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
public services
NYC's Speedy Snow Removal Under Mamdani Evokes Memories of 'Sewer Socialism'
The mayor’s response to the snowstorm has been described as an early test for his version of “common good” governance.
Jan 26, 2026
"God Bless sewer socialism." That's what historian David Austin Walsh had to say about New York City's swift response to the largest snowstorm it's seen in five years, which dumped over a foot of snow on the five boroughs this weekend.
Winter Storm Fern, which has ravaged the Northeastern United States, presented an early test for the city's left-wing mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who centered his insurgent campaign last year not simply on providing new free municipal services, but on making the ones New Yorkers already relied upon, like sanitation, more robust and accessible.
It was an agenda that led him to be compared to a breed of socialist mayor who focused less on lofty ideas and revolutionary rhetoric and more on using the power of government to remedy the everyday concerns of the public.
In October, just weeks before Mamdani's triumph in the general election, columnist E. J. Dionne Jr. wrote in the New York Times:
For history buffs, Mr. Mamdani has done the service of rekindling an interest in a largely forgotten American tradition, the “sewer socialists” who ran a significant list of cities in the last century. The most durable among them was Daniel Hoan, the socialist mayor of Milwaukee from 1916 to 1940. You don’t get reelected that often by being a failure.
Many socialist mayors did not mind being associated with repairing the grubbiest of urban amenities because doing so underscored their aim of running corruption-free governments that did whatever they could to improve the lives of working-class people in their jurisdictions. When lousy (or nonexistent) sewer systems led to illness and death in low-income and immigrant neighborhoods, said Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University, building and fixing sewers became a powerful example of what “common good” governance could accomplish.
Mr. Mamdani knows sewer socialism’s history and has no qualms about identifying with it.
This weekend was the first opportunity for New York's youngest mayor in over a century to put this philosophy into action in a test of competence that past mayors have infamously failed—from Bill de Blasio, who was lambasted over the underplowing of certain neighborhoods, to Michael Bloomberg, who took heat for ditching the blizzard conditions for Bermuda, to John Lindsay, whose disastrous lack of preparation for a 1969 storm resulted in the deaths of at least 42 people.
As Walsh wrote on Friday, with the storm prepared to bear down, "Mamdani has a unique opportunity to prove that sewer socialism works, but the crucial first test is going to be not fucking up the snowstorm this weekend."
By then, Mamdani's preparations had long since begun, with the city fitting thousands of sanitation department trucks with snowplows, brining every highway and street in the city to make cleanup easier, and ensuring that enough shelter beds were available to protect those without homes from the elements.
The mayor also undertook a robust yet simple effort to communicate with New Yorkers about practical guidelines to stay safe through a series of upbeat PSAs and appearances on local news.
"Make no mistake, New Yorkers, the full power of this city's enormous resources is prepared, poised, and ready to be deployed," Mamdani said during a press conference on Saturday. "Every agency is working in lockstep with the other."
Though death tolls were considerably lower than in other storms of its magnitude, the storm did not pass without tragedy. At least one homeless man reportedly froze to death, while another six people have been found dead outside, though it's unclear if these deaths were weather-related.
But in all, the Times said "the city largely appeared to be prepared for the weather."
Crews headed out to begin clearing roads at 8:30 am, when precipitation had reached the requisite two inches; shortly after 7 pm, [Department of Sanitation spokesperson Joshua Goodman] said every single street under city control had been plowed at least twice; tens of millions of pounds of salt had been spread across the five boroughs; and 2,500 sanitation workers were rotating on 12-hour shifts to continue the cleanup.
Mamdani, meanwhile, was praised for his active role in the cleanup effort and for maintaining high visibility, where past mayors were accused of shirking into the background.
One widely shared video shows the mayor personally shoveling snow to free a stranded driver in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, home to a large Hasidic Jewish community.
Rabbi Moishe Indig, the executive vice president of the Jewish Community Council of Williamsburg, called it "hands-on leadership."
Even one of Mamdani's fiercest critics, Benny Polatseck, an aide to former Mayor Eric Adams, was complimentary to his response.
“Credit where due," he wrote Sunday afternoon on social media. "Looks like [Mamdani] is handling this storm very well so far."
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
The Texas Floods Are an Object Lesson in Why We Need Well-Funded Public Services
Public services can prevent and mitigate disasters, but they’re being prevented from doing so by politicians like President Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Jul 16, 2025
Growing up in Texas, many of my summers were spent at summer church camps just like Camp Mystic, where 27 girls died in the recent flash floods. Over 130 people in central Texas have been confirmed dead overall.
Had I been just a few years younger, it’s hard not to feel like I could’ve been one of those girls tragically lost. But this tragedy was no “natural” disaster—it was political.
Texans have gotten used to “unprecedented” natural disasters. When I was growing up, we practically never got snow; now winter storms have become the norm. Hurricanes and extreme heat have become more frequent and more dangerous. And intense rain, which causes flash floods, is worsening.
The evidence is overwhelming: These trends are all happening because of climate change, caused by human pollution. And to stay safe, we need to constantly study the climate to predict these disasters and prevent the worst from happening.
While they cry that there’s no money to fully fund and staff environmental agencies, they don’t think twice about passing a Pentagon budget that’s now over $1 trillion a year, or extending trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the wealthy.
Better warning systems may or may not have been effective for such an unexpected flood. Yet it seems unthinkable that better funding could not have helped prevent this tragedy. For one, the Guadalupe River is prone to flooding, but state officials have blocked efforts for years to use Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to install early warning systems along it.
Unfortunately, many of our politicians are outright hostile to funding the agencies that do this vital work—or any kind of public service. Just a few months ago, the Trump administration made sweeping cuts to both the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As I write, 6 out of 27 positions at the NWS Austin-San Antonio office, which covers the affected Kerr County, are listed as vacant, including the position for warning coordination meteorologist. (The previous coordinator took the Department of Government Efficiency’s offer of early retirement.) At NOAA, the cuts have affected hundreds of scientists and reduced the agency’s ability to launch weather balloons to more accurately analyze weather patterns.
Texas Republicans are still defending these cuts. Before all the bodies had even been discovered, state Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-128) tweeted, “We must not allow this great tragedy to be used to grow government.” And Sen. Ted Cruz personally eliminated $150 million for NOAA’s climate change research in the GOP budget (the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”).
Part of the problem is that public goods like the National Weather Service are “invisible”—that is, you don’t notice them when they’re working well. This makes them uniquely vulnerable to calls for budget cuts, because who’s going to notice understaffing at the NWS?
But when these cuts go through—and understaffed agencies fail to serve their purpose—people say the services don’t work. And there are calls for more budget cuts.
The Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget for NOAA, for example, cuts the agency’s budget by 26%. And despite widespread complaints that FEMA wasn’t answering calls from Texans during the disaster, the administration has proposed eliminating the agency or devolving it to the states.
Public services are caught in a lose-lose situation: Regardless of their performance, they face calls for budget cuts.
But the politicians that spew this rhetoric often aren’t interested in having efficient public services or reducing the federal debt. While they cry that there’s no money to fully fund and staff environmental agencies, they don’t think twice about passing a Pentagon budget that’s now over $1 trillion a year, or extending trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the wealthy.
Attending summer camps are some of my fondest memories from growing up. But for hundreds of families in Texas, that experience has become a nightmare. It didn’t have to be this way—and we can still change course.
Public services can prevent and mitigate disasters, but they’re being prevented from doing so by politicians like President Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who’d rather fund tax breaks for the wealthy and the war machine.
We need to change the rhetoric around public services in this country, and shine a light on all the good “invisible” services do.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Privatizing Amtrak Would Be a Disaster for Working People
Privatization of public institutions has an observable record of raising prices for customers, diminishing service quality, and degrading working conditions.
Jun 27, 2025
At a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing earlier this month, former car salesman, wage thief, and current Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno said the U.S. government should stop funding Amtrak, and argued in favor of handing it over to the private sector. Moreno and his ilk—including former White House dog, Elon Musk—perpetuate an old and tired right-wing tradition that is at best confused and at worst conniving: bashing all that serves the public good and venerating all that transfers wealth to private moneyed interests.
One might be tempted to give Moreno, Musk, and other practitioners of the ancient religion of market worship the benefit of the doubt; perhaps they really believe what they say. Maybe they truly think concentrating wealth and institutional control in the hands of a few corporate masters is what’s best for everyone. If that is the case, they are both far too bewildered, their minds far too infantile, to be in any positions of power and influence.
On the other hand, if Moreno and Musk are not in fact confused, then they must be aware that what they say is completely false. Privatization of public institutions has an observable record of raising prices for customers, diminishing service quality, and degrading working conditions. They know privatization is not good for the public, but it is good for private moneyed interests, like Moreno’s wealthy campaign contributors and billionaires like Musk, and that is what matters most to them.
It is clear that if we want a passenger rail system that consistently, effectively, and conveniently serves the public, the last thing we should do is privatize Amtrak.
For all the talk about Amtrak’s inefficiency, the record tells a different tale. Even with inadequate federal funding, Amtrak has made significant accomplishments. For example, though rail travel decreased during the Covid-19 pandemic, Amtrak set all-time records for ridership and revenue in FY24. In fact, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) ridership was 12% higher in FY24 than it was in FY19, before the pandemic struck, and the NEC’s FY24 operating cost recovery, at 123%, far exceeded the 100% statutory goal.
Speaking of efficiency—just how “efficient” is the private sector, anyway? Hack economists tell us that efficiency means getting the same or better results at a lower cost. A corporation gutting their workforce and skimping on maintenance to obtain higher profits is, by this logic, acting efficiently. The efficiency of a private business, therefore, depends on how much profit it can squeeze out of fewer workers, with cheaper materials, in worse conditions, and at greater risk to surrounding communities.
By laying off workers, cutting costs, neglecting maintenance, lengthening trains, and eschewing capacity expansion, the Class I railroads, with their Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) business model, must be sublimely efficient. After all, with after-tax profits in the billions, railroad corporations like Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and CSX must be doing something right. Just ask the folks in East Palestine, Ohio, how marvelously efficient Norfolk Southern is.
And there’s the rub. When priests of private enterprise like Moreno and Musk say public services should be privatized because the private sector is more efficient, they mean private entities deliver higher profits to their owners, not that they better serve the needs of the public. In fact, even when services and institutions are privatized, the public still pays for them in numerous ways—with lower wages and worse jobs, decreased or eliminated benefits, displacement, money siphoned away from communities into private pockets, and so on.
For example, a 2009 study showed that, following privatization and outsourcing, food service workers’ wages in New Jersey K-12 schools were cut by $4-6, and many workers completely lost their health insurance benefits. In 2011, privatization of nursing assistant jobs at a home for veterans in Michigan saw the starting wage lowered to $8.50 an hour with no health insurance or pension benefits. Public nursing assistants, on the other hand, received $15-20 an hour, health insurance, and pensions.
In regards to rail, one can simply look across the Atlantic to see the results of rail privatization. Margaret Thatcher, high priestess in the cult of the market, privatized various public services, including some connected to the rail system. Her successor, John Major, started the process of privatizing the British rail system in 1993-4, and by 1997 the U.K.’s national rail system was under corporate control.
If anything, we should be asking ourselves why so many critical industries, like the Class I freight railroads, remain in private hands when our needs would be better served if these industries were publicly owned and operated.
The privatization of British rail was disastrous. Higher fares, deteriorated service, rampant underbidding by franchisees who then abandoned agreements, and neglected infrastructure that cost people their lives. In the first three years after privatization, 38 people died in rail accidents, and in October 2000, four people died in a derailment that was entirely preventable. The private owners, Railtrack, knew about the cracked rail that caused the derailment, but refused to fix it. These people were sacrifices made at the altar of profit. Talk about “efficiency.”
Recognizing that these devastating events were caused largely by the egregious negligence of private owners, Britain renationalized its rail infrastructure in 2002. A 2012 GfK NOP poll revealed that 70% of the 1,000 Britons surveyed were in favor of returning the rail system to public ownership. In October 2022, YouGov reported that a majority of British voters, including Conservatives, believe that utilities such as rail, water, and energy should be in the public sector.
After decades of failure under the experiment of privatization, the U.K.’s Labour government is currently taking steps to renationalize the British rail system. In the United States, we should understand what happened across the pond as a case study for what not to do. Privatization, in terms of its service to the public, was a complete flop. There is no reason to believe the privatization of Amtrak would be less of a flop.
It is worth noting that while Elon Musk was castigating Amtrak at a tech conference earlier this year, he compared Amtrak unfavorably to China’s exceptional high-speed passenger trains. In calling for privatization of “anything that can be privatized” while at the same time praising a state-owned rail system (he even called China’s trains “epic”), Musk showed the disingenuousness, or incoherence, of the market religion he shares with Moreno and many other delirious practitioners.
With all this in mind, it is clear that if we want a passenger rail system that consistently, effectively, and conveniently serves the public, the last thing we should do is privatize Amtrak. With increased (and long overdue) federal funding, Amtrak can invest in infrastructure and equipment upgrades and repairs, create thousands of well-paying union jobs across the country, and better serve passengers.
If anything, we should be asking ourselves why so many critical industries, like the Class I freight railroads, remain in private hands when our needs would be better served if these industries were publicly owned and operated. Why not democratize these enterprises? Wouldn’t you like a say?
Keep ReadingShow Less
May Day in Pictures: Workers Worldwide Demand Alternative to 'Billionaire Vision of the World'
"This is a war on working people—and we will not stand down."
May 01, 2025
With right-wing, pro-corporate political parties across the world aggressively pushing anti-immigration policies and sentiment as they worsen inequality and attack crucial services, working people across the world gathered on Thursday to mark May Day—the holiday memorializing the struggles and victories of the global labor movement—and to let those in power know they aren't fooled by xenophobic scapegoating.
"They tell people that migrants are to blame for failing hospitals, job insecurity, and rising rents," said Esther Lynch, general secretary of the European Trade Union Conference in Paris. "This is a lie—a dangerous lie. The true cause is austerity, it is underfunding, privatization, and a refusal to invest in people. It's price gauging, it's union busting, it's pay injustice."
Here are photos from demonstrations and marches worldwide:
May Day 2025 in Pictures
Protesters with red flags raise their fists as they march during a May Day (Labour Day) rally, marking International Workers' Day, outside the Greek Parliament in Athens, on May 1, 2025. (Photo: Angelos Tzortzinis/AFP via Getty Images)
Paris was the site of France's main May Day rally, but an estimated 260 protests kicked off throughout the country, hosted by the General Confederation of France (CGT).
In the United States, protests were expected in nearly 1,000 cities, with many participants tying the fight against union-busting, the high cost of living, privatization, and corporate greed to President Donald Trump's administration—which has spent the past three months working to secure $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy while pushing a mass deportation campaign and blaming working families' struggles on a so-called "invasion" by immigrants.
"This is a war on working people—and we will not stand down," a website for the U.S. May Day protests reads. "They're defunding our schools, privatizing public services, attacking unions, and targeting immigrant families with fear and violence. Working people built this nation and we know how to take care of each other. We won't back down—we will never stop fighting for our families and the rights and freedoms that propel opportunity and a better life for all Americans. Their time is up."
French union leaders also used the occasion to decry the "Trumpization" of global politics, and Italian protesters in Turin paraded a puppet of the U.S. president.
The global movement sent the message that "there is an alternative to the billionaire vision of the world," said the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
Other May Day marches and rallies were held in countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Greece, the Philippines, Turkey, and Japan.
"Around the world, workers are being denied the basics of life like well-funded hospitals and schools, living wages, and freedom to move, while billionaires pocket record profits and unimaginable power," said Luc Triangle, general secretary of the ITUC. "A system built for the 0.0001% is rigged against the rest of us—but workers around the world are standing up and organizing to take back democracy."
"Workers are demanding a New Social Contract that works for them—not the billionaires undermining democracy," said Triangle. "Fair taxation, strong public services, living wages, and a just transition are not radical demands—they are the foundation of a just society."
On May 8, the ITUC plans to issue an open letter to heads of state and global institutions demanding a new social contract, including collective bargaining rights for all workers; minimum living wages; and governments that ensure universal healthcare, education, and other public services.
"Let us be clear: austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity. And it is a choice that has caused and is causing enormous damage," said Lynch. "When governments slash spending under the guise of fiscal responsibility, the real result is increased hardship, unemployment, and insecurity—especially for working people."
"Jobs in the public and private sector are being lost across the E.U. due to austerity policies," she added. "Vital public services are being slashed, wages are being frozen, pensions cut and entire communities are being abandoned. In this vacuum, the far right grows stronger—not by offering solutions, but by spreading fear."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk’s Death Drive
Is it possible that by promising to end “death by bureaucracy,” he has willfully sowed the seeds of his own political demise?
Apr 13, 2025
On Saturday, April 5 hundreds of thousands gathered across the United States rallying under the banner of “hands off.” The protest was against the devastation wielded by the Trump government on public services, consumer protections, public healthcare, and trade freedom. The protesters’ ire turned especially to Elon Musk’s work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) radically downsizing U.S. government spending. “Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Elon Musk has to go!” They chanted
The scenes of public dissent were in sharp contrast to the image of Musk, just a few months ago, taking the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington raising a chainsaw high in the air with boyish glee. “This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” he extolled, referring to his aggressively ruthless ambition to ax $2 trillion from the U.S. federal budget.
The April protests are a sign that Musk’s fresh-faced jubilance and billionaire-funded political luck might be running out at the hands of his own destructive impulses. As Musk wantonly fights against what he calls “civilizational suicidal empathy,” is it possible that by promising to end “death by bureaucracy,” he has willfully sowed the seeds of his own political demise?
He represents a very particular marriage of politics and capitalism that has no respect for the law, believing that the masters of industry should also be the masters of the world, unencumbered by stuffy bureaucrats trying to stymie their pursuit of greatness.
Musk portrays himself as the billionaire version of the classic vigilante: the man (almost always) who takes the law into his own hands in search of a self-styled brand of justice and effectiveness. A significant part of Musk’s cultural cache is that he exploits the vigilante myth, portraying himself as the savior of an America dream destroyed by corrupt and inefficient democratic institutions.
President Donald Trump described Musk’s vigilante appeal well: “Elon is doing a great job, but I would like to see him get more aggressive. Remember, we have a country to save.” Destruction, redemption, and emancipation driven by masculine emotion is at the heart of Musk’s DOGE endeavor.
Vigilantes achieve their ambitions through self-justified law breaking, reflected in Musk’s DOGE being condemned as illegal. With unwavering confidence in their own convictions, vigilantes feel justified in using whatever powers they have to ensure what they think is right is enforced—and in Musk’s case that is a lot of power.
Unlike the vigilantes we see on television or in the movies, Musk is not a violent avenger seeking justice through the barrel of a gun (or even at the end of chain saw). His weapons are not firearms but money and power. He is portrayed as “the DOGEfather” in vigilante reference to Don Corleone, the eponymous anti-hero of 1972 gangster film The Godfather.
Musk acts out billionaire vigilantism par excellence. He represents a very particular marriage of politics and capitalism that has no respect for the law, believing that the masters of industry should also be the masters of the world, unencumbered by stuffy bureaucrats trying to stymie their pursuit of greatness.
The aggression of Musk’s ambition to slash government and upturn the institutions of democracy appears to be turning against up him. His popularity is nosediving as his unpredictable and conflict-ridden behavior escalates. Musk may have taken the stereotype of the vigilante to such extremes that he is exercising a death wish not just on his own political career but on very idea of the heroic billionaire savior.
The tides are certainly changing. Musk may have used his wealth to influence the presidential election last year, but this month his $25 million spend could not secure Trump’s preferred candidate Brad Schimel in the campaign for as seat in Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Tesla’s sales around the world have plummeted, with people seemingly embarrassed at the prospect of being seen to be associated with Musk. Many are putting bumper stickers on their cars with slogans such as “I Bought This Before We Knew Elon Was Crazy.” In Britain social media campaigners Everyone Hates Elon orchestrated a public art project where people took sledgehammers to a donated Tesla Model S. Their purpose was “to create a debate about wealth inequality.”
Employees are not far behind. Musk practically begged them not to sell Tesla stock holdings. Meanwhile investors are calling for Musk to resign as CEO of Tesla as he gets more and more embroiled in political controversy and Tesla’s market value stumbles. In the the not too recent past conservatives rallied behind the slogan “go woke, go broke.” This is rapidly turning around to “go MAGA, go broke.”
Musk’s outlandish death drive might end up killing the vigilante myth he trades on rather than killing American democracy. Time will tell, but for now there are plenty of reasons to hope that it will.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Norway Isn’t Bowing to Threats of Capital Flight
Norway’s progressive lawmakers have put together a new “exit tax” that will have wealthy exiles paying a loophole-free exit levy on unrealized capital gains.
Jun 11, 2024
So you think the rich have life easy, do you? Just try telling that to the deep pockets who’ve spent tens of millions buying condos at 432 Park Avenue, the 11-year-old Manhattan luxury tower that once rated as our hemisphere’s tallest residence. Condo owners in the tower have had to put up with “faulty elevators, leaky plumbing, and noise issues.” They’re now suing the building’s operator.
Or consider the plight of those fabulously wealthy souls who’ve had to pay millions to move their mansions off the sandy coast of Nantucket, the one-time hippie refuge that’s become a summer “holiday hot spot for billionaires.” The problem? With climate change raising water levels, seaside homes on this Massachusetts island now have a nasty habit of “falling into the ocean.”
Or contemplate what life would be like if you were a person of means who fell in love with a mega-yacht the length of a football field and just had to be able to call that yacht your own. The purchase sets you back well over $100 million. But now you’ve just realized you’ll be annually paying at least 10% of that purchase price to dock and staff and fuel and insure your oh-so-cute new plaything.
The one saving grace amid challenges like these: Things could be a lot worse. You could be a rich Norwegian.
On this list of the world’s 500 richest, only one Norwegian today appears—in 374th place.
Norway’s wealthiest have faced a wealth tax ever since 1892, and, over the generations since then, no nation in the world has taken taxing wealth as seriously. But that tradition came under a direct challenge just over a decade ago, in 2013, when a new conservative government came into power. Over the next eight years, that government set about cutting Norway’s richest some slack at tax time.
This conservative government, under prime minister Erna Solberg, trimmed down Norway’s wealth tax, eliminated the nation’s levy on inheritances, and slashed the tax rate on incomes. The predictable result: Norwegians with the greatest wealth, a Statistics Norway analysis found, saw the greatest gains.
“The richest have been given 100 times more in tax cuts than the lowest-paid under Erna Solberg,” the Norwegian Labour Party’s Hadia Talik would charge. “If you want less inequality, tax policies have to be distributive. That’s the fairest way and gives a better basis for the country to create value.”
In the 2021 elections, voters would agree. The center-left government they voted into power that year moved quickly to reverse the Conservative Party’s rich-people-friendly tax cuts. By 2023, the top wealth tax rate on Norway’s largest fortunes had risen from 0.85 to 1.1%, just one of a number of moves that distinctly displeased many of Norway’s richest, among them the industrialist Kjell Inge Røkke. Midway through 2022, Røkke announced he was moving to Switzerland.
Other rich Norwegians would follow Røkke out. By 2022’s close, over 30 of Norway’s richest had departed, more wealthy emigres than Norway had seen over the previous 13 years combined. But that exodus would only strengthen the resolve of tax-the-rich progressive lawmakers.
“The wealthiest should contribute more to society,” noted Bjørnar Moxnes, the Red Party leader, “and it’s important that Norway doesn’t let itself be held hostage by billionaires who threaten capital flight.”
Norway’s richest, the finance ministry state secretary Erlend Trygve Grimstad would add, have always had to pay more in taxes to help keep the nation’s world-class public services—including free healthcare—strong and vital.
“Those who enjoy success with this social model,” Grimstad posited, “must contribute more than others.”
Other Norwegians—like the Financial Times economics commentator Martin Sandbu—would directly challenge the case against raising taxes that Norway’s tax exiles were trying to make.
These exiles, Sandbu observed, tend never to say “that they just want to pay less” at tax time. They instead pose as the “geese that lay golden eggs.” They’re only moving, these rich insist, “because the wealth tax forces them to take capital out of their companies to pay it, and that, in turn, is bad for growth, business development, and employment where their companies are based.”
But Norwegian companies, Sandbu countered, show no signs of suffering from a lack of access to capital. The capital these companies need can “come from other sources than the original owners, and it may be precisely this dilution that rankles, especially for self-made entrepreneurs or family businesses.”
Those Norwegian wealthy who feel most rankled, Norway’s current legislative majority believes, do have every right to exit the nation. But they have no right to leave with all the wealth that Norway’s commitment to economic security—for everyone—has helped those rich amass.
How to keep wealthy exiles from jetting off with wealth they should be sharing? Norway’s progressive lawmakers have put together a new “exit tax” that will have wealthy exiles paying a loophole-free exit levy on unrealized capital gains. Exiles will have the option of paying their exit tax in interest-free installments over 12 years or paying the total due, with interest, after 12 years.
These exiles will, of course, have the option of returning home to Norway anytime they’d like. And if they do return, they’ll be reentering what may be the world’s most equal nation. One telling indicator of that equality: the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. On this list of the world’s 500 richest, only one Norwegian today appears—in 374th place.
In a few years, who knows, you might not find any Norwegian on that list at all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grieve Now If You Must - But Prepare for the Great Challenges Ahead
A working-class revolt has taken place, and frustration is spilling out in all sorts of directions. If Britain is to have a future, the escalating culture wars have to stop
Jun 24, 2016
Britain has voted to leave the European Union: here is a statement that continues to shock leavers and remainers alike. Earlier this month I wrote that "unless a working-class Britain that feels betrayed by the political elite can be persuaded, then Britain will vote to leave the European Union in less than two weeks". And this - perhaps the most dramatic event in Britain since the war - was, above all else, a working-class revolt. It may not have been the working-class revolt against the political establishment that many of us favoured, but it is undeniable that this result was achieved off the back of furious, alienated working-class votes.
"Many of the leavers already felt marginalised, ignored and hated. The contempt - and sometimes snobbery - now being shown about leavers on social media was already felt by these communities, and contributed to this verdict."
Britain is an intensely divided nation. Many of the communities that voted most decisively for leave were the same communities that have suffered the greatest battering under successive governments. The government's Project Fear relied on threats of economic turmoil. But these are communities that have been defined by economic turmoil and insecurity for a generation. Threats that you will lose everything mean little if you already feel you have little to lose. These threats may well have deepened the resolve of many leavers, rather than undermined it. A Conservative prime minister lined up corporate titans and the US president to warn them not to do something: they responded with the biggest up-yours in modern British history.
This was not a vote on the undeniable lack of accountability and transparency of the European Union. Above all else, it was about immigration, which has become the prism through which millions of people see everyday problems: the lack of affordable housing; the lack of secure jobs; stagnating living standards; strained public services. Young remainers living in major urban centres tend to feel limited hostility towards immigration; it could hardly be more different for older working-class leavers in many northern cities and smaller towns. Indeed, the generational gap is critical to understanding this result. The growing chasm between the generations has only been deepened.
Asking Labour voters to flock to back a flawed status quo endorsed by a Conservative prime minister was always going to be a tough ask. Most of them did, but not enough to compensate for the leave flood. And now what? Scotland has been dragged out of the EU against its will, and the demands for another independence referendum will be difficult to resist. Sinn Fein is calling for a border poll. Economic turmoil beckons: the debate is how significant and protracted it will be. A new, more rightwing Conservative administration seems inevitable: it will undoubtedly pursue a new election, hopefully when Labour is in as divided and chaotic a state as possible. Campaigns to defend threatened workers' rights and the NHS will be more important than ever. The EU will be consumed with panic about its very existence. These are inevitable political realities to confront.
"If the left has a future in Britain, it must confront its disconnect with the lives of working-class people."
As for David Cameron. He called a referendum not because he thought it was in the national interest, but because it was useful to manage internal Conservative divisions. The referendum was inevitably framed as a struggle between two Conservative factions. Ironically, Cameron winning the last election was his downfall. If he had won just a handful fewer seats and failed to secure a majority - as he expected - he may not have had to honour his referendum pledge. In a matter of months, he went from suggesting he could support British withdrawal from the EU to warning of economic Armageddon if the country did so. It looked preposterous. He spent years suggesting immigration was a huge problem that needed to be massively reduced, and failed to do so, breeding further contempt and fury.
But while much of the blame must be attributed to Cameron, far greater social forces are at play. From Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders, from Syriza in Greece to Podemos in Spain, from the Austrian far-right to the rise of the Scottish independence movement, this is an era of seething resentment against elites. That frustration is spilling out in all sorts of directions: new left movements, civic nationalism, anti-immigrant populism.
Many of the nearly half of the British people who voted remain now feel scared and angry, ready to lash out at their fellow citizens. But this will make things worse. Many of the leavers already felt marginalised, ignored and hated. The contempt - and sometimes snobbery - now being shown about leavers on social media was already felt by these communities, and contributed to this verdict. Millions of Britons feel that a metropolitan elite rules the roost which not only doesn't understand their values and lives, but actively hates them. If Britain is to have a future, this escalating culture war has to be stopped. The people of Britain have spoken. That is democracy, and we now have to make the country's verdict work.
If the left has a future in Britain, it must confront its own cultural and political disconnect with the lives and communities of working-class people. It must prepare for how it responds to a renewed offensive by an ascendant Tory right. On the continent, movements championing a more democratic and just Europe are more important than ever. None of this is easy - but it is necessary. Grieve now if you must, but prepare for the great challenges ahead.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Shut Post Offices--Reinvent Them
Feb 29, 2016
Naomi Klein delivered the following remarks in Ottawa on February 29 at the Leap Day launch of Delivering Community Power, a proposal to turn postal offices into green community hubs to power Canada's next economy. Leap Day is the official kickoff date for dozens of climate action and events already planned in Canada and worldwide, which will take place throughout February and beyond. Check out leapyear2016.org and #leapmanifesto on Twitter for more.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
I'm delighted to be here today with my colleagues from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Idle No More, ACORN, and the Canadian Labour Congress, brought together by our allies from Friends of Public Services.
2016 is a leap year; today, February 29th, is Leap Day. We all enjoy the extra day we add to our calendars every four years to align them with the earth's orbit around the sun.
We do this because it's easier to change our human-created systems than to change the laws of nature. In this way, the leap year is a perfect metaphor for the present moment, in which our political and economic systems badly need updating to accommodate the hard realities of our common home, the Earth.
We see the conflicts all around us. In the gap between what scientists tell us we must do to prevent catastrophic warming, and the emission reduction pledges our government has proposed. In the gap between even those inadequate pledges and the actual policies that would get us there.
We see more gaps between the promise of reconciliation with First Nations in Canada and the gross inequities facing Indigenous communities. We see more gaps still, between the values of inclusion and compassion with which so many Canadians identify--and the economic policies that continue to exile many to the margin.
The gaps are huge and they are many. Too many, in fact, to tackle slowly and one at a time. In a time of overlapping crises, we need visionary policies capable of addressing multiple failures at the same time. So, how do we make the leap?
The Proposal
We're here to launch a concrete proposal for what a post-carbon economy could look like in Canada, one that would touch every community in the country. "Delivering Community Power" lays out a vision for post offices with solar panels on the roof, electric chargers outside, and a low-emissions fleet on the roads.
But this is far from cosmetic. Services provided inside would expand to include food delivery, door-knocking on elders' homes, and perhaps most exciting, affordable banking.With this proposal, the post office once again becomes a community space, where you can come in to mail a letter or make a deposit; organize farm-to-table food delivery for your home; get advice and a loan for rooftop solar panels; invest in a community energy project; and buy products from local businesses.
We believe this is no time to further contract public services. But neither is it a moment to simply protect a static status quo.Rather, our moment calls on us to reimagine what is possible.
And we find ourselves at a critical juncture that makes this kind of visionary change both necessary and entirely possible. The Trudeau government is in the process of unleashing billions of dollars of stimulus to Canada's economy, which is suffering thanks to our ill-advised ride on the oil roller coaster.
What we are saying is that every new public dollar we spend has to do more than simply spur random economic activity. Given the pressing nature of the climate crisis, as well as the many social justice fronts on which this government has pledged to act, that money must fuel the transformation of our economy. Of our energy system. Of our public sphere so that it meets all of today's complex needs.
Canada needs more than stimulus money. We need catalyst money--investments thoughtfully designed so that they bring down emissions, while making Canada a fairer and better place to live, particularly for the most vulnerable.
Which is where today's launch comes in. Progressives often get asked: we know what you're against, what are you for? Well, this is it, or a big piece of it. We encourage everyone to take a look.
Six months ago we launched The Leap Manifesto, a bold proposal for how we can transition Canada off fossil fuels in a way that battles systemic inequalities. We called for a transition grounded in "caring for the planet and one another"--and this proposal from Canada's postal workers turns that principle into a concrete vision for how to boldly retrofit one of our most ubiquitous and beloved brick-and-mortar institutions.
Since we launched The Leap, more than 30,000 people and close to 200 organizations have endorsed the document, and today dozens of groups are hosting teach-ins, sit-ins, rallies, community events and solar installations to celebrate the Leap Year. And not just in Canada: from Zagreb to Copenhagen to the Bronx.
We all have the same message for decision-makers: small steps are not enough; it's time for a leap. So let's get to work. Thank you.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lessons from Flint and the Price of Water Privatization
U.S. communities are shifting toward keeping their water infrastructure public, and that’s a good thing. But stopping water privatization is only the first step.
Feb 18, 2016
As new information comes out every day about the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, the state of our country's water feels dire. Flint children will suffer the lifelong consequences of lead poisoning after the state took over the city's water system and switched the city's water source from the safe Detroit water system to the polluted Flint River all in the name of cutting costs.
Flint's situation is appalling, outrageous and frightening. It is a warning about what is at stake when communities lose local control of their water and outside officials come in and run water systems like businesses, putting money before public health and human lives.
Although we still have a long way to go to get justice for Flint, the good news is that more and more communities recognize the need to protect our water and run water systems like public services - not profit centers. Cities are moving in the right direction: toward local, public, democratic control of our water.
Food & Water Watch has worked for ten years to help communities keep their water in local public hands, and today we're releasing our report, "The State of Public Water in the United States," which shows that public water is slowly but surely winning over privatized water systems. We reviewed eight years of data from the U.S. EPA and found that more people than ever have public water. That's a very good sign for the future of safe water.
We conducted a comprehensive survey of the 500 largest U.S. water systems - the largest survey of its kind - and found that private systems charge 58 percent more than public systems on average. That's an extra $185 a year for a typical household.
Locally controlled public water systems tend to be better all around for residents than privately owned systems. We've seen that when communities privatize their water systems, they frequently experience problems. Privatized systems have:
- Worse service: private companies may cut corners, respond slowly to service requests, and let existing infrastructure deteriorate in order to improve their short-term profits.
- Increased costs: when companies have state-sanctioned monopolies on water service, there is little incentive to keep costs down.
- Profit-motivated decision-making: companies can expand and improve service where it benefits their bottom line, not where people need it most.
- Less accountability: Because private companies aren't accountable to voters the way public systems are, when problems occur, people have few options.
Local governments often try to auction off their water or sewer systems to raise money during a budget crunch. But water is one of a community's most essential assets, and one that ought to be protected. Once leaders make the decision to privatize, the damage can be difficult to reverse.
Communities often don't know what problems privatized water could bring until it happens to them. Fortunately, more and more communities are learning about the importance of public water, and they are fighting to keep their water in public hands, or take back public control of privatized systems. Since our founding, Food & Water Watch has always supported communities' efforts to fight privatization, and we continue to offer education, expertise, training, and other resources to communities that are fighting for their water.
And together, we've won again and again. We beat a major water company in Florida. We protected multiple communities in New Jersey. We won in Milwaukee and Akron. In Food & Water Watch's ten-year history, we've helped stop over three dozen privatization efforts.
The data shows that more and more communities are opting - and fighting when necessary - for public water, and Food & Water Watch will keep fighting with them. It's a critical step, but local efforts aren't enough to protect our water for the long term. We need to invest in keeping our water service clean, safe and affordable for everyone.
Cities across the country have aging pipes and need expensive updates to their water systems. Much of our water infrastructure was built around the same time that Henry Ford developed the Model T.
We need to fix and replace our pipes, upgrade our treatment plants and make sure that no more cities suffer the way Flint is. That's why we're calling on Congress and President Obama to fund our clean water infrastructure. You can help: take action to protect our public water.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
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