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
layoffs
Progressives Don’t Want David Brooks in Our Movement Anyway
The toxic attitudes of Brooks and others toward poor people are the problem. Direct cash works because it fundamentally trusts people to meet their own needs.
Oct 15, 2025
David Brooks’ recent column in the New York Times, “Why I Am Not A Liberal,” claims that giving people money has failed as an anti-poverty solution because poor people lack the right culture and character.
Here we go again. Brooks' characterization of poverty isn’t new—it’s an American tradition. It’s the same tired tropes I’ve been hearing since I was a kid and my family relied on CalFresh and MediCal to get by. We relied on government aid not because my parents were lazy, or that they didn’t want to work, but because they were working and it still wasn’t enough.
Let’s be clear: Poverty is a lack of cash, not character. It persists because policy solutions are piecemeal and exploitation is ongoing. Brooks claims that “we are pretty good at transferring money to the poor,” and then cites the increased government spending on welfare programs as proof that they haven’t worked. But according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for every dollar budgeted for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 2020, poor families directly received an average of just 22 cents. As Matthew Desmond, author of Poverty, By America, explains, “The American welfare state is a leaky bucket.”
The goal should be simple: Get more of the money we spend on fighting poverty into the hands of people who actually need it. Guaranteed income does precisely that, providing direct cash to people with minimal administrative overhead. And it works. Research from more than 20 academic studies has found that guaranteed income increases financial resilience, improves food and housing stability, and gives families more time together. Not a single pilot has shown decreased employment among recipients of guaranteed income, and the vast majority of pilots have shown increased rates of full-time employment.
If we are serious about weaving America back together, then we need policies that provide stability and dignity, not arguments that fray the fabric further.
This game of blaming poor people for their outcomes has always been rooted in racism. By Brooks’ logic, white families must have the purest culture, since they have amassed the most wealth. That claim is not just wrong—it’s absurd. He even pines for the left to embrace old neocons like Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan—the same person who released the 1965 “Moynihan Report,” under President Lyndon B. Johnson, which blamed the problems facing Black Americans as more deeply rooted in “ghetto culture” than in discrimination, exclusion, and lack of opportunity.
David Brooks calls himself a cultural determinist, suggesting that poverty persists because people lack the “traditional values” that enable success. But this view misunderstands how poverty actually works in America. For most families, poverty is not a lifelong condition—it is a temporary spell, a risk that far too many Americans face after a layoff, a medical bill, or a family crisis. To reduce this reality to some imagined permanent underclass devoid of the right culture is both inaccurate and unfair.
What’s more, it runs counter to Brooks’ own work. In 2018, he founded Weave: The Social Fabric Project at the Aspen Institute to rebuild trust and strengthen communities through belonging and human connection. Yet when he turns to poverty, he abandons that spirit of unity—portraying families who are struggling not as neighbors working to get back on their feet, but as deficient in values. If we are serious about weaving America back together, then we need policies that provide stability and dignity, not arguments that fray the fabric further.
The toxic attitudes of Brooks and others toward poor people are the problem. Direct cash works because it fundamentally trusts people to solve their own problems. Guaranteed income expands liberty. It is the infrastructure of freedom—a floor sturdy enough to make every other solution possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Create Shared Prosperity, Rebuild Trust in Government
Government needs to deliver for everyone, not just the wealthy. Local government can lead the way.
Aug 31, 2025
We all want to live in healthy, safe, and thriving communities. We expect our tax dollars to serve the common good, and we want to trust that government represents our interests. But today, the federal government falls far short of this goal; only 22% of Americans trust it.
Local governments, in many places but not all, continue to deliver for their residents. They are leading the fight against climate change without federal support. They took charge in their immediate and ongoing responses to Covid-19. And they continue to resist, creating sanctuary cities to protect immigrant communities threatened during the first Trump administration. Today, local governments prepare for a difficult future shaped by the policies of the current Trump administration, including the unnecessary deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles and Washington, DC.
Yet the work of local governments has never been more difficult. Americans continue to lose trust in government, and as conditions worsen, faith in government erodes further. This decline is not accidental—it stems from decades of funding cuts, deregulation, misinformation, voter suppression, and government missteps. It feels like the biggest beneficiaries of government today are the wealthy and large corporations, which continue to make record profits despite recessions, pandemics, and climate change.
The lack of trust in government and the concentration of wealth and power in a small elite are connected. A deliberate effort to undermine the government’s ability to deliver for all feeds a downward spiral of distrust. Consider how US President Donald Trump empowered Elon Musk to lead mass layoffs and weaken or shut down critical agencies, undermining services people depend on. This move fuels privatization, deregulation, wealth concentration, and further distrust in government.
So, where do we go from here? For government to ensure shared prosperity, we must first rebuild trust. That requires government to deliver for everyone, not just the wealthy.
The long road to rebuilding trust must start with rejecting the fearmongering and scarcity mentality that has left us isolated and unhappy. We must demand better results from both government and our economic system. We need a system rooted in mutual care and shared prosperity.
This transformation begins from the ground up; it depends on each of us cultivating a culture of belonging and connection in our daily lives. I see this willingness in the empathy and care people show for neighbors, the environment, and future generations. Government can correct course only if we engage with it and demand more—because we are committed to doing better ourselves. Over time, civic participation can rebuild trust in government—though not as it is, but as a transformed institution committed to nurturing relationships.
Local governments can create opportunities for residents to relate to each other better and forge stronger relationships. Because local government is closer to its constituents than state or federal agencies, it can offer more immediate opportunities for civic engagement and connection. I believe assigning local government the role of cultivating a sense of belonging is key to achieving shared economic prosperity and to overcoming the polarization that currently grips our communities.
Local governments can evolve by partnering with local leaders and civil society groups that—in many communities—are fulfilling key roles once held by local governments. By building true, trusting collaborations, governments can expand their capacity and impact, reshape how communities relate to public institutions, and restore trust and faith in their work.
When we share responsibility for our communities—when neighbors connect, participate, and help shape our governance—we push government to serve all of us better.
To be clear, local governments cannot create a culture of belonging alone. Many governments need to commit to a sustained process of reconciliation, especially with communities of color, to overcome their checkered past. As I write this essay, immigrant communities in Los Angeles and throughout the country are being terrorized by federal law enforcement agencies, often with the support of local law enforcement, separating families, traumatizing neighbors and neighborhoods, and severely eroding trust between the government and communities. There is no way around the fact that governments at each scale have inflicted harm on communities. Nor can we ignore the fact that government is how we organize how we live. What government looks like, and how it interacts with us, remains our choice—that is the essence of democracy.
Some might view the suggestion that governments should cultivate residents’ sense of connection and belonging as an example of “mandate creep.” But if not local government, then who is responsible for nurturing connections between neighbors and fostering the culture of our communities?
Consider the processes involved in governance—updating general plans, budgeting, making and implementing new laws. These processes have a tremendous impact on our lives, yet few people participate. What difference would it make if more people were involved? If local governments had more resources and expertise to increase participation, could we achieve better governance? If local governments prioritized participation and equipped public servants to engage more residents directly, perhaps we would feel more satisfied—or at least better understand the decisions shaping our lives.
Local governments can also foster a culture of belonging by creating and maintaining spaces for people to meet and build community. Sidewalks, streets, parks, libraries, transit, community centers, and gardens—spaces that local governments oversee—constitute the public realm. While we often view these places as hard infrastructure, their potential to foster “soft infrastructure” such as civic relationships and human capital remains underdeveloped. What if governments designed public spaces to maximize connection? During the pandemic, they temporarily used infrastructure this way—through slow streets, free transit, health services in community centers, and redesigned parks. If it worked then, why not all the time?
Local governments can further strengthen communities through local culture and civic pride. Where we come from shapes our sense of belonging. Even in a transient, digital world, most people spend much of their lives in one place. Local culture—its history, art, celebrations, customs, and people—plays a big role in how we feel about our communities and can bind us together. I saw this in Berlin during the 48 Stunden Neukölln festival, where streets, shops, and homes displayed art for the public, turning the entire neighborhood into a vibrant gallery. People mingled, explored, and took pride in their community. We can use cultural programming to deepen civic pride and participation, tying culture more closely to governance.
Ultimately, rebuilding faith in government begins with rebuilding faith in each other. When we share responsibility for our communities—when neighbors connect, participate, and help shape our governance—we push government to serve all of us better. The journey to restore faith in government and the process of restoring our social bonds are inseparable. Only by working together can we create the thriving, healthy communities we all desire.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Are Paying the Price for Intel Mismanagement...
And taxpayers are footing the bill.
Aug 29, 2025
It’s not every day that the president of the United States calls for the head of a major company to be fired. But that’s what happened this August, when US President Trump accused Lip-Bu Tan, the new CEO of Intel, of being too cozy with China.
Then in typical fashion, Trump reversed himself and proposed converting Intel’s $10.8 billion CHIPS Act subsidy into an equity stake. Intel accepted the deal, and now the federal government owns nearly a 10% stake in the company.
While much has been written about Intel’s financial and technical challenges, very little has been said about the impact of management’s cost cutting on the company’s employees.
In October 2024, Intel announced its plan to cut 15% of its global workforce, eliminating approximately 15,000 positions. Then shortly afterwards, the company gave its fired CEO Pat Gelsinger a $7,853,450 severance package.
With the government’s huge taxpayer-financed stake in Intel, Intel communities have an opportunity to hold the company accountable for the impact of these job cuts on workers and their communities.
Thus far it has already laid off more than 7,500 workers across four states. But Intel's new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan isn’t suffering any pain. He’s getting $1 million a year and is eligible for bonuses of up to $2 million. His long-term stock options are valued at $66 million.
Studies on the impact of job loss have documented that layoffs increase the risk of suicide, substance use disorders, poor physical and mental health, divorce, and homelessness. The impact extends to the communities where workers live: Local businesses lose revenue, demand for social services increases, and local governments can see their tax base crater.
With the government’s huge taxpayer-financed stake in Intel, Intel communities have an opportunity to hold the company accountable for the impact of these job cuts on workers and their communities. A powerful grassroots movement might go even further and follow up on Intel’s promise to create 10,000 new jobs in exchange for taxpayer funding.
To help build that movement, a dozen labor and environmental groups came together to form CHIPS Communities United (CCU). The coalition aims to hold semiconductor companies accountable for the billions of dollars they’ve received in public funds and tax credits.
This Labor Day, CCU is launching Intel-Layoffs.org to track the extent of job losses at Intel and invite workers to join our campaign for good jobs in the semiconductor industry. The tracker will be a reliable resource and virtual gathering place.
Layoffs provide a teachable moment regarding the benefits of collective bargaining and the value of a union contract. Typical job security provisions provide an orderly process for reductions in staff. And just as importantly, most agreements spell out in writing a fair process for bringing back qualified laid-off employees by seniority.
As Intel works through its technical and marketing challenges, we must not lose sight of the human costs of its crisis and the company’s obligations to workers and their communities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular