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
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
Most Popular