general. They strike me mostly as a very inefficient way to accomplish public goals, in this case making education more affordable. The more efficient route would be to have more public funds go to support public colleges and community colleges.
The tax-sheltered account route also favors higher-income people. Over a quarter of households owe no income tax, meaning they would get no benefit whatsoever from putting money in a tax-sheltered account. Another 20 percent are in the 10 percent bracket, meaning the account would just save them just 10 cents on every dollar invested. By contrast, the highest income households save 37 cents on every dollar invested in a tax-sheltered account.
In addition, tax-sheltered accounts put a lot of money in the hands of the financial industry. Tens of billions of dollars go to the people and companies who administer these accounts, creating a pointless layer of wasteful bureaucracy.
To be fair, the Trump accounts limit fees to 0.1 percent of assets, far lower than is charged by many accounts. This is an important point. People can get low-cost funds in other accounts also. Stock index funds generally have the lowest fees, and most people would be wise to take advantage of them. People will tell you that they will beat the market, but most won’t, and you’ll just end up wasting money in higher fees and trading costs.
But that has nothing to do with individuals’ decisions on where to put their money. For better or worse, Trump accounts exist. The question is whether people will be helping their kids by putting money into them. And, as I said above, the answer for almost everyone is no.
The main reason is that we already have 529 accounts for the purpose of saving for a kid’s education. The big difference between the accounts for this purpose is that it is possible to withdraw money from a 529 account, if it’s needed, where it is not possible to withdraw money from a Trump account for any reason, until the kid turns 18.
People do pay a penalty for taking money out of a 529 early, but at least they can have access to it if they need it. And unexpected events do happen. People can lose a job, have serious medical expenses, or get divorced. These and other unanticipated situations can require people to dip into whatever savings they have. With a 529 plan, they can use the money if they really need it. With a Trump account, they are out of luck.
It is important to recognize that withdrawals for non-education purposes are fairly common. A recent study by Vanguard found that 2 percent of accounts had an unqualified withdrawal in an average year. If an account is open on average for 20 years, this would mean that 40 percent of accounts have an unqualified withdrawal. People don’t expect bad things to happen, but they do.
Also, since the penalty is based only on the earnings portion of the 529 plan, not the whole sum in the plan, in most cases it is likely to be small. Suppose someone pulls $5K out of a 529 plan, where earnings are currently 40 percent of the money in the plan. That means they would pay taxes on $2,000, plus a penalty of 10 percent. If they are in the 10 percent bracket, their taxes would be $200, and their penalty would $200. If they were in the zero bracket, say because they had lost their job, they would only pay the $200 penalty. That compares to being unable to touch their money at all in a Trump account. (The money in a 529 is not taxable at all if used for educational purposes. The earnings in a Trump account are taxable.)
It’s also worth mentioning that it’s not even possible to change asset allocations in a Trump account. Suppose your kid is 17, one year too young to make a withdrawal. If you’re worried there is an AI bubble likely to burst, and you would rather have your money in Treasury bonds, you’re out of luck. Trump accounts won’t let you make the switch; you have to go down with Elon Musk and the rest of the market.
The silliest argument given by proponents of Trump accounts is that they can be rolled over into an IRA to allow for lifelong wealth accumulation. So can the money in 529 accounts, up to a ceiling of $35,000.
The Trump gang makes a big issue of the $35,000 ceiling, but this is something only elite types with lots of money would care about. Very few people ever accumulate more than $35,000 in a 529 account, and the vast majority of people who do will find some education-related expense that would reduce the value of the account to less than $35,000. Remember, even food and housing can count as education-related expenses.
But let’s say someone ends up with an amount over $35,000 that they can’t use for education-related expenses. Suppose they have $40,000 that they want to roll over into an IRA. In this situation they would have to pay a 10 percent penalty on the amount over $35,000. That would be $500 on the $5,000 difference.
They would also have to pay taxes on the $5,000. The beneficiary is the one receiving the money, so they would be paying the tax. Since they are just beginning their working career, they likely have a relatively low income. This means they will almost certainly be in the 10 percent or 15 percent tax bracket, and quite possibly the zero bracket.
So, this is the bad scenario that Trump account proponents say it is important to avoid, and therefore skip a 529 and put your money in a Trump account instead? That seems pretty whacky, and why you need to fire your financial adviser if they suggest putting money in a Trump account.
To be clear, take the $1K that Trump wants to give newborn kids. It would be a much better use of tax dollars if we provided food and medical care to kids from low-income families than giving out $1K checks to millions of families that don’t need it. But you aren’t going to change the policy by turning down the money. If it bothers you, donate the money to a good cause, but do take the money and don’t ever put another penny in a Trump account.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Are We Willing to Actually Tax Billionaires or Only Willing to Talk About It?
The question before us in California is not complicated. Are we going to stand with the three million people—our friends and neighbors—about to lose their health care, or with the billionaire class that would rather we looked away?
Jul 03, 2026
There are more billionaires in my district and the surrounding area than almost any other Member of Congress. Within fifty miles of my district sits nearly a third of the entire American stock market—over $20 trillion in value—and five companies worth more than a trillion dollars each. For years, I have fought for fairness in our tax policy. If America has been good to you, you must do good for America.
There are 938 billionaires in America. Together they are worth $8.2 trillion. The bill I wrote with Bernie Sanders asks them for 5 percent every year.
This is a simple tax on wealth. Every year, this tax evaluates the total value of a billionaire’s holdings, their stock, their companies, their real estate, and taxes 5 percent of it. Not their income, which they have arranged to be almost nothing. The wealth itself. The same way a family pays property tax on a house whether or not they sell it. We conduct this assessment on individual’s estates already when they die.
This billionaire wealth tax will raise $4.4 trillion over a decade. This is enough to establish a $60,000 salary floor for every public school teacher in America, cap child care at 7 percent of a family’s income, and restore the $1 trillion stripped from Medicaid and the ACA, with a $3,000 check left over for every household under $150,000.
The California Fight
California legislators have proposed a state tax to target similar excessive wealth. A proposition on the November ballot would levy a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of the state’s 250 billionaires. Accrued over 5 years, it would raise $100 billion to save health care for 3 million Californians. I am backing it.
Opposing these landmark taxes, Governor Newsom has suggested a “minimum income tax”. The focus of this tax is billionaires’ reported income, as well as the loans they take out to live on. An income tax, not a wealth tax. That is the problem. Newsom goes after that income, but billionaires have very little. Most take no salary at all. They borrow against their stock, live on the loans, and pass the fortune to their children without ever selling a share. The wealth underneath goes untouched.
Bernie and I tax the wealth itself, and our bill raises $4.4 trillion. Newsom’s tax on these borrowed assets only raises 1/44th of that. That’s why the tech oligarchs support Newsom’s proposal. They hope they can trick folks into making the issue go away.
Same billionaires, forty-four times the revenue from Bernie and I’s proposal compared to Newsom’s.
Tax what they own, not what they report.
No Capital Flight
I was criticized for the bill, as well as my support of California’s proposed Billionaire Tax. Many said that the wealth flight from California would devastate our economy. They were wrong. In Q1 of 2026, California received more venture capital investment than the rest of the country combined. Then the billionaires spent millions propping up my primary challenger. He received 6 percent of the vote.
Tax over $50 million
And the tax should not stop at billionaires, it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up, and one already does. Every year it has been introduced, I have cosponsored the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act. It starts at $50 million: 2 percent a year on wealth above that line, And it reaches the money inside irrevocable trusts, taxed to the grantor who set them up. Moving a fortune into a trust should not take it off the books from a wealth tax.
Wealth Taxes are the Moral Test of Our Time
Supporters are right to call the fight in California the reverse Proposition 13 of our generation. In 1978, California voted for Prop 13 to cap property taxes, and that anti-tax revolt carried Ronald Reagan to the presidency two years later. This is that revolt in reverse: instead of capping taxes on property, we are taxing the extreme wealth at the top. This is a philosophical fight, and California is the test case for the nation.
So the question is not complicated. Are we going to stand with the three million Californians about to lose their health care, or with the billionaire class that would rather we looked away? Are we the party of working people, or just the party of the donor class? Are we going to return to the party of FDR, or keep telling ourselves we need to do what the donors want?
Are we willing to tax extreme wealth, or only willing to talk about it?
I know my answer. We cannot have a nation where 938 people grow $1.5 trillion richer in a year while a teacher in my district takes a second job to cover rent.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Voters Rank Billionaires, Then Corporate Landlords as Top Villains to US Society and Economy
"Effective populist messaging requires calling out the actors actually making life worse for Americans, and right now, that includes Big Tech and the billionaires behind it," said the head of Data for Progress.
Jul 02, 2026
After finding last fall that a majority of voters believe life in the United States is getting worse, and many are "extremely worried" about issues including cost of living, division, authoritarianism, wealth inequality, and the climate crisis, the polling firm Data for Progress decided to have Americans name the "bad actors" most responsible for the country's concerning conditions.
In a pair of surveys conducted last month, Data for Progress asked more than 2,000 Americans to rate the impact of various groups or industries on the US economy—"things like jobs, prices, and economic growth"—as well as American society, or "things like feelings of community, well-being, and social trust."
The top villains, according to respondents, are the nation's nearly 1,000 billionaires, then corporate landlords. Rounding out the top 10 were sports gambling marketplaces, artificial intelligence companies, cryptocurrency firms, payday lenders, the Republican Party, social media giants, the Democratic Party, and for-profit universities.
Respondents were asked to rank each group or industry on a seven-point scale from "extremely negative" to "extremely positive."
Those with the most positive views were small businesses, libraries, regional banks and credit unions, charitable organizations, hospitals, churches, public K-12 schools, online shopping platforms, large grocery companies, big box retailers, and urgent care clinics.
"Within categories, we see some meaningful differences between individual actors—mom-and-pop landlords, small regional banks, public K-12 schools, and renewable energy companies are viewed more positively than their counterparts: corporate landlords, multinational banks, charter K-12 schools, and oil and gas companies," the progressive polling firm noted.
With the November midterm elections just four months away, and Democrats trying to seize control of both chambers of Congress as progressives within the party notch key wins over more moderate candidates, Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell said that "effective populist messaging requires calling out the actors actually making life worse for Americans, and right now, that includes Big Tech and the billionaires behind it."
"As AI continues to impact people's lives directly—whether it's a data center in their backyard or a job replaced by automation—AI companies and tech billionaires are setting themselves up to be the next big villains in American politics," he added.
Earlier this week, as the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority "gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us," the watchdog Public Citizen released a report about soaring corporate political spending since the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, including $517 million in this cycle so far.
Some of the top villains from Thursday's polling were key contributors to that figure: "Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in the 2026 midterm cycle."
Blasting the corporate spending as "a disaster for democracy," the report's author, Rick Claypool, said that "if the current, broken campaign finance system remains unchallenged—and corporate spending is allowed to drown out the voices of real voters and real people—these corporate campaigns will keep multiplying, even as voting rights for individual Americans face escalating attacks."
That report and the Data for Progress polling were notably published as more than 250 million people across the United States faced high temperatures tied to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency—and, as Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, residents of communities with data centers are being asked to make sacrifices due to strained power grids.
Americans are also awaiting the fate of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act—which includes a ban on corporate investors buying single-family homes to rent out—because Republican President Donald Trump has refused to sign it in an effort to bully GOP lawmakers into passing a legislative attack on voting rights.
In a comment that multiple congressional Democrats said shows Trump "does not care" about Americans' cost of living concerns, Trump on Monday called the affordable housing bill a "big yawn" compared with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America, Act that he wants Congress to send to his desk.
Keep Reading
Show Less
The Supreme Court's Birthday Gift to the US? Killing Off Independent Agencies
Monday’s ruling overturns the basic idea—part of the fabric of our government for well over a century—that Congress has the power to create independent regulatory bodies.
Jun 30, 2026
First of all, you should know that I spent five years of my life advising the commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission how they could best protect Americans from monopolies and deceptive corporate practices.
I’m proud of the work the FTC did then, and proud of much of what it’s accomplished since then. When I served there, the chair of the FTC was Michael Pertschuk, an energetic and charismatic trust-buster and consumer advocate. More recently, the FTC has been chaired by Lina Khan, who courageously stood up to some of the biggest and most politically powerful corporations in America.
Part of the reason the FTC has been so effective is that it is—or was—independent, and therefore immune to the political moves of powerful corporations seeking to stop it from acting for the common good.
The FTC was established in 1914 as part of what’s known as the “progressive era” when the government first sought to rescue the nation from the grip of the robber barons who then ran the railroads, oil, shipping, and much of the rest of the economy—and corrupted the nation’s politics—during the First Gilded Age.
These independent agencies, staffed with experts, have become a major countervailing power to the political clout of large corporations. But as of Monday, they’re no longer independent and no longer have any countervailing power.
Reformers of that era created an income tax to try to limit the Robber Barons’ incomes, caps on corporate campaign expenditures to limit their political reach, and independent regulatory agencies such as the FTC to limit their power.
That progressive era was followed by the New Deal, when Congress and FDR established other independent regulatory agencies, modeled in part on the FTC, to use their expertise for the benefit of the American people—and not just the wealthiest an most powerful citizens whose unbridled greed had led the nation into the Great Depression.
We’re now in America’s Second Gilded Age, when a new set of robber barons (think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry and David Ellison) are running much of the economy and corrupting our politics.
Unfortunately, we now have a president and a Supreme Court, three of whose members he appointed, who are in their pockets.
Hence, Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that a president can utterly disregard the will of Congress and install his own hacks in all independent regulatory agencies (with the odd exception of the Federal Reserve Board).
The ruling is in direct conflict with a 1935 case in which the court ruled that FDR could not replace an FTC commissioner because Congress had explicitly given FTC commissioners protection against such firing, in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Monday marked the culmination of a years-long weakening of that New Deal-era precedent.
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States concerned a federal law that protected commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, saying they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”—the same language that Congress has since used to protect most other independent commissioners and board members throughout government.
Franklin D. Roosevelt nonetheless fired commissioner William Humphrey, arguing only that Humphrey’s actions were not aligned with the administration’s policy goals. The Supreme Court held that the firing was unlawful and the law establishing the independence of the Federal Trade Commission was constitutional.
But the Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t like independent regulatory agencies. Most of the current justices subscribe to what’s called the “unitary executive” theory, a bonkers notion that the framers intended for a president to have total control over every aspect of the executive branch.
It’s a bonkers theory because the framers didn’t say anything like this. In fact, their biggest fear was that the executive branch would become too powerful.
In 2020, the Roberts Supreme Court laid the groundwork for reversing Humphrey’s Executor in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The law that created the bureau—again, using language identical to that at issue in Humphrey’s Executor—said the president could remove its director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
In a 5-4 decision, the Roberts Supreme Court struck down that provision, ruling that it violated the separation of powers and that the president could remove the bureau’s director for any reason.
Roberts, writing for the majority, said the presidency requires an “energetic executive.” He continued, “In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the president, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.”
Two justices—Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch—would have pulled the plug on independent agencies then and there. Thomas wrote: “The decision in Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people. With today’s decision, the court has repudiated almost every aspect of Humphrey’s Executor. In a future case, I would repudiate what is left of this erroneous precedent.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for what were then the court’s four liberals, dissented, saying the Constitution did not address the scope of the president’s power to fire subordinates. Congress should therefore be free, she said, to grant agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure.”
That 2020 decision by the majority of the Supreme Court anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision in July of 2024 that granted Trump, then a private citizen, immunity from prosecution for any “official” conduct during his first term.
Of all the things the framers of the Constitution worried about, their biggest worry was that a president would become as powerful as a king. Which is why they created Congress and the judiciary—to check and constrain him.
Congress has by now established 19 independent regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Special Counsel.
These independent agencies, staffed with experts, have become a major countervailing power to the political clout of large corporations.
But as of Monday, they’re no longer independent and no longer have any countervailing power.
Monday’s ruling overturns the basic idea—part of the fabric of our government for well over a century—that Congress has the power to create independent agencies.
As the nation prepares to mark the 250th anniversary of our independence from a king, the Supreme Court and our current president are doing everything possible to resurrect a king in America.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Thinking He Can Fool Everyone,' Newsom Backs One Billionaires Tax But Not Another
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires. But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Jun 26, 2026
Critics say that Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to trick voters with his new plan for a national billionaire income tax, while simultaneously opposing a tax on billionaire wealth in his own state.
Along with a coterie of wealthy donors, Newsom has long stressed that he is adamantly opposed to the statewide plan to institute a one-time 5% tax on the total wealth of those in the state with more than $1 billion to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance programs, which has been spearheaded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
But a day after the measure was certified to appear on voters' ballots, Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028 and face an electorate that is angrier than ever about the outsized wealth and power of the billionaire class—unveiled a new national proposal that, at least on the surface, seems to hit many of the same populist notes as the one in California.
It's time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.
10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.
The system is fundamentally broken.
The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code… pic.twitter.com/tLRbUId6yi
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 26, 2026
"Last night, it became certain that a wealth tax would be placed on the November ballot in California. I’m voting no," he explained in a Substack post, in which he rehashed many of his previous objections—including the factually dubious idea that a wealth tax would supposedly lead to mass capital flight from the state. He also said the plan to spend most of the revenue on healthcare neglects other needs like housing, childcare, and public safety.
As an alternative, he proposed what he referred to as "a national billionaires’ tax. A true minimum tax on billionaires and those with a net worth of over $100 million."
When counting unrealized wealth gains as income, America’s richest billionaires actually pay lower effective tax rates than the average American. A 2025 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) estimated that the richest 400 Americans paid about 24% of total income in taxes from 2018-20, compared with 30% for the public as a whole.
"That system is the result of decades of loopholes written by lobbyists and upheld by politicians who knew exactly who they worked for," Newsom said. "The wealthy have their own private tax code full of loopholes and exemptions that most people have never heard of, and they’re counting on politicians in Washington to maintain it and keep quiet."
Referencing an idea from the Obama era, Newsom described his plan as "a modern Buffett Rule—that ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay."
While he did not elaborate on what rate he'd plan to charge the wealthiest Americans, the original 2012 Buffett Rule would have required that millionaires pay a minimum effective tax rate of 30% of their adjusted gross income (AGI), which includes things like capital gains and other sources of income that are normally taxed at lower rates.
One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments.
It doesn't.
According to a study we have just completed, California's billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax—representing barely 0.2% of the state's… pic.twitter.com/87W7y67sXh
— Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) June 26, 2026
While Newsom had borrowed the "billionaire tax" branding of California's popular proposal, critics pointed out that he was proposing something vastly weaker.
"Read his Substack post carefully," implored Lever editor-in-chief David Sirota in a social media post. "He’s talking about income taxes and closing a few loopholes, but not a national version of the WEALTH tax on the ballot in California."
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires," Sirota said. "But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Gabriel Zucman, a French economist who has championed the wealth tax measure in California, has said this critical distinction between wealth and income is the reason why a wealth tax in California is needed to begin with.
"California's billionaires now hold $2.3 trillion in wealth—equivalent to roughly half of California's [gross domestic product] and about 10% of US GDP," he said. "One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments. It doesn't."
Citing a NBER working paper from last month, Zucman pointed out that "California's [top four] billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax" while billionaires as a whole represent "barely 0.2% of the state's total tax revenue," meaning that they "contribute a negligible amount to the state that made them rich."
He noted that Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—who have publicly opposed the billionaire's tax and, in Brin's case, spent tens of millions of dollars trying to stop it—reported no taxable income in 2019, 2020, and 2023 because all of their wealth was held in company stock. Since they didn't sell any stock during those years, they had no capital gains and therefore owed no income tax.
In the meantime, Zucman noted, "their fortunes have increased by more than $400 billion" since 2019.
🚨NEW: @RoKhanna suggests @GavinNewsom is trying to block a billionaire tax in order to protect big donors.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class? The only reason...is because you care about 250 people's contributions." pic.twitter.com/mg9kHPGSa2
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) June 23, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—another potential 2028 presidential candidate who introduced his own federal billionaire wealth tax legislation in March with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has vocally questioned Newsom's opposition to the ballot measure in California.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class in California?" he asked earlier this week on a podcast hosted by Sirota. "The only reason, in my view, to not be taxing them is because you care about these 250 people's contributions to the political system."
Sirota speculated that Newsom's motivation behind co-opting and watering down the "billionaire tax" concept was much the same.
He said, "This is Newsom thinking he can fool everyone and going to bat for billionaire donors who could fund his presidential campaign."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Alan Greenspan, Longtime Fed Chair and Ayn Rand Disciple, Meets Ultimate ‘Invisible Hand’
"For decades, he preached that the self-interest of the predator was the invisible hand of the common good," Yanis Varoufakis said after the man who led the US central bank under four presidents died aged 100.
Jun 22, 2026
Alan Greenspan, whose policies during nearly 20 years as US Federal Reserve chair fueled soaring economic inequality and helped create the conditions for multiple economic crashes, died Monday at age 100 after a long battle with Parkinson's disease.
While many corporate media outlets published hagiographic obituaries lionizing the "Maestro" who presided over nearly two decades of low inflation, rising stock prices, and American economic confidence, critics focused on Greenspan's role in promoting dangerous deregulation and "easy money" policies that inflated financial bubbles, with sometimes disastrous results.
Robert Reich—who served as US labor secretary under President Bill Clinton during all of Greenspan's tenure—called him "in many ways the most powerful person in America" during that era.
"If any single person was responsible for the financial crisis of 2008, it was Greenspan."
"He maintained an iron grip over the Fed, and almost single-handedly decided on interest rates," Reich wrote. "He essentially fired George H. W. Bush by raising interest rates so high (ostensibly to ward off the inflation then threatening the economy) that the economy took a dive, and voters blamed Bush. This was enough to convince my boss, Bill Clinton, to do exactly what Greenspan wanted—which was to reduce the federal budget deficit and thereby destroy much of the agenda Clinton ran on (and I helped create)."
"I don’t want to speak ill of anyone who has passed. Greenspan was an extremely charming, intelligent, and thoughtful man," Reich added. "But the truth must be told: If any single person was responsible for the financial crisis of 2008, it was Greenspan. That crisis—the worst collapse since 1929, which led to the worst recession in decades, in which millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings, and even their homes—resulted from the deregulation of Wall Street that Greenspan advocated."
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis wrote on X: "His epitaph? A singular, glorious confession, 'I found a flaw in my model of the world.' A flaw, he said, as though it were a leaky pipe, not a total collapse of the intellectual architecture that anointed him Oracle. For decades, he preached that the self-interest of the predator was the invisible hand of the common good.
"Then, in 2008, the beast devoured the table, and to his credit, he blinked, admitting that his entire worldview—the one that central bankers canonized and the world swallowed—was a fairy tale for rentiers," Varoufakis added. "He did not, of course, admit to culpability. That would require a moral compass, a device notably absent from his Ayn Randian toolbelt. No, he merely noted the flaw, as a meteorologist might note a gust of wind, and returned to his well-earned silence."
Born 10 miles from Wall Street in Manhattan's Washington Heights during one of the most infamous economic bubbles of all time, Greenspan was a protégé of libertarian writer and philosopher Ayn Rand and was influenced by the Atlas Shrugged author's moral defense of capitalism, her fierce advocacy of deregulation, and her insidious insistence that self-interest was socially beneficial.
Their relationship cooled as Greenspan embraced more mainstream economic policies despised by Rand and gradually became a leading steward of the very sort of state-shepherded system she deeply distrusted.
After heading President Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers, Greenspan was appointed chair of the Fed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. He would remain in the post well into George W. Bush's second term.
Greenspan generally favored low interest rates, especially after crises like the 1987 stock market crash, the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management crisis, and the 2001 recession. His fame grew after he suggested that the economy might be experiencing a tech-driven “productivity miracle," language that many investors took as validation that traditional valuation limits were obsolete.
Critics would later call it a "productivity mirage."
Staunch devotion to low interest rates by Greenspan's Fed boosted stock prices and real estate values under "easy money" policies. Many investors came to believe that the Fed would intervene aggressively whenever markets fell sharply—the so-called "Greenspan Put."
However, since ownership of financial assets (and the firms that sell and promote them) is concentrated among the wealthy, it was the rich who benefited most from Greenspan's polices. When bubbles burst, as they did after the dot-com boom that ended in early 2000 and during the 2008 global financial crisis, the rich bounced back thanks to their diversified portfolios and bailouts, while middle- and lower-income households were wiped out through asset devaluation, foreclosures, and job losses.
"It is no exaggeration to say the global financial crisis of 2008 had an enormous and lasting impact on American life and the way ordinary people view elites," New York Times global economic correspondent Peter S. Goodman said on social media. "It is also no exaggeration to say that Alan Greenspan has as much responsibility for the crisis as an individual can."
"For those not old enough to remember, it is difficult to state his aura during his time of greatest influence," Goodman continued. "When he told Americans that they should buy houses and use variable-rate mortgages to do it, they listened. Much is made of his econ jargon-laden vernacular that went over the heads of nearly all listeners."
"That was central to the mystique," he added. "When he went to the Hill and spoke to Congress, most people had no idea what he was talking about but assumed that smarter kids did. And so his quasi-religious faith in the efficiency of markets as the ultimate insurance against risk went unchallenged and became dogma, and the risks kept building."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More Stories
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