SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
inflation
Why Mamdani Is Right About City-Run Grocery Stores
Public grocery stores would not eliminate hunger. But they could function as stabilizing infrastructure in food systems that are currently brittle and uneven.
Jul 01, 2025
Amira Santiago leaves her apartment by 8:45 am most mornings, pushing a folding cart through cracked sidewalks and traffic haze to reach the food pantry on time. She lives in East New York, in a ZIP code where grocery stores have vanished, corner delis double as pharmacies, and fresh food is scarce. What ends up in her cart depends entirely on what’s on the shelf. Usually it’s canned goods, powdered milk, maybe some onions or carrots. Today it’s dry cereal, pasta, and an overripe cantaloupe. Her son Malik skipped breakfast again. There’s nothing left in the fridge she can turn into a meal.
This is not an outlier. It is the consequence of systems that stopped functioning long ago. And it helps explain why a political upset in New York City on June 24, 2025 carries meaning far beyond the five boroughs.
That day, Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist assemblymember from Queens, defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for mayor. The result was historic, but more importantly, it made visible a shifting political consensus. Voters rejected the narrative that government must limit its ambitions. They chose a candidate who insists that public institutions should do more than regulate; they should provide. Mamdani's platform spoke directly to people like Amira, whose daily struggles reflect the withdrawal of basic public functions from everyday life.
Mamdani’s proposal reflects the reality that food access cannot be left entirely to private enterprise.
Central to Mamdani’s platform is a proposal to launch a city-run grocery system. The plan is straightforward. Five municipally owned grocery stores, one in each borough, would operate without a profit motive. They would serve areas where the private sector has pulled out or never invested in the first place. The stores would source food wholesale, hire union labor, and reinvest in the neighborhoods they serve. These would not be pilot programs tied to foundation grants or nonprofits operating under precarious contracts. They would be permanent public institutions.
Opponents were quick to ridicule the idea. Billionaire grocer John Catsimatidis warned of industry disruption. Mayor Eric Adams dismissed the proposal outright. Think tanks called it inefficient and unnecessary. The comparison to “Soviet-style” provisioning spread quickly, suggesting central planning and bureaucratic waste. Others raised concerns about the city outcompeting small independent grocers or failing to ensure supply chain efficiency, leading to chronic understocking and quality control issues. But these objections rarely addressed the basic premise: Millions of New Yorkers, like Amira Santiago, already live in neighborhoods where food is hard to find, overpriced, and nutritionally inadequate.
Across the city, more than 3 million residents live in low-access food areas. In Brownsville, Mott Haven, East Flatbush, and parts of Staten Island, residents rely on corner stores and fast-food chains that carry little or no fresh produce. These conditions are not the result of natural market forces. They reflect decades of public and private disinvestment, often concentrated in communities of color. Grocery redlining—the practice by which supermarket chains avoid low-income neighborhoods based on demographic risk factors—has left entire ZIP codes without stable access to food. In the past five years alone, more than 100 full-service grocery stores in New York City have closed, primarily in lower-income neighborhoods.
The result is predictable. People pay more for less. They commute longer distances for basic goods. They ration meals. Children go to school without breakfast. Public health data shows elevated rates of diabetes, hypertension, and diet-related illness in these same neighborhoods. Hunger is not simply a function of poverty. It is shaped by the spatial and logistical architecture of access—or its absence.
Nationally, the picture is no better. As of 2023, 18 million households in the United States reported experiencing food insecurity at one point. Since the pandemic, grocery prices have risen nearly 30%, while SNAP benefits have failed to keep pace. In 2015, 44 U.S. counties had no grocery store at all. On South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Reservation, families routinely drive 80 miles round-trip for produce. In rural Alabama, Mississippi, and parts of Appalachia, the nearest full-service store might be a two-hour round trip. These are not temporary disruptions. They are ongoing crises that have been normalized.
Mamdani’s proposal reflects the reality that food access cannot be left entirely to private enterprise. When profitability becomes the determining factor for whether people can eat, large segments of the country are left behind. In neighborhoods where chains cannot turn reliable margins, stores close. Where customer data indicates low discretionary spending or high SNAP usage, suppliers scale back. The grocery industry, like any other, is designed to maximize return. It is doing what it was built to do. But the outcome is a landscape filled with price inflation, scarcity, and abandonment.
Public grocery stores would not eliminate hunger. But they could function as stabilizing infrastructure in food systems that are currently brittle and uneven. They could provide consistent access to affordable food, especially in neighborhoods where no alternatives exist. They could also serve as community hubs, offering services like SNAP enrollment, health screenings, nutrition classes, or childcare coordination. Their purpose would not be to replace private markets, but to serve where those markets have withdrawn or refused to invest.
Mamdani’s victory sends a message that voters are ready for governments that solve real problems.
The concept is far from unprecedented. Military commissaries already provide subsidized food to service members across the country. State-run liquor stores operate in Pennsylvania, Utah, and New Hampshire, generating revenue while serving a public function. In St. Paul, Kansas, a town of fewer than 600 residents, the only grocery store is city-owned and locally operated. In Alaska, the federal Bypass Mail program subsidizes food shipments to rural villages. These are not theoretical constructs. They are functioning examples of public provisioning.
Of course, the success of any public grocery system will depend on implementation. Poorly managed public programs can erode trust and fuel political backlash. Mamdani’s plan will require serious design: transparent procurement, equitable site selection, accessible transportation connections, competitive wages, and meaningful community oversight. But the risks of a poorly run store must be weighed against the ongoing costs of inaction. In New York, nearly 1 in 4 children live in food-insecure households. The absence of public response is not neutral. It is itself a decision, with measurable health and economic consequences.
What Mamdani’s campaign has done is shift the boundaries of political imagination. Cities like Chicago and Atlanta are now exploring public grocery models. Federal tools such as the Healthy Food Financing Initiative and the Community Economic Development Grant program could support them. Philanthropic institutions, once focused exclusively on nutrition education, are beginning to fund food infrastructure. Local governments have the capacity to act. What they have often lacked is the political permission to do so.
That permission now exists. Mamdani’s victory sends a message that voters are ready for governments that solve real problems. The campaign drew on a deep well of frustration among New Yorkers who have watched their neighborhoods lose not just grocery stores, but clinics, schools, and public transportation. It articulated a basic expectation: that cities should function, that infrastructure should be visible, and that the state should be present where the market disappears.
In the months ahead, other cities will watch closely. If New York moves forward, it may offer a blueprint for how public institutions can reenter the business of meeting essential needs. If it hesitates, the message will still resonate. A candidate won by promising groceries—not charity, not deregulation, but a public store with stocked shelves and affordable prices.
There is a lesson in that. Governance is not only about writing checks or issuing permits. It is also about provision. People trust institutions when those institutions show up with something tangible. In that sense, a bag of groceries might be more than food. It might be the start of a new civic contract.
If Mamdani’s proposal succeeds, it will not be because it was visionary. It will be because it was honest about what people are living through—and offered a way out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Costs Rise, Poll Shows Most Americans Blame Trump
"Working families are seeing their grocery bills and other prices skyrocketing thanks to President Trump's erratic trade policies, and they know full well who is to blame," said one critic.
May 13, 2025
Amid rising consumer prices and inflation likely to increase due to President Donald Trump's mercurial tariffs, a poll published Tuesday revealed that a majority of surveyed voters disapprove of the U.S. leader's fiscal stewardship and blame him for the nation's economic woes.
Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress surveyed 1,213 likely U.S. voters, 55% of whom said they somewhat or strongly disapprove of the way Trump is handling rising prices. That figure soared to 90% among Democratic respondents, while 79% of Republicans said they approve of the president's leadership on the issue.
Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said they blame Trump for current inflation levels, including 96% of Democrats, 73% of Independents, and 31% of Republicans.
"Prices are on the rise, and so are Americans' doubts in President Trump's ability to do anything about it."
A majority of respondents also indicated concern over the rising cost of groceries, clothing, electronics, furniture and home goods, and new automobiles.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the pace of inflation eased slightly last month to 2.3%, down from 2.4% in March. Meanwhile, the bureau's consumer price index (CPI)—which measures the average change over time for the cost of a basket of staple goods—inched up 0.2% on a seasonably adjusted basis in April.
"Prices are on the rise, and so are Americans' doubts in President Trump's ability to do anything about it," Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens said on Tuesday. "Working families are seeing their grocery bills and other prices skyrocketing thanks to President Trump's erratic trade policies, and they know full well who is to blame."
"Instead of working to bring down costs, Trump and his allies in Congress are doing exactly the opposite: slashing the safety net and asking working families to shoulder the burden to pay for a massive tax handout to billionaires and corporations," Owens added.
Experts warned of even higher consumer prices in the near future as the effects of Trump's tariffs take hold. Some of his taxes on imports are active, while others are being negotiated.
"There isn't a lot of evidence of tariffs boosting the CPI in April, but this shouldn't be surprising as it takes time," said Ryan Sweet, the chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.
Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, said in a note to investors that "inflation numbers will now be further whipsawed by the U.S./China trade truce announcement."
The new survey also comes as House Republicans push a bill that would dramatically slash spending on vital social programs in order to pay for a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit corporations and the wealthiest households. Former Democratic U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich slammed the proposal as "trickle-down economics on steroids."
A
separate survey conducted by Harris and published Monday by The Guardian showed that Americans are reconsidering major events like marriage, having children, and buying a home amid rising economic anxiety stoked by Trump's policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Warn Fed Remarks Show Trump Policies Brewing 'Perfect Storm for a Recession'
"Donald Trump's tariffs mean you could suffer higher prices and lose your job AT THE SAME TIME," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
May 07, 2025
Alex Jacquez from the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative issued a stark warning to the U.S. public on Wednesday in response to a statement from the Federal Reserve committee that sets interest rates.
The new statement from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) "provides further evidence that a perfect storm for a recession is brewing" under U.S. President Donald Trump, said Jacquez, Groundwork's chief of policy and advocacy. "Barely 100 days into Trump's second term, working families are already being crushed by sticky inflation and slowing growth."
"A Trump-engineered recession will devastate working families, but the president refuses to stand down on his failed trade war, no matter the cost," added Jacquez, who previously advised former President Barack Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The FOMC said Wednesday that "the risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen," and opted to keep the federal funds rate at 4.25-4.5%. The committee has maintained the rate for the past three meetings, following a series of cuts last year.
Trump on Sunday pushed for a rate cut, and though he has backed off a threat to try to oust Fed Chair Jerome Powell, the president "could reconsider if the economy stumbles in the coming months," The Associated Press reported Wednesday.
According to the AP:
Asked at the press conference whether Trump's calls for lower rates [have] any influence on the Fed, Powell said, "[It] doesn’t affect doing our job at all. We're always going to consider only the economic data, the outlook, the balance of risks, and that's it."
If the Fed were to cut rates, it could lower other borrowing costs, such as for mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards, though that is not guaranteed.
Addressing Trump's evolving tariff policy, Powell said Wednesday that "if the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they're likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and a rise in unemployment."
Sharing a video of his remarks on social media, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) stressed that Trump's tariffs mean higher prices.
Donald Trump's tariffs mean you could suffer higher prices and lose your job AT THE SAME TIME. Forget dolls, families will be forced to make impossible choices between necessities like food, housing, and health care.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren ( @warren.senate.gov) May 7, 2025 at 3:13 PM
In a Wednesday blog post, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote: "Recall that last November, the single biggest reason voters gave in exit polls for choosing Trump was that he'd bring prices down... Although Trump has scaled back some tariffs and paused others as he seeks trade deals with foreign nations, his tariffs are already eating into household budgets."
Reich highlighted comments about price hikes from companies whose products include everything from baby supplies and laundry detergent to paper towels and tools. He also emphasized that "tariffs will particularly hurt small businesses."
"This bodes ill for American workers, since 80% of U.S. employment comes from small businesses with fewer than 500 workers. The likely result: higher unemployment," he explained, projecting price hikes and job losses this month. "But here's the question: Will consumers and workers realize Trump is the cause? And if they do, will they remember this by the November 2026 midterm elections?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular