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
matt bruenig
Dean Phillips' Attack on Mamdani Is an Attack on 'Millions of Working-Class People,' Progressives Say
"The stated position here is that socialists cannot be part of the Democratic Party," said one commentator. "Does this hold for the socialist voters too?"
Jul 10, 2025
In an interview with CNN, former Congressman Dean Phillips was asked whether "there is room" for him and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic Party—but progressive Rep. Summer Lee was among those saying on Thursday that Phillips' rejection of Mamdani wwas really about millions of Americans who have voted for candidates like him.
"These guys aren't just rejecting him, but the millions moved to electoral action by candidates like him," said Lee (D-Pa.) in response to Phillips' interview.
CNN's Omar Jimenez asked Phillips about the "big tent" philosophy often promoted by Democratic leaders who believe the party should welcome lawmakers and candidates who don't agree with every aspect of its platform—politicians like anti-choice Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and former Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who made millions of dollars from his coal business.
Jimenez asked whether Mamdani, a democratic socialist who stunned former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the party's leadership in the Democratic mayoral primary last month, should also be welcomed into the party's "big tent."
"The answer ultimately is no," said Phillips, who was one of the wealthiest members of Congress before he left office to run for president in a long-shot bid against former President Joe Biden in the 2024 race—losing his home state of Minnesota and garnering just 1.7% of the vote in South Carolina, falling behind author Marianne Williamson.
Phillips admitted that "most Americans share the same values" as Mamdani, who has advocated for fare-free public transit, universal free childcare, and city-run grocery stores to operate alongside private stores and provide low-cost essentials to working families.
But he claimed that while "differences of opinion, perspective, life story, politics, and experience" are beneficial to the Democratic Party, the presence of so-called "socialists" like Mamdani is not.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans want neither far-left or far-right politics," he said without citing any supporting evidence.
Phillips appeared confident that Democratic voters across the country would recoil from candidates like Mamdani—despite recent rallies in red districts where progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who both endorsed Mamdani, have drawn crowds of thousands of people in recent months during Sanders' Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
In addition to Mamdani's historic success in the Democratic primary—with more New Yorkers voting for him than in any other primary election in the history of the nation's largest city—numerous polls have shown that Americans back policies like those that powered his campaign.
A poll by Child Care for Every Family in 2023 found that 92% of parents with children under age 5 supported guaranteed, government-funded childcare, including 79% of Republican parents and 83% of independent parents.
Raising taxes for corporations and wealthy households is also broadly popular, with about 6 in 10 Americans supporting the proposal in a recent Pew Research poll.
And despite efforts by centrist Democrats and Republicans to portray Mamdani's platform as radical, programs like his fare-free bus proposal have already been implemented in cities like Kansas City, Raleigh, and Boston on three of the city's busiest bus routes.
"Maybe our big tent should have less millionaire nepo heirs and more fighters for the millions of working-class people," suggested Lee on Thursday.
Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project also condemned Phillips for suggesting Mamdani—and ostensibly the 565,639 New Yorkers who voted for him—have no place in the party.
"The stated position here is that socialists cannot be part of the Democratic Party," said Bruenig. "Does this hold for the socialist voters too? Should they also not vote for the party? Phillips is trying to radically shrink the party. Scary stuff."
"Centrists and other moderates are spending a nontrivial amount of national political energy being mad at Zohran," he added, "which could instead be spent on [President Donald] Trump and Republicans."
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution is circulating a petition that's garnered more than 30,000 signatures from people urging Democratic leaders like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand—all New York Democrats who have yet to endorse their own party's mayoral candidate—not to "sabotage" Mamdani.
Despite Phillips' insistence that Mamdani doesn't belong in the party, the resistance in New York appeared to weaken a bit Thursday as Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) endorsed the candidate.
"New Yorkers have spoken loud and clear," said Espaillat, who had previously backed Cuomo. "And as a lifelong Democrat, I'm endorsing the Democratic Party nominee."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Policy Expert Details Cruelty and Pointlessness of GOP's Medicaid Work Requirements
"Our society could decide that police and fire departments will not respond to calls made by individuals who worked less than 80 hours in the prior month, but most would find this repugnant," wrote Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project.
May 16, 2025
Days after Trump Cabinet officials championed work requirements in the pages of The New York Times, a progressive policy expert wrote in that same newspaper on Friday that such mandates—particularly for Medicaid recipients—are "cruel and pointless," potentially stripping critical benefits from millions of people through no fault of their own.
The GOP proposal, which advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this week, would require many Medicaid recipients to prove that they worked or did some related activity for at least 80 hours per month. Republicans are also seeking to dramatically expand work requirements for recipients of federal nutrition assistance.
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, argued in his Times op-ed that "imposing work requirements on Medicaid is a fundamentally misguided policy," particularly given that "it is employers, not workers, who make hiring, firing, and scheduling decisions."
"Last year, over 20 million workers were laid off or fired at some point from their jobs," Bruenig observed. "Many of those workers ended up losing not just all of their income but also their employer-sponsored health care. Medicaid is supposed to provide a backstop for these workers, but if we tie eligibility to work, they will find themselves locked out of the healthcare system because of decisions their employers made, often for reasons beyond their control."
To underscore the absurdity of forcing vulnerable people to document adequate work hours in order to receive public benefits, Bruenig wrote that "our society could decide that police and fire departments will not respond to calls made by individuals who worked less than 80 hours in the prior month, but most would find this repugnant and contrary to the purpose of these services."
"Refusing medical care to people in their time of need based on how much they happened to work the month before is a cruel and pointless policy," he added.
"For those fundamentally opposed to Medicaid and the welfare state more generally, the fact that these new requirements would create administrative barriers that disenroll eligible recipients may be seen as a feature, not a bug."
Like other policy experts and healthcare advocates, Bruenig argued that Medicaid work requirements are a solution in search of a problem.
According to Bruenig's calculations, just 5% of Medicaid recipients are able-bodied adults without dependents who work fewer than 80 hours per month—a figure that undercuts the Republican narrative of a crisis-level refusal to work among single, adult Medicaid enrollees with no children.
Bruenig also notes the immense administrative burden that work requirements inevitably bring. "Requiring proof of monthly work hours will cause some people to lose coverage simply because they struggle to keep up with the paperwork, not just because they’re unemployed," he warned, echoing concerns expressed by other analysts.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the GOP's proposed Medicaid work requirements would imperil benefits for more than 14 million people.
"For those fundamentally opposed to Medicaid and the welfare state more generally, the fact that these new requirements would create administrative barriers that disenroll eligible recipients may be seen as a feature, not a bug," Bruenig wrote. "I suspect that for many of the Republican policymakers who endorsed work requirements, the goal of such a policy isn't genuinely to increase employment or remove support from only those who refuse to work. Rather, it is to redirect resources from lower-income Americans toward those at the top. And for that purpose, it is indeed well designed."
Opponents of Medicaid work requirements typically point to Arkansas and Georgia as evidence that the mandates do little to boost employment while depriving many of health coverage.
The Washington Post reported Friday that in Georgia, "just 12,000 of the nearly 250,000 newly eligible Georgians ultimately received Medicaid" under the state's Pathways to Coverage program, which requires enrollees to submit monthly paperwork demonstrating that they worked, volunteered, or participated in job training for at least 80 hours.
"Some who do work had a tough time proving it to state officials—or their work, such as caring for ailing relatives, didn't qualify," the Post noted. "Georgia's experiences portend what's to come if work requirements are imposed nationally."
The work requirements that Republicans are pushing would produce roughly $300 billion in federal Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade—reductions that would be achieved by either removing people from the program or preventing people from enrolling.
U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said Friday that he helped sink a vote to advance the GOP reconciliation package out of the House Budget Committee on Friday partly because the proposed Medicaid work requirements would begin in 2029, rather than immediately.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Huge Administrative Waste Makes Clear For-Profit Insurance Is 'Actually Very Bad': Analysis
"It is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system," writes Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project. "The quicker we nationalize health insurance, the better."
Dec 10, 2024
Last week's murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought to the surface a seething hatred of the nation's for-profit insurance system—anger rooted in the industry's profiteering, high costs, and mass care denials.
But that response has led some pundits to defend private insurance companies and claim that, in fact, healthcare providers such as hospitals and doctors are the real drivers of outlandish U.S. healthcare costs.
In an analysis published Tuesday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project argued that defenders of private insurers are relying on "factual misunderstandings and very questionable analysis" and that it is reasonable to conclude that the for-profit insurance system is "actually very bad."
"From a design perspective, the main problem with our private health insurance system is that it is extremely wasteful," Bruenig wrote, estimating based on existing research that excess administrative expenses amount to $528 billion per year—or 1.8% of U.S. gross domestic product.
"All healthcare systems require administration, which costs money, but a private multi-payer system requires massively more than other approaches, especially the single-payer system favored by the American left," Bruenig observed, emphasizing that excess administrative expenses of both the insurance companies and healthcare providers stem from "the multi-payer private health insurance system that we have."
He continued:
To get your head around why this is, think for a second about what happens to every $100 you give to a private insurance company. According to the most exhaustive study on this question in the U.S.—the CBO single-payer study from 2020—the first thing that happens is that $16 of those dollars are taken by the insurance company. From there, the insurer gives the remaining $84 to a hospital to reimburse them for services. That hospital then takes another $15.96 (19% of its revenue) for administration, meaning that only $68.04 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
In a single-payer system, the path of that $100 looks a lot different. Rather than take $16 for insurance administration, the public insurer would only take $1.60. And rather than take $15.96 of the remaining money for hospital administration, the hospital would only take $11.80 (12% of its revenue), meaning that $86.60 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
High provider payments, which some analysts have suggested are the key culprit in exorbitant healthcare costs, are also attributable to the nation's for-profit insurance system, Bruenig argued.
"Medicaid and Medicare are able to negotiate much lower rates than private insurance, just as the public health insurer under a single-payer system would be able to. It is only within the private insurance segment of the system that providers have been able to jack up rates to such an extreme extent," he wrote. "Given all of this, I think it is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system. They are directly responsible for over half a trillion dollars of administrative waste and (at the very least) indirectly responsible for the provider rents that are bleeding Americans dry."
"The quicker we nationalize health insurance," he concluded, "the better."
Bruenig's analysis comports with research showing that a single-payer system such as the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and other progressives in Congress could produce massive savings by eliminating bureaucratic costs associated with the private insurance system.
One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2020 estimated that Medicare for All could save the U.S. more than $600 billion per year in healthcare-related administrative costs.
"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, lead author of the study, said at the time. "That money could be spent for care if we had a Medicare for All program."
Deep-seated anger at the systemic and harmful flaws of the for-profit U.S. insurance system could help explain why the percentage of the public that believes it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling released Monday.
"There's a day of reckoning that is happening right now," former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, said in an MSNBC appearance on Monday. "Whether we're talking about employers, patients, doctors—just about everybody despises health insurance companies in ways that I've never seen before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular